miak

Literally one of the best movies of all time.

Know your rights, flex your rights

…and pair that with “this is what you voted for when you voted third party or stayed home, to say nothing of directly voting for this mess,”

Lol, if that’s the approach the Dems are going to go with, I hope you loooove the current Republican regime. Attempting to shame people into voting for you is not likely to win much support.

Or they could have addressed both fentanyl in the US and the cartels in Mexico by just agreeing to end the war on drugs…

Help us, Han-Tyumi, you’re our only hope.

As a Bi-man, a bigration sounds great! Would be great to have more bis around. Mono-sexuals are just weird, imo.

From a practical standpoint, I don’t see any difference between Huckabee’s position and Biden/Harris’s position. Biden and Harris may not be stating this explicitly, but their actions imply a similar view.
How many stern letters will Biden send to Yahoo before actually taking some action against Israel’s crimes? How far will they move the goalposts to avoid pulling support for Israel?

And if they still don’t stop, they’ll receive a full dessaggelation.

I rip my Blu-rays and upload to my Plex server. Once that’s done, I can stream the movies to my phone via the Plex app. It’s super easy.

Cyrus The Virus. What a great 90s villain. Upvote for the Con Air reference.

If you want to reach someone, the best way to do it is to be prepared to view things the way they do. If you can’t set aside your prejudice assumptions on the why/how they have come to their viewpoints and really empathize with them, you’re not likely to get far.

There have been studies that show otherwise. It’s been a very long time since I read about them, but was able to find this on a quick search: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/

I would have to disagree. States are just groups of people. They can hold all the rights that people hold, but cannot hold any rights people don’t hold (since those people cannot grant a right they themselves do not have).
I struggle to see how it can be deemed acceptable to tell a state they can’t leave because it may have a negative effect on the rest of the union. This is saying that once you join the union, you are a hostage of the union. Any negative effect this has on the rest of the union is not the responsibility of that state. If the union would benefit from continued use of infrastructure in the departing state, they can try to work out an agreement around that, or the union can figure out a way to fill the gaps left in infrastructure, but it makes no sense to hold the state hostage for the sake of saving the union from the hardship.

Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it’s membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.

At it’s most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.

Also, this Texas Monthly article from late 2022 is an excellent read on the subject. It can never happen, because a post-Civil War law from 1869 makes a state’s unilateral secession from the union illegal. There can be no secession, nor even a referendum. No wonder these drama kings are so confident.

Which is pretty whack. I don’t in any way endorse what the Texas government is doing with the border, just to get that out of the way. The idea that a state isn’t free to seceed is completely ridiculous. One can not rightfully claim the U.S. is a free country if the states are not free to leave the union. This idea that once you’re a part of the union, you’re apart of the union forever is a gang mentality that has no place in a free society.

The point is that many don’t believe they have been open and transparent, including people in government and military. Why do you think they have, just because they say they have? If they have been open and honest, then they shouldn’t mind these amendments being passed.

I’d suggest checking out the subcommittee hearing on this from July:

https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?si=FE16gX760e0w7Ydg

I own Groundhogs Day, and I would gladly buy this.

And what about when I find both candidate A and B to be incredibly distasteful? If I vote for C and terrible B wins over terrible A, I don’t feel disappointed in the way I voted because I voted my conscience. I know this from experience.

I’ll agree that the voting system is a part of the problem, but then maybe Democrats should get a little more serious about reforming that process. I don’t see that as likely since that would challenge their duopoly privilege, but would love them to prove me wrong.

In the meantime, if a party wants me to vote for their candidate, they should put up a candidate I can support. I will not vote for someone that doesn’t represent my values.

Have to strongly disagree. If there are going to be political parties, the more the better.

Unfortunately we don’t have a Presidential primary this year, when we desperately need one. So our choice is Biden or … Full-on fascism.

You seem to make my point here. You don’t think more parties are needed, but you want to keep pushing the “vote for my guy because the other guy is a monster” line. Sorry, but I’m not going to vote for someone based on who they are not. You point out there are only two shitty choices after stating that we don’t need any more choices…