drewofdoom

Except the majority didn't put those people in power when we're talking about Texas. Texas is not majority Republican. Most of the Democrats are concentrated in the urban areas - Dallas/FW, Houston, Austin, etc. Nevertheless, there's a nearly 50/50 split in population affiliation. However, the Republicans control the state through a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering. And, of course, the independent wildcards.

Point is, it's not the majority who are keeping the state red. It's the majority of the people who are allowed to vote when calculated in such a way as to make Republican votes count more than Democratic votes. The state is rigged to keep Republican control regardless of the actual majority.

It happens. Apology accepted. You don't have to downvote yourself, lol.

Thank you for being mature enough to recognize the situation for what it was and to reply with honest self-reflection.

Nice insult, I guess? Is that the new thing instead of calling someone a bot?

Anyways, I guess the explanation of how OP took the traditional brownshirt and updated it to fit the color that represents Trump in order to propose that his fascist forces could be called 'orangeshirts' just kinda flew over your head, huh? It's ok, maybe you'll get it somewhere down the line.

I mostly agree with your response, except for chastising OP about the color of the shirt. They start by mentioning brown, then parenthetically say "orange" as an unveiled reference to Trump.

This is because Trump is known to use a LOT of bronzer that turns his skin an unusual orange color. So what OP was trying to do was to relate the brownshirts to the presumed task force that Trump would create if he became a dictator.

So they're saying we need a steeper exit tax too? OK, let's goooooooo

You don't lose your right to vote just for being arrested. In Colorado, the person would need to be a convicted, currently-incarcerated felon to lose their right to vote. Felons who have completed their sentences (even if they're out on parole) regain their voting rights.

And here's the other argument we hear all the time. "This bill doesn't fix everything, so it's pointless and should be dropped."

Drinking in a car is illegal, but how would an officer be able to tell if there are passengers drinking behind tinted windows? If the driver has booze in his or her or their yeti, how would a cop know? Since the cop can't know, drinking in cars should be legal, even for the driver.

That's basically what you're arguing.

Sometimes a bill is stripped down in order to pass with conservatives or moderates. Sometimes a bill is a trial balloon for what you really want to pass. Sometimes a bill addresses a specific issue, and that it doesn't fix some other issue is just moot.

And sometimes you have to walk before you run.

LOL, "I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I'm willing to read."

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole 'then only outlaws will have guns' is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can't purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole 'black market' gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a 'good guy with a gun' will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the 'good guy with a gun' who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We're never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for 'private gun ownership makes us safer' fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

I take your point, but Madoff and Bankman-Fried are the quickest to come to mind. It's rare, but it does happen, and usually because of financial crimes that affect other billionaires.

I mean, yes. Corporations owning towns is problematic. But the way in which this was handled is significantly worse.

While having their own government generated huge potential for abuse, all signs point toward Disney actually being a pretty good steward. So it's not like this was some emergency. The takeover of the government could have happened slowly, deliberately, and in a way that did not destroy the district in the process. But that was not the point here. The point was to cause damage to Disney because they dared to disagree with DeSantis.

Notice that none of the other privately-owned towns in Florida are being stripped out. It's just Disney, and it's just because of revenge.

Due to the way this was done, an awful lot of people are going to needlessly suffer. Not just Disney employees, either. Disney attracts massive tourism to Florida, and that tourism money ends up all over the state. This is a self-own of absolutely epic proportions on DeSantis' part, and all of Florida is going to pay for it.

There are serious concerns regarding potential genocide, and Netanyahu has always been a problematic, right-wing leader that flirts with authoritarianism. I would agree with you on that front, and it's perfectly fine to draw parallels to other authoritarian regimes.

However, it shouldn't take much to realize to that accusing a Jewish nation of being actual Nazis is not only insensitive, it's antisemitic.

We can criticize Israel for very real issues. There is absolutely no reason to invent new ones.

I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.

But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.

So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.