Step one, get your stock on the market.
Step two, donate as much as possible to Trump Accounts (tax write off of donated stocks valued at the time of donation regardless of current value, can't be refused, can't be sold for 5 years)
Step three, sit back as stocks are shored up by their inability to be sold, and stop giving a shit because you already got the value extracted in the form of a tax write off.
Step one, get your stock on the market.
Step two, donate as much as possible to Trump Accounts (tax write off of donated stocks valued at the time of donation regardless of current value, can't be refused, can't be sold for 5 years)
Step three, sit back as stocks are shored up by their inability to be sold, and stop giving a shit because you already got the value extracted in the form of a tax write off.
Step one, get your stock on the market.
Step two, donate as much as possible to Trump Accounts (tax write off of donated stocks valued at the time of donation regardless of current value, can't be refused, can't be sold for 5 years)
Step three, sit back as stocks are shored up by their inability to be sold, and stop giving a shit because you already got the value extracted in the form of a tax write off.
The Romans would like a word.
Voting third party without some form of Rank Choice is literally pointless. This is basic game theory stuff. It's why the establishment on both sides are against Rank Choice.
Nothing will change without Rank Choice voting. Even if you succeed in displacing one of the two parties with a third, that third party just becomes one of the two parties and nothing changes.
I'm not saying to not vote third party. I'm saying get your local election to switch to Rank Choice and THEN vote third party.
This is essentially the profile of the group who were going to attack the UFC event at the White House. They realized that they'd been duped, and decided to take things into their own hands.
And when the critical factor for being able to choose immigration over death/incarceration is money... Well, a lot of us simply don't get a choice.
My engineer friend is halfway through the immigration process. Me? I have a solid 9 to 5 that I bust my ass at every day but I don't have enough money for gas to get to the border, much less to immigrate.
I'll never be an immigrant, and not by choice.
When the time comes, if I'm very VERY lucky, I might live long enough to become a refugee. That's my only alternative to your alternative.
The three paragraphs regarding the topic that I explicitly stated that I wasn't engaging with you about?
The focus on the addendum that you didn't have to include but did anyway?
You don't seem to understand that everything you say in an argument is part of the argument. You done fucked up by letting your emotions get the best of you, and if you think that doesn't impact your chances of successfully convincing another person about something, you're just fooling yourself. Humans are emotional creatures, and whether you're right is, at most, the same importance as maintaining the other person's willingness to accept that you're right. Yeah, that's fucked up, emotions should have nothing to do with whether something is correct or incorrect. If you're right, you're right... Right?
Case in point: you know I'm right, but you're pissed off at me and don't want to admit it (but maybe you will, now that I've called you out on it, just to spite me)
why are you so Hell-bent on promoting tyranny, anyway?
Begging the question, asssumes the conclusion that the other person is intent on promoting tyranny.
Why do you apparently so love the idea of The People not being able to defend themselves against The State?
Strawman, misrepresents the other person's argument.
Why are you carrying water for the fascists by dogmatically pushing your sick, twisted, authoritarian misinterpretation of the law?
Red herring, attempts to change the subject under debate from interpretation of the 2A to if the other person is supporting fascists.
And the whole paragraph is a kind of ad hominem/appeal to emotion.
Hey, I'm not here to say if you're right or wrong about your interpretation of the 2A. I'm just here to tell you you're being a fallacious asshole.
Good luck convincing anyone of anything 😏
If this argument succeeds, I would love to see the same logic applied to the second amendment (specifically the word "arms") just for shits and giggles.
But don't get me wrong, I know that logical consistency doesn't apply to the second amendment. It would just be fun to see someone try.
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius (misattributed)
A good person would reward good people for being good. If Jesus won't reward a good person for being good just because they haven't "accepted him into their heart" well... I said what I said.
The only thing worse than Democratic candidates throwing trans people under the bus are progressive voters who hand victory to the fascists because of purity politics bullshit.
I'd rather Democrats take my rights away than let fascists burn the world to the ground. For fucks sake, some things are more important. Have some goddamn perspective.
Besides, if a transphobic Democrat wins we still gave a chance to convince them they're wrong. You ain't getting that chance with a fascist. Why would you give up the chance to advocate for change, just because that change is needed in the first place? That makes fucking no sense.
I hate it here too. Please don't make it worse than necessary.
Sincerely, A trans person