Dual purpose phrasing, I love it

2nded

Here’s the full article if you’re interested:

https://www.dsausa.org/strategy/toward_freedom/

We cannot accept capitalism’s conception of economic relations as “free and private,” because contracts are not made among economic equals and because they give rise to social structures which undemocratically confer power upon some over others. Such relationships are undemocratic in that the citizens involved have not freely deliberated upon the structure of those institutions and how social roles should be distributed within them (e.g., the relationship between capital and labor in the workplace or men and women in child rearing). We do not imagine that all institutional relations would wither away under socialism, but we do believe that the basic contours of society must be democratically constructed by the free deliberation of its members.

This is the same tired horse shit they’ve been peddling for decades.

The problem is the for profit healthcare system. The system is designed to turn blood into money. It needs to be torn down, then rebuilt as nationalized, socialized healthcare system for all. Everything profit seeking needs banned.

A how to guide for jury nullification for those interested:

https://beyondcourts.org/sites/default/files/2022-07/Jury-Nullification-Toolkit-English_0.pdf

Nope

They can lie and remove jurors all they like. They can’t do shit about jury nullification if done right. It’s the logical consequence of a jury not being forced to give a guilty verdict, and repeat trials being disallowed.

If you’re a juror, it’s dead simple. Keep your answers during selection honest, don’t reveal anything you don’t have to, don’t talk about jury nullification, vote not guilty no matter what, and express the reasonable doubts in a sensible manner. There are plenty of in depth how to guides out there as well.

It’s legal. They just can also legally drop you the moment they think you’re a nullifier.

Then we were talking about two different issues.

With that said, I’d absolutely trust my life in the hands of Luigi over the hands of Brian Thompson.

Purity tests like this is also what’s landed us in this divided position. He did something good even if he’s flawed, and that’s enough.

For now that’s the case. But if there ever becomes a time when life outside of prison means starving to death, dying in a heat wave or storm, it won’t matter.

People still have things to lose. But people are losing things.

Putting people in boxes like this is how the working class divided itself.

A name to rally behind is good, regardless of if it is Luigi or The Adjuster

Sure. But my whole point is that we’re headed in that direction.

I think you’ve misunderstood. I’m talking about the choice that people make when these effects start happening, not a choice now. Of course most people aren’t opting to get violent yet, there backs aren’t yet against the wall.

It very well could be the rest of your life in both cases.

For now. Give it a few decades when the effects of climate change start forcing people out of their homes, cause widespread crop failure, kill thousands with heatwaves and storms, etc.

If you’re choice is between

1. losing your home, starving to death, or in some way dying in the streets

Or

2. losing your home, starving to death, or in some way dying in the streets after holding those responsible to account a la the adjuster

More and more people will choose option 2.

That’s fair. Though there was still a certain glee he had about it. Specifically in twisting Sisko’s arm into shady actions, and Sisko’s implicit agreement.