As soon as the midterms are over, Dems will go back to encouraging an elitist election

Much iq-based requirements

Muh "educated" voters only

Democrats and left-biased media only encourage popular vote when women and the degenerate portion of ethnic demographics are the perceived majority

They only pestered people to vote in a quantity over quality or zerg rush manner

Rather than accruing larger numbers of smart voters

But then again, a smart voter is a voter who votes authoritarian, antichristian yet islamophiliac, anti gun but pro armed black, and with a vagina on the pedestal

There were people legit trying to tell others to vote based on genitals and race

And by that I don't mean white males

Anecdotal at best, Mac

Thankfully from nothing big

But it bothers me on mere principle alone

Too bad they lack Armenian based voting

TYT was never right leaning iirc

If anything they're more anti-right than pro-left

Back

But yeah, at least in relation to the 2016 elections, there's non-anecdotal evidence of "Vote X because brown/female"

Keemstar was the president in a video game

The game in question being Hunt Down the Freeman

What do you mean by understanding science, @Sunseahl ?

Also on that note Ix, it's interesting how while there are people on both wings who hate centrists,

The majority of the centrist hate and the majority of the stylings of centrist hate are from leftists

I don't mean "faux centrists" like "You have convictions? Fuck you"

But like people who genuinely lean center

Meanwhile you have leftists who genuinely believe in "Fishhook Theory"

What's the third sex?

Pegina

Vagenis

Why is hermpahroditism a third sex rather than simultaneously being two sexes?

On what basis is it "neither" rather than "both"?

After all, a hermaphrodite possesses both sets of genitalia

I hate reddit, but one of the few places I can enjoy browsing is the "No One Wants to Take Your Guns" subreddit

And that place alone is evidence enough that you can't trust anyone who is remotely pro-gun control

100% of people who claim to be in support of the second amendment yet also actively push for gun control are lying.

Always lying.

The ultimate goal of gun control advocates is absolute civil disarmament.

There is no reason to believe they do not want absolute civil disarmament.

Especially when they believe that all forms of gun control are "compromises"

Even though the closest there has been to a compromise of gun control is "Get rid of your guns or else we'll cockblock you."

Or "Give us your guns and we'll give you 15% of what you paid for them back, discounting inflation"

If anything, they hate legal gun owners more than criminal gun owners

Much like how leftists generally prefer illegal immigrants more than legal ones

Or how they see drug abusers as inherently more innocent than straight edge supsects, even if both supects are equally guilty of the same crime

Don't forget too that they've been trying to make moves to ban semi-automatic action altogether

In other words, trying to force everyone to go back to pump/lever/bolt action/no magazines

And with prohibitively expensive ammunition costs along with trying to outlaw larger calibers

Also, small reminder that California courts have ruled that a law being impossible to follow doesn't invalidate the law itself

In relation to requiring manufacturers to design new firearms to microstamp cartridges

Yes, California did say "Laws that are physically impossible to comply with still need to be complied with"

Because the state itself is aware that they pushed and passed tha microstamping law specifically to soft-ban handguns

I genuinel wish we could just give Californians a choking peace of humble pie

Becuase holy shit Californians are the most elitist people in all of the Americas

Californians are also legitimate regional bigots

The will discriminate against anyone who appears to be remotely Southener too like it's a strawman cartoon

Hell, being a girl won't stop you from being treated like a subhuman if your accent sounds Dixie enough

Californians want to do to the Midwest what they imagine what the White Man did to Africa and India and Vietnam.

>People in cities are more diverse, so the lefts politics are easy to land there

Actually, leftists tend to live in the least ethnically and religiously diverse areas

San Fran for example has its nonwhite population to a token amount to my memory

And San Fran is basically a liberal haven

They also control entertainment and even pornography

Though it's a bit of a stretch, but I'd go as far to argue that certain fetishes and tastes in entertainment also have certain political views overlapping

Ix, even with a flat tax, people with greater income would naturally pay more into taxes than those with less income.

There has never been a tax system in existence in which the wealthy were not obligated by the specifications of the system to spend as much or less than the poor

A guy who makes ten bucks while being taxed for a flat 9% will still spend more than a guy who makes a single dollar

Why should there be a minimum?

There are people who believe that there should be a maximum wage.

Ix, do **YOU** think there is such thing as too much money?

Okay, and how much is too much?

Aren't Democrats exponentially more guilty than the GOP when it comes to poor or corrupt management of money or shitty spending?

Also Ix, how much money is too much money?

Then you should consider how much is too much.

A lot of the leftist extremism against anyone with an income is thanks to the failure to determine how much money is too much

As well as the refusal to even give an estimate on how much is too much

And why **Should** people with more money have to pay more money?

So "I don't like them", Ix.

Yes.

Your argument for there being a maximum wage or increased taxes is based on simply disliking the wealthy

For being wealthy.

You aren't so much in favor of helping the poor as it is that you just want to stick it to the rich man

Always remember that achieving equality doesn't mean the same as "getting even"

Pot calling the kettle black, Ix.

Furthermore, you're treating "Sins of the father" as valid in the case of the wealthy

You are calling for having people with greater incomes being taxed more

How is that not a calling for a redistribution of wealth?

"limited in their power" is just a side effect of your main goal being sticking it to people wealthier than you.

In other words, it's convenient for you that a wealthy person's power may be limited from having to give away more money

If the limitation of power of individuals was so important for you, why did it take until now for you to bring it up?

You brought up your loathing of the wealthy first and foremost.

Just because you didn't explicitly use the word "exploitation", it doesn't mean you didn't say it.

"Tend to" isn't enough to discount claims that you referenced or quoted Marx.

Then why are you okay with the government raising taxes on people?

On anyone?

Or is it okay because it's the government taking money and not the not-government?

I mean, I know a lot of people who genuinely think "It's okay when the *GOVERNMENT* does it, not a businessman"

Even when it's something like censorship

"Wealth is inherently illegitimate"

Yet you want to tax people more.

The wealthy, yes, but still.

What's your point, Ix?