/u/outwrangle before everything went to shit in 2020, /u/emma_lazarus for a while after that, now I’m all queermunist!
That’s 71.4% of the country you’re writing off. You’re setting yourself up to lose.
A lot of the protesters in the streets are people who don’t vote for Harris and you have to recon with that. Voting is merely one tactic among many, there are lots of ways to be involved in politics. The fact that someone disagrees with you about a single tactic doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant, it just means you have to find common ground in other ways.
Or we’re all going to die.
The vast majority of US citizens did not vote for Harris. Are you going to write off a majority of the country?
Throwing your vote into a hungry pit is also worse than useless. Trump didn’t even get a majority! President 49.9 enjoys power solely because the electoral system is anti-democratic and doesn’t do runoffs, and he only won the first time because of the electoral college. He attempted a fucking coup and we didn’t put him in prison, and as a result Jan 6th is the most successful US political movement in my lifetime. This country is fucked, and it’s clear Republicans have no plans to allow any electoral input ever again.
Will there even be midterms? Who knows! It’s time to think about what you’ll do when you can’t vote anymore.
Actually, I didn’t get any options because I live in a red state and my vote doesn’t count. Stop pretending we have democracy.
It’s going to be like when the US was assassinating random Venezuelan fishermen. They’re going to kill maybe one or two drug dealers, but mostly they’ll just kill randomly across Mexico and then lie afterwards to claim they were cartels.
They don’t care about killing actual cartel members, they just love to kill.
They don’t need actual violence to declare martial law and suspend elections. They can just lie.
It’s not exactly a lie.
The value of the US dollar, in part, comes from selling oil in USD. Every oil source that exists outside of the dollar market hurts the value of the dollar, and sanctions on Venezuela have been encouraging oil investment and sales in yuan instead of dollars. That’s partially where the inflation came from, demand for dollars by oil traders has fallen, which means stopping this leak.
Although electrification continues, which also weakens demand for oil traded in dollars, and obviously there’s Russia and the other sanctioned countries who don’t trade in dollars. The age of oil wars paying for themselves is probably ending.
That’s Scalia’s interpretation, but that’s not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a “well regulated militia” should refer to actual militias, not just “any random asshole that can afford a gun”. That was the common interpretation for a century.
That’s the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It’s all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
You’re right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn’t able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the “well regulated militia” part, it’s basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The “well regulated militia” part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
We didn’t do that. The question is, why?
They’ve already been chiseling away at all of the Bill of Rights for decades, yet for some reason they don’t touch guns. Why is that?
The Bolsheviks are a good example. They started the revolution with the workers and peasants, because that’s the only way to start a revolution, but when the government turns the military on its own people they could then recruit them to the revolution.
I covered this in my other replies, but there’s two elements at play.
The first is that unequal access to food will create resentment, as poor people are forced to cut back or seek alternatives while rich people are unaffected. Resentment leads to resistance, and before you know it you have food riots. People will fight back, and maybe violently, which leads to the second element: high food prices are one of the major causes for government collapse.
Messing with access to food is the best way to get people to revolt, but in the absence of a revolutionary movement they’re just going to listen to whichever charismatic leader blames the (((NWO globalist agenda))) for taking away meat and uses the nostalgia of “LOOK AT WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU” to whip people into a violent frenzy. If you take away their meat, they’ll eat you.
It has to be fair or it won’t be sustainable.
Why not just point out that I made a mistake, instead of making-
I don’t… buddy.
-snide comments like that? It was clearly meant to humiliate me for making a mistake.
You mocked me, so I got hostile.
Price controls and rent controls can also be accompanied by state intervention in the supply side, to prevent shortages. High prices are effectively a ban on the poor having access, and besides, markets are so 20th century. We have the computing power now to entirely replace them with central planning. Let’s use those data centers for something important, instead of generating slop.
Whelp, I made a mistake, now nothing I say matters and you automatically win the conversation.
Come on. my point still stands even if I misremembered the exact name of the program. Rationing works, when it’s fair.
The topic, as presented, was to make meat more expensive so people ate less. I say that’s effectively a ban on poor people eating meat. I don’t really know what part you disagree with, why you disagree with it, or how you think poor people would be able to eat meat they can’t afford. You’re going to need to clarify even a tiny little bit or else I don’t know how I can even talk to you.
And I’m still confused about how the hypothetical jewish conspiracy fits into this.
There’s an active conspiracy that global elites want to take away real meat and make everyone eat lab grown meat. Ranchers and business owners in the meat industry are especially fond of spreading these conspiracies to lobby for bans on ban lab grown meat.
It was more voluntary during WW1.
In WW2 there was an explicit food rationing program, and though there were voluntary elements the Red Stamp program allotted a certain number of points for meats/fat/butter. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly in the form of war ration stamps, and the points expired if they weren’t used. This was done not only to help feed the war effort, but also to prevent the riots that would have happened if meat became too expensive for poor people to eat.
If meat is too expensive for someone to buy, then they can’t buy it.
If someone tries to eat meat they didn’t pay for, they get arrested.
Therefore, making meat too expensive for the poor is a ban with extra steps.
What part of this do you disagree with?
Meatless Mondays happened. It’s definitely possible to ration meat.
Now, see my other reply to you for why I think rebates are workable, but complicated.
But also that applies to both groups.
The owner of the estate only “owns” the land because, generations ago, his forefather stole it. Why does he have a right to keep it?