I guarantee you a conservative would skim this and say “That’s it! We should build a thunderdome!”

It’s a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn’t bother. I’d start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn’t, I’d point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I’d explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren’t present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there’s actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn’t just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.

If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn’t, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn’t prove they didn’t do what someone else said they did.

The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they “know” to be criminals should just be locked up because “it’s obvious,” and then we get to the situation happening now.

Yeah, I used to explain it to people by having them imagine watching someone rob a bank, and ask them if that person is guilty. They’d always say yes, and I’d explain that they’re actually not: doing the crime isn’t how someone becomes guilty, being found guilty in the court of law is how someone becomes guilty. That often got people to at least understand what the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” really meant, which I thought was enough. Turns out I should’ve also explained why that’s actually a good thing, because now they’re supporting just bypassing the court of law altogether.

I’ve never had a problem starting on step 4 and repeating a few times.

It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”

I didn’t even think it could mean anything other than that until I started reading the comments. Coming from Trump this certainly reads more like a “finish them!” than a “leave them alone!”

Correct - forums are a place for people who talk rather than do, because those that do don’t have the time to argue online. Though I shit on all evil, regardless of some arbitrary relation to America. I don’t rely on American news outlets, I watch the global scene. It’s why I understand that America is just as bad as any of the other cartoonishly evil places in the world that people will fall for propaganda to defend.

I think we all know that anyone sitting on the computer talking about activism is here because they’re not out performing activism. This is the place of cowards who talk bigger than they are.

I live in the US, so I know first hand how having faith in anyone in a position of power will come back to bite you.

Only fight the greater evils! Lesser evils should be ignored! The cry of people who don’t understand how greater evils are created.

It makes me want to dedicate my life to fighting the US, NK, SK, and any other government that exploits its people instead of serving them.

Haha, you think I’m afraid of admitting the US is just as bad as NK? Ridiculous. Where do you think they learned it from?

Removed by mod

Because he knew nobody would actually enforce it.

It’s not like the chef is in charge of advertising. There’s a reason they don’t use actual food to make the advertisements, and it’s because actual food can’t reliably look like that.

They’ve been raised on the idea that taxes are bad, and never put more thought into it than that. They view things like the fire department as good, so they can’t really be funded by those bad taxes, right? …Right?

But if we point out that it’s happening, we’ll be called alarmists! No, it’s better to just keep saying things are going to happen, so people feel like they still have time to do nothing about it.

Careful, or they’ll go after the dictionary next.

Huh? It doesn’t look like they’re trying to say the text itself is the tattoo, it looks like they’re trying to say the tattoos mean MS-13. The blurry stuff below the tattoos seems to be explaining that it’s Marijuana for M, smile for S, and some other explanation for why a cross and skull are a 1 and 3, but it’s too blurry for me to see. It’s bullshit, but it’s not so blatantly obviously made up as superimposed text on a picture of a dude’s hand being passed off as a tattoo.

Didn’t even take a single human lifetime for us to get back to this shit again…