My four fathers died to protect my right to travel upon the land in an uninsured non-roadworthy private conveyance! /s
This is what gets me the most about SovCits.
You don't like the state's monopoly on violence and don't feel like you shouldn't have to follow rules you didn't agree to? Sure, that makes sense.
But thinking there are magic words that will make the state give up it's ability to do violence and let you do whatever you want... that's just crazy.
Ah, I get it. Really interesting, thanks!
a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won't vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can't expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
i consider this a voter skill issue
Yeah... Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to "Vote Blue No Matter Who" then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that's not how things work.
What an odd question. As usual, Democrats won with a diverse voting bloc because the majority of white people voted for Republicans.
It took me about 20 seconds to find that 39% of white women voted for Obama. Why didn't you research that before commenting?
I really am shocked that "White women vote for Republicans" is somehow surprising, but that drives home the point I've been making this whole time.
Cool! Are there different Finnish accents? Geographic, socioeconomic, or otherwise?
Granted, I think a human stomach is more difficult to traverse than a frog, and it's more likely that it came in the back door. I'm just not willing to rule it out.
i mean that's a fair statement, but she wouldn't be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it's either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.
You're begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn't be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.
Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton's loss. But Dems can't force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn't win, it will be because she didn't convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.
The signal to noise ratio is so low these days. There's so much information out there but everyone wants to profit from you before you can get it. Even worse, the people with good information generally can't buy as big a megaphone as the people who profit from lying to you.
Honestly, I think humans have been more likely to believe an easy lie than a hard truth all along, but it's easier than ever these days.
I suspect it would be difficult to generate enough data to intentionally change a dataset. There are certainly little holes, like the glue pizza thing, but finding and exploiting them would be difficult and noticing you and blocking you as a data source would be easy.
Thank you for your reply. I don't think we disagree that much, but I'm afraid we may be miscommunicating a bit.
What determines "biological sex"?
Chromosomes? Except someone with Androgen Insensitivity may have XY chromosomes, but physically appear to be female.
Genitalia? But we have intersex people with ambiguous genitalia
Testosterone? Caster Semanya
Full disclosure: this seems more your field than mine. I don't think I'm educating you, just trying to clarify my point. It seems like you're arguing against "There's no such thing as assigned gender at birth". What I'm saying that there is no objective way to categorize all humans into neat little sex boxes. Biological sex is a spectrum with most people either at the "male" point or the "female" point, but some examples everywhere in between.
Wait...you mean the "receipts" that prove my point? Ok.
I don't know who stole your history book, but you should probably go look for it.
Being more informed than everyone else IS such a burden. I'll try to use smaller words next time.
None are so blind as those who will not see ✌🏾
You can't even say "Nonwhite women exist."
Goal shifting? You post 4 articles that agree with me and then claim I'm goal shifting. You should be ashamed of yourself. Learn to read and then come back and talk. 🤡
LOL! Did you even read that link? Good God, man, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Meanwhile, white women seem to have maintained or slightly increased their level of support for Trump compared to 2016, with some 55 percent of them voting for Trump this election cycle and 43 percent voting for Biden according to early exit polls.
Your articles are calling you a liar. Not me. (Edit: Well, I am too, come to think of it.)
The first Pew research graph clearly says that 47% of white women voted for Republicans and 45 for Democrats.
The second makes no mention of race. If you choose to reply, repeat after me: "Nonwhite women exist." Maybe you just forgot about Hispanic women. And Asian. And everyone else.
The third just dismisses exit polling without presenting any data to dispute it.
Edit: My bad, I should have looked at your whole article. It also agrees with me. Sit your lying ass down.
The 52% statistic appears to be one of those myths. According to a later analysis that experts consider more reliable, a study published in August by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of white women who voted for Trump was actually 47%, compared to 45% for Clinton. T
By my count, we have the Post and Pew Research (And the Times) supporting me, and you have yet to support your claim at all.
Everyone gets their own internet. But consider that I might have been paying more attention to this specific topic than you have?
Do you remember Proposition 8?
And the Post revisits — yet again — the blaming of black churchgoers for the passage of California's Proposition 8 during the 2008 election cycle. Indeed, even before that November vote, prominent white members of the LGBT community vilified religious African Americans for supposedly voting with a stridently anti-LGBT agenda. Indeed, church attendance has been called the main cause of black voters' support for Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134257733/the-root-the-misjudged-black-vote-on-gay-marriage
There was SO much vitriol from white Democrats, especially some members of the LGBT community....when it turned out that even if every Black person voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn't have overturned the white votes against it. In 2020, there were endless articles about the increasing number of Black men voting Republican for a 3% increase.
I'm not saying I've done a scientific study on who is writing articles about what. That's my take and reasonable people may disagree. But it is wild how many people are just straight up lying in this thread to pretend that white women don't vote for Republicans though.
Anybody with a good grasp of history should understand how quickly and often Black people become the scapegoats for anything that goes wrong.
I'm not going to form a solid opinion about someone with one tweet. I will certainly keep an eye out for more information.
(I don't think using Lemmy profits this person? I don't know. I care much more about supporting someone who may be transphobic than just knowing they exist.)
"Biological male" is a meaningless term generally used by transphobes. And the whole debate is transphobic on its face. Nobody cares about women's sports at all, and now people jumping to"defend their sanctity" are just goofy.