The right to vote shouldn’t be restricted in any way. If you have legal restrictions then all it takes is bad actors expanding those categories and sorry, you just failed the critical thinking test because you think that climate change is real and life doesn’t begin at conception. Better get ready for your shift at Amazon, serf.
Media literacy and such should just be part of the education everyone gets.
Don’t ya just hate it when people make their harmful kink both their entire personality, and a problem for your fundamental rights? It feels weird to say it. But that’s basically what this performative Christian schtick is for people like this. They get off in it so now it’s all of our problem.
It was only supposed to be a little instability Donald! Give us a little dip that we could use to buy up another chunk of the pie. NOT BLOW UP THE ENTIRE FOUNDATION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DONALD!
I think so. I looked up the definition quickly to be sure, and:
shamelessly immoral or debauched. wildly extravagant or wasteful.
I know they wouldn’t think so obviously. But a lot of that seems to fit pretty well I think the whole goal of “force whatever woman I can to be my own personal Bang Maid subject to all my whims,” kinda qualifies.
Oh yes, tie their ability to stay in the country to them staying in a marriage to someone who actively despises their existence…
Oh wait, that’s the “Greatness” a lot of these chuds want to bring back. The days before the country was “ruined” by “No-Fault Divorce” when women couldn’t have their own bank accounts and were at the mercy of their husbands/fathers… Right.
Literally from your link they quote him saying.
…but it does not have the right to use US dollars to kill thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Gaza.
But Oh No he didn’t say the Magic Word to the press 2 months in when we still have 0 idea what internal discussions were happening. Can’t give the guy with probably the longest track record of being on the right side of pretty much every issue any benefit of the doubt. Especially not when he has before been very vocal about Palestinian rights. Couldn’t possibly be any good reason he didn’t use the Magic Purity Word.
Color me surprised. A video with a hostile interviewer trying to bait him into making statements that paint pro-Palestinian sentiment as pro-Hamas and him predictably navigating the “do you condemn Hamas?” traps.
Of course that outweighs him using the power he has to try to block 20 billion dollars worth of weapons. Heaven forbid he try to be an effective advocate and not demonstrate perfect ideological purity in every interview and talk no matter how it might impede him actually trying to fucking do something about it.
More entirely missing the point. He was literally one of the only voices trying to block weapons to Israel. But no, he didn’t stop them entirely on his own or call Biden “Genocide Joe” so that must mean he supports the genocide.
It’s really starting to sound like there’s literally nothing he could have done that would have been good enough for you.
My Sibling in Satan, how do you think making these demands work? This is an asymmetrical fight. Most of the time you won’t get a direct answer because the politicians are playing a different game. By and large they won’t commit to anything before the election that might alienate large sections of voters one way or the other.
Electoral politics is about choosing your battlefield for the action to come. In a presidential election it is a mathematical fact that there are only two viable options. Yes, they’re both captured to varying degrees by capital. But you can get a sense of who is more likely to accept the things you want.
There was 0 chance of the Republicans stopping what’s happening in Gaza for example. Clearly the chance was at least close to 0 with the Democrats but they were more vulnerable on that front and almost certainly they at least wouldn’t be trying to send pro-Palestinian activists to a gulag in El Salvador. So given this context which is the more advantageous battlefield you try to advocate on? There is a correct answer here and it’s the Democrats.
Is it fair? Absolutely not. Are you running the risk of getting them elected and still not doing what you want? Yep. But a risk they won’t listen is objectively better than a guarantee the Republicans won’t listen. This is why electoral politics cannot be the only arena where we’re fighting, but it’s an arena we still have to fight on because it determines the battlefield other action takes place on.
A bunch of comments going for the “why would you buy toilet paper that already has shit on it” route, but I can’t believe nobody went for calling this a shit(tickets) post.
You mean things like Single-Payer Healthcare, Housing as a Human Right, increasing the minimum wage, or any of the myriad of other policy positions that he talks about every time he talks basically anywhere? That thing he already does?
Luckily it would be really hard for them to actually get rid of it. I wouldn’t put it past them to try to start doing summary executions or just illegally trying to detain people without trial or whatever but there’s 0 chance they get the support to actually remove that amendment.
That’s what it sounded like to me too. Like I said maybe I’m being naive and being too charitable but I don’t think I am.
Yeah I’m a bit too naive maybe but even at the time I couldn’t imagine him actually throwing Kyle under the bus. So it always read to me like Jack was trying to make sure some MAGA psycho didn’t come shoot a bunch of people at one of their shows and he didn’t actually have a real problem with what Kyle said. I’m glad they are actually back performing together.
My recollection of the situation is hazy but my understanding is they basically did a performative distancing until the heat died down and they’re still good behind the scenes. My understanding is they even started performing together again.
Because it’s the only legal thing he can tell them to do.
You can argue with the math all you like. It won’t change.
Missed the entire point huh? If people not voting lowers the required counts to achieve a plurality, then mathematically speaking it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter’s preference.
The only way a non-voter does not work in the favor of in this case Trump would be if there was some absolute share of eligible voters he had to reach. But since only a plurality is needed every non-vote and every third-party vote lowers the amount of votes he needs to achieve that plurality.
This is literally a studied and documented mathematical phenomenon related to first past the post systems.
See the thing is that a candidate only needs a plurality of cast votes. So every vote that doesn’t get cast makes that plurality easier to achieve. If there are 100 people that can vote and all of them do you need 51 for a majority. If 10 of them don’t vote at all and there’s only 90 left you now only need 46 for that same majority. If another 10 of them vote for some third party that person now only needs 41 votes to have the largest plurality. Every person that doesn’t vote lowers the threshold for victory.
It’s tempting to think that this benefits both remaining candidates equally since both can benefit from that lowered margin. But in reality it gets skewed based on who stayed home/voted third party and who didn’t. This is the spoiler effect.
Then they should be educated out of those ignorant views, not have their rights restricted. What are you gonna do when some wannabe fascist decides that “basic voting condition” means believing that trans people don’t exist, that climate change is a hoax, and that the ultra-wealthy shouldn’t pay any taxes actually?