I love the choice of person in the meme

why would being jewish mean you vote for him, a majority of jews lean democrat and about half claim their political views to be liberal (according to pew research). a majority of jews also disapprove of trump. are you just trying to be racist?

Okay but he’s implying that because they’re Jewish, they would have voted for Trump. Which is more uncommon than not. It happens, but he’s saying that as a group Jews surely do it.

Louisiana and Mississippi, no doubt. Florida is just shit, it has no redeeming qualities and everything is expensive, so that’s pretty bad too

guess it ain’t called the london times for a reason

It’s not nearly as bad as Miami or most of the rest of Florida lol

How about we just get rid of parking in cities, so there will be no complaining about how much they charge for parking. Cars are gay as fuck anyways, just have sidewalks, bike roads, and actually good public transport lmao (tbf not something you can exactly find in most of the US & Canada)

It’s okay, I’m gay as fuck too

Yea the one reason I’m against flat out legalization of every drug (only wanting decriminalization) is because people who shouldn’t have access to the drug would have significantly easier access to the drug (just having someone buy it for them). Primarily kids, since they practically constantly do that with cigarettes and alcohol and have started especially doing it recently with vapes and weed as weed has become less and less banned. I’m pretty confident a majority of high schoolers vape and that’s because they’re very easy to legally get and therefore they usually have someone buy them for them, and also a lot just get sold vapes by the vendors anyways and neither the vendor nor the buyer really stand a chance of getting caught just because of how little you can do to actually control that (without relying on a bunch of kids just going and telling cops “this place sold us vapes”)

Kids obviously aren’t immune to doing crack or heroin now but if it were just legalized it’d make sense that the amount of them abusing it illegally would become wayyyy higher. And that really IS a (big) problem, unlike shit like books that don’t follow a certain agenda or drag queen story hour. It could screw up a large portion of the population for their young life. Best you could do to prevent such effects is teach how to be safe with drugs and how to prevent/reduce certain bad things from happening (already good idea anyways), and to implement draconian (and expensive & time/resource consuming) measures that would make monitoring all the children & drug stores extremely closely at almost all times a possibility so you could nip the bud of any absurdities like adults giving/selling drugs to students early on.

I see just decriminalization as not much of a risk because you aren’t basically enabling businesses everywhere to (legally) sell these drugs, which would generally make it more accessible to kids, you’re just making it so doing drugs won’t get you fucked by the authorities and destroy your life in an unnecessary way through prison “rehabilitation” (slavery aimed not to rehabilitate but just to make money off the prisoners with little regard for their rehabilitation or their life), or just getting shot/falsely arrested by cops, or maybe stopping false searches too.

“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.

Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.

The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.