…I’m probably one of the leading drug legalization figures in my state.

But I’m also not an idiot who fetishizes weapons. You’re probably one of those weirdos who sleep with their gun.

Oh, and to help your tiny brain a bit: My drugs cannot kill you over a distance of 500 meters at a speed close to or faster than the speed of sound.

Additionally, countless of generations of humans have lived without any firearms at all. Even giant pussies like you are going to be fine.

Oh yeah, definitely. But never admit that when talking to gun nuts.

we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.

While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn’t matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.

Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.

Mistakes are possible

Yeah, mistakes like american gun laws. In related news, this year, a soldier from Germany’s National Guard did not go on a killing spree. Nor did a soldier of the French National Guard.

IT IS THE GODDAMN FUCKING GUNS

Hell and that’s a Fox “News” poll

That’s why I instantly saved it to my phone. This picture has such a high value in “discussions” with gun freaks.

I’m working for a NATO countries’ military, am a frequent poster and avid follower of NonCredibleDefense, own weapons myself, know a lot about their inner workings and history, but even I am not even remotely as crazy as those people.

Then again, I do own several weapons but advocate that my government pass laws to take them away. Guess I’m kind of a paradoxical outlier in this matter.

Maybe it’s a typo and they meant “crab people”?

Yeah I remember that. Yeah…same with the insurrection: they can only care for about an hour, then it back to business.

That’s kinda the comment that always gets me banned: as long as Republican politicians do not actually die themselves frequently, they will not change.

Not sure what this instances views on “advocating violence” are, so I’m trying to explain it as non-violently as I still can:

Americans want gun control. That’s not up for discussion. It’s an absurd majority.

However, as long as it is “only” school children and ordinary civilians dying, Republicans will not change their stance on gun control in the slightest. The people who are responsible to fix this are the only group that is not at any risk of getting shot. They are so absurdly protected that they will never be on the receiving end of a barrel, and therefore, do not care.

And to make matters worse, the Republicans dictating the supreme court, who will block anything that could possible address this problem, not only cannot be voted out, no, they literally have to die before they can be replaced.

The only people who could fix the gun murder issue are the ones not dying because of guns.

I think it’s pretty easy to find support for gun control.

Or “oppose the second amendment”, as you propagandistically say, because you dont have facts on your side.

ReVanced doesn’t really require frequent updates. After modifying the YouTube app, I disable auto updates and keep using it until something doesn’t work properly (usually ads reappear)- Happens maybe every 4-5 months for me.

For example, the YouTube version I’m using right now is 18.23.35 from June 10th, while the newest version that can be patched with ReVanced is 18.35.44. But since I haven’t seen any issues, I didn’t even bother to check for updates. Only your comment made me check and realize that I can update it.

Well the Hamas attack was basically Netanjahu’s Reichstag fire. There were huge protests against his judicial, unconstitutional power grab, and now there arent. Now, his power is unchallenged and he even has additional wartime powers.

ReVanced can patch your YouTube client (even without root) and add (your choice of) features, for example adblocking, picture in picture, playing in background as well ad quality of life improvents like hiding the “block” of news videos, remove reels or certain buttons

Sadly, this has so many important implications and consequences that it’s imperative to report ASAP if funding has been secured for a bit longer or not. It cannot be ignores :/

Out of all the 23 times the US minimum wage was ever raised, 21 times it was by Democrats - and the other two times, it was because democrats fought for months unt republicans conceeded.

There’s one party that fucks the poor as their literal program, and another one that sometimes does things which look bad as headlines, but which require a much deeper look into their reasons.

Don’t equate them because they aren’t equal.

Edit: Yeah, as suspected: The initial ruling in Idaho may be pretty good for protecting homeless people’s rights, but it’s also really broader than it has any reason to be. Even if you sympathize with the homeless and want to help them (and I’m convinced News on actually does), it creates problems for you.

https://calwatchdog.com/2019/12/27/california-cities-struggle-with-implications-of-homeless-ruling/

Well if you people hadn’t given Republicans so much power for the last decades, you wouldn’t be in this mess.

It not dems fault, but the voters.

vacate her seat

Yeah, Republicans’ wish finally came true. Wanna know why there was such an online campaign push for her retirement?

Because she was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate judiciary committee, and Mitch McConnell had already blocked her replacement.

If she had retired, all of Joe Biden’s executive or judicial nominations, would’ve been dead in the water.

Well, she kept going until today, and now, watch the shit show happening. Republicans are celebrating.

No, she shouldn’t have. Wanna know why there was such an online campaign push for her retirement?

Because she was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate judiciary committee, and Mitch McConnell blocked her replacement.

If she had retired, all of Joe Biden’s executive or judicial nominations, would’ve been dead in the water.

You should be glad she kept going to confirm as many of his picks as long as she could, because now problems are on the way.

Fucking Obama man. Just changing people’s nationalities!

I wrote a reply with a little bit of context and explanation to that “filibuster proof majority”. The reality is: After passing the ACA, there was no chance in hell Dems could have gone further.

https://feddit.de/comment/3202985

The Dems had control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate under Obama

Theoretically. For 72 days.

However, the Senate supermajority only lasted for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session.

But let’s take a closer look at that statement, shall we? Because in my opinion, it’s a blatant lie:

https://eu.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.

So far so good. Well, not filibuster proof.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate…and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

Oh what’s this? The actual number was really 55 Dems + 2 independents!

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009…Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21…Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Nope, still not filibuster proof.

Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.

There’s that filibuster proof majority of 58 Dems + 2 independents.

And when was the ACA passed in the Senate? Exactly in that period, on 24th of December 2009.

The House agreed on it on March 21st 2010, and by then, there was no filibuster proof majority anymore to go further than the ACA.

Oh, and after 2011, Dems never gained house and Senate majority together for a decade. That’s one reason why the US is so fucked, by the way.

Hi, my name is ProcurementCat and I call out people who pretend to be very leftist but actually only make leftist politicians look bad.

Edit: Oh, and there was one major amendment to the ACA, by the way: When Republicans used it for tax cuts under Trump.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act

It took a filibuster proof majority to pass the ACA, it took 51 votes to turn it into a 2.3 trillion tax gift for the rich. Don’t really hear you complain about that.