I am too.

On the one hand, it’s a pretty simple and obvious principled stance. But on the other hand, the Democrats haven’t shown much in the way of principles in quite some time.

Who’d’ve guessed the Democrats would refuse to vote in favor of cutting health insurance subsidies for millions of poor Americans in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires?

“I don’t know what’s wrong with them. All they have to do is agree to let us cut funding so that millions of poor Americans won’t be able to afford health insurance. All they have to do is say, ‘Let’s go! Let’s fuck over poor Americans to fund tax breaks for billionaires!’”

McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski said the “two-tier economy” was a major factor in the fast-food giant’s decision to revive its “Extra Value Meal” combos last month.

“Traffic for lower-income consumers is down double digits,” Kempczinski told CNBC in September. “We needed to step in.”

Cynically unsurprising that they decided they needed to “step in” by offering a menu of lower priced garbage instead of by paying their executives less and their employees more.

Clearly the underlying philosophy here isn’t “let’s respond to the increasing wealth gap by working for a solution,” but “let’s respond to the increasing wealth gap by figuring out ways to continue taking advantage of poor people even as they keep getting poorer.”

It wasn’t that long ago that I was generally too cynical. Now I can barely even keep up.

Thinking about it, the two are actually very similar.

Except that you’d have to survive the DNC/establishment Democrats’ attempts to sabotage your entire campaign.

It’s amazing the lengths the Republicans will go to just to make it harder for poor people to get healthcare.

Oh for fucks sake - Trump and his goons aren’t even bothering to pretend to be legitimate any more. They’re brazenly nothing but vile, corrupt, autocratic pieces of shit and they’re fucking parading it in front of the world.

We’re watching history unfold. The startlingly insane decline and fall of the United States under the deranged lunatic Trump is going to be the stuff of future legend.

Gee whiz, sure didn’t see that coming.🙄

This isn’t about Charlie Kirk This is about the faacists incrementally establishing the legal authority to punish speech.

I don’t think that internet technological development is even relevant.

Internet sociological, philosophical, cultural and psychological development is about at the level of the Dark Ages, and that’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

Um… no. I’m an anarchist.

And you sound like a helicopter parent who’s balanced on that fine line between hysterical tears and explosive rage because somebody at the playground said something mean about their darling USSR.

It didn’t. And I’m an anarchist.

If you’re going to rely on ad hominems, you should at least try to make them somewhat accurate and relevant.

Stalin was the leader of the world’s first socialist state

Socialist state is a contradiction in terms.

Stalin was CEO of USSR Incorporated.

Funny that this is the exact same “logic” the libs use to try to defend running a pro-zionist, pro-corporate, pro-billionaire slimeball in the last US presidential election - “But Trump was worse!”

I really can’t wrap my head around what it must be like to be a Republican.

At this point, their “logic” would have to be something like “All indications are that we’re so wildly unpopular that we’re going to get our asses kicked in the midterms, so we’re going to own the libs by cheating.”

That’s not just irrational - it’s pathetic.

The problem is that the ban is one-sided, and generally boils down to “the oppressed are disarmed but the oppressors are not.”

Ooh… the dots are connecting.

Then it’s not even a matter of choosing one - they already chose one.

The rest of my point still holds - everybody involved, from the judge(s) on down to the prison guards - knew full well that putting a child sex abuser in with the other prisoners was effectively a death sentence, so for all intents and purposes, they did sentence him to death. They just relied on someone else to carry out the sentence for them.

So it would appear that the death sentence wasn’t actually abolished - it was just disguised.

And that’s cheap and dishonorable.

I think judges and prosecutors are cowards who won’t go so far as to sentence child sex abusers to death, but instead sentence them to imprisonment, then put them in the general population knowing full well that that’s effectively a death sentence anyway.

If the state is going to have child sex abusers killed, then the prosecutors and judges should own it. And if they’re not willing to do that - if they can’t or won’t pass down a death sentence themselves - then they need to sentence them such that they’ll be protected from the other inmates.

I honestly don’t much care which they choose, but they need to choose one. This trick of avoiding responsibility by passing it on to inmates is cheap, dishonorable bullshit.