Right? Where has this article been? They’ve been denying it since the 80s.

Over the entire course of my life, the New York Times has never once been on the right side of an issue the first time. They only come around 5-15 years after the obvious public sea change. Same with the Washington Post.

Nobody. They are the Supreme Guardian Council, which is why I will only ever refer to the so-called “chief justice” as “Ayatollah Roberts”.

Because most of us consider the idea that Hillary Clinton is a world-class assassin who never leaves a shred of evidence behind to be a hilarious and absurd concept.

after around five generations or so God would have to appear and kill a bunch of people once again, because apperently your decendants don’t belive in him anymore.

Well, yeah. Dude vanishes for a thousand years, and I’m supposed to believe the stories of the people who did see his work (people who all died before my most distant tracable ancestor was even born) that were written down by obvious agenda-posters? Seriously?

The quickest way to get more believers is just to show up and do a party trick every once in a while, but for some reason, God hasn’t done anything public and indisputable since cameras were invented. Weird for a guy who wants the whole world to worship him. All he’d have to do is just have a booming voice, audible everywhere on the planet, say “By the way, I’m God, I exist, and [insert holy book] is the correct one, so ya’ll better get on that.” Only the hardcore contrarians would still be non-believers.

The kind where Ken goes off on a super-badass special forces mission and says “Take a bullet for ya, babe,” as he leaves the house.

in true Calvinist fashion it doesn’t matter what choices people make, there’s no action one can take to change their position.

Exactly. Like how all the “self-made men who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” slag off on AOC for having had to work a real job once.

is this seriously what we’re arguing?

No.

I’m arguing that voter suppression cannot possibly account for the 65% of registered voters in Florida who did not vote one way or the other for DeSantis’s second term.

I’m arguing that a substantial portion of voters in Florida were, if not DeSantis fans, fine enough with DeSantis to not bother going out to vote against him.

I feel like you’re arguing that all of the non-voters would have voted against DeSantis, but did not because they are systematically oppressed. That 14 million citizens were actively denied the right to vote and the Florida gubernatorial election was stolen by voter suppression. If that’s not what you’re claiming, then we don’t have anything to argue about; if that is what you’re claiming, I’m going to need more substantial evidence that Florida’s democracy is in the same state as Myanmar’s and Zimbabwe’s than what has been so far provided. If anywhere close to 14 million people in one state are being actively prevented from voting for DeSantis’s opponent, that would probably be the biggest scandal, with the biggest cover-up, in American history by a wide margin. It makes the Business Plot look like the schemes of a grade-school playground clique.

1 million people being disenfranchised is awful. It does not prove that the 65% of registered voters who did not vote were directly oppressed by the government and denied their rights, and such a claim would be entirely hyperbolic, and would only serve to obscure the fact that a large majority of Floridians are fine with DeSantis and the GOP. I get that it’s more empowering to believe that we can fight a few public entities engaging in voter suppression to free Florida from their minority rule, as opposed to believing that we’d be fighting to change the opinions of over 10 million individuals who literally don’t care about us and who wouldn’t bat an eye if we were all hunted down by DeSantis’s private brownshirts.

I’m not trying to fight those people, or change them. I fled before Fox News told them it was time to “cut the tall trees”, and I advise everyone else to do the same.

1 million voters is just under half of one five percent of registered voters. That’s a far cry from 65%.

Edited to correct my stupid math.

Edit 2: Edited my original post in this thread to reflect the provided data.

i don’t know why you out of hand dismiss this as a possibility.

Because there’s no evidence.

“65% of all the eligible voters in Florida were prevented from voting due to direct governmental interference and extreme voter suppression” is a fantastic claim. One might even call it an extraordinary claim. One for which I would expect to see some fairly extraordinary evidence. I can’t just wake up in the morning and decide to believe something because it fits with my preconceived biases, especially not something directly involving almost 14 million people.

Are you actually expecting me to believe that 14 million people tried to show up at the polls and were turned away, without any evidence whatsoever? That’s a Q-level conspiracy.

35% of the population turned out to vote.

So 65% 60.35% [edited to account for the provided evidence of voter suppression] of Floridians weren’t sufficiently motivated to try to change the government after living through a first DeSantis term.

Yes, yes, I know, “voter suppression”, “disenfranchised”, etc. I’m sorry if I have a hard time believing that 65% of FL really super-duper wanted to vote but were prevented from doing so by systemic corruption; that would put Florida in the same ballpark as Somalia in terms of governmental autocracy.

At some point, we just have to cut our losses and scram. That’s why I left Arkansas, and am now squished into a tiny, overpriced, neglected little apartment with a roommate in a blue state, slowly working on replacing all my stuff.

She is also on record referring to “gazpacho police”

She also made a tweet talking about “marshall law”. She had a series of really dumb bone apple tea tweets early on.

Here you go!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-republic/

TL;DR: They’re a highly accurate but unapologetically left-biased media organization.

“We own concentric circles” - Trader Joe’s lawyers

It’s a fine argument for people who grew up during a time when “colored people” was the less racist way of referring to POC.

Like, maybe this guy’s great-grandfather, seeing as the NAACP was named in 1909.

But, to be a bit more charitable, his grandfather probably used the term (it peaked in usage in the 1960s), and maybe his father, if his father was one of those people who stubbornly resists change. But Rep Crane himself was born a decade after “colored” had gone from the least racist term to a decidedly mid-level racist term (after social shaming began to be applied to the more racist ones).

They won’t want to learn or deal with something like Lemmy because it’s not as easily out of the box on their cell phone yet, because there’s not great app support.

I don’t know about all that. I’ve pretty much dropped kbin until they get their block function working, because I keep seeing threads started by quasi-polite cryptofacists complaining about the censorship (through defederation or otherwise) of right-wing voices and “civil discussion”.

Unfortunately, this often devolves into an echo-chamber without real discussion.

I haven’t seen a discussion about the merits of different tax policies (and no, “cut all the taxes!” isn’t a policy), or the role of local/state/federal government, or social service policy (and no, “stop all poor people spending!” is not a policy), or the appropriate division of power between executive/legislative/judicial, or anything like that, in decades. W was president the last time I saw any form of media having a real discussion about those things.

Before 2015 or so, there were a handful of people in my circle who identified as conservative that could have a real, nuanced, complex conversation about public policy with; people who I thought were incorrect, but who could articulate their points well enough that I could kind of see where they were coming from, and we could come out of a discussion with a better understanding of each other, and maybe one or the other of us might even have softened on a given position in the process. It was possible to find basic, fundamental points on which we agreed, and use those as a foundation for a broader discussion.

Since 2016, all of those people, to a man, have become Q-anon deep-state groomers-coming-for-our-kids frazzledrip climate-hoax hunter’s-laptop gays-have-it-too-good morons. Not a single one of them still believes in any of the fundamental points of agreement we used to have, from which a productive discussion could be based. They have entirely left reality behind in favor of Jewish space lasers and (the latest talking point) “every father thinks about his daughter that way!”.

I have not met someone who identifies as a conservative or a Republican who isn’t on that same train for a very long time.

Depends on what we call “right wing”.

I keep asking, and have probably asked more than fifty times over the last 4 years, what right-wing Americans stand for other than the “culture war”. Why would someone call themselves a conservative/Republican if they are opposed to the Republicans’ stances on minorities, stances on LGBT+, stances on gestures broadly at Florida, etc. What’s left of the ideology when you take those things out, especially considering that the right has pretty demonstrably dropped their support for “fiscal responsibility”, “small government”, “anti-judicial activism”, and “opposing the influence of Russia”.

Most of the time, that question just gets ghosted. Like, over 90% of the times I’ve asked it, it’s just been a conversation-ender. The rest of the time, the answers boil down to “my bigotry is more fine-grained than that”. They’re good friends with Mexicans and Asians and African-Americans, but hate Muslims. Or they’re fine with gay people, but feel transgender people shouldn’t exist. Or they love gay people and minorities, as long as they’re all Christian whether they want to be or not. These folks call themselves Republicans not because they hate everyone the Republican party hates, but because they hate one (or a few) groups that the Republicans hate.