Sanders signed Senate Bill 10, which exempts records that “reflect the planning or provision of security services” provided to the governor and other cabinet members.

The bill is retroactive to June 1, 2022, which is before Sanders was elected.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you lived in areas with both extremes?

    The recent GOP under Trump is a total mess, so I’ll absolutely give you that. But you have to recognize that this is largely a new thing with the GOP, and the GOP doesn’t actually really represent the average conservative these days. I’m in a very conservative area, and most of my neighbors (who are conservative) don’t like Trump or the modern GOP and wish we could go back to the old GOP that was more moderate (e.g. people like Romney and McCain). But the media has riled up the extreme base and they’re pushing the party to be more extreme. This nonsense started under Obama imo, but really gained traction with Trump.

    So I’m not saying both sides are the same. The GOP under Trump is decidedly terrible. But most states don’t follow national politics, so we can largely look at them separately from what goes on in Washington DC. I can find examples of gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle, so single party control is the issue there, and it allows far more nonsense to get swept under the rug than if control of the legislature was actually competitive.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, and I live in one of the reddest counties in FL. These assholes love it.

      One party wants to govern & one party wants to rule.

      One party is making FptP voting illegal

      One party is banning books.

      One party is supporting child murder via inaction.

      One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.

      One party supports forced birth.

      One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.

      Get the fuck out of here with your “both sides” bullshit.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which party is banning FPTP? And do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? The rest seem to be digs at the GOP, but I’m not sure what that first point is referring to.

        Fortunately, most of that is limited to a handful of red states, and also largely misrepresented on the news (esp. the articles linked on lemmy). Some is fair criticism though.

        Also, your rhetoric here is just off the charts, so I don’t think you’re interested in a good faith discussion. If I’m wrong about that, please let me know and we can discuss the issues. But if you just want to rant, feel free to let it all out.

        • Jaysyn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sorry, the #GOP is banning Ranked Choice Voting. I had FptP stuck in my head for some reason.

          And that’s absolutely fine if you don’t want to discuss anything, I’m more interested in the other people seeing thru your well-spoken bullshit.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so I’ll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, I’m out.

            banning books

            I haven’t seen much evidence for this.

            The Florida law that I think you’re referring to merely requires schools to formalize the process for what books they put on shelves. Books were removed until that process was finished, and AFAIK there’s no restriction on what citizens can purchase or what libraries can carry, the only restriction is that books in schools need to be age appropriate (and I’m sure you and I both disagree with conservatives on what that means) and relevant.

            What I have seen is a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and it’s alarming to me that people don’t seem to see past the BS.

            One party is supporting child murder via inaction.

            One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.

            I think these are related, but again, it’s hard to see through the rhetoric.

            You can’t murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless they’re actually incarcerated. I’m not really sure what the first is referring to, so I’ll focus on the second.

            What you seem to be getting at here is the concept of positive rights. I personally reject positive rights in general, but I do think school lunches should be provided to all, but that’s because we legally require attendance for enough hours that a meal break is needed. I think employers should also provide meals if they require shifts longer than 4 hours, or schedule shifts back to back with less than four hours in between. I think employees and students should be free to refuse the provided meals and receive monetary compensation instead.

            However, I reject the notion of positive rights in general, and I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had here.

            One party supports forced birth.

            This comes down to when you believe people get rights. The conservative position is that fetuses have human rights, and liberals seem to ignore fetal rights and focus on the rights of the mother.

            My personal view is more nuanced:

            • it should never be illegal for a woman to seek an abortion, any regulation should be on doctors
            • during the first trimester when miscarriage risk is high, it’s a privacy issue, so it should be nearly completely unrestricted (aside from malpractice issues like doctors urging women to get an abortion they don’t want, but it’s already illegal to force medication on someone)
            • until fetal viability, it should be restricted to medical need, or for people who couldn’t get an abortion during the first trimester for some reason (abusive relationship, legal complexities, didn’t know they were pregnant, etc)
            • once the fetus is viable, the state should fund an early delivery if the woman chooses to put the child up for adoption

            I believe that balances the rights of the woman and the fetus. It doesn’t make either side happy, but I do believe it is better than the status quo.

            One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.

            Both sides have a bad track record on immigration. The solution would be resolved if we just made legal immigration easier.

            But I do agree, I think Trump’s actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidate’s position this year has been terrible.

            I recall reading someone’s proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:

            • All undocumented immigrants need to go to the nearest immigration office to get a temporary visa after a background check
            • Every year, they need to return to the immigration office to get a renewal; this can continue as long as they remain law abiding citizens
            • if they get deported, it’ll be a lot more difficult to get in legally

            On paper that sounds fair, though I’d need to see the details first.

            • Franklin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I sure hope you’re taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.

              I’m at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them it’s just going to take a couple hours.

              Moreover they’ve made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.

              I understand that you may have your own values and that’s fine but it doesn’t change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah, I would like to discuss examples of alleged book bans. There has been a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and I’m interested in having a discussion based on the facts of each case, not the clickbait titles and rhetoric.

                illegal to teach theories

                Are you talking about CRT? My understanding is that teachers never actually taught CRT, at least at an elementary level, so this is just virtue signaling from Republicans and a chance for Democrats to “dunk” on them. AFAIK, very little, if anything, actually changed in how teachers teach throughout most of the country.

                Likewise, the much contested changes to curriculum in Florida is again largely virtue signaling from both sides. I read through the curriculum, and it looks much like what I was taught in my very progressive school system. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it also doesn’t seem to go against what we’ve discussed in my company’s recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).

                Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesn’t “stop woke” (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And I’m pretty sure I’ll find something similar in most cases.

                you may have your own values

                Sure, but I don’t mix my religious/moral values and my politics. I support policies that expand individual freedom, not policies that promote my personal worldview.

                For example, I don’t think anyone should use drugs, but I’ll fight for drug legalization because I don’t think that’s the government’s business. I don’t understand trans people, nor do I think gender is actually distinct from sex (gender as described by progressives is largely a cultural thing imo), but I’ll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but I’ll fight for a woman to never be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and I think there should be a safe medical path forward for a woman who does not want to keep the baby.

                My values don’t match either major party, nor do my policy preferences. So I pick whatever candidate I think is more liberty-minded and rational. Lately, that has been Democrats, but sometimes it’s Republicans. It really depends on the election.

                Republican party has been staunchly anti science

                This is an interesting article that discusses that. Basically, it says both Democrats and Republicans reject scientific consensus, Republicans are just more systematic about it because they prioritize unity over scientific accuracy.

                Democrats are better than Republicans here, at least lately, but that doesn’t mean they’re perfect. So don’t just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, don’t reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. There’s a lot of interesting data that goes against the Democratic narrative especially WRT climate change, particularly in the urgency of their claims (politicians love to pile on the rhetoric and urgency).

                and anti worker

                I think it’s more correct to say they’re pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesn’t mean the legislature is “anti worker,” they’re just limiting the government’s intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isn’t state support for it.

                As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think it’s disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isn’t evidence of hostility).

                • Franklin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what’s the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.

                  And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.

                  And you can say it’s all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it’s not it’s been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn’t get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    teaching the theory of evolution

                    Here’s an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.

                    For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and here’s an article about the mentioned standards):

                    On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards that explicitly require the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the first time this was required.

                    I don’t know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the “see also” section).

                    The most I’ve seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that there’s rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.

                    fiscal responsibility

                    Oh yeah, it’s never been about that, that’s just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.

                    What they’re actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).

                    Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If you’re a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, it’s great! If you’re a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, it’s horrendous.

                    The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.

                    Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions don’t need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so they’re not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.

                    At least that’s my perspective, but maybe I’m just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.

            • Jaysyn@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven’t seen much evidence for this.

              Then you’re purposefully ignorant of what is going on in the country, especially the south, and not worth another moment of my time.

              • xts@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bro could see nazis marching down the street and say he doesn’t see any evidence for rising antisemitism.

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol I stopped reading after you said you haven’t seen much evidence for book banning. That’s next level head in the sand, spend literally 10 seconds in Google.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                My point was that a lot of the media on both sides present a stronger view of what’s going on than reality. Conservatives was to appear tough on culture war nonsense, and liberals want to dunk on conservatives for being anti-freedom.

                A lot of what actually happens is much more mundane than either side wants you to believe.

                And that’s why I want to have a discussion about actual cases, to point out how mundane the changes usually are.

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This whole “both sides” argument is weak. Conservatives being tough on culture war means passing crazy laws, banning books, and banning the education of certain topics. And the liberals what, are against that and start actual education without the government controlling what you can and can’t learn/read.

                  What’s actually happening isn’t mundane. Laws are being passed that effect me and mine. They impact me, they’re not just mundane laws.

                  If you think banning topics that can be taught in class, like learning about your period and what homosexuality even is, or that there was slavery in America is just mundane then you’re part of them problem. Down playing actual damage being done is supporting the people who are doing the damage.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    banning topics

                    Are those actually banned? From what I can tell, those topics are merely delayed. For example:

                    • menstruation - only allowed in grades 6-12
                    • sexual orientation/gender identity - grades 9-12
                    • slavery - I can’t see any evidence of this denialism; I read through the new curriculum and slavery was definitely part of it

                    It looks very similar to what I was taught in a very liberal part of the country (Seattle area). Sex ed was in 6th grade, and I don’t recall specifically talking about sexual orientation or gender identity until high school.

                    The main issues I personally see are:

                    • menstruation - not clear if teachers can address it 1 on 1 if it comes up
                    • sexual orientation - should probably be taught along with sex ed, starting around grade 6 because that’s when hormones start firing up

                    But any topic should be allowed, provided there’s parental consent below some age (our sex ed was opt out in 6th grade). Maybe there should be a flyer around grade 4 that informs parents that it’ll be covered by the school nurse if it comes up, unless parents opt out. I don’t like state governments telling schools what they can’t teach, that’s what school choice is for, and I’ve heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.

                    So while I’m against the bills (which isn’t relevant since I’m not a Florida resident), I don’t think they’re as disastrous as people claim.

    • c0c0c0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have my upvote. This post is getting hammered for the supreme sin of introducing nuance to a thread where everyone just wants to be righteously indignant. Most or us have parents who qualify as conservative, but not as evil. It’s like that.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, and I think it’s unfortunate. I feel I’ve been constructive and thorough, and my goal was simply to provide a different point of view to hopefully convince others to consider other perspectives and have a good discussion about it.

        If there’s something I did that isn’t appropriate, I’d love to know about it.

        • c0c0c0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not you. I don’t want to say, “both sides”, because one side is clearly worse than the other, but these people are becoming what they despise. If you look at the worst kinda quasi-religious hive-mind discourse they used to have on /r/TheDonald, and shift it left, it would look like this.

          I’m kinda disappointed.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly.

            But my point here is that the GOP being “worse” (depending on policy, of course) doesn’t make the Democratic Party “good,” it just makes them “better” (again, depending on the policy).

            And that’s why I’m not registered with either major party, I vote differently based on the election. If I think we need to shift left or I have a really good option for a Dem, I’ll vote Democrat. If I think we need a shift right and I have a really good option for a Rep, I’ll vote Republican. Recently, I’ve been voting more Dem than Rep because I want to send a message that the current signaling just isn’t acceptable. But I’ll go back as soon as the MAGA nonsense goes away and we start getting good GOP candidates again.