You could have a goal to destroy and replace the Republican party instead, no? Seems like it’d be an overall better solution to be, shifting all parties further to the left, especially if you consider the Democractic party too far right. I mean, why keep the reactionary party?
If Democrats are that bad, then why can’t the international solidarity be built against them? Why must you advocate for the sacrifices of women, minorities, and LGBT people? Because the people of Gaza aren’t going to be saved by Republicans, that’s for fucking sure.
It’s called Accelerationism, and it tends to work out exceptionally poorly for vulnerable groups, and it also has a significant chance to fail.
So, your goal to fight genocide with more genocide seems to have a fatal flaw.
And yet, letting Trump be president is doing that genocide faster and harsher, stripping women, minorities, and LGBT people of rights, AND MORE!
That is only one of the actions. Voting is harm reduction, and done in tandem with other actions.
Hey man, I’m future you. I here to give past me a warning. You keep looking like a complete fool and when you look for evidence to support your false claims, it turns out you were wrong the whole time, so you built a time machine to stop yourself. Anyway, the warning is to only use 1.11 Jiggawatts, as you miss the return time to stop yourself from looking foolish by about a day. Good luck!
I’m not sure I understand how that applies here or changes what I posted.
I used to as well until I looked into it, which is why I now know way, way more than anyone really needs to (there is… a lot.) Anyway, figured I’d explain just in case. You didn’t seem like you had bad intentions, so thanks for being understanding.
A furry is someone that identifies with anthropomorphic animal characters (or sometimes just animal characteristics). No dressing up required. Now, a lot of the people that go to cons tend to have more money, so you will see more fursuits and such, but most furries do not dress up.
You are right, but a lot of the roots of furry criticism do tend to be queerphobic in origin. It’s just something to recognize.
I’m using kink in a pretty generic way because a lot of the criticisms of furries relate to sex (e.g. beastiality or pedophilia), and thus any depiction of kink (like bondage gear) is used to demonize them that it’s a fetish (and one that is coming for your children.)
There is a significantly higher proportion of LGBTQ+ representation within the furry community than the general populace, and it makes sense why. Fursonas are another way to explore sexual and gender identities in a safe way, and furry communities tend to be pretty accepting places.
This is just my opinion, but I see kink in the furry community criticized the same way I see kink at Pride events criticized.
It’s not ableist to disqualify someone from being President if they smell really, really bad because that means that they are unable to accomplish an action themselves or with the help of their advisors.
You know there’s words you can use besides “normal.” A common one is neurotypical. Also, everything you said is generalizations with no basis in reality and incredibly ableist, so, again, you have proven me right.
That is a very ableist attitude to potebtially exclude learning disabilities, so maybe my comprehension skills were pretty good after all.
I’ll take “Things you don’t believe” for $200.
I would prefer someone who didn’t try to overthrow an election be in charge of our country, and sadly Trump absolutely fails that very simple litmus test.
This is really just a summary that will pertain to most cases. https://electioncases.osu.edu/case-tracker/?sortby=filing_date_desc&keywords=&status=all&state=all&topic=25 is a collection of all the cases, so you can see them all!
Considering that Trump got fact checked only a couple of times and that Trump himself got an unfair treatment where he was given the chance to rebuttal every single time he wanted, I will say that you have given a biased answer. I am still going to say that Trump did, indeed, lie about the election being fraudulent. Given that, let’s see how each of those court cases were ruled!
Trump v. Biden (Wis. Dec. 14, 2020). 3 out of 4 claims dismissed under doctrine of laches. This is actually funny because that means the plaintiff does have standing. Last claim ruled against Trump.
Trump v. Wis. Elecs. Comm’n. (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2020). Ruled against. No violation of the Elections Clause.
King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs were Republican presidential electors and not state electors. But INSTEAD analyzed the merits and ruled against them regardless.
Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) Plaintiff denied relief because they failed to meet evidentiary standards for their election fraud claims. Evidence showed election was 99.45% accurate and the errors were human errors.
Law v. Whitmer (Nev. Dist. Ct., Carson City Dec. 4, 2020). Dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove that any voting device malfunctioned, that the election board was guilty of malfeasance, or that there was election fraud.
Donald J. Trump for President v. Bockvar (M.D. Pa. Nov 21, 2020). Dismissed because lacked standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and rejected the plaintiff’s claim that upholding the Equal Protection Clause requires complete equality because that would be impossible.
Wood v. Raffensperger (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). Could’ve been dismissed for lack of standing OR doctrine of laches, BUT INSTEAD court rules on merits regardless! Dismissed plaintiff’s claims of violation of Equal Protection clause (same as above), Elections and Electors Clause claims because Raffensperger didn’t didn’t override or rewrite any state laws, AND a claim that individuals have a constitutional right to observe the electoral process.
Bower v. Ducey (D. Ariz. Dec 9, 2020). Dismissed for lack of standing BUT ALSO reviewed the case and found that plaintiff’s claims were largely based on hearsay and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections and no claims of fraud were credible.
Constantino v. City of Detroit (3d Jud. Ct. Wayne Cnty. Nov. 13, 2020). Plaintiff preliminary injunction denied due to failure to meet evidentiary standards, including locations, frequency, and names of those involved of alleged misconduct. Additionally, defendants provided sufficient evidence to convince court that they acted within the law.
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cty.) Case dismissed due to numerous procedural defects on part of the plaintiffs.
Idk man, it really looks like that EVEN THE CASES THAT WERE DISMISSED TO LACK OF STANDING were reviewed and found not credible for so, so, so many reasons.
Which of the fact checks do you think were unfair?
Don’t Republicans support doing something now and then fixing things later? They treated fixing healthcare like that by trying to repeal the ACA without a future plan, so it seems odd that they would treat this situation different, no?
And if my car was in an unrelated accident but just happened to fit those criteria, you could use that as evidence against me (and not only that, but then stop trying to solve the crime because you’ve assumed the perpetrator.) It ALWAYS goes both ways. If the only way you can solve a crime is by violating people’s privacy without a warrant, maybe don’t be a cop.
Cops are seen as bad guys because people like you argue for why rights shouldn’t apply to people, and making you get a warrant (aka doing your job) is seen as interfering with a crime.
The worst part is, it is stupidly easy to get warrants here in the US, but the cops WILL make your life miserable if you make them get one.