If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that’s going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.
No. You’re going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can’t win through voting, don’t try to start a war because you aren’t going to win that either.
Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.
The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil
Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.
I just finished Lost Judgment, he’s probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.
FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there’s little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.
If they’ve got a 0% chance of winning then you’re throwing your vote away and paving the way for the worst candidate. As I mentioned, FPTP reduces the number of viable candidates, but you still have a choice.
Everyone other than the top two have a 0% chance of winning. I could write down a fictional character and they would still get the same number of EC votes as a third party on the ballot.
Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.
It’s unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.
If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?
Violence requires a very high bar that has not been met. Not yet anyway, and those who have gone through it would tell you it’s wise not to be so flippant. And that bar hasn’t been met for you either obviously, regardless of the key clacking, but cool user name.
Slaughtering neighbors may not yet be appropriate, but the appropriate time to discuss our defenses, train and prep is right now. Avoiding or discouraging the discussion is counterproductive and only assists those who are champing at the bit to slaughter us first.
Why should conservatives be permitted to openly discuss oppressing and killing the normal people yet the normal people be disallowed from discussing our defense?
Peaceful protesting only works for so long.
That’s where the second amendment actually does come in for once
If you don’t have enough people to win the war by picking up pens and voting, you definitely don’t have enough to win by picking up guns and shooting.
Depends. You might not even need to shoot. Those anti mask fuckers got what they wanted by protesting while armed to the teeth.
If they lose by less than the margin of Covid deaths that’s going to be hilarious. Until they realize that it was a conspiracy all along and they were tricked into not masking.
Do you want a civil war?
No. You’re going to have to walk me through the thought process that led you to ask that. My whole point is if you can’t win through voting, don’t try to start a war because you aren’t going to win that either.
Sorry that was half a thought. The country is divided 50/50, both sides see themselves as good and the other evil. Anyone starts shooting and you got a civil war.
Not 50/50. The MAGAts are severely overrepresented in the government.
Republicans have already started shooting. Just look at the rise in hate crimes over the last 8 years.
Well one side views it that way. The other side sees themselves as intelligent, compassionate and informed while they see the other side as confused, angry, misinformed and violent.
I do, but I don’t represent most folks on the left.
It’s the literal reason for the 2nd amendment, there is no arguing that fact.
where is Tetsuya Yamagami when you need him?
I just finished Lost Judgment, he’s probably out prosecuting his own client for a different crime at his own defence appeal as we speak. Oh, I thought you said Takuya Yagami.
Have you tried voting for the party that wants to remove corruption and expand the packed court?
Not with First Past The Post voting still a huge factor in how things play out. I do vote local, however.
But violence solves lots of problems.
???
FPTP reduces your options to 2 (sometimes 3) and one of the options literally holds the stances you express worry about.
FPTP prevents 3rd party candidates from being viable. Until we get an Alternative Vote, there’s little that can be done to get third parties successfully winning elections.
and? Just vote for the candidate who best represents you. Bonus points if they want election reform.
Why bother limiting it to candidates? I could just write down the person who best represents me.
If they’ve got a 0% chance of winning then you’re throwing your vote away and paving the way for the worst candidate. As I mentioned, FPTP reduces the number of viable candidates, but you still have a choice.
Everyone other than the top two have a 0% chance of winning. I could write down a fictional character and they would still get the same number of EC votes as a third party on the ballot.
Batter up, tough guy.
K
A fine weapon of choice for the humble keyboard warrior, fair play, and better than the alternative to be sure.
Not sure if you’re a conservative or just lazy.
Neither, just think keyboard warriors calling for violence is lame and also, they’re full of shit.
Throughout all of human history, the only treatment for a plague of conservatism has been direct violence. Pacifism has never cured conservatism.
It’s unfortunate that the normal people must walk on egg-shells when discussing the cure for a disease while the diseaae itself publicly calls for extermination of the normal people. If the normal people are to survive this, we must prepare and train together. That means discussing this issue and how to solve it. Unfortunately, there has never been a peaceful solution to this problem. Violence has always been required.
If you have an alternative treatment for this disease, please feel free to share it. Otherwise, why insult those of us who are willing and able to address this problem?
Violence requires a very high bar that has not been met. Not yet anyway, and those who have gone through it would tell you it’s wise not to be so flippant. And that bar hasn’t been met for you either obviously, regardless of the key clacking, but cool user name.
Slaughtering neighbors may not yet be appropriate, but the appropriate time to discuss our defenses, train and prep is right now. Avoiding or discouraging the discussion is counterproductive and only assists those who are champing at the bit to slaughter us first.
Why should conservatives be permitted to openly discuss oppressing and killing the normal people yet the normal people be disallowed from discussing our defense?