I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised if he didn't use his power as president to dodge it somehow. Or he just ignored it - who's going to actually come after him over it anyway?

Bud, you can't post a map showing that, if everyone voted, would-be nonvoters would have the power to change over half of the states' electoral college results, then pair it with the statement "Potential voters feel their vote literally doesn’t matter and statistically and practically speaking they are not wrong." You're literally providing the statistical proof that they are wrong.

Which is why the people who decide what they think steer them toward worries about the nuclear family and abortion.

Oh, good to know! I hadn't made that distinction in my mind, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for setting me straight!

That's the beauty of a movement! Martin Luther King was devoted to the cause - he was all in, and as a result of that, others could be a part of the movement without needing to sacrifice themselves. The larger the movement grew, the less any individual participant needed to risk. But it needed a hero. It needed someone at the forefront for people to rally behind. I'm not saying everyone needs to be devoted to the cause, I'm saying one person needs to be devoted to the cause so that others can latch on regardless of their inability to be that hero.

Do you honestly believe that the civil rights movement would've still happened if people simply kept plugging along, not making waves? Or the American revolution? Would the Nazis have been stopped without military cooperation from nearly ever surrounding country? I'm not saying that positive change CAN'T come about through small incremental steps, but I certainly don't believe that all change can be made so peacefully, nor do I believe that this scenario can be resolved as such.

There's a difference between martyrdom and the simple acknowledgement that you're not doing all you can. There's a middle ground between "I'm perfect and have never done wrong." and "I must flog myself in the streets for my sins."

Looks like a savory parfait to me.

They've never needed pictures before, and they don't need pictures now. Hell, even the iconic meme picture is taken from a video of a woman speaking normally - they just used an unflattering frame to discredit her. This isn't a ploy to get a photo op of the left being mad, it's another small push of the republican boundaries. Enough "joke" bills about overbearing punishments for minor offenses made by people their party doesn't like, and they'll be primed enough to fully support the real thing. We're already there for a large portion of the republican base.

That's not an IBM 5100...

I never said anything about Elon being directly responsible for this, nor did anyone else within the replies to the conspiracy theory comment that I was referring to. The fact of the matter is that conspiracy theorists touted Elon's acquisition of Twitter as being the return of free speech, but immediately after the death of Putin's largest opposition figure, who's wife said that she would carry his torch, she's removed from the platform. Whether due to Elon or anyone else, Twitter is not a platform of free speech, and that should outrage anyone, whether they Like Elon or not, and whether they agree with Navalny and his wife or not.

Well, if you're actively trying to hide your disgust from someone, it's because you don't want them to know, at which point you obviously can't expect them to react to it. Ultimately, it's not about you trying to divine someone's real feelings, instead it's about reacting to what they do show you. It's the responsibility of everyone who interacts with others in a public space to be knowledgeable about both verbal and nonverbal cues that someone's not interested, so that they can display and/or recognize them as required.

I know several republican voters who watched the Jan 6 footage with pride. I really don't think anything would get someone who's still a republican at this point to switch over.