Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban.", ">\n\nThe Taliban are generally against fun, so I’m sure that they will find cricket too distracting from prayer and ban it soon." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban.", ">\n\nThe Taliban are generally against fun, so I’m sure that they will find cricket too distracting from prayer and ban it soon.", ">\n\nThey're definitely sticks-in-the-mud as well as wet blankets." ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban.", ">\n\nThe Taliban are generally against fun, so I’m sure that they will find cricket too distracting from prayer and ban it soon.", ">\n\nThey're definitely sticks-in-the-mud as well as wet blankets.", ">\n\nYeah this definitely doesn’t seem like an appropriate use of the phrase “under fire” given the context of, well, THE FUCKING TALIBAN\ntalk about clickbait\nEdit: incase the downvote was because I don’t think this is a serious issue, I do, I just thought at first glance the headline meant the Taliban was shooting up a bus of cricket players. There’s no reason they could not have said “under scrunity” instead of “under fire”" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban.", ">\n\nThe Taliban are generally against fun, so I’m sure that they will find cricket too distracting from prayer and ban it soon.", ">\n\nThey're definitely sticks-in-the-mud as well as wet blankets.", ">\n\nYeah this definitely doesn’t seem like an appropriate use of the phrase “under fire” given the context of, well, THE FUCKING TALIBAN\ntalk about clickbait\nEdit: incase the downvote was because I don’t think this is a serious issue, I do, I just thought at first glance the headline meant the Taliban was shooting up a bus of cricket players. There’s no reason they could not have said “under scrunity” instead of “under fire”", ">\n\nThe cricket team has some real dense mfs on it then" ]

[ "Well, they shouldn’t stop women from getting an education either but here we are", ">\n\nWhen did genocide and oppression become politics? They didn’t vote the Taliban into power.", ">\n\nWhat makes you think genocide and oppression are not simply political tools and/or political ends?", ">\n\nThat doesn’t make the concept political. Governments use computers does it make opposing computers political? If a bunch of terrorists took over America would it be political to oppose them committing genocide and oppression? Or would it just be normal discourse.", ">\n\nYes those would be political.\nWhat, exactly, do you think it means for something to be political? Is it only political if it involved American political parties? Is it only political if we’re referring to whatever either party is currently discussing? If those are the only things that are political… what do you suppose political science is? A means to talk about what the DNC or RNC is interested in? 😂", ">\n\nYou’re under the impression I consider the taliban their government which I don’t.", ">\n\nWhy does it matter whether you recognize them as a government or not? The world doesn’t revolve around what a random person of European descent is willing to recognize. The only thing that matters is whether or not they control the courts, police, and military. You can recognize them as a goldfish if you like and they’ll go right ahead doing whatever they do.", ">\n\nWell considering I gave my opinion and you’ve done nothing but attack my opinion it seems you do care a little about it.\nThe taliban do not control all the courts, judges and law of the country, they might control some sections but they have no formal structure, no representation, no foreign policy, no social aid, no political power over the sections they don’t control. Afghanistan is a nomadic country with several independent actors who either war or trade with the others. It’s why America couldn’t install any form of real government body. I look at them the same way I look at the Sentinelese. \nListen you can have your own opinions but honestly your being sort of a dick which is why no one wants to talk about politics. Someone can’t just have an opinion you have to attack people you don’t agree with.", ">\n\nNot sure what else you expect them to do.", ">\n\n2 options in my opinion.\n\n\nTry to leave the country and start a new life somewhere else.\n\n\nSuffer alongside the oppressed enough that suddenly they get it, and realize the \"politics\" aren't okay and need to change.\n\n\nGranted I'm saying this from a situation far from what they are in, so it's easy to preach, while very hard to do.", ">\n\nI don’t think you know how many people wanted to get out but couldn’t. Also remember they have friends and family there that they likely support.", ">\n\nThere's generally a strong correlation between those calling to keep politics out of sports and those whose politics are the ones doing the oppression and murder. This does not appear to be in conflict with that trend.", ">\n\nDoesn’t the taliban use sporting areas for public executions?", ">\n\nWell well well, if it isn't the consequences of my actions", ">\n\nOkay, and? What else are the cricket players supposed to do, the Taliban is their acting government", ">\n\nYeah not sure why youre being downvoted. This feels like we are coming from a place of privilege. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have a democratic and fair government and that’s just not up to the players. Its not like they are playing because of the Taliban", ">\n\nOkay, you made your point. Now, you are banned from participating in international competition.", ">\n\nSports are used as part of political theater… especially by conservatives regardless of culture. I mean, they’re playing cricket as a result of colonialism. How would sports - in particular, that sport - ever be divorced from politics?", ">\n\nI am pretty confident not a single member of the Afghan team supported or voted for the Taliban.", ">\n\nThe Taliban are generally against fun, so I’m sure that they will find cricket too distracting from prayer and ban it soon.", ">\n\nThey're definitely sticks-in-the-mud as well as wet blankets.", ">\n\nYeah this definitely doesn’t seem like an appropriate use of the phrase “under fire” given the context of, well, THE FUCKING TALIBAN\ntalk about clickbait\nEdit: incase the downvote was because I don’t think this is a serious issue, I do, I just thought at first glance the headline meant the Taliban was shooting up a bus of cricket players. There’s no reason they could not have said “under scrunity” instead of “under fire”", ">\n\nThe cricket team has some real dense mfs on it then", ">\n\nI mean, I'm sure the Taliban swayed them. They kinda have guns to their heads ya know." ]

[]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so..." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?", ">\n\nThey want to make saying Gay a Class A Felony." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?", ">\n\nThey want to make saying Gay a Class A Felony.", ">\n\nIs this the slippery slope they warned us of?" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?", ">\n\nThey want to make saying Gay a Class A Felony.", ">\n\nIs this the slippery slope they warned us of?", ">\n\nJust turning up the gas a bit over here. The water will get a bit warmer, but you'll barely notice it. It's perfectly safe." ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?", ">\n\nThey want to make saying Gay a Class A Felony.", ">\n\nIs this the slippery slope they warned us of?", ">\n\nJust turning up the gas a bit over here. The water will get a bit warmer, but you'll barely notice it. It's perfectly safe.", ">\n\nHow about you do not force your beliefs on anyone" ]

[ "This was always the intent. If you looked at the language of the original bill and some of the things that were banned, they were things that were not being taught to 1st through 3rd graders in any curriculum. It was always intended to get this 'in place' and then gradually expand it to older students.", ">\n\nsame thing with CRT, which is not taught in regular schools. Only in law school.", ">\n\nWell, graduate-level programs at least.", ">\n\nHow will Florida schools handle 4th graders discussing anything they saw on TV which may have had non-straight characters? Expulsion? Suspension? Just cases of potty mouth?", ">\n\nThey will probably put the kids in conversion therapy camps.", ">\n\nReality becomes South Park.", ">\n\nEat Snacky S’mores.", ">\n\nWe should be paying close attention to what is going on in Florida, given that this will be what DeSantis will probably be pushing for at a national level.", ">\n\nThis is probably stating the obvious, but any plan to achieve that inevitably triggers a civil war, breakaway, or both, regardless of the authors intent.\nEven the frog in boiling pot strategy doesn't work, as the sheer size of the United States and political differences means that the metaphorical frogs not in pots inevitably catch on.", ">\n\nThey should just be honest that they want to erase the LGBTQ community. They'll ban it for all ages soon. Next it will be don't ask don't tell for government positions.", ">\n\nIt's \"frog boiling\" aka gradually normalizing it so less people turn out to fight it.", ">\n\nWell we are wiser and we will not let them win.", ">\n\nSadly, Florida is horrendously gerrymandered, so...", ">\n\nUnfortunately. \nWhen I was a kid I looked up to the US. Now I’m glad I’m not American, however my home has other issues (Hong Kong)", ">\n\nHonestly, these fucking republicans are more obsessed with trans/gay/queer identity than someone in the middle of an actual identity crisis. What the actual fucking fuck is it to them?", ">\n\nKeeping marginalized groups marginalized makes lower class whites feel better about themselves, because “Hey, at least I don’t have it as bad as (X marginalized group)”.\nIt‘s a lot easier way to justify your status than reflecting on poor life decisions or the economic systems that keep you in that lower class status.", ">\n\nThat's super twisted but, sadly, makes a lot of sense.", ">\n\nFuck it. \nBan the gays from college. It's what Jesus would have wanted. \n(/s)", ">\n\nyou jest but they are working on it", ">\n\nOf course, in a healthy (i.e. Republican-dominated) society, gay people don't really exist, so where's the problem? /s", ">\n\nits always incremental with these fucks. they start with just the tip and a lot of hyperbole to justify the initial entry, then soak for a bit while gaslighting and feigning outrage, then slowly sliding in deeper. ultimate goal is to fuck the country", ">\n\nThe goal is eliminationism for Republicans.\n​\nThe bill was never \"Don't Say Gay!\". The bill was always \"Don't be Gay!\"\n​\nThe Republican party is wholesale worse than the Westboro Baptist Church. They would if given the chance mass exterminate LGBTQIA+ people.", ">\n\nIf that day comes they will have a lot of armed people to fight against.", ">\n\nSo sixth graders are old enough to be raped and forced to become the mothers of the result of those violent sexual acts but theyre not old enough to openly discuss their sexuality.\nGot it.", ">\n\nYup. Then, they'll prosecute the doctors like Indiana did, after being traumatized for the rape.\n​\nAnd Matt Walsh will do apologia for the rapist.", ">\n\nTheir goal is to extend it to the entire population. Republicans absolutely love Russia's anti-LGBT laws, they want to bring that to the US.", ">\n\nSo, For Republicans being gay is a wrong and dangerous ideology that especially children shouldn't know...\nAm I wrong?", ">\n\nIf you can't say gay, then you can't say straight. The core argument is identical. Prevent children from being exposed to sexuality. No discussion of mommy and daddy, or babies and where they come from. You are genderless and sexless until middle school.", ">\n\nFlorida is a haven for the real groomers, the GOP and their rapists and pedophiles.", ">\n\nBecause the existing law is working so well… or is it because it isn’t working at all? What is the measure of it working or not?", ">\n\nThey want to make saying Gay a Class A Felony.", ">\n\nIs this the slippery slope they warned us of?", ">\n\nJust turning up the gas a bit over here. The water will get a bit warmer, but you'll barely notice it. It's perfectly safe.", ">\n\nHow about you do not force your beliefs on anyone", ">\n\nHe needs to stop being a coward and just make being gay illegal already. It is obvious this is what he wants." ]

[]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society" ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America." ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it." ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes." ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes.", ">\n\nI can't wait to see the way republicans justify this shit." ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes.", ">\n\nI can't wait to see the way republicans justify this shit.", ">\n\nAnti-wokeism?" ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes.", ">\n\nI can't wait to see the way republicans justify this shit.", ">\n\nAnti-wokeism?", ">\n\nIt's exhausting how right you are." ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes.", ">\n\nI can't wait to see the way republicans justify this shit.", ">\n\nAnti-wokeism?", ">\n\nIt's exhausting how right you are.", ">\n\n\"We are all domestic terrorists\"-CPAC, 2022" ]

[ "We're way past this mattering to Republicans, in fact, it's more likely the Republicans will turn this guy into a hero instead of attempting anything that would benefit society", ">\n\nThey’ll turn him into a hero and then the next time a dem says a curse word, they’ll scream Bloody Mary and claim that the dems are destroying America.", ">\n\nThis is kind of thing people think is okay when you can publicly encourage an insurrection and get away with it.", ">\n\nRight? One thing is for sure, imo. The end result of this case must absolutely be that would-be fascist terrorists are way more afraid to commit their acts of political violence than the good people of our communities are afraid to run for political office. Otherwise, it's \"mission accomplished\" for them. We need to make a very big example out of these assholes.", ">\n\nI can't wait to see the way republicans justify this shit.", ">\n\nAnti-wokeism?", ">\n\nIt's exhausting how right you are.", ">\n\n\"We are all domestic terrorists\"-CPAC, 2022", ">\n\nJust like all the other times nothing will be done to make us all safe. As long as Dems are getting harassed, beat, killed, you won’t find one single GQP speaking out to stop this. That’s their plan." ]

[]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?" ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?", ">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?", ">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.", ">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?", ">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.", ">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.", ">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?", ">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.", ">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.", ">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.", ">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation." ]

[ "Honestly, I think there are times when we need reps to make unpopular decisions that are in the long term public interest. \nIt’s a really bad idea in my mind to put more weight on following the whims of public approval.", ">\n\nBingo. The most vexing problem with democracy is populism, the phenomenon of \"leaders\" jumping in front of whatever parade happens to be popular and pretending to lead it. We need free thinkers able to see a new path and brave enough to lead the way.", ">\n\nMy AP government teacher called the representative layers of a republic “idiot filters” to make sure the stupid ideas never were implemented. But here we are lmao", ">\n\nThat's the intention but POSIWID, representative layers just filter out people who don't run successful elections. There are a great many people who are successful at campaigning but are either dumb or bad representatives and vice versa.", ">\n\nI cannot for the life of me figure out what that acronym is.", ">\n\nthe purpose of a system is what it does", ">\n\nNo. Most politicians have a lot of travel and housing expenses that aren’t accounted for in stipends. Lowering their salary will further ensure that only the independently wealthy can serve in office as the salary is a mere drop in the bucket for them. What we need to do is overturn Citizens United as another commenter mentioned.", ">\n\nWhat would overturning Citizens United change?", ">\n\nLet's start with another question: What do you think Citizens United allows?", ">\n\nIt struck down a specifc section of the BCRA.", ">\n\nYes, and in doing so what did the case allow people to do that they couldn't do before?", ">\n\nElectioneering ads were banned for like 120 days before the election. That was struck down.", ">\n\n60 days.\nBut in practical terms before CU, independent organizations could only run an ad saying, \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again.\" After CU the ad could say \"America needs to build a wall, overturn Obamacare, start winning on trade, and get back to being great again, so vote Trump.\"", ">\n\nYup. So overturning CU wouldn't do much. Not by itself anyways.", ">\n\nNo. Politicians are generally not driven by their compensation. Many are independently wealthy or expect to make money in careers after politics.", ">\n\nI've long thought it would be interesting to see what happens if we did something like raise pay for Congressmen, Senators, and senior executive officials to something like $3-5M a year in hopes of drawing more Fortune 100 SVP type of executives into legislating. Many of them are the most competent managers and problem solvers in the country, but aren't interested in taking a 90%+ pay cut out of some sense of civic duty. If they were able to be more successful in solving problems and budgeting than the current crop of politicians, the investment would be well worth it.", ">\n\nThat would be rational but no one wants that so it will never happen. Left-wing people hate people getting rich, right-wing people hate government officials getting rich.", ">\n\n\nLeft-wing people hate people getting rich\n\nLeft wing people don't hate people getting rich. We hate people getting richer and richer while avoiding paying their fair share of taxes while everyone else is falling farther and farther behind.", ">\n\nPlease do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.", ">\n\nIt won't be more representative, it will be catering to the lowest common denominator. You'd end up with a bunch of tax cuts and \"stimulus' packages that would end up hurting the nation much more than this idea would help.", ">\n\nNo, first and foremost it'd lead to more corruption as it would be harder for representatives to plan their finances. Secondly it would make it even harder to be in congress without being already super wealthy. Third blind populism isn't a good way to do government, it's just mob rule with more steps", ">\n\nI don’t think this would survive a legal challenge in the United States to begin with.\nFunctionally, I’d be interested and hearing how it’d be structured. Would each politician get their base pay and then bonuses based on certain approval rating benchmarks?\nThere are a few issues I see with this. Different polling outlets come with different approval ratings. Deciding on which polling company and the method in which they do so would probably be nearly impossible. \nAlso when would you get paid based on your approval. Is it your approval rating at the end of your term what counts and you get a check based on that? Is it a monthly aggregate approval?\nThis would also lead to more polarized congressional districts. No one would want to run in competitive districts because your approval is destined to be lower than in deep red or blue districts. If you’re in a competitive district where no party really gets above 50-55% of the vote you’re locked into a lower pay than a district where it’s 80% democrat or republican.", ">\n\nWe do have a way to tie representatives to approval ratings, IT'S CALLED VOTING.\nI don't mean to be crass. I really don't. But this post is an astonishingly poor take.", ">\n\nFor real. I think the OP is conflating approval ratings of Congress as a whole, which are low, to people’s opinions of their particular representative, which the incumbent re-election rate shows are quite high.", ">\n\nNobody becomes a member of Congress for the salary. \nTheir incentive structure is in the Constitution, it's keeping their job if their constituents like how they're doing.", ">\n\nUntil Citizens United is overturned and campaign finance reform created there is no way this could really work. That’s before getting to the relative value of approval ratings.", ">\n\nI think you're wholly right that campaign finance reform is really the key towards rebalancing the representation of influence away from money in politics and back towards the will of the people.\nCould you think of any ways to influence the political discussion to make it a key issue for discussion in upcoming elections? Like could petitions with enough signatures gain traction to capture & invigorate a spotlight in national politicial discourse? I know it's not a new issue but how do we make it the IT issue?", ">\n\nRight now the issue is the Republican court. And I think that’ll be a massive issue in 2024. Sadly, there’s nothing that can be done on the campaign finance front until the court is fixed. Ditto issues like gerrymandering and representation. Our democracy is pretty broken right now.", ">\n\nRemoving all campaign donations would solve the problem. \nNo more big dollars from one person or corporation. All campaigns are publicly financed and they have a fixed amount to spend. \nThis would also get rid of the 1,000s of stupid commercials airing all day long for months.", ">\n\nNo, then their focus will be to game approval ratings.\nSome real crappy members of congress have high local approval ratings.\nPin congressional salaries to minimum wage.", ">\n\nMost politicians are independently wealthy and would not be affected by changing representative compensation.", ">\n\nIsn't this a problem too though? If only the wealthy run and get elected then only the problems of the wealthy are considered no? Anyone should be able to run for public office regardless of wealth status." ]