Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 14 2025 05:39 LightSpectra wrote: Half of GH's comments here are just begging people to hate liberals for any reason, real or imaginary.
And the other half is wondering why those same liberals won't follow him to their deaths. Turns out calling people genocide supporters is a bad way to form a coalition with said people.
Maybe we should start a list of things we agree with:
1. calling people genocide supporters is a bad way to form a coalition with said people 2....
On July 14 2025 02:52 Broetchenholer wrote: Maga will not break away from trump over not releasing some files. The only guiding line the right still has is trump is right and let's own the libs. They did not care before he brainwashed the whole movement, they will not care now.
Considering Democrats would have voted for Biden/Harris if they shot their moms in front of them I'm inclined to agree that they're unlikely to break away.
But if you take former DFL type Democrats like Dean Phillips that say that there's no room for socialists like Mamdani in the Democrat party and combine them with the techbro libertarians, you might have enough to make a new "centrist" party with no socialists or MAGA (Trump loyalists)
Really? It's not like there was a massive push to replace Biden on the ticket after a poor debate performance.
I'm pretty sure the bolded is a direct reference to user(s) here that said they would vote for Biden in the general election even if he killed their mother
It applies to most Dem supporters, but yeah, that also happened. I think Yurie and maybenexttime see what I meant though.
On July 14 2025 17:54 Godwrath wrote: Yeah maybe it's because if they see you as a genocide supporter there is little reason to have a coallition to begin with.
It's possible to form an alliance with an enemy if there's a bigger threat such as Trump. Radicals need to accept that they can't get everything they want right away. As a US citizen it is unreasonable to demand the US to stop all wars. Because the US is constantly at war, literally 24/7, every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year, every year since it became independent. To oppose that is to be very, very radical. And it is just as radical to oppose US arms trade to any country which is at war.
The US stands for war. It's not the only country that does, but it's among all of them, and it's also the most powerful and most influential of all the countries that stand for war. That also makes Trump's annexation rhetoric rather unsurprising. It's only surprising to people who don't know what the US represents. He's one of the more logical consequences of its general foreign policy. Under Obama war didn't go away, in fact he was quite in favor of war as well. And he was one of the more moderately hawkish presidents in US history.
Various groups consider some of US military intervention genocidal. So opposing US involvement in genocide - while that is certainly not explicitly a radical position - still faces the problem that the US won't stop war, and therefore also has little interest in stopping genocide, if one of their wars consists - in part - of genocide. As war and genocide often go hand in hand, the US will logically carry some guilt. To prevent that, they'd have to end a whole bunch of their alliances.
So really opposition to genocide is also opposition to war. Since the US stands for war, it is very difficult to find a significant amount of allies within the US who are willing to stand up against genocide, because it means standing up against war.
On July 14 2025 17:54 Godwrath wrote: Yeah maybe it's because if they see you as a genocide supporter there is little reason to have a coallition to begin with.
It's possible to form an alliance with an enemy if there's a bigger threat such as Trump.
To be honest, sometimes i am truly confused about how little you understand what you are implying when complaining about "radicals" not compromising (this does not go only to you Magic Powers). So i will just repeat myself a bit louder.
(For radicals) genocide is kind of unacceptable regardless which party is in power. Correct?
If you truly believe that a good chunk of the democratic voterbase are genocide enablers, why the fuck would you try to appease or want to go for any kind of alliance with them ? You would only continue to reinforce the status quo, something you are against, so it's actually fucking illogical to do so. It's the same status quo that allows billionaires to have insane amount of political power. It's the same status quo that benefits the Trumps to rise to power.
And now for kids, Big orange monkey bad, better keep voting same shit ass just to contain the big orange monkey, until bigger orange monkey comes back again because none of your policies really address why big orange monkeys get into power in the first place.
Because by not voting against "big orange monkey" they enabled the genocide 10 times more than any filthy librul democraft voter ever did.
Oh and... Winning hearts and minds is kinda important when you want to win any sort of election. I don't see people like our GH even attempting that. Instead we get the alternative of violent revolution whiteout a plan for after. Compared to that voting Democrat, no matter how flawed they are, doesn't seem that bad.
On July 14 2025 20:59 Velr wrote: Because by not voting against "big orange monkey" they enabled the genocide 10 times more than any filthy librul democraft voter ever did.
Oh and... Winning hearts and minds is kinda important when you want to win any sort of election. I don't see people like our GH even attempting that. Instead we get the alternative of violent revolution whiteout a plan for after. Compared to that voting Democrat, no matter how flawed they are, doesn't seem that bad.
10 more times is a number you just made up. You can just look that up instead of talking by vibes.
Winning the hearts and minds of people who enable genocides is not something that would be my top priority, but to each their own morals.
About whatever GH wants, desires or whatever is pointless to me. I know you guys are just mocking him, but the arguments you are presenting about why "radicals" are dumb for not siding with your average democrat are laughable at best, but mostly based on wrong assumptions.
There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
On July 14 2025 03:33 KT_Elwood wrote: Agreed Trump is now hinting to tank the economy again, just to get some other headlines.
When will Greenland and Canada bei annexed?
I'm more curious, after those countries, which other countries will be... annexed in line.
this has got to be a troll post. lol, Canada won't get annexed. It is hilarious people think this is a possibility. He is creating leverage for his pal Danielle Smith and using it as a negotiating ploy. The only thing that might happen is that either Alberta or Quebec could leave Canada and create a trade deal with the USA that avoids tariffs. In this scenario Alberta MIGHT join the USA.
Either Canada gives Alberta an oil pipeline out to the Pacific..or the USA will. That's the play here.
Why would Trump and any Republican politician want to add a voting block, all of Canada, that would never vote Republican? Alberta is more pro-Republican than any other province. So there exists a slim possibility Alberta joins the USA.
On July 14 2025 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
gz on your victory I guess.
And still misses the point. That there is a big difference between the two regarding Gaza is not supported by reality. You have some homework to do, check the numbers.
On July 14 2025 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
gz on your victory I guess.
And still misses the point. That there is a big difference between the two regarding Gaza is not supported by reality. You have some homework to do, check the numbers.
So we really gonna ignore that actual Gazans were telling Americans to vote for Harris? And that almost the first thing Trump did after winning was announcing that the United States' official policy would be ethnic cleansing?
On July 14 2025 22:18 LightSpectra wrote: Bets on Ghislaine Maxwell testifying that Democrats killed Epstein and/or are the only ones on the Epstein list in exchange for a pardon?
Maybe. Or she'd be asked to skim through foster children and juvenile detainees to find those resmbling Ivanka and bring them to the oral office.
On July 14 2025 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
gz on your victory I guess.
And still misses the point. That there is a big difference between the two regarding Gaza is not supported by reality. You have some homework to do, check the numbers.
There is, much rather, not a single piece of evidence that Trump is less extremist than Harris. He fully supports genocide in Gaza. She does not. At least not in her campaigning.
On July 14 2025 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
gz on your victory I guess.
And still misses the point. That there is a big difference between the two regarding Gaza is not supported by reality. You have some homework to do, check the numbers.
Would you mind giving us a citation for the numbers you are referring to here? What kind of number are we talking about?
I‘m not sure if anyone supporting Israel would do so enthusiastically at this point. It‘s something they are stuck with after deciding it would be a good idea, and the arms lobby is going to play a role as well.
It‘s simply a very cynical level of politics when it comes to the middle east in general.
It‘s likely portrayed as the only possible course of action.
On July 14 2025 05:39 LightSpectra wrote: Half of GH's comments here are just begging people to hate liberals for any reason, real or imaginary.
And the other half is wondering why those same liberals won't follow him to their deaths. Turns out calling people genocide supporters is a bad way to form a coalition with said people.
Maybe we should start a list of things we agree with:
1. calling people genocide supporters is a bad way to form a coalition with said people 2....
I mean, at the same time this also goes along the lines of "I wouldn't have voted for the racist if you didn't call me a racist so much." from a Dem to Conservative perspective.
On July 14 2025 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: There were 2 options during the last election, Trump and Harris. despite the Democrats being 'genocide enablers' Harris would have been less bad for Palestinians then Donald "hell yeah go ethnically cleanse all of them so I can build a beach resort in Gaza" Trump.
Your sitting behind your computer proudly proclaiming your moral superiority by not voting for the lesser evil, while Palestinians are worse then they could have been.
gz on your victory I guess.
And still misses the point. That there is a big difference between the two regarding Gaza is not supported by reality. You have some homework to do, check the numbers.
There is, much rather, not a single piece of evidence that Trump is less extremist than Harris. He fully supports genocide in Gaza. She does not. At least not in her campaigning.
I didn't say Harris is more extremist than Trump.
And to the above poster asking about numbers, you are the ones saying that Trump is much worse for Gaza than a democrat, like playing lip service to the idea that what it's being done in Gaza while still giving full support to Israel in this, was measurable better than no lip service at all.
EPT
