|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here.
The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird.
I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough.
I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in.
|
On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one.
Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument?
|
On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in.
I don't doubt any of this
The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird.
Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please.
There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words).
|
On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this Show nested quote +The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words).
Love that you tossed in "not using those words" as a little appendage at the end. It's like one of those "any resemblances to real persons is purely coincidental" disclaimers at the beginning of a movie so you know it's fictional.
|
On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument?
That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump.
So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select.
I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win.
On September 22 2025 21:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). Love that you tossed in "not using those words" as a little appendage at the end. It's like one of those "any resemblances to real persons is purely coincidental" disclaimers at the beginning of a movie so you know it's fictional.
OK
1: Please stop being hostile to me, I never have to you, or this conversation is over
2: No, I can't remember the exact wording of conversations from a year or more ago. I do remember the content though, and what I have described is exactly what happened.
The proof is in this thread, go find it or please stop trying to throw doubt on what I'm saying.
|
On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this Show nested quote +The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words).
If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position.
The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible.
|
On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win.
So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right?
|
On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action?
Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are.
Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing.
|
On September 22 2025 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win. So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right?
If there were a range of polls all showing the same thing by a large amount, it might change my mind, but 'morally absurd' ? No (you don't have to overstate everything to the maximum degree)
Its bloody hard to find anything on Google though without it being obvious propaganda from one side or the other.
The most common thing I've found is that Palestinians in Gaza generally didn't think it would make much difference to them.
On September 22 2025 21:55 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position. The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible.
I don't want to veer this into an argument about whether or not the genocide in Gaza is okay, so I'll leave this part of the discussion here, we can carry it on in the Israel thread if you want but I'd rather not because I've feeling it'll just be butting heads.
|
If you base your vote for american president on their stance on Israel/Palestine, I think thats weird/unserious.
If you did that AND didn't vote for Harris, assuming you wanted at least a ceasefire, you're not just unserious, you are an actual idiot.
|
On September 22 2025 22:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win. So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right? If there were a range of polls all showing the same thing by a large amount, it might change my mind, but 'morally absurd' ? No (you don't have to overstate everything to the maximum degree) Its bloody hard to find anything on Google though without it being obvious propaganda from one side or the other. The most common thing I've found is that Palestinians in Gaza generally didn't think it would make much difference to them. Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 21:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position. The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible. I don't want to veer this into an argument about whether or not the genocide in Gaza is okay, so I'll leave this part of the discussion here, we can carry it on in the Israel thread if you want but I'd rather not because I've feeling it'll just be butting heads.
I don't think the genocide in Gaza is okay. I also don't think it's as simple as you're making it.
|
On September 22 2025 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win. So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right? If there were a range of polls all showing the same thing by a large amount, it might change my mind, but 'morally absurd' ? No (you don't have to overstate everything to the maximum degree) Its bloody hard to find anything on Google though without it being obvious propaganda from one side or the other. The most common thing I've found is that Palestinians in Gaza generally didn't think it would make much difference to them. On September 22 2025 21:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2025 17:19 Uldridge wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There comes a point in time where you'll have to ask yourself: do you take part in that systematic destruction of a democratic society, which has a very chroncled playbook (last iteration I know of were The Philippines and Brazil) by either supporting it or passively letting it happen or do you stand up and counter this erosion, followed by destruction? I'm asking the people here who staunchly vote D, what their arbitrary line is. There is a point where your party, which I commend that you follow for lesser evilism sake, does become unredemptionable + Show Spoiler +(irredeemable is correct but I speak Dutch so I can make that word and you know what it means anyway so whatever) ? I don't think anyone here has spoken out for what their own limit would be + Show Spoiler +and am interested in taking the temperature on what it actually is.
Democracy can be a legitimately difficult to navigate landscape because you have an eniterly opposed ideology that always wants to revert to "the good times" where there were less rights and society was less liberal so you can't cry out: fascism every single time a cabinet can do its thing with the support of half the population, but still, there should be a better way then losing control this fast, no? They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position. The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible. I don't want to veer this into an argument about whether or not the genocide in Gaza is okay, so I'll leave this part of the discussion here, we can carry it on in the Israel thread if you want but I'd rather not because I've feeling it'll just be butting heads. I don't think the genocide in Gaza is okay. I also don't think it's as simple as you're making it.
I don't think I've made it simple.
I do think any questions about it were resolved before Harris was a presidential candidate. Either we differ on that or we don't, but I don't think its constructive to argue about it.
|
On September 22 2025 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 22:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win. So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right? If there were a range of polls all showing the same thing by a large amount, it might change my mind, but 'morally absurd' ? No (you don't have to overstate everything to the maximum degree) Its bloody hard to find anything on Google though without it being obvious propaganda from one side or the other. The most common thing I've found is that Palestinians in Gaza generally didn't think it would make much difference to them. On September 22 2025 21:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 19:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
They don't have one. There's no evil they couldn't vote for and don't understand the problem with that. This is definitely true. If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America. Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position. The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible. I don't want to veer this into an argument about whether or not the genocide in Gaza is okay, so I'll leave this part of the discussion here, we can carry it on in the Israel thread if you want but I'd rather not because I've feeling it'll just be butting heads. I don't think the genocide in Gaza is okay. I also don't think it's as simple as you're making it. I don't think I've made it simple. I do think any questions about it were resolved before Harris was a presidential candidate. Either we differ on that or we don't, but I don't think its constructive to argue about it.
You said that we would vote to gas 99% of mexicans instead of 100% based on your read of our position on the genocide occurring in Gaza. Are we not discussing the point you raised? Why did you post that if you didn't believe it to be true.
|
On September 22 2025 22:29 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 22:12 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 22:03 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:29 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This is definitely true.
If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America.
Are these "seemingly intelligent people" in the room with us right now? Answered in the post above yours. This already happened once with Gaza and if anyone can be arsed to go back trawling through a couple of years of posts (I can't) they'll see it right there. Trump's genocide in Gaza is worse/faster than the Dems would have wanted, therefore the Dems genocide is what we should have voted for, because it isn't as bad. I was told this multiple times. You always, always, always vote for the not as bad party, no matter the circumstances, otherwise you get the worse one. Kamala Harris called for a ceasefire three times in 2024 and the people of Gaza themselves wanted her to win. Does their opinion matter to you, or do they cease being relevant if you can't weaponize them to get the moral highground in an Internet argument? That article is just an interview with half a dozen Palestinians who don't want Trump. So those 5-6 people, sure, they have their opinions, they matter to me about the same as the opinions of any random 5-6 people you select. I don't understand why you would post an article like this as proof that 'The people of Gaza' wanted her to win. So, your objection to this is purely "the sample size is not big enough", correct? Just checking. If there was a formal poll done that overwhelmingly showed Gazans preferring Harris to Trump, then you'd admit that everything you said about Democrats and "lesser genocide" was morally absurd, right? If there were a range of polls all showing the same thing by a large amount, it might change my mind, but 'morally absurd' ? No (you don't have to overstate everything to the maximum degree) Its bloody hard to find anything on Google though without it being obvious propaganda from one side or the other. The most common thing I've found is that Palestinians in Gaza generally didn't think it would make much difference to them. On September 22 2025 21:55 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:39 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 21:24 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 22 2025 21:12 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 22 2025 19:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
This is definitely true.
If the Republicans promised to build enough gas chambers to kill 100% of the Mexicans in America, so the Democrats, as they would, decided to try and wrestle some of the vote from them by building enough gas chambers to kill 99% of the Mexicans in America, we would be getting told by seemingly intelligent people that it is absolutely unconscionable to refuse to vote for the party that wants to kill 99% of Mexicans in America.
Do you genuinely (you and GH both) believe that we would vote for someone building death chambers for Mexicans? Really? We are talking about candidates that we may not agree with on everything, but in general we are fairly supportive of their agenda -- both Clinton's and Harris' agenda had a lot of stuff that I was on board with. Well when the question was Trump's more extreme genocide in Gaza or the Dems less extreme genocide we were left in absolutely no doubt what you guys think. I think we'd be debating numbers. This is based entirely on conversations we've had in this very thread, so please don't take offence, I don't know you as a human being, or anyone else here. I personally have strong opinions about this. I haven't bought anything produced in Israel nor have I refereed proposals by Israeli scientists and fully support the protest against Israeli teams competing in international sporting events. I fully support my country in their stance towards Israel and think we haven't gone far enough. I don't judge Vox because of their pro-Israeli stance. I judge them because they're an inti-immigration party, stoking fear and generally making this place a shittier place to live in. I don't doubt any of this The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
I think the situation in Gaza is regrettable. I think judging political parties based solely on something that is as complicated as the Palestine/Israel conflict is also just plain weird. Please don't make me go back in this thread and find the conversations. Please. There were specific conversations about Israel's genocide and I was told multiple times, by multiple people, and again every time Trump came up with a new 'Gaza plan' that voting for the Democrats was right in the case of Israel because Trump's genocide would be worse than the Democrats' genocide (probably not using those words). If you want to push the angle that bad Dems are bad and the 'lesser evil' then it's up to you defend that position. The response to the Israeli/Gaza conflict is complicated as it involved questions about what's an allowable reaction after a horrific terrorist attack. To draw a parallel, after the twin towers, America decided that it was okay to carpet bomb the middle east. After the terrorist attacks in Madrid that only missed me by 1 train stop (literally I would've gotten on that train that morning one stop after they blew them up at the same time, I got caught in the metro) I was also pretty damn happy to bring the regime and the people supporting that regime as much pain as possible. I don't want to veer this into an argument about whether or not the genocide in Gaza is okay, so I'll leave this part of the discussion here, we can carry it on in the Israel thread if you want but I'd rather not because I've feeling it'll just be butting heads. I don't think the genocide in Gaza is okay. I also don't think it's as simple as you're making it. I don't think I've made it simple. I do think any questions about it were resolved before Harris was a presidential candidate. Either we differ on that or we don't, but I don't think its constructive to argue about it. You said that we would vote to gas 99% of mexicans instead of 100% based on your read of our position on the genocide occurring in Gaza. Are we not discussing the point you raised? Why did you post that if you didn't believe it to be true.
Can you stick to discussing one thing please?
A second ago it was all about Madrid and complications and whether or not Israel is justified in x or y.
Now you're switching back again.
These are discrete discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, its not relevant context or anything.
When did I say I didn't believe it to be true? You don't need to put words in my mouth.
I was told that voting for the dems when they support genocide in Gaza is necessary because Trump will make sure the genocide is worse. That is what I am basing my argument on. Whether or not you find the morality of the various stages of Israel's revenge complicated is irrelevant to that, or anything that I choose to infer from that. Its a completely different conversation.
|
The consistent framing of democrats as 'lesser evil' is already a prejudgement. I had a lot of things I liked in Clinton's, Biden's and Harris' platforms. I didn't like everything, but I liked a lot. I'm an adult human being, I know you only achieve things through compromise -- one-sided impositions just lead to a yo-yo where each administration just undoes whatever the last one did.
Okay, but this is untrue, we've watched the Republicans basically one-side their way through the systems of power in the US, the bolded statement here is Democrat centrist tripe that tries to make it seem like the only reasonable view is a moderate centrist view.
The only compromising thats ever done in the US is when the Democrats compromise their supposed values to support something the Republicans want.
|
On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing.
"Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are.
"You cannot do that" - yes you can.
Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents.
So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces.
|
On September 22 2025 22:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing. "Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are. "You cannot do that" - yes you can. Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents. So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces.
Walk me through this process, I eat crayons. I catch a local police officer taking bribes. I take a photo and report his name and badge number to his precinct. At that point if they ignore me, I can find a journalist to report it.
A masked ICE agent shoves someone I know to be a U.S. citizen into an unmarked van. Who do I report this to, how, and what do I do if they ignore me?
|
On September 22 2025 22:42 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing. "Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are. "You cannot do that" - yes you can. Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents. So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces.
How naive are you? Police lie all the time. That's why they have body cams because otherwise they would just say "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing". Filing a complaint with nothing to point to except "masked man who said hes ICE kidnapped my husband" is not very apt and full with information if you cannot even point to who the possible ICE member was and if there is no video proof.
|
On September 22 2025 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing. "Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are. "You cannot do that" - yes you can. Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents. So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces. Walk me through this process, I eat crayons. I catch a local police officer taking bribes. I take a photo and report his name and badge number to his precinct. At that point if they ignore me, I can find a journalist to report it. A masked ICE agent shoves someone I know to be a U.S. citizen into an unmarked van. Who do I report this to, how, and what do I do if they ignore me?
"A masked ICE agent shoves someone I know to be a U.S. citizen into an unmarked van. Who do I report this to, how, and what do I do if they ignore me? " the same people you would report it to, if he was unmasked??
On September 22 2025 22:50 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing. "Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are. "You cannot do that" - yes you can. Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents. So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces. How naive are you? Police lie all the time. That's why they have body cams because otherwise they would just say "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing". Filing a complaint with nothing to point to except "masked man who said hes ICE kidnapped my husband" is not very apt and full with information if you cannot even point to who the possible ICE member was and if there is no video proof.
I actually dont mind body cams, I think thats perfect compromise, but people somehow focus on masks. Seems odd.
|
On September 22 2025 22:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:On September 22 2025 22:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 22:06 Luolis wrote:On September 22 2025 19:00 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 22 2025 17:42 Razyda wrote:On September 22 2025 09:29 WombaT wrote:
ICE are not operating under those conditions. They are meant to enforce the law of the land, in a nation that doesn’t have an active terrorist campaign operating.
Tell it to Charlie Kirk kids, people whose Teslas were burned, business owners whose shops were burned. What does ICE have to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination? ?? I said that ICE agents wear mask to protect their identity, so people wont dox them and threat them and their families. Wombat argument was essentially that there is no ongoing terrorist campaign in US. (implying that they have nothing to worry about) Me mentioning Kirk was pointing out that even though there isnt ongoing terror campaign, bad shit happens. Kirk was killed because "some hatred cannot be negotiated with" Are we sure that there arent any deranged individuals, who will find out on the internet that there is - check notes - "gestapo" member living in the area and decide to take action? Everything that you are saying here is irrelevant. Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable. You cannot do that if their faces are hidden and they have no identification. That is why normal police have names visible, have body cameras and are required to answer questions about who they are. Masked men disappearing people could be anyone. ICE, random criminals, etc. We don't know. That is only increasing unrest in society. If ICE wanna be the police, they should atleast make sure they are recognizable and have body cams so we can see what they are doing. "Police and police adjacent people should be able to be held accountable." - they are. "You cannot do that" - yes you can. Lets be honest here. You can file complain with ICE (police, FBI, court, not sure exactly which one) about their agents. So all your talk about being held accountable, is exact reason why they cover their faces. Walk me through this process, I eat crayons. I catch a local police officer taking bribes. I take a photo and report his name and badge number to his precinct. At that point if they ignore me, I can find a journalist to report it. A masked ICE agent shoves someone I know to be a U.S. citizen into an unmarked van. Who do I report this to, how, and what do I do if they ignore me? "A masked ICE agent shoves someone I know to be a U.S. citizen into an unmarked van. Who do I report this to, how, and what do I do if they ignore me? " the same people you would report it to, if he was unmasked??
Okay, so I reported it and they did nothing. Journalists are also sharing the footage. What's the next step?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
