That just makes you an *******. We have two threads dedicated entirely to documenting police violence. Having to interact with the cops during a drug raid almost certainly carries a non-zero risk of death.

I'm certainly not going to shed many tears for a Leopards-Eating-Faces-Party voter whose face gets eaten by a leopard.

I mean, white potheads will mostly be okay.

Voting for a particular candidate does not necessarily imply a personal endorsement of every stance that candidate takes, nor every policy decision they make.

Let me run an example by you. Would someone who had been receiving AFDC who voted for Clinton in 92 deserve the same scorn?

What was the Republican position on AFDC again?

That's good.

I don't know if the dog bags we use are biodegradable. I don't think they are. they feel like regular plastic. I just grab them from dispensers our city has out in various areas. Maybe I'll email the city. Our dog usually poops in the back yard and not on walks though.

This conversation dovetails with an earlier one I was having with Suzzer. Many of us get quite animated about something like a vote for POTUS, which is at best 1/120 millionth of a say in the political direction of the country, and yet don't hold people accountable for what they do in their personal lives, which is easily as impactful.

Since you have libertarian tendencies you probably agree with this: I think if you want recycling mandated you ought to be recycling, if you want CAFE standards higher you ought to have an efficient vehicle or use public transportation, if you want no more war you ought not to work for a defense contractor, and so on.

Of course no one is perfect and I'm certainly not. I just feel compelled to respond to any position that either is coal rolling, indifference or "What can I do? the government needs to handle this.".

Why would that matter? Clinton campaigned on welfare reform both times he was elected, so anyone that was receiving benefits and paying attention should've known that a vote for Clinton was a vote to cut their benefits. This would be a legitimate reason to cast a third-party protest vote, imo, so the question still stands: would people who voted to cut their own welfare benefits deserve the same scorn?

Micro,

I know we don't see entirely eye to eye on personal impact and the value of small decisions. I wrestle with that question and have for my whole adult life.

As an anecdote, when I started picking up the trash in my neighborhood it felt incredibly great. It also started a mini revolution and a few others did as well. The dozens and dozens of bags of garbage I personally took off the streets didn't make it into the ocean in that escape. All good stuff for sure.

At what point, though, do we have to make the really uncomfortable decisions? This is a perfect example of the moral licensing concept Chris was citing from the gladwell podcast. I understand that perfect is the enemy of the good, I understand that throwing up your hands in dispair is not productive, but I'm concerned I miss the iceberg because I'm so pleased with my straight row of deck chairs.

How big was the white pothead trump demographic?

schadenfreude

******* in four syllables.

Clinton wasn't a fascist bigot.

all those 4chan trolls with 420 in their names

He also signed the legislation which led to the US's current mass incarceration crisis and that religious freedom bill which all the homophobes are currently using to try to discriminate against gays.

If Clinton wasn't a fascist bigot he sure did sign off on a few fascist, bigoted bills.

I think it depends. For example, if 99% of the problem with plastic bags is attributable to bags that end up getting tossed away as litter rather than disposed of in landfills, then personally abstaining from using plastic bags does very little to solve the problem. The solution is to crack down on littering or, more practically, simply ban plastic bags for responsible and irresponsible alike.

The whole think global, act local ethos arguably has the effect of obscuring systemic problems. For example, you can say that people who are concerned about vehicle emissions should drive efficient cars, but a big part of the problem is that our cities aren't dense enough and aren't well-served by transit. Even if you happen to be someone with a short commute, you're just displacing someone else who had to move out to the suburbs. The thing about systemic problems is that they can't be solved by individual decisions.

Sounds like there's fascism on all sides!

Yeah man that looks like Clinton's fault.

Also it's INCREDIBLY disingenuous to say Clinton signed the religious freedom bill that is leading to anti-gay discrimination. That's not a good faith argument and it shouldn't be responded to with anything other than braying laughter

This is trivially incorrect but I like you a lot Victor and you deserve a thoughtful response so lemme get a raincheck.

For now though uhhh I wasn't advocating some sort of eat-a-bite-of-pasta-every-10-minutes diet and certainly wasn't claiming it had magical healthy properties. That's the whole point.

I think the idea that the DNC was actually concerned with natives being allowed to use peyote in their ceremonies is equally laughable.

Even if we do take that claim at face value the man's job was to evaluate the potential impact of any bills he signs. If he couldn't forsee how the religious right was going to pick up the bill and run with it then he was bad at his job.

So you think, seriously and sincerely, as a grownup observer of politics, that Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, the ACLU, etc. were all playing the LONG GAME and were overturning the Smith decision by the Supreme Court with an eye towards future anti-gay discrimination?

Like I said, it's not in good faith, **** off with this ****.

The bill passed unanimously in the House and 97-3 in the Senate. Did the Republicans vote for it so natives could eat peyote?

Furthermore, one doesn't even have to imagine that Bill Clinton was opposed to gay rights. He signed the Defense of Marriage Act!

I asked you a yes or no question.