theyoyomaster

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

That’s absolutely it, before the NRA gave up on promoting gun rights and imploded its political power never came from “buying politicians with industry money.” It came from a large pool of highly active voters with a shared primary issue. Their report card was more effective than any donation or individual campaign. Mobilizing large groups of voters is far more powerful than deep pockets. That’s also why nothing has changed since their collapse, pro-gun voters had been jumping ship to more effective groups for more than two election cycles now. “Defeating the NRA” didn’t result in a gun control win because by the end the NRA’s corruption did more to hurt gun rights than anything Bloomberg could buy; ripping that bandaid off entirely allowed the community to rebound even harder.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I assume everyone is owned by someone terrible, but the individual policies and changes are what drives me to swap.

I pay for things on sites processed by PayPal too, I just don’t have an account.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's never been about the money, that's just an easy scapegoat for someone not wanting to admit that they lost on any given issue. It's really easy to say "evil corporations bought the law/result they wanted" than admit that a highly engaged voting base was behind it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Just standard credit card processing for purchases and zelle or venmo for transfers.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

The gun and anti gun lobbies are chump change in politics. Combined they amount to less than $10m. I literally can’t even find their relative ranking on mobile because they aren’t even a drop in the bucket compared to others.

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Good thing I deleted my PayPal years ago over a previous TOS change.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I feel like it would be pretty quickly determined that you are the "victim" in that scenario. I have actually carried explosives through a TSA checkpoint before though; it was the BEST LAYOVER EVER. They came to the lounge I was in asking for volunteers to train the dogs and then handed me a backpack with semtex in it and put me in line. The dog found me, I told him he was a GOOD BOY and got to throw his kong for him and rub his belly. 45/10, would layover again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Depending on what airports they tried to go through they likely would have been caught. Even garbage security theater like the TSA catches concealed explosives fairly well.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How does Microsoft’s compare to M*crosoft’s?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

I’m all for the most humane and ethical means of getting meat and the day I can get a steak that didn’t require a cow to die but is indistinguishable from the real thing I will absolutely switch over, but until then I’m going to enjoy delicious, delicious duck and not feel bad about. Wouldn’t eat a dog even in an apocalypse though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

OK, I genuinely have no clue what got that post removed. If you're gonna have your own magic dictionary of what's allowed then you're gonna need to let people know what are and are not the special "no-no" words. It wasn't even an edgy comment, it was just calling out the Russian bullshit, or was that the issue? Gotta protect the Russian shills or something?

 
 

A Texas appeals court upheld two injunctions in a pair of legal cases Friday, in an order blocking the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services from investigating families of transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming medical care for their children.

 
 

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.

Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A new California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places was once again blocked from taking effect Saturday as a court case challenging it continues.

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel dissolved a temporary hold on a lower court injunction blocking the law. The hold was issued by a different 9th Circuit panel and had allowed the law to go into effect Jan. 1.

Saturday’s decision keeps in place a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney blocking the law. Carney said that it violates the Second Amendment and that gun rights groups would likely prevail in proving it unconstitutional.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 types of places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos. The ban applies regardless of whether a person has a concealed carry permit.

 
 
view more: next ›