Surely I can’t be the only one wondering why the heck there is a Subway sandwich in this image…

No, I got your drift, you’re trying to say that conservative Democrats are also corrupt, which implies that you believe the progressive ones aren’t.

I’m sorry, but that’s just childish and ignorant.

That, and his stance that the use of violence is not only permissible, but necessary in order for the revolution to succeed.

Christian ethics are essentially voluntarist in nature; Jesus spent a lot of time trying to convince people to set aside their differences and work together, but ultimately he leaves it up to everyone’s free will.

Marx thought that he could shortcut this whole process by simply forcing everyone to participate, and that’s where he departed from Christianity. “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52) was not part of his philosophy.

Look buddy, if you’re going to be purposely ambiguous and evasive, I think I’m just going to end the discussion here.

I have not. But that’s an interesting thesis, because it contradicts Marx’s central belief that “religion is the opium of the people”, and that it would become unnecessary once communism was fully established.

But Jesus already showed the path and there were many saints who came after him who can attest to its efficacy.

Meanwhile, everyone who attempted to put Marx’s ideas into action has ended up killing millions of people and driving their entire country into misery and poverty.

Jesus was a socialist

Yes, in the same way that Marx’s teachings were an inspiration to Hitler — as a convenient source for plagiarism and fertile grounds for the delusion that each of them had found the one piece of the puzzle that everyone before them missed: that if only you went and killed all the Pharisees, the Kingdom of God would materialize on earth without all that annoying and painful self-sacrifice.

Claude definitely looks by far the most butthole-y

Right, because Democrats are basically immune to corruption. /s

That’s a good question, and I won’t pretend I know the answer because it’s likely multi-faceted, but it likely already starts in childhood, with parents neglecting and/or mistreating their children, causing them to grow up anxious and socially maladjusted. Children who were loved and cared for and properly socialized rarely end up struggling too much as adults, because they have strong bonds within their community. If they happen to fall on hard times (like losing a job or getting injured or severely ill), they have a network of friends to fall back on, which makes the recovery process much easier.

But without any of these, things can quickly spiral out of control. You lose your job, start drinking out of loneliness and frustration, get behind on rent, lose your apartment, or get involved with drugs and so on. However, I’m not really sure how throwing more money at people like that would help fix this. It might help them keep their apartment and avoid becoming homeless, but it probably won’t make them stop drinking. It just hides the problem instead of addressing it.

Now I’m fully aware that the current model of just letting them slide into homelessness and despair until they become a public nuisance, or worse, a criminal, and then putting them in jail doesn’t really work all that well, although I have heard many stories of people for whom this was the wakeup moment they needed to start taking responsibility for themselves and turn their lives around. However, that still seems to be a tiny percentage.

Perhaps if more effort was being made to prevent all this, it could save a few more lives, but we already have things like CPS to address childhood abuse, it’s just that crazy parents will do their damndest to avoid having them get involved. Social workers might also help, but that requires these people to be willing to accept help, which many are not. But one thing I’m pretty certain about, and that’s if you give irresponsible people more money, they’re not just magically going to become responsible. They’re just going to fritter it away on drugs and booze and then come back asking for more money.

Weird, I could swear I’m paying taxes for social security, medicare, and food stamps, yet somehow, most of the money ends up in the military industrial complex.

But I’m sure that if only the government had more tax revenue, they’d spend every extra dollar on welfare programs, right?

F in chat

Put me in that position and I’d be paying for ads and shit to get the government to tax people like me more.

Why on earth would you do that when you could just skip the middle men and give the money directly to the poor? That seems a lot more efficient.

The problem with taxes is that a rather large chunk of it just goes to the military industrial complex and other wasteful government spending, and very little of it actually ends up helping to feed the poor. If you donate to charity directly, there’s a much better chance that most of the money goes to actual people in need instead of the pockets of corrupt politicians.

Why would you want to get rich in the first place if you believe that it’s more important to feed the poor? You’d be no better than the people you profess to hate, and you could easily avoid getting robbed by just donating anything you don’t need to charity.

“We’re gonna round up and kill all the undesirables, but it’s not fascism when WE do it”

Okay buddy.

So you’re still just arguing about what’s best for you in the moment.

Say you succeeded with this plan, all the rich conservatives are dead, and all their wealth has been distributed to feed those who are in need. Who are you going to kill and eat next?