deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Getting shot is pretty up there in terms of frustration.
How that seperation of church and state going son?
The federal Constitution prevents any state from recalling a member of congress, so your federal reps can not be recalled legally. They would have to be expelled from within the congress, you get to vote and thats it.
I dont believe voting does much, but I know refusing to vote doesn’t do anything, I don’t see why I wouldn’t show up.
So how much genocide in your opinion is okay to vote for under the suspicion that someone else might also do a genocide?
Because either you’re admitting theres no way to vote ourselves out of genocide or that joes genocides is okay because someone else MAY also preside over genocide. Thats a new one, this genocide is acceptable because if it wasn’t this, it would just be another genocide, do I have that right?
Im of the opinion that I cannot materially support genocide. Call it single issue voterism if you want but to me never again means never again, not never again unless maybe the someone else would also finance genocide. Having boundaries is healthy and just, and if genocide is only a soft boundary for someone then I place no value in what they have to say.
The only thing lobbists like more than someone they already bribed and have on speed dail is someone who too old to realize they’re being conned.
I think the sad fact is many people in the US are okay with financing genocide as long as they don’t have to hear Trump’s name or suffer any consequences personally. As long as some kind of right wing boogeymany exists, you can convince most democratic voters that genocide is permissable enough to not disqualify a candidate.
They’re there to sheepdog the voters into believing progressive candidates a valued part of the democratic party despite the fact that more than most of the good things progressives have accomplished are entirely outside of the chambers of congress. The democrats refuse to work with progressives unless they are forced too, like that time the progressives asked Pelosi to consider stock trading bans and she denied them until it was clear that was horrible PR, then decided to come around to vocally supporting it later, once the political will to pass the bill was dying down. Progressives are there for show.
And those are both products of animal suffering, a common definition many vegans use. Come on, now you’re just being obtuse on purpose.
There are plenty of vegans who would tell you they abstain from any products of animal suffering, otherwise they would use products that were tested on animals. Just because you test lipstick on animals, doesn’t make the lipstick a product of animals, its a product of animal suffering. Your definition is not the only one and doesn’t exclude animal tested products, which many vegans go out of their way to avoid.
If a plant has to eat animals to survive then that plant is a product of animal suffering. Thats why vegans don’t drink milk or eat eggs too. So if that’s the definition of vegan that someone subscibes to then the flytrap is not Vegan.
They’ve killed dozens of journalists and even the family of a journalist. That family was staying in a building that was marked safe by the IDF for exactly these kinds of people. The US didnt let Saudi Arabia live down the bonesaw incident for years, have you heard any ranking politician in the US speak about the press slaughter? To me it seems a lot like a free pass.
The lack of laws around weapon storage are wild. As a part of gun culture I can tell you in the US the gun culture around you is going to determine how safe the area is from guns, and in no small part due to storage habbits that somehow come down to the culture rather than the law. When I see divisions between red and blue state gun crime, it makes intament sense to me having seen how gun culture is in each place. Even the conservatives in liberal areas are generally more careful with weapons than the conservatives in area where they are the majority. Advertising is another problem that imo is a massive contribution to the negative aspects of US gun culture. Not many outside of the culture would see this but if you go to a web site that sells gun accessories and buy something, just wait for the bonkers catalogue they send you in the mail later. For me it looked like a mall ninjas paradise, with just enough inflammatory marketing to not be punished for it, and if we can’t reign that in as well I fear all we will be doing is chnging what type of gun the next shooting will be done with.
I understand why it seems strange that the Military has stricter regulations on weapons than civilians but honestly thats a good thing to me. Not saying the level of rules on civilians is fine the way it is, however soldiers are quite literally tools of and representative of the US government, what they do, the US government does, or at the very least is accountable for. Often times what they are doing they are doing to citizens (or soldiers) of other countries as well. A random US citizen doesn’t represent the government, but an active soldier is very much representetive of theirs. From the governments POV its like self preservation.
Being able to choose either of those myself is unarguably the freest. The real question is the conflicting rights. If the right to own guns is conflicting with the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness then we need to find a resolution. Legally speaking when two rights collide like this the they typically try and preserve as much of both rights as possible. Thats not what every gun control advocate wants though. Everyone has a different version of how it should shake out.
Id imagine friction between sock and shoe plays a bigger part there than friction can play with genitals and underwear. At least I hope so, I pity the poor bastards who got just as much friction there on a dialy basis lol.
They’re just finally saying it out loud. Look at Clarence Thomas, been around forever, but only spoke up recently once he realized his version of fascism took enough root that he could act the way he does. They’ve been waiting a long time for this, and the democrats have been giving them the benefit of the doubt the whole way here.
I fully believe the conservatives shifted the window hard on Obama because he was black. He did what Reagan did, but he did it with brown skin, so hes a socialist. Now Reagan like policies only get remembered as Obama like policies and Republicans hate it and Democrats think its progressive. I hate to say it, but electing a Black president deepened and widened the divisions between Americans. I really hoped there weren’t enough people who were that racist, and I know a lot happened before Obama but behind him is a wake of division deepened by reactionary racists. The fact that the US was apparently too racist to be ready for a black president is depressing.
Why join a suicide pact or death cult when you could just buy a SUV and eat Meat every day? Take the whole population with you.