Not stunning to anyone who's paid attention. So I bet there's lots of people who are deeply shocked by this.
That assumes they are paying attention to this.
That's the joke đ
Yeah... it's a joke that makes me sad though.
Morose humor is simply a way to deal with tragedy and sadness. It's often the most we can do for ourselves or anyone else in such situations. Seeing as in this situation especially it would require to impress upon people the importance of Being educated in general and about specific things that they have no interest in. Both of which are generally out of our control. So we all just default to recognizing the absurdity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting you or anything... it's both absurd and sad that major alarm bells have been going off about Trump for a very long time and a lot of people don't notice or look the other way.
Better to laugh than cry I guess.
I didn't think you were :-) and unfortunately Trump is just the most recent symptom. It's been going on for longer than even my parents have been alive. And they were born in the late 40s and early 50s. At least here in the US.
Grandpappy Bush was tied to a coup in the 30s
No. It is not.
Stunning they finally said of out loud. Of course they wait until they got a TV appearance vs, you know, calling it out at the time.
Yeah, this revelation didn't get so much as a raised eyebrow from me.
But Biden is old and, according to this poll I found, unexciting
How will I decide whether voting is even important at all; Iâm not motivated
Or the ones who say they can't vote for Biden because he's not doing the things he's not got the power to do. All in pursuit of some ephemeral moral High Ground. Which they think exonerates them of all the genocide and killing that will still happen. Possibly even increase if such actions were to be taken.
They all think they've got a simple easily implementable answer to all the problems. Despite the best minds of generations of people having been unable to actually solve it. The ignorance and hubris is palpable.
I think the easiest and most simple to implement solution to all this. Would be to time travel back to the selection of places for Israel to be carved out of. And hard veto Palestine somehow.
He can just stop delivering weapons. It's not even hard.
What you donât understand, is that theyâll still get delivered. WaitâŚ. Iâm pretty sure you DO understand this. But it really messes up your propaganda if you were to admit it.
No they won't. Wait, I'm sorry, let's hear it. How do you think the weapons are going to be delivered if Israel is declared completely ineligible under the Leahy Law and FSA?
ROFL⌠show how you donât know how congress works without saying you donât know how congress works.
Even if Biden is able to halt it- which he isnâtâŚ. When you succeed in getting Trump elected, heâs going to go HAM on Palestine. So tell us again how much you care to stop it again?
I'm sorry, but by what method exactly will Congress bypass the Leahy Law and FSA?
None of this schoolyard innuendo. Prove your knowledge.
You mean like when I asked you to provide a name of someone running that could win against Trump in November?
You forgot didnât you?
You had no answer. I asked you several times. You refused to answer. Proving that no only do you not have anything better to say than âdOnâT vOtE fOr biDeN!â You have no clue what your end game is.
And in case you forgot- I said I had no intention to ever take a thing you say seriously. That means Iâm not entertaining any of your questions where you refused to answer mine.
That's because you keep fever dreaming that I care about that. Like it's some kind of gotcha moment.
But I've made it pretty clear that it's a price I'm willing to accept because the realistic damage Trump can do is already happening.
So, now. How is Congress going to get around Biden? Do they have 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the house to override his veto? Do they have 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act?
What physical method will they use to deliver weapons the Pentagon and State won't move and the US Marshals will impound if they have to?
Edit to add, you also keep ignoring I'm absolutely willing to vote for Biden if he stops supporting this genocide.
Nope. Not happening. I donât entertain people I think are working to undermine American democracy. Youâre not owned an answer, as you donât have the respect it takes give them in good faith.
Youâve proven yourself to not care about Palestine since youâve admitted that youâre willing to get trump elected just to spite Biden, youâve proven yourself to not have any suggestions as to who could win against Trump that will do better than Biden, and lastly-
A a result of all of this⌠No further evidence is need to illustrate your purpose here.
Oh look it's another fever dream. The answer to genocide will never be, "but we can have just a little".
And again, ad nauseam, I'll vote for Biden. The day he stops supporting Israel. I'll hold my mail in ballot with a blank slot and mark his name the second he announces he's no longer sending weapons to support a genocide.
Cool. So, if you're a legit leftist- youâre openly admitting that youâre holding your vote ransom over a single issue in an other country that we have already proven in the past by your comment history- you didnât give a shit about prior to last October, and you admit that donât give a shit how many Americans suffer under Trump if you donât get your way.
Or-
Youâre openly admitting that youâre here in bad faith and only intend to disrupt an election.
I don't understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic?
Edit: downvoters, it was a genuine question. Nowadays it's hard to know when people are being serious or sarcastic. I'm glad the poster was sarcastic in the end.
I am
I am lampooning a certain population on Lemmy who like to come up with an endless variety of specious reasons not to vote for Biden. Some of their reasons are pretty much exactly as I stated, and to me they are outweighed by âTrump wants to kill anyone who disobeys him, so we shouldnât put him in charge of the militaryâ among other issues, and so hence the lampooning.
Thanks for clarifying. I totally side with you :)
Yeah, itâs a perfectly fair question. Idk what the downvotes are about but be not afraid; they canât hurt you.
Ex Trump official confirms what we all assumed âŚ
FTFY
So what?
At this point, anyone whoâs a Trump supporter secretly (or quite vocally) agrees with the policy of executions.
Why is it that those who are most vocal about being American don't understand what that means?
Because idiots think they're better than everyone.
There's a name for that.
She sat in the same room and did nothing. Now enjoying playing the other side as a political commentator on CNN. Just sayin.
"Stunning"? As in "actually surprising anyone"? Well, I am not the least surprised.
But boThSiDesSamE?
According to losing leftists at the polls
Trumpets: as long as itâs the right people, we love it.
Kaitlan Collins, to her credit, interviewed Bill Barr and asked about an anecdote that I had shared about a meeting he and I were both in the Oval Office, where Trump straight up said a staffer who leaked a story should be executed. And Bill Barr kind of danced it and said I donât recall that specific instance, but there were others where we talked about executing people. How do you rationalize that is a person fit in sound judgment to be president of the United States?
At some point all of these MAGA people will have to be stopped permanently or another country will invade us and punish us for doing nothing to stop them but voting and crying online.
Why would anyone invade when our enemies could continue watching us rot from the inside?
Divide and conquer
A ground war in the US would be over before it begins. Infiltrating via the internet and collapsing the social fabric, on the other hand, is a very viable strategy that we're watching right before our eyes :D
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time. This isn't exactly murder most foul.
Because his dad was part of al qaeda the kid deserved to die? That's totally not fucked up at all
It's not about deserving it. His dad took him to a war zone while he was working for a non state military. Not everything is personal or even about the person who gets killed in a warzone. Soldiers call it rolling the dice for a reason. The bomb on the roadside goes off. Does it hit the humvee with the gun crew, or the cargo truck carrying refugees? Nobody knows until it happens. One is seen as a normal part of war and the other as something despicable. But the difference is less than a second. Nobody woke up that day and said, "today we're going to kill that kid".
You don't think the US military has the capabilities to know exactly who and what they're striking?
Not like that. Satellites still can't see inside of hard cover. Hollywood really oversells how much the military can see and undersells how much explosions hurt.
He was a US citizen.
The military should not be drone striking its own citizens, no matter what theyâre suspected of. He had the right to a trial.
Actually, joining an enemy military strips you of your citizenship. But even then, it's not a stable area. You can't just ring up the Yemeni police to go arrest them and the NYPD is going to laugh at you. So you call on the guys who can reach the area. Problem, they're the military and this is a war. So even without the first sentence we're back to using a missile instead of the police because nobody is going to commit suicide for this and we're not going to let them operate freely on the notion that we're not allowed to fight that particular enemy.
Which is why joining an enemy military is an automatic loss of citizenship.
When did Al-Qaeda become a military? Itâs a terrorist organization.
And when did it become a war. Congress hasnât declared a war since World War 2. Legally, all of killing in the Middle East has been done under the guise of military policing actions.
Are we going to drone strike proud boy leaders now? They did try to overthrow the US government a few years ago. Oh wait, they just got slaps on the wrist.
So do we only blow up US citizens and deny them their rights when it would be difficult to get them? I guess the FBI can stop spending so much money on training agents to apprehend suspects, if theyâre running or have already fled the country, weâll just assassinate them because thatâs way easier and safer.
The fact that this guy, regardless of what he did, was assassinated on the orders of a US president, and nothing happened, should be deeply disturbing. You donât have rights if someone can just blow you up from out of nowhere for any reason. You just have privileges that can be revoked at any time.
He had the right to a trial. Not a privilege to have one, a right. An attempt to apprehend him should have at least been made.
Nobody said you had to be connected to a geographic state to be a military.
An AUMF is a declaration of war. Read the War Powers Act. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. It does not require Congress to use a set of magic words.
The proud boys are fucking infants in comparison to Al Qaeda, they're also well within reach of law enforcement agents. But if you want to know for real, check out the times governors have deployed the National Guard for an armed stand off. There is absolutely a military remedy to a domestic insurrection in US law. We do try to avoid that but if someone really pushed it they would take the leash off the military.
This is also a far cry from FBI agents working with police in developing countries. This isn't trying to figure out which Argentinian cop would tip off the arrest target. This is the Yemeni militia laughing at the FBI agents while letting AQ know there are Americans around to be captured.
Again. Nobody is going to commit suicide to provide you with a trial if you are actively making war against the US. Nor have they ever been required to because that is an insane imposition to the defense of the country. Reducing this to a manhunt ended for the sake of convenience is a straw man. You'd have a point if this happened somewhere like India. But it didn't. And we're under no obligation to let the enemy keep operating on the hope they travel to the wrong country.
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time
According to the United States government, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki's father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[2] Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone strike several days before his son's death.[3]
You could try not being disingenuous and read a couple more sentences.
the target of the October 14, 2011, airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[7] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki's son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[
He was there because his father brought him there. Nobody was aiming for him.
You could try not being disingenuous
Right back atcha.
What you said:
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time
Which is blatantly untrue
Oh for shit's sake taking refuge in semantics when you know damn well the word could mean either thing is ridiculous. I'm not going to waste ten comments explaining the exact meaning of the word "time" in this specific case while you just keep throwing No True Scotsman at it.
the word could mean either thing
it can literally only mean the one thing. His father had been dead for days, you claimed otherwise as thought it justified what happened.
No True Scotsman at it.
Showing how intelligent you are with random fallacy name dropping.
Lmao. No.
If you notice the contrast between jurors that convicted dementia donnie vs. those that convicted Hunter....the difference between the two "sides" here is thrown into stark contrast.
No matter how much the "liberal media" tries to bothsides the two parties, they just cannot cover it up.
What do you mean by the juror comparison? I didn't follow the Hunter trial (because who the fuck cares lol) so I might be out of the loop
The jurors for Hunter were out there giving interviews after the fact. The jurors for donnie are more or less in hiding as far as I can tell.
And for good reason. It's not "both sides"; the Republicans have been getting crazier and more violent every year and they adore donnie the wanna-be dictator. They were trying to dox the jurors, and the jurors would be right in trying to keep quiet and lay low and hope to keep their identity secret. Honestly, if he "wins" this fall, and I were them? I'd get the fuck out of this country. A great many of the donnie leg-humpers are crazy and murderous.
Meanwhile, as you point out - who GAF about Hunter, honestly. His plea deal being spiked and this trial is likely entirely political, but if he faces consequences for misfiling some paperwork while addicted to crack, I doubt any Democrat or leftist is going to be making death threats to anyone, least of all the jurors that found him guilty.
Ahh yeah that makes sense, thanks for the explanation, 100% agree with you
Leftism is a disease spread by leftist plague rats
Likening your ideological opponents to rats and other vermin was used by the Nazis to brutally persecute Jews and other minorities.[1]
By portraying a group's ideology as a sickness or infestation, it becomes easier to justify segregating, oppressing, or even killing them under the guise of social hygiene or self-defense against this perceived plague.[1][2] This dehumanizing rhetoric lays the groundwork for escalating violence.
What do you think about when unvaccinated were called plague rats during covid? Do you think we could have ended up down the same path with them?
If you want to get philosophical, society always has to turm authoritarian when it needs to deal with people who reject society. You either forcefully reject the ones who refuse to partake or you let them warp society in their image.
Being anti-vax is the same as being against society. Now, completely trying to get rid of them, like nazis tried with jews, is a bit extreme but penalizing antivaxxers IMO is perfectly fine. You can't simply endanger others just because you refuse to partake in society.
When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don't want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like "plague rat", and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.
That animosity is a policy failure because they should have just vaccinated and castrated all resistance just like farmers do with sheep. I can say that because I am a Christian, so it's fine as the connotations are different.
You can't jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don't understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.
Sheep hold significant symbolism in Christianity, representing God's people and their relationship with Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Here are some key points about the symbolism of sheep in Christianity:
Sheep represent God's followers who are helpless and in need of guidance, protection, and provision from the Shepherd (Jesus).[1][2] They are portrayed as defenseless, prone to wandering, and entirely dependent on the Shepherd's care, mirroring humanity's need for God's guidance and salvation.
Jesus refers to himself as the "Good Shepherd" who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11).[1][2] This metaphor highlights Jesus' sacrificial love, leadership, and intimate knowledge of his flock (believers).
Sheep are contrasted with goats, representing the separation of believers and non-believers on the day of judgment (Matthew 25:31-46).[1] The sheep (believers) will inherit eternal life, while the goats (unbelievers) will face punishment.
The imagery of a shepherd tenderly caring for his sheep is used to depict God's compassionate love and attentive care for his people (Isaiah 40:11, Psalm 23).[1][3] Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice and follow him, just as believers are called to follow Christ's guidance.
Jesus is also called the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), symbolizing his sacrificial death to take away the sins of the world.[1][3] This connects the imagery of sheep and lambs to Christ's atoning work on the cross.
OK so in your analogy, the government is the shepherd, which is Jesus? Pretty sure that's not how Christians view the government...
What do you think the phrase 'Jesus is King' means? It's a political statement.
I guess it's political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don't think it's saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God's authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God's authority.
But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.
I'm still not really sure what your point is, so I'm kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.
It's about the divine right of kings, you probably know the Chinese version which is the mandate of heaven
The divine right of kings was a political and religious doctrine that asserted monarchs derived their authority directly from God, not from the people or any earthly authority.[2][3] It held that kings were accountable only to God and rebellion against them was a sacrilegious act.[2][3]
The key principles were:
Monarchs were ordained by God to rule and were not subject to the will of the people, aristocracy, or church.[2][3]
Any attempt to depose or restrict the monarch's powers went against God's will and constituted treason.[2][3]
The monarch was accountable only to God, not to any earthly authority.[2][3]
The doctrine emerged in Europe during the medieval period, rooted in the idea that God bestowed earthly power to kings, just as He gave spiritual authority to the church.[3] It gained prominence under monarchs like James I of England and Louis XIV of France in the 16th-17th centuries, justifying their absolute authority in political and spiritual matters.[2][3]
Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.
And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.
Not stunning to anyone who's paid attention. So I bet there's lots of people who are deeply shocked by this.
That assumes they are paying attention to this.
That's the joke đ
Yeah... it's a joke that makes me sad though.
Morose humor is simply a way to deal with tragedy and sadness. It's often the most we can do for ourselves or anyone else in such situations. Seeing as in this situation especially it would require to impress upon people the importance of Being educated in general and about specific things that they have no interest in. Both of which are generally out of our control. So we all just default to recognizing the absurdity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting you or anything... it's both absurd and sad that major alarm bells have been going off about Trump for a very long time and a lot of people don't notice or look the other way.
Better to laugh than cry I guess.
I didn't think you were :-) and unfortunately Trump is just the most recent symptom. It's been going on for longer than even my parents have been alive. And they were born in the late 40s and early 50s. At least here in the US.
Grandpappy Bush was tied to a coup in the 30s
No. It is not.
Stunning they finally said of out loud. Of course they wait until they got a TV appearance vs, you know, calling it out at the time.
Yeah, this revelation didn't get so much as a raised eyebrow from me.
But Biden is old and, according to this poll I found, unexciting
How will I decide whether voting is even important at all; Iâm not motivated
Or the ones who say they can't vote for Biden because he's not doing the things he's not got the power to do. All in pursuit of some ephemeral moral High Ground. Which they think exonerates them of all the genocide and killing that will still happen. Possibly even increase if such actions were to be taken.
They all think they've got a simple easily implementable answer to all the problems. Despite the best minds of generations of people having been unable to actually solve it. The ignorance and hubris is palpable.
I think the easiest and most simple to implement solution to all this. Would be to time travel back to the selection of places for Israel to be carved out of. And hard veto Palestine somehow.
He can just stop delivering weapons. It's not even hard.
What you donât understand, is that theyâll still get delivered. WaitâŚ. Iâm pretty sure you DO understand this. But it really messes up your propaganda if you were to admit it.
No they won't. Wait, I'm sorry, let's hear it. How do you think the weapons are going to be delivered if Israel is declared completely ineligible under the Leahy Law and FSA?
ROFL⌠show how you donât know how congress works without saying you donât know how congress works.
Even if Biden is able to halt it- which he isnâtâŚ. When you succeed in getting Trump elected, heâs going to go HAM on Palestine. So tell us again how much you care to stop it again?
I'm sorry, but by what method exactly will Congress bypass the Leahy Law and FSA?
None of this schoolyard innuendo. Prove your knowledge.
You mean like when I asked you to provide a name of someone running that could win against Trump in November?
You forgot didnât you?
You had no answer. I asked you several times. You refused to answer. Proving that no only do you not have anything better to say than âdOnâT vOtE fOr biDeN!â You have no clue what your end game is.
And in case you forgot- I said I had no intention to ever take a thing you say seriously. That means Iâm not entertaining any of your questions where you refused to answer mine.
That's because you keep fever dreaming that I care about that. Like it's some kind of gotcha moment.
But I've made it pretty clear that it's a price I'm willing to accept because the realistic damage Trump can do is already happening.
So, now. How is Congress going to get around Biden? Do they have 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the house to override his veto? Do they have 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act?
What physical method will they use to deliver weapons the Pentagon and State won't move and the US Marshals will impound if they have to?
Edit to add, you also keep ignoring I'm absolutely willing to vote for Biden if he stops supporting this genocide.
Nope. Not happening. I donât entertain people I think are working to undermine American democracy. Youâre not owned an answer, as you donât have the respect it takes give them in good faith.
Youâve proven yourself to not care about Palestine since youâve admitted that youâre willing to get trump elected just to spite Biden, youâve proven yourself to not have any suggestions as to who could win against Trump that will do better than Biden, and lastly-
A a result of all of this⌠No further evidence is need to illustrate your purpose here.
Oh look it's another fever dream. The answer to genocide will never be, "but we can have just a little".
And again, ad nauseam, I'll vote for Biden. The day he stops supporting Israel. I'll hold my mail in ballot with a blank slot and mark his name the second he announces he's no longer sending weapons to support a genocide.
Cool. So, if you're a legit leftist- youâre openly admitting that youâre holding your vote ransom over a single issue in an other country that we have already proven in the past by your comment history- you didnât give a shit about prior to last October, and you admit that donât give a shit how many Americans suffer under Trump if you donât get your way.
Or-
Youâre openly admitting that youâre here in bad faith and only intend to disrupt an election.
I think we both know which one it is.
Love seeing both of you in the comment sections of these posts! Far left lunacy needs to be put in check.
I don't understand your comment. Are you being sarcastic?
Edit: downvoters, it was a genuine question. Nowadays it's hard to know when people are being serious or sarcastic. I'm glad the poster was sarcastic in the end.
I am
I am lampooning a certain population on Lemmy who like to come up with an endless variety of specious reasons not to vote for Biden. Some of their reasons are pretty much exactly as I stated, and to me they are outweighed by âTrump wants to kill anyone who disobeys him, so we shouldnât put him in charge of the militaryâ among other issues, and so hence the lampooning.
Thanks for clarifying. I totally side with you :)
Yeah, itâs a perfectly fair question. Idk what the downvotes are about but be not afraid; they canât hurt you.
FTFY
So what?
At this point, anyone whoâs a Trump supporter secretly (or quite vocally) agrees with the policy of executions.
Why is it that those who are most vocal about being American don't understand what that means?
Because idiots think they're better than everyone.
There's a name for that.
She sat in the same room and did nothing. Now enjoying playing the other side as a political commentator on CNN. Just sayin.
"Stunning"? As in "actually surprising anyone"? Well, I am not the least surprised.
But boThSiDesSamE?
According to losing leftists at the polls
Trumpets: as long as itâs the right people, we love it.
At some point all of these MAGA people will have to be stopped permanently or another country will invade us and punish us for doing nothing to stop them but voting and crying online.
Why would anyone invade when our enemies could continue watching us rot from the inside?
Divide and conquer
A ground war in the US would be over before it begins. Infiltrating via the internet and collapsing the social fabric, on the other hand, is a very viable strategy that we're watching right before our eyes :D
Cause we like you actually?
I mean not the self inflicting pain but the rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
What a president can do to the least of us they will do to the rest of us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki&diffonly=true
Remember this 8 year old girl who was killed?
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time. This isn't exactly murder most foul.
Because his dad was part of al qaeda the kid deserved to die? That's totally not fucked up at all
It's not about deserving it. His dad took him to a war zone while he was working for a non state military. Not everything is personal or even about the person who gets killed in a warzone. Soldiers call it rolling the dice for a reason. The bomb on the roadside goes off. Does it hit the humvee with the gun crew, or the cargo truck carrying refugees? Nobody knows until it happens. One is seen as a normal part of war and the other as something despicable. But the difference is less than a second. Nobody woke up that day and said, "today we're going to kill that kid".
You don't think the US military has the capabilities to know exactly who and what they're striking?
Not like that. Satellites still can't see inside of hard cover. Hollywood really oversells how much the military can see and undersells how much explosions hurt.
He was a US citizen.
The military should not be drone striking its own citizens, no matter what theyâre suspected of. He had the right to a trial.
Actually, joining an enemy military strips you of your citizenship. But even then, it's not a stable area. You can't just ring up the Yemeni police to go arrest them and the NYPD is going to laugh at you. So you call on the guys who can reach the area. Problem, they're the military and this is a war. So even without the first sentence we're back to using a missile instead of the police because nobody is going to commit suicide for this and we're not going to let them operate freely on the notion that we're not allowed to fight that particular enemy.
Which is why joining an enemy military is an automatic loss of citizenship.
When did Al-Qaeda become a military? Itâs a terrorist organization.
And when did it become a war. Congress hasnât declared a war since World War 2. Legally, all of killing in the Middle East has been done under the guise of military policing actions.
Are we going to drone strike proud boy leaders now? They did try to overthrow the US government a few years ago. Oh wait, they just got slaps on the wrist.
So do we only blow up US citizens and deny them their rights when it would be difficult to get them? I guess the FBI can stop spending so much money on training agents to apprehend suspects, if theyâre running or have already fled the country, weâll just assassinate them because thatâs way easier and safer.
The fact that this guy, regardless of what he did, was assassinated on the orders of a US president, and nothing happened, should be deeply disturbing. You donât have rights if someone can just blow you up from out of nowhere for any reason. You just have privileges that can be revoked at any time.
He had the right to a trial. Not a privilege to have one, a right. An attempt to apprehend him should have at least been made.
Nobody said you had to be connected to a geographic state to be a military.
An AUMF is a declaration of war. Read the War Powers Act. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. It does not require Congress to use a set of magic words.
The proud boys are fucking infants in comparison to Al Qaeda, they're also well within reach of law enforcement agents. But if you want to know for real, check out the times governors have deployed the National Guard for an armed stand off. There is absolutely a military remedy to a domestic insurrection in US law. We do try to avoid that but if someone really pushed it they would take the leash off the military.
This is also a far cry from FBI agents working with police in developing countries. This isn't trying to figure out which Argentinian cop would tip off the arrest target. This is the Yemeni militia laughing at the FBI agents while letting AQ know there are Americans around to be captured.
Again. Nobody is going to commit suicide to provide you with a trial if you are actively making war against the US. Nor have they ever been required to because that is an insane imposition to the defense of the country. Reducing this to a manhunt ended for the sake of convenience is a straw man. You'd have a point if this happened somewhere like India. But it didn't. And we're under no obligation to let the enemy keep operating on the hope they travel to the wrong country.
You could try not being disingenuous and read a couple more sentences.
He was there because his father brought him there. Nobody was aiming for him.
Right back atcha.
What you said:
Which is blatantly untrue
Oh for shit's sake taking refuge in semantics when you know damn well the word could mean either thing is ridiculous. I'm not going to waste ten comments explaining the exact meaning of the word "time" in this specific case while you just keep throwing No True Scotsman at it.
it can literally only mean the one thing. His father had been dead for days, you claimed otherwise as thought it justified what happened.
Showing how intelligent you are with random fallacy name dropping.
Lmao. No.
If you notice the contrast between jurors that convicted dementia donnie vs. those that convicted Hunter....the difference between the two "sides" here is thrown into stark contrast.
No matter how much the "liberal media" tries to bothsides the two parties, they just cannot cover it up.
What do you mean by the juror comparison? I didn't follow the Hunter trial (because who the fuck cares lol) so I might be out of the loop
The jurors for Hunter were out there giving interviews after the fact. The jurors for donnie are more or less in hiding as far as I can tell.
And for good reason. It's not "both sides"; the Republicans have been getting crazier and more violent every year and they adore donnie the wanna-be dictator. They were trying to dox the jurors, and the jurors would be right in trying to keep quiet and lay low and hope to keep their identity secret. Honestly, if he "wins" this fall, and I were them? I'd get the fuck out of this country. A great many of the donnie leg-humpers are crazy and murderous.
Meanwhile, as you point out - who GAF about Hunter, honestly. His plea deal being spiked and this trial is likely entirely political, but if he faces consequences for misfiling some paperwork while addicted to crack, I doubt any Democrat or leftist is going to be making death threats to anyone, least of all the jurors that found him guilty.
Ahh yeah that makes sense, thanks for the explanation, 100% agree with you
Leftism is a disease spread by leftist plague rats
Likening your ideological opponents to rats and other vermin was used by the Nazis to brutally persecute Jews and other minorities.[1]
By portraying a group's ideology as a sickness or infestation, it becomes easier to justify segregating, oppressing, or even killing them under the guise of social hygiene or self-defense against this perceived plague.[1][2] This dehumanizing rhetoric lays the groundwork for escalating violence.
Citations: [1] Losing France's Imperial War on Rats - U-M Library Digital Collections https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/idx/w/wsfh/0642292.0047.006/--losing-frances-imperial-war-on-rats?rgn=main%3Bview%3Dfulltext [2] Anti-LGBT rhetoric - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT_rhetoric
Don't bother, check their comment history
What do you think about when unvaccinated were called plague rats during covid? Do you think we could have ended up down the same path with them?
If you want to get philosophical, society always has to turm authoritarian when it needs to deal with people who reject society. You either forcefully reject the ones who refuse to partake or you let them warp society in their image.
Being anti-vax is the same as being against society. Now, completely trying to get rid of them, like nazis tried with jews, is a bit extreme but penalizing antivaxxers IMO is perfectly fine. You can't simply endanger others just because you refuse to partake in society.
When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don't want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like "plague rat", and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.
That animosity is a policy failure because they should have just vaccinated and castrated all resistance just like farmers do with sheep. I can say that because I am a Christian, so it's fine as the connotations are different.
You can't jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don't understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.
Sheep hold significant symbolism in Christianity, representing God's people and their relationship with Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Here are some key points about the symbolism of sheep in Christianity:
Sheep represent God's followers who are helpless and in need of guidance, protection, and provision from the Shepherd (Jesus).[1][2] They are portrayed as defenseless, prone to wandering, and entirely dependent on the Shepherd's care, mirroring humanity's need for God's guidance and salvation.
Jesus refers to himself as the "Good Shepherd" who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11).[1][2] This metaphor highlights Jesus' sacrificial love, leadership, and intimate knowledge of his flock (believers).
Sheep are contrasted with goats, representing the separation of believers and non-believers on the day of judgment (Matthew 25:31-46).[1] The sheep (believers) will inherit eternal life, while the goats (unbelievers) will face punishment.
The imagery of a shepherd tenderly caring for his sheep is used to depict God's compassionate love and attentive care for his people (Isaiah 40:11, Psalm 23).[1][3] Sheep recognize the Shepherd's voice and follow him, just as believers are called to follow Christ's guidance.
Jesus is also called the "Lamb of God" (John 1:29), symbolizing his sacrificial death to take away the sins of the world.[1][3] This connects the imagery of sheep and lambs to Christ's atoning work on the cross.
Citations: [1] What is the significance of sheep in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org https://www.gotquestions.org/sheep-in-the-Bible.html [2] Why are Christians Called Sheep? â BLOG POSTS â ILI Team https://iliteam.org/coreleadership/why-are-christians-called-sheep [3] Sheep of Christ https://godcangodcares.com/sheep-of-christ/ [4] Why Jesus compares us to sheep (it's kinda funny) https://www.christianparenting.org/articles/why-jesus-compares-us-to-sheep-its-kinda-funny/ [5] Christianity literally degrades its own followers by calling them sheep https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/jtbv4i/christianity_literally_degrades_its_own_followers/
OK so in your analogy, the government is the shepherd, which is Jesus? Pretty sure that's not how Christians view the government...
What do you think the phrase 'Jesus is King' means? It's a political statement.
I guess it's political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don't think it's saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God's authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God's authority.
But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.
I'm still not really sure what your point is, so I'm kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.
It's about the divine right of kings, you probably know the Chinese version which is the mandate of heaven
The divine right of kings was a political and religious doctrine that asserted monarchs derived their authority directly from God, not from the people or any earthly authority.[2][3] It held that kings were accountable only to God and rebellion against them was a sacrilegious act.[2][3]
The key principles were:
The doctrine emerged in Europe during the medieval period, rooted in the idea that God bestowed earthly power to kings, just as He gave spiritual authority to the church.[3] It gained prominence under monarchs like James I of England and Louis XIV of France in the 16th-17th centuries, justifying their absolute authority in political and spiritual matters.[2][3]
Citations: [1] Divine right of kings - Oxford Reference https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110810104754564 [2] Divine right of kings - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings [3] Divine Right of Kings - New World Encyclopedia https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Divine_Right_of_Kings [4] What is the divine right of kings? | GotQuestions.org https://www.gotquestions.org/divine-right-of-kings.html [5] divine right of kings - Britannica Kids https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/divine-right-of-kings/476251
Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.
And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.
Found the fascist.
Well aren't you just a barrel of laughs
Wow im so stunned
Is that Amy Winehouse?!
No, no, no.
Didn't french minister Robbespierre say and act same in french revolution aera? Before he was executed by his own people.
I would have been astonished if he hadnât. I figured heâs the typical old white Republican where the answer to every irritant is to kill it.
So stunning. I've clutched my pearls so hard they've... turned into better pearls? Wait that's diamonds. Dammit.
They turned into diamonds!