Because most haven’t I will actually answer the call of the question. Voting is perhaps the most important way one can voice their opinion. And carries more effect than most words the average man or woman can utter.

The largest argument against these types of stances is that it will create a spoiler effect. This usually operates on the premise that a vote to a candidate is owed and not earned and or that it is impossible to achieve a different outcome besides one of the two establishment candidates. This second premise being the results of people who decry voting 3rd party as useless based on a restriction with no physical or legal basis imposed on our society by our society. There’s nothing stopping people from electing anyone else on the ballot.

If you can acknowledge that we as a society have this power the idea of accepting a lesser evil is weakened. If you vote for a lesser evil you perpetuate the broken system you hate. In your example Gaza, if someone feels that the issue is so important it merits a principled stance how can they not take the stance?

It’s a matter of pragmatism vs principles.

10 minute mail

I’ll answer for them. Anyone pushing the view points on the matters you desire. A vote for third party is better than not voting at all, as people will just lump you in with people who can’t be bothered to vote otherwise.

That said what matters most is the down ballot. Look up the candidate that most align with your views and vote for them.

In the US, a representative democracy, people typically want to vote for a representative (here the Pres.) who shares their views on issues. The US isn’t going to have a national referendum on Gaza where the people can directly vote.

What ever your view point(s) your time to vote on your issue(s) is during a presidential or midterm election.

I see both. Even moderate conservative view point tend to get straw manned as being MAGA. Heck I see left leaning people who just didn’t like that Biden was running get bashed for suggesting the Democrats run a different candidate. Now I see the same on anything less the pro Kamala.

If Harris anonymously posted a self criticism on here I wouldn’t be surprised if people called her MAGA. That’s not to say everyone here acts that way but a vocal percentage does.

Teal, it has the best qualities of both blue and green

Never heard of beggars night. People seem to find Halloween a satisfactory name where I’ve been.

Late to the party, but if you’re in Europe I’d check out these they’re from a Finnish outdoors company and I’ve found them comfortable. They’re pretty complimentary on an average or fit build and the material feels good against the skin. (I can not unfortunately comment on if the underwear is gay or not).

https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/sarma-viscose-boxers-4-pack/77810

https://www.varusteleka.com/en/product/sarma-merino-boxers/58889

I wonder if someone will make a modern version, someday, for a common cheaper rifle like a Ruger American or Savage 110.

Where I’m from Halloween you go around and ask for candy, the historical implication being you’d vandalize the property of or otherwise harass in costume anyone who refused. Which followed Cabbage Night, where you would TP people’s houses under the cover of darkness.

Shit take that the judges must be bribed because politicians have enacted unpopular laws. The problem is the legislature here.

Yea, didn’t see it going this way either.

Great question. In theory/practice you can just shut up from square one. But asserting your rights by doing so in clear unambiguous terms for is advisable. Judges understand someone saying “I wish to invoke my right against self incrimination as protected in the 5th amendment” better than the do pure silence.

7th amendment applies to civil suits. Judges may when common law doesn’t govern. But that’s limited. And criminal defendants must consent to bench trial by not contesting any of the facts.

Movies are works of fiction not law. In America if you choose to temporarily waive your right to silence and speak to police you may at any point reassert that right.

I couldn’t blame cinematographers for attempting to tell a story. But they are artists not lawyers.

You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can’t be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.

When guilt must be proven absence of evidence is the defendant’s friend.

As an American this is an interesting comment.

Traditional American understandings agree with the notion of innocent until proven guilty and that rights exist regardless of accusations. But here it is not a judge but a jury of your peers who decides the facts based on evidence shown to them. Here judges decide matters of law not fact.

(Unless you choose to have a judge rule on the facts (likely because you are probably unpopular in your community because of the nature of the accusations and you feel it’d be more fair for a judge to decide the fact in your eyes))…

I’m not sure what an exception could look like that wouldn’t swallow the rule. Maybe a requirement for a minimum of a certain sq footage of undeveloped land. But that might not work in areas where many lots have a small amount of habitat land that together forms a larger habitat.

I think it might have merit on a municipal level in very urban areas but not on a state or national basis because of this.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/timeline-of-trumps-covid-19-comments/

Also snopes on the bleach thing:

During an April 2020 media briefing, Trump did ask members of the government’s coronavirus task force to look into whether disinfectants could be injected inside people to treat COVID-19. But when a reporter asked in a follow-up question whether cleaning products like bleach and isopropyl alcohol would be injected into a person, the then-president said those products would be used for sterilizing an area, not for injections.

Did you seriously ask if the truth matters? Of course it does critiquing Trump for random fake BS only devalues meritorious critiques.

wild misinformation ads would be OK too…

Yes. Because the government is not the supreme arbiter of truth. If someone wants to put out an advert saying the sky is yellow they can. Our society functions on the principle that an open market of ideas will result in the best ideas prospering while a closed market of ideas would stifle new better ideas.