If it’s anything like Ohio it doesn’t matter what the majority wants. The republicans have drawn the maps so that they can control everything even with like 45% of the vote
Sorry, this was specifically about gubernatorial elections - unless you have some sort of weird state electoral college thing (which IIRC only exists in Mississippi and even there only sort-of), those are generally done with a statewide popular vote, and thus independent of district maps.
By creating barriers in certain districts it’s going to disproportionally going to affect those people, for example long lines, changing someone’s voting district, removing someone’s registration. There are tons of ways.
No, gerrymandering is when you set up a district for the specific benefit of yourself. You should look it up. Stacking and packing are important terms.
My comments for examples of voter suppression
Edit: though gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression
the Florida state constitution requires a statewide vote to approve an amendment with 60% of the vote. If they couldn’t get a governor elected they couldn’t amend the constitution either.
Voters in Florida saying “That’s enough racism” is like me at the Olive Garden saying “That’s enough parmesan”. It’s never gonna happen without severe civil unrest.
Yeah my post wasn’t pointed at anybody here. Just made me think of all the instances where each side calls the other fascist. I think most of us here realize who the real fascists are…
On the other hand, one side is adopting fascist methods and ideology while the other side are democrats. What Republicans are doing is using dilution language, and you’ve fallen for it .
Could you expand on that? I want to be clear that this isn’t a bOtH sIdEs argument I’m making here. I’m pointing out that “both sides” call each other the same thing but it’s clear to me that one side really is engaging in fascist acts while the other isn’t. The opposite of the bOtH sIdEs argument really…
It’s the horseshoe theory of politics. Both far ends of the spectrum have more in common with each other (being basically fascists) than they really have differences (different core issues they rally their fascism around).
Both only really look at the other’s extreme, and see fascism, but aren’t self aware enough to see their own. Or they dismiss their own as only the extremists, not realizing how this may apply to the other side.
I was really just doing a horseshoe theory bit. I’m willing to accept the downvotes since I didn’t feel like stating my personal thoughts on the current political situation added to the intent of that comment.
Edit: thanks for editing your comment after I replied. Though maybe it was just a delay in federating the edit. The only bit of “both sides” that I’ll say is that some people on both sides have attempted to silence nonviolent opinions. This really isn’t saying much, considering that in any large discourse some idiots will always do this on every side. One side is actually banning books and trying to rewrite history in blatantly false ways.
Well, thanks for owning up, but you know there are ppl who’ll read that and go “yeah those goddamn fascist lefties” without a second thought. Please don’t reinforce that.
As for violence… I think it’s worth considering when it would be justified, or even necessary as self-defense. As you say, one side is clearly the aggressor here.
I understand where you’re coming from on the first part, but I’m not sure how I feel about silencing anything that’s true as a strategy in… Anything. I get how it helps, and I’m not saying I don’t keep quiet on little things throughout life, but ideally I’d like to live in a world where wrongs are always acknowledged. The problem is getting people to understand the relative prevalence and weights of those wrongs in reality.
I struggle with my opinion on violent action all the time. A lot of the time I see nonviolent protest as increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But I also worry about what society will be if we accept various levels of violence. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, but justifying anything can honestly be really easy, and any line we draw can be argued to be arbitrary. Currently I think rhetoric that’s inciting violence is something I’ll generally frown upon, and I lean towards accepting that that’s outside of a societally good right to free speech.
DeSantis won by less than 20k votes. There is no way this shitshow doesn’t prompt a big turnout yo oust him. Then we can expect more stolen election claim bullshit.
It might be worth noting that Florida has consecutive term limits for their governor (for now, anyway.) Desantis can’t run again this next election. (He can for the one after that, though.)
At a certain point, eventually, the voters in Florida have to say enough is enough, right?
Can a state be majority racist, homophobic, anti woman and pro ignorance forever? Is that what 51% of Floridians really want?
If it’s anything like Ohio it doesn’t matter what the majority wants. The republicans have drawn the maps so that they can control everything even with like 45% of the vote
At the very least it shouldn’t get them a republican governor.
Maps don’t, but vote suppression does
Maps absolutely do as does vote suppression. It can be both
Sorry, this was specifically about gubernatorial elections - unless you have some sort of weird state electoral college thing (which IIRC only exists in Mississippi and even there only sort-of), those are generally done with a statewide popular vote, and thus independent of district maps.
By creating barriers in certain districts it’s going to disproportionally going to affect those people, for example long lines, changing someone’s voting district, removing someone’s registration. There are tons of ways.
Right. Voter suppression. That’s what they said.
Is that what gerrymandering is?
No, gerrymandering is when you set up a district for the specific benefit of yourself. You should look it up. Stacking and packing are important terms.
My comments for examples of voter suppression
Edit: though gerrymandering is a form of voter suppression
They could just change the state constitution to allow state legislature to appoint the governor.
the Florida state constitution requires a statewide vote to approve an amendment with 60% of the vote. If they couldn’t get a governor elected they couldn’t amend the constitution either.
All they need is to suppress votes for one election and they’ll have control over the state forever.
Voters in Florida saying “That’s enough racism” is like me at the Olive Garden saying “That’s enough parmesan”. It’s never gonna happen without severe civil unrest.
Olive Garden gives me civil unrest.
Olive Garden gives me unrest and the result is not civil.
Your comment made me giggle on this lovely Thursday in July. Thanks friend.
Fascism is an ideology that rewards people for being the worst version of themselves.
With every evil act they perform they feel better about themselves. These people are just getting started.
deleted by creator
Rewriting history to justify slavery is absolutely a fascist act.
Yeah my post wasn’t pointed at anybody here. Just made me think of all the instances where each side calls the other fascist. I think most of us here realize who the real fascists are…
Well, at best only half the people actually know what the word actually means.
Sad but true
On the other hand, one side is adopting fascist methods and ideology while the other side are democrats. What Republicans are doing is using dilution language, and you’ve fallen for it .
deleted by creator
Could you expand on that? I want to be clear that this isn’t a bOtH sIdEs argument I’m making here. I’m pointing out that “both sides” call each other the same thing but it’s clear to me that one side really is engaging in fascist acts while the other isn’t. The opposite of the bOtH sIdEs argument really…
It’s the horseshoe theory of politics. Both far ends of the spectrum have more in common with each other (being basically fascists) than they really have differences (different core issues they rally their fascism around).
Both only really look at the other’s extreme, and see fascism, but aren’t self aware enough to see their own. Or they dismiss their own as only the extremists, not realizing how this may apply to the other side.
Being fascist on the right is not extreme. Look at the laws they’re passing. That is absolutely not the case for the left.
Far from not knowing what fascism means, I suspect you don’t even know what left/right means. Unless you’re just doing a horseshoe theory bit.
This could be fun though.
Please compare and contrast the distinguishing features of “left fascism” vs “right fascism.”
I was really just doing a horseshoe theory bit. I’m willing to accept the downvotes since I didn’t feel like stating my personal thoughts on the current political situation added to the intent of that comment.
Edit: thanks for editing your comment after I replied. Though maybe it was just a delay in federating the edit. The only bit of “both sides” that I’ll say is that some people on both sides have attempted to silence nonviolent opinions. This really isn’t saying much, considering that in any large discourse some idiots will always do this on every side. One side is actually banning books and trying to rewrite history in blatantly false ways.
Well, thanks for owning up, but you know there are ppl who’ll read that and go “yeah those goddamn fascist lefties” without a second thought. Please don’t reinforce that.
As for violence… I think it’s worth considering when it would be justified, or even necessary as self-defense. As you say, one side is clearly the aggressor here.
I understand where you’re coming from on the first part, but I’m not sure how I feel about silencing anything that’s true as a strategy in… Anything. I get how it helps, and I’m not saying I don’t keep quiet on little things throughout life, but ideally I’d like to live in a world where wrongs are always acknowledged. The problem is getting people to understand the relative prevalence and weights of those wrongs in reality.
I struggle with my opinion on violent action all the time. A lot of the time I see nonviolent protest as increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But I also worry about what society will be if we accept various levels of violence. I know it’s a slippery slope argument, but justifying anything can honestly be really easy, and any line we draw can be argued to be arbitrary. Currently I think rhetoric that’s inciting violence is something I’ll generally frown upon, and I lean towards accepting that that’s outside of a societally good right to free speech.
It’s what 40% of them want…they can buy the other 11%.
FL is literally filled with huge amount of morons from all over the country as a retirement haven. Rotten scumbags from all the other states.
Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present now, controls the past.
I recognise RATM when I read it 🤘 🤘 🤘 🤘 🤘
This reminds me about that time Frank Burns learns about time zones.
DeSantis’ approval rating has fallen off a cliff, and is continuing to fall, albeit more slowly.
So likely yes, they’ll say enough is enough eventually, and I think we’ve already passed that point. Stuck with him for a while longer though.
DeSantis won by less than 20k votes. There is no way this shitshow doesn’t prompt a big turnout yo oust him. Then we can expect more stolen election claim bullshit.
It might be worth noting that Florida has consecutive term limits for their governor (for now, anyway.) Desantis can’t run again this next election. (He can for the one after that, though.)
Um…no. DeSantis won reelection by the largest margin in Florida in 40 years. He’s wildly popular, or at least was as of a couple years ago.
https://www.wuft.org/news/2022/11/08/desantis-wins-2022-florida-governors-race-by-largest-margin-in-40-years/
Not sure how you got <20k when he won by more than 1.5 million
Oh my sweet summer child…
It takes effort to educate yourself. Far too many people are happy to be comfortably dumb.