Dominatrix in the PNW https://onlyfans.com/lusty.argonian.mana
Wdym? We are talking about his intent here, right? And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.” Well, if “stopping looters” is a codeword for an action which historically means “I’m going to go out and violently harm people that are black or poor or who fit my idea of a looter,” then it’s entirely relevant.
deleted by creator
none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted
Shoplifters and especially looters is a common rightwing racist buzzword used to justify them being violent. It was never truly his intention to go after looters, that was always a codeword. Please look into people who patrol after hurricanes for looters - it’s a racist idea and they are forming little KKK groups literally. They did that as well in Oregon during the Blue River fires and literally almost got themselves and others killed, protecting “property from looters” that was literally going to be burned up anyway, and there weren’t any looters!!! Can’t emphasize this enough, no looters, so they were just delaying people escaping at gunpoint. Also can’t emphasize enough that looting and stealing is nonviolent, whereas shooting someone to death is quite violent.
If Rittenhouse was explicitly supposed to protect a business from looters, he would have security guard clearances and a paper pay trail. No, he was there to be a violent, possibly racist, pos. Quite clearly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/looting-starts-shooting-starts.html
Yup, it was clear from the start he was cruising for a fight, which the law is literally supposed to prohibit even from police officers
Hilarious, as if police haven’t been doing what they want this entire time. They literally rape minors they arrest and get away with it. They barely have consequences already.
The Purge is a metaphor for eugenics based on wealth. It’s a libertarian’s fantasy of what a genocide would be. Ofc they love it.
Highly recommend the book One Nation Under Blackmail by Whitney Webb. Yes it’s entirely possible the currency we trade with Israel is intelligence based
Too young to get divorced, too. And statutory rape laws usually do not apply to spouses
That’s not a valid argument, like I already stated.
What conditions have changed in present day that would make denying someone their right to vote not fascist?
You mean you’re quitting because you’ve obviously lost.
Making a fascist idea into an official amendment does not make it less fascist but instead more so.
The point of me referencing the constitution was to show that indeed, many many many people think like I do, so much so it’s in our literal constitution. Keep up with your own arguments.
Making education a REQUIREMENT to voting is 100% fascism, and saying fascist ideals and dog whistles isn’t okay. Making education a requirement to voting is inherently discriminatory.
I get that you’re trying to gaslight me, it’s kinda cute. Rawr, you almost bamboozled me. I’m not overreacting and I’ve linked numerous very reputable sources. One of which is the literal constitution, which you’re dismissing by saying it can be amended eventually lol. I mean lol. Yes but currently everyone else including Dem president Lyndon B Johnson and Bill Clinton and Obama and Biden and Harris currently all are fine with this constitution as it is. Like we have a ton of establishment agreement here. It actually hurts the Harris campaign to advocate for something like this - maybe you want people to vote 3rd party.
You want to amend the constitution to reduce people’s ability to vote, which you claim is no biggie and def not fascism lol.
I agree we need more accessible education - through a free national online school with adaptive learning and no time limits or age restrictions. If grandpa wants to learn 5th grade science or computer science, let him and give him the educational credit. Build an educational legacy.
But we don’t need to make education a reason to deny someone their right to vote.
https://civilrights.org/blog/to-honor-brown-v-board-of-education-give-everyone-the-ballot/
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 established the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and authorized officials to seek injunctions against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 allowed federal inspection of local registration polls and created penalties for obstructing the vote. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned unequal requirements for voter registration and prohibited denying the right to vote based on non-material errors.
But it was not until Bloody Sunday in Selma — where former Rep. John Lewis and hundreds of voting rights marchers were assaulted and beaten on the world stage — that President Johnson and Congress would deliver the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The VRA outlawed voting discrimination and required jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to seek preclearance of voting changes from the Department of Justice or a federal court. Its impact was immediate; by the end of the year, a quarter of a million new Black voters had registered.
And, the Supreme Court has substantially weakened what remains of the VRA. One federal appellate court also recently ruled that voters of color can no longer even pursue claims under this law.
Instead, as Dr. King urged in the wake of the Brown decision, we must demand the president and Congress protect the right of everyone to vote, regardless of their race or background. We need legislative remedies that will immediately and permanently restore the ability of every citizen to fully participate in democracy. Congress can and should pass at the very first opportunity a trifecta of voting rights bills that would reinstate and strengthen the provisions of the VRA and expand access to the ballot in a host of meaningful ways for communities of color. And President Biden should continue urging Congress to do so until it happens.
In his “Give Us the Ballot” speech, Dr. King recognized that the right to vote is foundational and protects all other rights and freedoms: “Give us the ballot, and we will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.” Today, we face an intersectional moment where every freedom and right we enjoy is in jeopardy. From reproductive rights to climate justice to labor rights to protecting against LGBTQ discrimination, the pathway for change that our communities seek is through the ballot — at the federal, state, and local level.
I can link this literature allllll day
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-6-2/ALDE_00013450/
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has determined that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, states may require a duration of residency as a qualification to vote, but such requirements will be held unconstitutional unless the state can show that the requirement is necessary to serve a compelling interest.1 According to the Court in Dunn v. Blumstein, [t]his exacting test applies because the right to vote is a fundamental political right . . . preservative of all rights, and because a durational residence requirement directly impinges on the exercise of a second fundamental personal right, the right to travel.2 While acknowledging that states have a legitimate and compelling interest in preventing fraud by voters, in Dunn, the Court determined that a one-year residency requirement in a state and a three-month residency requirement in a county was not necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.3 In contrast, the Court in Marston v. Lewis upheld a fifty-day durational residency and voter registration requirement, determining that the law was necessary to serve the State’s important interest in accurate voter lists.4
Kinda seems like majority opinion agrees with me that making education a requirement to vote would be blatantly unconstitutional. Because it denies people their right to vote. Which is literally fascism - an authoritarian dictatorship - when people don’t have democracy or the ability to vote.
The other person commenting that they prefer more informed votes to uninformed votes doesn’t even begin to border on removing anyone’s rights,
I have no issue with this statement. I quoted exactly what I took issue with, which is that they said “it should be a REQUIREMENT to have an education in order to vote.” That’s literally unconstitutional and illegal and fascist. Just like any other fascist speech, I am against that. That is indeed advocating to take away people’s right to vote. Quite clearly.
Disagree.
The only people attacking that are republicans
No, itt alone there are Dems advocating for these ideas.
Taking away people’s right to vote, or advocating for speech that does so, is fascist in nature, yes.
OK. Agree to disagree.
https://youtu.be/VbFmicUTb_k?si=KWic5pGj9STRmw4j
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-rightsadd.html
Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders.
The history of this country in large measure is the history of expansion of that right to all of our people. Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument:
#every American citizen must have an equal right to vote.
I have seen hens and roos take on hawks. Don’t insult them by comparing them to Trump
I already explained that you speak and type the same. No, that’s not something I do, but that’s something you seem to do. Based on you doing it.
I quoted the speech you engaged in exactly as it relates to anti-democracy speech and dog whistles.
I’m not engaging in conspiratorial thinking, that’s not what that is. Conspiratorial thinkers are known for:
displaying a deep skepticism that who one votes for really matters.
Gee, I think that voting really counts. Conspiratorial thinkers believe that voting is pointless. I also think people should run for office and use their rights and communicate with their government. I am not antigovernment. Wild, it’s like you’re wrong and you think that conspiratorial thinking just means suspecting anyone of being hostile. Lol.
I’m so tired of fascists.
His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts, and this historically is a justification for violence in this country. Then he conducted violence. Where’s the contradiction?
Everything in his life for months indicates his intention that night was violence.