Taking a case is different from outright barring state authorities from accessing evidence.
See the Luigi Mangione case for an example of state having free access to evidence even in a federal case... Feds don't seem to have any trouble with sharing evidence there.
I know everyone wants to be a doomer about things like this, but Minneapolis has demonstrated clearly to the nation what organization can do. This is a good way to provide solidarity with neighbors who cannot go out and work due to ICE occupation. By making it so that nobody pays rent, it means landlords will not be evicting those who are most vulnerable right now.
It's a good strategy.
Yet another instance in which the "free speech" right didn't actually care about the 1st amendment, they just wanted to say the n word on Twitter without people yelling at them.
I wonder if they realize how obvious it is to others that their morals are a lie
Community gardens are fantastic! I've only just started getting into gardening. My parents have done it for a long time and use cold frames so that they can get food 10 months of the year.
Lettuce is super easy - some of its even made its way into my lawn from when I let it go to seed one year, lol.
My favorite trick is using an empty cat litter pail (the big ones with a lid, not the pour able ones), drill some holes in the bottom, put in a layer of rocks for drainage, and the rest with soil. It's a great pot for growing sale greens, and the handle makes it fantastic for if I need to move it around. We can't recycle the cat litter packs in my county so this is what I do with them
Normal answer is absentee voting, but that's part of the reason MAGA has been going after it so hard.
This is a valid concern that folks need to take into consideration. It's all well and good to say that long term liberty is more important than short term security, and I agree with that sentiment, but it's better not to force people to choose.
This is why there are strike funds. In this case, I would recommend mutual aid - even a small group of 5-10 people can work together to save money by buying essentials in bulk. Larger groups can help each other cover rent, form daycare coops, and so on.
Best time to start a group was a year ago, next best time is today.
I think this is a more nuanced take on the situation. I would agree that folks who are directly impacted by an issue are more likely to be impacted by it. Original comment seemed too absolutist too me.
I think there are 22yo who can be impacted by the issue of taxes while being poor (Though they may end up on the other side of the argument). For example, issues of food stamps and medicare-for-all affect all ages. A 22yo might have a strong opinion in favor of taxation for these purposes. A conservative making an ad hominem argument on the basis of age in this case (e.g., that they are simply being manipulated by the radical left) would be clearly incorrect.
I also think, as more of a moral argument, you shouldn't need to be directly impacted by something in order to support/oppose it. I am not on food stamps but I absolutely think we should have them (or perhaps "upgrade" it to UBI to avoid nonsense on what poor people are allowed to buy).
In any case, dismissing someone as simply being manipulated is not a good approach in general. It could be a good approach when we are specifically talking about the person overselling on confirmation bias from ChatGPT, but it is a poor way to change minds as a general tactic.
Is there any particular language I should adjust to avoid being "aggro"? I did say that I hated their argument. And I did call them hostile after their last sarcastic response to me trying to extend an olive branch.
Is that going too far? "Touch grass" is about the same level, I would think, but I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
If you enter into debates with weak ad hominem arguments about someone's age, you aren't going to change minds and you will be steamrolled by anyone with an understanding of the topic.
Skimming your recent posts, I don't think our political views are particularly different, so it's in both of our interests if you are using the best arguments possible on these topics. This was not an attack on you as a person, so your hostile response is unnecessary.
It's a bad position to be in. If they crash it will be bad, but if they keep growing and then crash it could be worse.
I'm torn on this - Christianity (particularly evangelical christianity) has had an extremely negative effect on democracy in our country and has caused physical harm to others.
However, I think most people with a conscience subscribe to some form of philosophy or religion (even if atheists aren't "loyal" to any particular perspective and may not even use titles/categories to describe their value system) and I think it's fine for your morals/conscience to influence decision making. Even a purely scientific decision making process could be considered a form of philosophy.
That being said, most organized religion is about obedience to the tenets of said religion, not a method of asking questions about the world to try to find the most just way to proceed.