Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 22 2025 21:34 Jockmcplop wrote: [quote]
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: [quote]
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.
You are choosing to see the Democratic party as evil (as GH does) through the lens of their response (or lack of action, I guess, since they did call for ceasefires and publicly denounced what was happening) to the atrocities in Gaza, hence the 'lesser evilism' discourse. Is this accurate?+ Show Spoiler +
I am simply stating that responding to the Israeli/gaza conflict is not straightforward. On the one hand, Israel just got horrifically attacked and some kind of response is justified, do you agree? Or is the argument that they should resolve the Israeli hostage situation through international courts? How would you have liked them to have acted?
I agree with you and GH that Israel has gone too far and it has been obvious for a pretty damn long time that it was going too far and it is incredible that we had to wait until children dying of hunger to act. I would've hoped our politicians picked this up earlier and did something about it rather than let it fester to this point.
Without excusing it, I understand why they fibbed the response, though. Whenever it's something to do with Israel, everything is complicated by not wanting to seem antisemitic, and it is just a fact of life that Americans are pretty comfortable with retribution, look at your justice system.
I just don't agree with the premise that Democrats are "the lesser evil". I just think they're not evil, simply ineffective in dealing with whatever is going on with the GOP.
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer
those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be.
if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope.
Demonstrating day and night? This isn't like some countries, such as France, where demonstrations have any power. The US citizen only has the power to vote for the lesser among evils (assuming we are not screwed out of it by crummy ballots, e-voting machines, gerrymandering, and other travesties in our officially sub-UN standard operated elections).
One reason you've typically seen me put quotes around "evil" and "lesser evil" is because they aren't terms I would use, because I don't think Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are "evil" (in part because it has unavoidable supernatural implications). They're just people with shitty beliefs and the power to impose them on others.
"Attorney General James Uthmeier Announces Launch of New Portal to Combat Violent Extremism"
I wonder if this has anything to do with Trump plans to declare antifa terror organisation. Namely if there are some specific laws related to terror organisations, which would allow to circumvent 1st amendment.
On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote: [quote]
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: [quote]
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.
You are choosing to see the Democratic party as evil (as GH does) through the lens of their response (or lack of action, I guess, since they did call for ceasefires and publicly denounced what was happening) to the atrocities in Gaza, hence the 'lesser evilism' discourse. Is this accurate?
I am simply stating that responding to the Israeli/gaza conflict is not straightforward. On the one hand, Israel just got horrifically attacked and some kind of response is justified, do you agree? Or is the argument that they should resolve the Israeli hostage situation through international courts? How would you have liked them to have acted?
I agree with you and GH that Israel has gone too far and it has been obvious for a pretty damn long time that it was going too far and it is incredible that we had to wait until children dying of hunger to act. I would've hoped our politicians picked this up earlier and did something about it rather than let it fester to this point.
Without excusing it, I understand why they fibbed the response, though. Whenever it's something to do with Israel, everything is complicated by not wanting to seem antisemitic, and it is just a fact of life that Americans are pretty comfortable with retribution, look at your justice system.
I just don't agree with the premise that Democrats are "the lesser evil". I just think they're not evil, simply ineffective in dealing with whatever is going on with the GOP.
For me, there are plenty of straightforward things about Israel that the Dems won't address. They won't stop selling Israel the weapons they need to exterminate the population of Gaza for a start. Neither will any party in my country, but that's obviously on a totally different scale (clearly I also see Labour as evil for involving our country in the genocide too).
Selling Israel that many weapons, having Israel lean on America for basically everything they need to do what they are doing, well I'm sorry 'not wanting to seem antisemitic' is pretty much as poor an excuse as you can get for that behaviour, and certainly doesn't lift the cloud of evil from over the Dems' heads, in my opinion.
I don't disagree with the premise that there are many things we could do to help stop the genocide.
Equally, I think it's also true that all governments do evil things, normally with the tagline "in the name of national security", or through their inaction, allow evil things to happen.
I think it's weird that the ages old Israel/Gaza conflict is what made you go "enough is enough". Like, that conflict is older than me and will probably will keep going for another couple hundred years if we stop Israel from completing the genocide.
On September 22 2025 21:40 LightSpectra wrote: [quote]
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: [quote]
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.
You are choosing to see the Democratic party as evil (as GH does) through the lens of their response (or lack of action, I guess, since they did call for ceasefires and publicly denounced what was happening) to the atrocities in Gaza, hence the 'lesser evilism' discourse. Is this accurate?+ Show Spoiler +
I am simply stating that responding to the Israeli/gaza conflict is not straightforward. On the one hand, Israel just got horrifically attacked and some kind of response is justified, do you agree? Or is the argument that they should resolve the Israeli hostage situation through international courts? How would you have liked them to have acted?
I agree with you and GH that Israel has gone too far and it has been obvious for a pretty damn long time that it was going too far and it is incredible that we had to wait until children dying of hunger to act. I would've hoped our politicians picked this up earlier and did something about it rather than let it fester to this point.
Without excusing it, I understand why they fibbed the response, though. Whenever it's something to do with Israel, everything is complicated by not wanting to seem antisemitic, and it is just a fact of life that Americans are pretty comfortable with retribution, look at your justice system.
I just don't agree with the premise that Democrats are "the lesser evil". I just think they're not evil, simply ineffective in dealing with whatever is going on with the GOP.
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer
those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be.
if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope.
Demonstrating day and night? This isn't like some countries, such as France, where demonstrations have any power. The US citizen only has the power to vote for the lesser among evils (assuming we are not screwed out of it by crummy ballots, e-voting machines, gerrymandering, and other travesties in our officially sub-UN standard operated elections).
One reason you've typically seen me put quotes around "evil" and "lesser evil" is because they aren't terms I would use, because I don't think Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are "evil" (in part because it has unavoidable supernatural implications). They're just people with shitty beliefs and the power to impose them on others.
I mean, labelling the party where progressive values have the only possibility of having a home as the "lesser evil" is working really well. I cannot fathom why calling the people you have to work with to enact your agenda as evil is not lauded as the most helpful thing you could be doing with your time.
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.
You don't have one. We do, but we understand that you can vote and do other things. It's not either or.
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.
They're literally not, and it's government policy that they not be. In a working system we wouldn't need them to not wear masks as a check on their abuse because they wouldn't abuse their power. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need any laws at all, people would all just do the right thing. Arguing that we shouldn't have checks on police abuse because it shouldn't be necessary is a bad argument in good times and a terrible argument after watching things like this.
On September 22 2025 21:51 Jockmcplop wrote: [quote] 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: [quote]
I don't doubt any of this
[quote]
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.
You are choosing to see the Democratic party as evil (as GH does) through the lens of their response (or lack of action, I guess, since they did call for ceasefires and publicly denounced what was happening) to the atrocities in Gaza, hence the 'lesser evilism' discourse. Is this accurate?+ Show Spoiler +
I am simply stating that responding to the Israeli/gaza conflict is not straightforward. On the one hand, Israel just got horrifically attacked and some kind of response is justified, do you agree? Or is the argument that they should resolve the Israeli hostage situation through international courts? How would you have liked them to have acted?
I agree with you and GH that Israel has gone too far and it has been obvious for a pretty damn long time that it was going too far and it is incredible that we had to wait until children dying of hunger to act. I would've hoped our politicians picked this up earlier and did something about it rather than let it fester to this point.
Without excusing it, I understand why they fibbed the response, though. Whenever it's something to do with Israel, everything is complicated by not wanting to seem antisemitic, and it is just a fact of life that Americans are pretty comfortable with retribution, look at your justice system.
I just don't agree with the premise that Democrats are "the lesser evil". I just think they're not evil, simply ineffective in dealing with whatever is going on with the GOP.
On September 08 2006 08:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I seriously cannot comprehend how anyone are not disgusted as hell by this. it's wrong on so incredibly many levels. seriously. you do not have the right to remain silent anything we make you say can and will be used against you you do not have the right for a lawyer
those are the basic three principles of law used by your government. pretty fucking different from how it's supposed to be.
if not for the fear of my own safety, if I were american I would be demonstrating night and day against this. and well, everything else regarded to the war against terror actually. if you reelect a republican representative after everything that has been discovered about this republican government then jesus christ there is no hope.
Demonstrating day and night? This isn't like some countries, such as France, where demonstrations have any power. The US citizen only has the power to vote for the lesser among evils (assuming we are not screwed out of it by crummy ballots, e-voting machines, gerrymandering, and other travesties in our officially sub-UN standard operated elections).
One reason you've typically seen me put quotes around "evil" and "lesser evil" is because they aren't terms I would use, because I don't think Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) are "evil" (in part because it has unavoidable supernatural implications). They're just people with shitty beliefs and the power to impose them on others.
I mean, labelling the party where progressive values have the only possibility of having a home as the "lesser evil" is working really well. I cannot fathom why calling the people you have to work with to enact your agenda as evil is not lauded as the most helpful thing you could be doing with your time.
I just explained to you that it isn't my framing to call Democrats the "lesser evil". The cops Kwark is showing shoot a reporter as a lack of being held responsible are literally under the purview of a Democrat mayor, in a Democrat controlled city in a Democrat controlled state.
On July 28 2016 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: More Trump supporters and conservatives and Republicans voting for Gary Johnson instead of Trump guarantees the win for Hillary Clinton- the lesser of the two evils
Hillary's email is typical political fanfare. Congress on both sides does the same political hack stuff, it's just the beggining of a long attempt from republicans to drive down democratic turnout by making Hillary seem unattractive. Thing is people like me know Hillary isn't our (the larger "Left") ideal candidate but against any republican contender she will easily be the lesser of two evils. Anyone but Jeb/Paul (for the younger folk) and that's an easy choice. If conservatives don't want to choose between Bush and someone to the left of Hillary they should focus on their candidates having a specific plan for moving forward and worry about Hillary's email later.
How wrong they were. To be fair, that 2nd one was before Bernie or Trump got in the race.
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.
They're literally not, and it's government policy that they not be. In a working system we wouldn't need them to not wear masks as a check on their abuse because they wouldn't abuse their power. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need any laws at all, people would all just do the right thing. Arguing that we shouldn't have checks on police abuse because it shouldn't be necessary is a bad argument in good times and a terrible argument after watching things like this. + Show Spoiler +
the breakdown of norms and open thievery/thuggery won't end well. it gives a permission structure to anyone in position of power. and such things are corrosive and spread like wildfire if unchecked and unpunished.
just ask the Soviet Union/Russia. incidentally countries that were also led by criminals.
@GH you can whine and moan all you want - as long as they don't outlaw free speech I guess which they actively work to undermine. lesser evilism would be a major improvement to the status Trump. you know, as a starting point to work towards something better.
in case you actually are black, Trump is actively deleting your people's history and his favorite martyr questioned the Civil Rights act - as do the SC Judges he put there... those were hard fought victories, for generations of people who meant well and acted upon it.
paid for in countless blood, sweat and tears.
Trump fucked over the Michigan Muslim community by promising to fix the Gaza slaughter, then he lets Netanyahu do whatever he wants.
these are hard facts you should try to ponder on. not just going after the low hanging fruits you like to bring up...
but then again this is a debate lord thread so carry on citizen - as long as you are not kinda black/brownish. then ICE might detain and deport you because you look and sound funny to them... and crucially without due process.
On September 23 2025 05:51 Billyboy wrote: Kimmel is back on the air Tuesday. Bets on whether he capitulates or goes for the throat.
Poll: What will Jimmy Kimmel do
Same as before suspension (10)
91%
Be nuetered (1)
9%
Guns a blazin (0)
0%
11 total votes
Your vote: What will Jimmy Kimmel do
(Vote): Same as before suspension (Vote): Be nuetered (Vote): Guns a blazin
I hope that Jimmy Kimmel is back to the same as before, but he's a pretty docile guy in general. He's really not as edgy as John Oliver or Jon Stewart or even Stephen Colbert, so I don't think there's any chance of him going into "guns a blazin" mode. I don't even know what "be neutered" would look like with him, given how mild-mannered even his monologues are. I guess maybe it would be him no longer poking fun at Trump?
I don't think he could have watched the reaction (like the great show from Stewart) and not be at least a bit motivated to go harder then usual against the establishment.
Hopefully his writers and him come up with something that sends Trump into rage, I mean, I'm sure he's boiling over now that Disney of all corporations un-bent the knee, Kimmel going hard at him might actually stroke him out, but I know that's a far too optimistic view of the situation, I'd say 51% he'll be the same, 49% goes hard, I don't think he scan just shut up now that he's basically been elevated to hero status.
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.
They're literally not, and it's government policy that they not be. In a working system we wouldn't need them to not wear masks as a check on their abuse because they wouldn't abuse their power. But in an ideal world we wouldn't need any laws at all, people would all just do the right thing. Arguing that we shouldn't have checks on police abuse because it shouldn't be necessary is a bad argument in good times and a terrible argument after watching things like this. https://youtu.be/-2XKIC67bUo?si=PTDaGAMK8lTNFdAi&t=13
They are. It may not be up to standards, not working correctly, or implemented correctly, or indeed obstructed. By all means improve that.
"Arguing that we shouldn't have checks on police abuse because it shouldn't be necessary is a bad argument in good times and a terrible argument after watching things like this."
I am not arguing that? What I am arguing is that they should be able to wear masks to protect their identity. I already said that body cams is great compromise. I dont know to what extend they rely on civil clothes, but if they arent necessery to perform their duties, by all means wear uniforms. Fixation on masks specifically suggest to me that people want angry mob to pass its judgment on them.
If what you’re doing is so vile that you’re afraid to show your face to the public while working then it’s time to do a bit of reflection. Sex workers sometimes have to be afraid of stalkers and mafia prosecutors have to be afraid to hitmen but they’re not ashamed of their work. Prosecutors and judges are expected to show their faces. If you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job.
I’ve never been afraid of anyone finding out how I make a living but I don’t abduct brown people.
On September 23 2025 08:00 KwarK wrote: If what you’re doing is so vile that you’re afraid to show your face to the public while working then it’s time to do a bit of reflection. Sex workers sometimes have to be afraid of stalkers and mafia prosecutors have to be afraid to hitmen but they’re it ashamed of their work. If you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job.
I’ve never been afraid of anyone finding out how I make a living but I don’t abduct brown people.
"f you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job."
Thats why I like you, you are honest. Problem is you dont have general public. You have two. One thinks you doing great things, other thinks you are... check notes... gestapo. It is always easier to kill someone than protect him. I will take a guess that Kirk security outnumbered assassin. Fun fact: gestapo didnt wear a masks.
On September 23 2025 08:00 KwarK wrote: If what you’re doing is so vile that you’re afraid to show your face to the public while working then it’s time to do a bit of reflection. Sex workers sometimes have to be afraid of stalkers and mafia prosecutors have to be afraid to hitmen but they’re it ashamed of their work. If you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job.
I’ve never been afraid of anyone finding out how I make a living but I don’t abduct brown people.
"f you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job."
Thats why I like you, you are honest. Problem is you dont have general public. You have two. One thinks you doing great things, other thinks you are... check notes... gestapo. It is always easier to kill someone than protect him. I will take a guess that Kirk security outnumbered assassin. Fun fact: gestapo didnt wear a masks.
Gestapo didn't live in an age where everyone had video cameras, newspapers, and telephones in their pockets
On September 23 2025 08:00 KwarK wrote: If what you’re doing is so vile that you’re afraid to show your face to the public while working then it’s time to do a bit of reflection. Sex workers sometimes have to be afraid of stalkers and mafia prosecutors have to be afraid to hitmen but they’re it ashamed of their work. If you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job.
I’ve never been afraid of anyone finding out how I make a living but I don’t abduct brown people.
"f you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job."
Thats why I like you, you are honest. Problem is you dont have general public. You have two. One thinks you doing great things, other thinks you are... check notes... gestapo. It is always easier to kill someone than protect him. I will take a guess that Kirk security outnumbered assassin. Fun fact: gestapo didnt wear a masks.
They need to fire all these ICE chickens post haste! Can you imagine a macho Ice agent scared to show his face? Trump would not be scared, he'd crash in to a school shooting no gun.
On September 23 2025 08:55 Fleetfeet wrote: Ooo is this Razyda on round three of the whole 'theres two cultures, only one can survive trust me bro' thing?
Ooo is this Fleetfleet saying nothing??
On September 23 2025 08:55 Phyanketto wrote:
Gestapo didn't live in an age where everyone had video cameras, newspapers, and telephones in their pockets
And if you knew anything about WW2 you would know why....
Just to confirm, Razyda, do you think that police should cover their faces and hide identification? Surely they are also at risk and should be protected.
On September 23 2025 08:00 KwarK wrote: If what you’re doing is so vile that you’re afraid to show your face to the public while working then it’s time to do a bit of reflection. Sex workers sometimes have to be afraid of stalkers and mafia prosecutors have to be afraid to hitmen but they’re it ashamed of their work. If you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job.
I’ve never been afraid of anyone finding out how I make a living but I don’t abduct brown people.
"f you’re so afraid of the general public finding out what you did and holding you accountable for your actions then it might be time to find a new job."
Thats why I like you, you are honest. Problem is you dont have general public. You have two. One thinks you doing great things, other thinks you are... check notes... gestapo. It is always easier to kill someone than protect him. I will take a guess that Kirk security outnumbered assassin. Fun fact: gestapo didnt wear a masks.
Charlie Kirk isn’t all that relevant to how ICE is currently operating, and whether that’s desirable or not.
Yes, the Gestapo went around openly. How did they manage this trick? Meaningful political opposition to the Nazis, from the centre through to leftist anti-Fascists was crushed, or people gave up for fear of being crushed. Everyone else either didn’t like it and turned a blind eye, or actively supported that regime.
You are correct that attitudes are very polarised. One side of that divide, or indeed potentially both have to be wrong.
Nonetheless, despite that polarisation, the majority of Americans view ICE unfavourably, their favourability floats around the 40% mark, and is trending downwards.
I imagine this trend is *checks notes* due to how ICE is currently operating.
As in the UK, illegal immigration (incidentally to a preposterous degree) dominates many a national political conversation. It’s obviously an issue many people of many other beliefs have issues with and want dealt with.
But even amongst those who feel strongly on that topic, I’d wager there’s a sizeable cohort that draw the line at a bunch of folks masking up, going plainclothes and just detaining people from certain demographics as a desirable way to enforce immigration laws.
EPT
