It seems the difference is in how people are allowed to interpret the law. Before you had to be both on someone's land ("real property") as well as in (or at least approaching with intent) some kind of domicile fit for habitation. Now, with the wording being changed to "or", a person who owns several acres could shoot someone for just cutting through the property without the landowner having any reasonable expectation that the trespassers even knew they were on land that is privately owned and certainly without the impression that the trespassers were approaching their actual domicile that's been inspected and zoned for habitation.

Then shut up and stop commenting lol. Don't "fix them" then.

He's not wrong. It pays much more to be on the political right because it affords more of soieties' resources to large corporations and/or their CEOs, which is of course who pays lobbyists. Being more left means trying to get more money distributed to the poorest echelons of society, which is of course not very lucrative for everyone else.

Bernie was ultimately defeated by superdelegates, not by people voting in the primaries.

ITT: Dave Chapelle, man who left his hit show abruptly because he was concerned about the audience he had cultivated comes back to America to live with old white people and cultivate a new audience that's much worse.

Bringing up participation trophies is a great way to sound like a clueless old person who accidentally ended up here from Facebook.

Personal responsibility has been an excellent tool for large corporations who make deliberate business decisions causing their manufacturing process to be worse for workers and the environment. Belief in personal responsibility as a serious value is what allowed a scam like recycling to be knowingly pushed by polluters for decades as a consumer-driven solution that requires little to no work from producers even though most products can't be recycled anyway and recycling is, in fact, not a solution to anything in and of itself.

Double response to the same post. Unnecessary.

It's really hard to tell what's sarcasm in this comment and what, if anything, isn't.

Edit: never mind, reread it and realized you're just a crazy person.

Who let the boomers in here? Why are we talking about communists?

Dude, the US was grown out of the blood of the people who were already living in whatever place they wanted to be at the time. Every president has done something horrible to people who were just trying to live their lives. Kennedy did an exceptional amount for the average worker despite that and if other presidents had followed in his footsteps, we would probably have a more egalitarian society today. Being a hard edged absolutist and unable to see in shades of gray and take into account the prejudices and circumstamces of the time period does not make you correct. Especially as all of your posts (apart from quickly googling a definition) have been very low effort and provided no candidate for who you would say is better, even though the other poster asked you for one several posts ago. Try being constructive instead of destructive, if you even know how.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily that too many people shouldn't have a voice. Just that too many of the people who shouldn't have much of a voice or any at all are the ones who really want to have one, often times.