If you're told your whole life that everything was stolen from you, and people are actively oppressing you, then why not take what you want? They stole from you, why not steal from them? Why care about their stuff if they don't care about your stuff?
They've been conditioned their whole lives to be the victims the left needs them to be. The smart ones see through it and make something of their lives, but the dumb ones do shit like this.
Carbon credits have always been a virtue signal or ESG score booster or the like since their inception.
That mixed with a healthy helping of Marxism. Steal from the "evi" and successfully "carbon producers" to give to the virtuous (and conveniently left wing) "green" companies.
Guys, I love you all, but this shit is stupid. The left shot was taken with a good camera with something like a 50mm lens, which gives a very normal undistorted view. The one on the right was taken with relatively shitty phone camera with a wide angle lens in portrait orientation, and his head was near the top of the frame where distortion is the greatest.
This isn't some conspiracy, it's just shitty optics.
Many have done the math on this and it always turns out that if you invested the money that is taken from your check as social security into a normal retirement account instead of the government stealing it, you'd be much better off.
It's amazing that the same people who made a distinction between "colored people" and "people of color" because the latter "portrays them as people first. Not defined by their color" came up with the term "birthing person", which implies that women exist to birth babies. I mean, to be fair, that is why women exist, just like men exist to inseminate women (in the grand scheme of things), but it's not only why women exist.
Wait... I haven't been following the nitty gritty details because I just assumed it was all complete BS (and it is), but I thought the argument was that he did use campaign finances to pay of Stormy, and obfuscated it, not that he should have used campaign funds and didn't...
Is that really their argument? This shit makes even less sense than before!
If the difference between a hand gun and a short barreled rifle is just bracing it against your body for stability, and that's horribly dangerous and must be banned, but extending the barrel, thus making the bullet travel faster and do more damage is fine, what does that tell you about the logic of the short barreled rifle ban?
Well, the "premium" service is risking going to jail selling a gun to a violent criminal. Illegal sales will still be a thing unless we're ok with violent criminals having guns, too.