I saw your mention of conflict of interest down lower, but you did in fact leave the conflict of interest out of your first summary sentence, the part before “in other words”. It definitely leaves the wrong initial impression, and leaves a discrepancy between the two explanations on either side of “in other words”.
> There's no conspiracy here.
What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.
> What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
I already showed you a link. The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).
If you have proof showing there's a conspiracy I'd love to see.
>>The same professor has already testified against the state when under control by the same government about the same issue (voting rights).
Point of order: During the 2018 political cycle, there was not the same massive push by the party in power of Florida to promote an "election fraud is a massive existential threat to our democracy" narrative in the same way there was during 2020 and beyond.
Pretending a massive change in direction didn't happen in the intervening years seems either extremely naïve or disingenuous.
I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.
Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven.
My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state.
There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.
You fooled me. I’m fine with your later “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy.” But saying “there’s no conspiracy” is indeed a claim in casual speech.
The potential evidence of a conspiracy is that the professors were denied permission to testify, when, as you point out, they’ve been allowed in the past. What changed?
> There's no conspiracy here.
What is your evidence? It’s entirely possible the state threatened the university’s funding. And some politicians do seem to be conspiring to prevent certain classes of US citizens from voting.
*edit BTW, while I agree you should have used “there’s no evidence of a conspiracy” from the start, and I normally endorse editing comments to improve clarity, your edit here seems misleading to make without comment. It changes the context of our entire conversation below. Leave it as-is, or add an edit explaining you meant “no evidence”.