TheKMAP

Felons can't vote, seems like a privilege to me.

Voting is a privilege that most people don't use. Yes Republicans are looking for ways to suppress votes, and I don't think you should need an ID to vote, but the idea that getting an ID is hard, is preposterous. You need an ID for like fucking everything.

In California:

It costs thirty dollars.

Who wants to vote, but doesn't have thirty dollars? That's like three bananas.

And there are lower prices if you have low income.

And homeless people get them for free.

And ages 62+ get them for free.

The point you're replying to is that when called out on their bullshit, they will revert to their talking points. Being a hypocrite is unrelated.

Popping the telecom infra doesn't automatically grant access to Signal messages.

Stan Lee rolling in his grave over the lack of hyphen in Spider-Man

So even then, the union people might be making more than the union minimum, so the non union person might still be making less than an average union person while not getting any union benefits.

I think defining terms is ineffective. Kinda like "state's rights". State's rights to do what? Focus on the actual bad shit going on instead baffling people with fancy words that can be twisted or misused later. If someone says "people aren't dumb enough to chase the high they get from seeking righteous justices by doing whatever is easiest such as attacking those closest to them" then you can go into a speech about how it happens so often that there are papers on it and it got its own term.

Focus on the actual harm being done to people. Adding terms creates a layer of distance, and opportunity to distract the conversation and waste time debating the term instead of the actual problem.

My guess is he's trying to rename Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome because he has it.

You're acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won't work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.

The question isn't about "the" law it means "any" law. The judge is asking you if you're going to enforce the law for which they are under trial, not if you're here to enforce the constitution. If that is what you wanted to do you would vote guilty and let them appeal to the Supreme Court because they are the constitution people, not you.

Say No, but provide that elaboration, and see what happens. You're still lying, dude.

How do you expect to win... anything... if you don't fight for it?