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?
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.
Wait...you mean the "receipts" that prove my point? Ok.
None are so blind as those who will not see ✌🏾
My four fathers died to protect my right to travel upon the land in an uninsured non-roadworthy private conveyance! /s