timmy_dean_sausage

I have never once heard an elected democratic politician (or serious candidate) speak against the 2nd amendment or even allude to repealing it. The only conversation I have personally seen/heard surrounding "gun control" is all about background checks/red flag laws which are supported by the majority of democratic and republican voters in every poll I've seen. All of the so-called "anti2a" rhetoric comes from the right in the form of fear mongering. That is to say (with no intention of being condescending), maybe stop listening to what right wing news outlets and politicians say Democrat's are saying and just listen to what democrats are actually saying.. You might be surprised at how sensible their ideas actually are on this issue.

And how are poor people supposed to afford that joy when we can barely afford to keep ourselves housed/clothed/fed?

Potentially losing your job would be part of the risk/sacrifice a potential candidate would have to accept. Yes, it would be difficult for someone living paycheck to paycheck to do this. Ideally, election reform like this would go hand in hand with economic reform that leads us to a society in which much less people are living paycheck to paycheck. This could happen easily if we start electing real people instead of rich people only.

One option is to publicly fund candidates equally. In such a system someone could apply to run for a position, the position would require a specified amount of people to nominate that person, if that person is nominated they get a grant that covers their campaign costs. The amount wouldn't be excessive so campaigns would look very different than they do now in places like the US.

Another option is to limit campaign donations from any individual to $100 total. This would force politicians to put effort into building a grassroots campaign while keeping big moneyed interests out of the process.

When politicians get into a position of power, they should be paid enough that they're firmly in the upper middle class, so they're comfortable and less likely to accept bribes, and they should not be given any opportunity to accept bribes or profit off of their position in any way.

Did you read their entire comment?

The government income and pension should be enough to live on so that these issues can be avoided.

Exactly. Grift for another election cycle while you further beta-test defrauding the elections, count on dem's to not be able to close whatever loopholes you find, swoop in with a winning election theft strategy with Ivanka in tow as cover for Trump Sr's advanced age and hail her as a true (conservative!) woman that can handle the presidency (unlike the bad brown skank monster), then close the elections permanently with Trump Jr becoming VP when Sr finally passes. Mass Civil unrest occurs and Ivanka steps down to return leadership to a strong man that can truly lead with an iron fist through the ensuing Civil War in true fascist fashion.

Of course, they would never get away with all of that (because average Americans ARE good people, and there are plenty of good people fighting this possible future), but IMHO this is probably close to their best wet dreams.

We know he needs the immunity, but I'm not sure he knows that. He's dodged so many felonies at this point, he likely thinks he's untouchable even if he loses. This is just speculation though, of course, based on my experience with my own maga family member's tendencies to hand-wave away logic that makes them uncomfortable, especially when the topic is something that seriously affects them. You make some good points though. I think you're right, but as I said, this is my loose crackpot theory xD

My crackpot theory is that he doesn't actually want to win. I think he's making so much money campaigning that he realized he could milk a couple more election cycles until the dummies get tired of him.

You present yourself as above emotional displays, then tell a stranger to go fuck themselves over some mildly worded casual internet debate, presumptivly displaying your anger at the inconsequential judgement of your words.

Moreover, you reference "basic laws of supply and demand", as if reciting words without adding any substance to your argument proves your point and displays your intellect/knowledge. Well, it certainly does one of those things. Probably not in the way you think it does.

The point I'm making is; you are clearly lacking in self-awareness, which is understandable given that you seem to be fresh out of high school (you reference English class, which is something typically only done by kids/young adults). You may want to work on your critical thinking skills and your ability to formulate logically structured arguments if you want to engage in good faith debate while presenting yourself as some sort of expert. Just a suggestion. Take it or leave it.

You're dissenting in a thread about Christians hating drag. It's implied you're talking about drag. Further, blackface is a common dog whisle the alt-right uses to attempt to demonize drag.

I haven't mocked Christians in a very long time. Some people are mocking Christians, but the intent of the original performance, and the intent of this thread, is very clearly to mock people that USE Christianity as ammunition against people and things they don't like. Which is (obviously) an exclusionary act.. Which the Olympics is against, given that it exists to bring people with differences together... Hence, the performance..

No no, you don't get it. They don't like drag, and we should've known christian's don't like drag and wouldn't want to go to a drag show. So by us doing them anyways, knowing they won't be there, we're excluding them by not excluding them while they exclude themselves. We're the assholes y'all.

Since you bring up logic, the logical fallacy you're displaying is called the false equivalence fallacy. Blackface is outrageous because the purpose is to demonize and humiliate black people. The purpose of drag is to CELEBRATE freedom of feminine expression, regardless of sex/gender. One is inherently exclusive, while the other is inherently inclusive.