HelixDab2

“We need to be clear about what our goals are,” Sawant said in a speech on Sunday in Dearborn, Michigan. “We are not in a position to win the White House.

“But we do have a real opportunity to win something historic. We could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”

So the goal is “fighting to defeat Harris, not just symbolically but in reality,” Sawant said. “This is ground zero to punish Kamala Harris and defeat her.”

If you admit Stein can’t win, and you claim Harris must be defeated, then you’re working to elect Donald Trump.

My dude.

Did you even read this before you posted it? You've just shown your hand. You consistently shill for Stein. Therefore, knowing that Stein can not win the election, you are working for Trump. Which, well, since the communities you've created and moderate are entirely in-line with far-right conservative Mormon politics, is pretty on-brand.

"Socialist Mormon Satanist", aka UniversalMonk.

No, you're not. You're not any of the above.

I was raised Mormon, and I am an RM. I'm a Ricks College--now BYU-I--alumn. I had my records removed almost 20 years ago, was a born-again, evangelical atheist for a while, and I've been an active and open Satanist for the last 10.

Your online presence and words scream "active Mormon", not Satanist, or socialist. The things you promote--racism, misogyny, far-right ideology (such as, for instance, all the Ricks College garbage)--are in-line with both historical Mormonism as well as contemporary practices.

Is that really improbable?

Yes, it really is.

Public defenders do what they do because they love it, and they believe that it's important. Pretty much everyone that works as a public defender could make far, far more money in private practice, with a much lighter case load. These are largely people that are ideologically motivated. So yes, it's highly improbable that a public defender is not only going to fuck their client over--which would be a breach of their ethical duty already--but would then go on to commit an offense that could see them disbarred.

They may not always be effective due to their caseloads, but it would be very rare to find one that's malicious.

Whoa whoa whoa, I thought Republicans were all in favor of zero censorship...?

That scenario is so improbable that, without any evidence other than an incoherent post on NSQ, no one can reasonably claim that's what's going on.

...Because? That's like asking why people climb Kilimanjaro, or K2. Because you want to know if you can.

And it turns out I can, it is kind of boring, and makes me feel carsick.

But the defender has absolutely no power to jail the mother. Effective threats and blackmail require you to have some kind of ability to follow through on some level, and a public defender doesn't.

Moreover, there are very few that would, since attempting to do that to a client would likely be some form of gross misconduct that could get you sanctioned or disbarred.

This should explain it. Well, visually, at least.

Ha. Fair point.

No, this was the kind of suspension where they put hooks through your skin, and then hoist you above the ground by the hooks.

(I do ride, but only street bikes. And IMO, for street bikes, unless you track your bike regularly, your stock suspension is likely just fine.)

Suspension. I did a superman; 6 hooks in my back (they couldn't pull up skin on my legs to run hooks there, so it was a little... awkward.) It was painful, sure. But the pain fades once you're up there, and then it's...

Boring.

You can't really do anything much. You can swing around, but if you get motion sick then that's not a good idea. I know a number of people that have experienced it as transcendental, and it just wasn't for me. Everything was sore for a few days afterwards, but not bad. It just wasn't for me.

I'd suggest that you start by reading David McRaney's How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. You should also look into street epistemology, and Peter Boghossian's A Manual for Creating Atheists.

First, I think that approaching this with the idea that you're going to "change them" is probably not the correct approach. Rather, you need to approach it as a conversation where you're hoping that you can better come to understand each other. Beginning with the idea that you will change them has the a priori assumption that you are morally correct, and that's not necessarily the case. Is it better to do it in person? Absolutely. You will have a very hard time reaching real understanding online. You'll need to do is find common ground, ask questions, and really, really listen to them. You need to be able to empathize with them. It's also worthwhile to ask if they're open to changing their beliefs, if they find conflicting information. (And ask yourself - are you open to changing your beliefs if facts conflict with what you believe?)

What you need to get at is underlying beliefs and fears, not surface-level stuff. You need to understand that these aren't issues that can be solved with more factual information, because people will weigh facts through an emotional lens, and will weight things differently than you would to arrive at different conclusions.

On a slight tangent, when you talk about cult de-programming--which is controversial--the important thing to do is to utterly separate a cult victim from their support group, aka their cult, and then give them only one point of view. When you talk about deprogramming conservatives, you're asking people to commit social suicide; it's likely that all their close friends and associates (or all of their parasocial relationships) are with people that hold similar conservative beliefs. Without surrounding them with people that are more liberal, and are willing to accept them, you're not going to be able to have a long-lasting effect.

Bluntly, neither of them are willing to do the thing necessary to balance the budget, or decrease the national debt, which is raise taxes back to the level they were at before Nixon took office. There's not a quick and easy solution to any of this, but the top marginal tax rates are ridiculously low, and we've made is easy and cheap to outsource production.

When you're already spending less than the minimum needed to keep a country running effectively, you can't simply cut your way out of debt; you need to increase revenues, and that means taxation. The smartest taxes are progressive; they're taxes on wealth and on income, taxes that affect the poor and the rich proportionately, which is to say progressively. Flat taxes, sales taxes, etc., are inherently regressive, affecting the poor disproportionately, and are thus less effective at increasing tax revenues.