being armed enables vulnerable people to prevent their exploitation.
being armed enables vulnerable people to prevent their exploitation.
this is a thought terminating cliche
guns are for vulnerable people who want to ensure their own safety.
you don't know my circumstances or anyone else's.
your statistics don't know who i live with, who lives next door, or how corrupt my government is. and, as samuel clemons said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
there you go again, assuming things you don't know about me.
there are more slaves now than ever in history. there are more prisoners, more prisons, more cartels, more police (but i repeat myself). i won't tell you how you may keep yourself safe. please return the courtesy.
none so far, and id like to keep it that way, but there is no reason i or anyone else should become a victim for a lack of self defense tools.
that's cold comfort for slaves
at this point i'm making due advocating that would-be slaves aren't legally prohibited the tools they need to protect themselves.
it was the tenth anniversary of a media outlet that gave her more time than probably all American media combined. she paid her own way. it's a nothing burger
You seriously think that the cause of modern day slavery is lack of guns?
that's not what i said. it's a bad faith argument: a strawman.
it's one of the very real dangers people face. and firearms are one of the tools they may use to defend themselves from it.
harm reduction as a specific thing. The best example of it is needle exchanges and safe injection rooms for addicts. you recognize that the bad thing is happening, and you do what you can to mitigate the harm that comes from the bad thing. The bad thing is bad people being in power. what you can do to mitigate that is engaging in mutual aid and community organizing around issues that are affecting you locally. voting for a Democrat or Republican won't stop the bad things from happening. The Democrats have brought us to the point where Trump is seen as reasonable by half the electorate. The Democrats have shared power with the Republicans for the past hundred years as fascism has taken over the government. voting for them doesn't reduce the harm that they cause.
edit
voting for Democrats is like giving out free Suboxone and saying at least it's not heroin. That's not harm reduction. harm reduction is recognizing that the addicts are going to use the substance of their choice and making that as safe as possible.
you asked why she was there. its state affiliation wasn't relevant to the answer, but it is a well-known fact.
Speaking to The Intercept in 2017, she said the notion that it was an "intimate roundtable" was "mythology," and that Putin and his associates "weren't at the table for very long." Stein said that "nobody introduced anybody to anybody" and that she "didn't hear any words exchanged between English speakers and Russians" due to the lack of a translator.
from your first link
no, take 50 cents from anyone who thinks your wrong
that's not proof: it's innuendo
no one was hiding that
Therese kind of personal attacks have no place in this community
voting is not harm reduction.
harm reduction is a specific strategy, and voting is not harm reduction.
The candidate that does the least harm would probably be Cornell West or Jill Stein. voting for the senator who put in place the conditions for roe v Wade to be turned over, the senator who confirmed some of those very same justices, to be president does not reduce harm. if you won't take it from me maybe it'll take it from this guy
https://www.indigenousaction.org/voting-is-not-harm-reduction-an-indigenous-perspective/
But no, none of that matters. You've already figured out what I believe, and you'll tell me about it at length, whatever I have to say about it.
total lack of self-awareness
you can't prove this, mostly because it's not true, but partially because there isn't any proof
your second link contains actual lies or facts that have changed since it's publication.
those odds are way too high.
then you should take the bet.
i think i saw it was more like 1/500 so it's more like 0.2%. at least that's what the betting odds called for stein and west, who are the only two candidates i see that deserve my vote.
no, it's not. i expect to have at least 4 options on my ballot, possibly 5 if my donations to cornel west accomplish anything.