• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • Bootlicking bastard. How dare you defend the cops for handcuffing this poor mother whose crime is apparently letting her kid have a childhood? “Peaceful interactions turn violent”? Pizza delivery drivers are more likely to have violent and fatal interactions with the public than cops, should they handcuff us “just in case” before handing us our order? God you bootlickers disgust me. Not ONE of your positions is upheld by facts. It’s all “feelings”, feelings like “the cop felt unsafe so he unloaded 2 full clips into a black kid playing tag”. It’s all a big tower of fascist feelings.











  • The “voting public” deciding a candidate is above the law isn’t democratic.

    The courts are not a democratic institution, they’re there to apply the laws passed by a democratically elected government in a fair and impartial manner.

    Sure the laws should be subject to the will of the people, but the application of the law should not. That’s nonsense.

    Saying it’s dangerous to apply a law everyone agrees with to a politician who committed crimes is absurd.

    Thanks for the response, now I KNOW you’re just a Trumptard playing “Devils advocate”.


  • This is in comparison to private corporations who have a profit incentive to monetize your data in every disgusting abusive way possible. Companies with a fiduciary duty to exploit every possible potential for profit or they can be sued by shareholders? Companies that aren’t publicly auditable so you’ll never know who they’re sharing your data with? Like the recent trend of cars selling your location data to your insurance company who then uses it to hike your rates?

    You’re comparing a government who has to be bribed or break a law in order to share your data at all with corporations who have a duty to sell it to the highest bidder. And in this comparison your conclusion is it’s the government that you can’t trust?

    Sorry, I have to say I’m completely baffled by your statements right now.



  • The half the country that disagrees isn’t disagreeing with the laws Trump broke and voting to repeal them. If they were, your argument would have standing. Trump wins, those laws get repealed, no one ever has to be subject to these unjust laws. In a scenario where someone was campaigning to legalize pot nationally but was in court for possession you would be 100% correct.

    However, this half the country wants those laws to continue to apply to everyone else, but not to apply to Trump, one of the most corrupt, self serving people ever to hold office. The whole country agrees that those laws should exist (fraud, sexual assault, corruption, election interference, insurrection). Half the country thinks Trump should just be above the law, and you can’t have democracy when the law treats people differently.

    Your argument sounds logical on the surface, but it’s deeply flawed to the point where it’s almost suspicious in its dishonestly.