timmy_dean_sausage

And how are poor people supposed to afford that joy when we can barely afford to keep ourselves housed/clothed/fed?

Potentially losing your job would be part of the risk/sacrifice a potential candidate would have to accept. Yes, it would be difficult for someone living paycheck to paycheck to do this. Ideally, election reform like this would go hand in hand with economic reform that leads us to a society in which much less people are living paycheck to paycheck. This could happen easily if we start electing real people instead of rich people only.

One option is to publicly fund candidates equally. In such a system someone could apply to run for a position, the position would require a specified amount of people to nominate that person, if that person is nominated they get a grant that covers their campaign costs. The amount wouldn't be excessive so campaigns would look very different than they do now in places like the US.

Another option is to limit campaign donations from any individual to $100 total. This would force politicians to put effort into building a grassroots campaign while keeping big moneyed interests out of the process.

When politicians get into a position of power, they should be paid enough that they're firmly in the upper middle class, so they're comfortable and less likely to accept bribes, and they should not be given any opportunity to accept bribes or profit off of their position in any way.

Did you read their entire comment?

The government income and pension should be enough to live on so that these issues can be avoided.

Since you bring up logic, the logical fallacy you're displaying is called the false equivalence fallacy. Blackface is outrageous because the purpose is to demonize and humiliate black people. The purpose of drag is to CELEBRATE freedom of feminine expression, regardless of sex/gender. One is inherently exclusive, while the other is inherently inclusive.

Their formatting was dog dukey, but I was still able to parse what they were saying fairly easily. They're saying "good job judge Jackson. Too bad you won't be able to get a free house from insert evil billionaire here (/s)". While I agree with your sentiment, the way you go about pointing these things out can backfire, if done with a rude tone, such as the way you chose to do it. There you go; an unsolicited constructive criticism for an unsolicited constructive criticism. :)

Oh, gotcha. That's an interesting thought, but I would still be worried about the possibility of bullets and molotovs flying around my venue and people dying, when all of that is avoidable by just saying no to having the event in the first place.

People are fantasizing about sticking it to the fascists (which, believe me, I'm 1000% for), but this just isn't the way to do it, IMHO.

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

Would you invite a large scale firefight at your place of work? Probably not. This is unnecessarily risky any way you look at it. I don't make decisions that put people in danger..

That's pretty risky.. As someone who works in many venues (touring live production), I wouldn't want to throw venue security into the line of fire like that. No venue security crew is equipped to deal with mobs with molotovs...

Both of y'all are talking a lot about evidence without posting any sources. I don't have a side in this debate, but I would like to see some of this evidence you guys keep referencing, just to further my own understanding of these historical events.

Edit: grammar.

Crazy how, in a country with 255 million (in 2020) citizens of voting age, more people will come out to vote against a wannabe dictator. What could possibly possess people to want to protect their rights, right!? Must be fake.