Tulsi Gabbard Completes MAGA Makeover by Endorsing Donald Trump
The former Hawaii congresswoman delivered a full-throated call to vote for Trump—a man she had once tried to run against as a Democrat.
您正在查看单个线程.
I would expect nothing less from this Russian agent.
Hey now that's not fair; Tulsi will sell herself to anyone willing to pay, not just exclusively Russia!
You know, when you accuse every anti-war candidate of being a Russian agent, you’re just making Russia look better than the US.
Why do the Democrats love war so much? Why can’t Democrats be anti-war?
Edit: Reminder that Russia supports Palestinian statehood and has called for the partition of Jerusalem along pre-1967 borders. Has a Democrat ever said that?
tulsi isn't even CLOSE to being anti war.....
Reminder that Russia supports Palestinian statehood and has called for the partition of Jerusalem along pre-1967 borders
shocker; russia likes something that divides a country so they can create a wedge /s
russia likes something that divides a country so they can create a wedge
And here we see yet another Democrat opposing the partition of Jersualem, even though East Jersualem is almost entirely Arab.
Like russia hasn't had stuff like the red scare terror
What do you mean? The Red Scare didn't occur in Russia. The Red Scare was America being afraid of Communism in the '50s.
I know your a troll but I'm still going to let you know that I meant "red terror" and "scare" was some sort of typo
You know, when you accuse every anti-war candidate of being a Russian agent, you’re just making Russia look better than the US.
It's not about a supposed "anti-war" stance at all, and you trying to shift the conversation to that just makes you look like you don't want discussions about the fact Russia has been working to destabilize US politics for decades.
You *do *realize Russian interference in US politics has been happening since way before any of this right? Way before even their invasion of Georgia 16 years ago. This isn't new, and it isn't about Ukraine or Israel. It's about recognizing that Russia has been spreading misinformation in the US through things like social media and even our own politicians for decades now. The US military and intelligence communities have been warning about it for just as long, it isn't new. The fact you want to make it seem like this is somehow new means you either haven't been paying any attention, or that you support Russian interests.
Given your attempt to shift the conversation away from Russian interference, I'd say the second is correct.
It's not just the US. It's "The West" as a whole.
There's good evidence that Russia was behind the pro-Brexit sentiment in the UK as well.
https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit
Supported by the top UK Google searches immediately following the vote:
"What is the EU?"
"What is Brexit?"
There's good evidence that Russia was behind the pro-Brexit sentiment in the UK as well.
You mean that Russia supported pro-Brexit sentiment, right?
You're not saying Russia was the source of pro-Brexit sentiment, are you?
Russia has been working to destabilize US politics for decades.
Yeah, probably. Just like the USA tries to influence the population of foreign countries through efforts like Voice of America and Radio Free Asia.
But I think you’re vastly overestimating how much effect Russian propaganda has. If anything is destabilizing democracy, it’s Fox News (which has a reach hundreds of times greater than any Russia bot on Twitter). How can you worry about foreign disinformation when domestic disinformation is right in front of you and radicalizing your parents (and weird cousins).
The only reason we hear so much about Russian disinformation is because the Democrats need a boogeyman to blame their failures on. (Who haven’t the Democrats accused of being Russian agents at this point?)
Reminder that Russia supports
invading its neighbors, so it's obviously very anti-war 🙄
Russia supports Palestine because Israel is an ally of the US. If tomorrow the US decided to end it's alliance with Israel and become allies with Palestine, Russia would suddenly become against Palestine and seek to form an alliance with Israel.
There are few morals in geopolitics and there are no friends, only interests.
There are few morals in geopolitics and there are no friends, only interests.
It's funny how everyone was so excited about this rule in those years before 1939. Then for a short time some people experimentally realized that maybe some morals would be fine.
No, no politician ever believed that, but I'm confident that the reason we are only going into similar shit now is that before that there was a kind of common irrational memory, popular pressure for some morals to be followed.
The population of the western countries (except Germany, which till 80s was, eh, what it was) was rather interested in morals, anti-fascist and anti-colonial, and also (including even Germany) wanted peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
There's another rule - people so excited about backstabbing and intrigue can't honestly face their enemies, which means they can't honestly face themselves which is harder. They are weak. They are good at collectively making it appear that they are strong, but earlier or later the truth becomes clearly visible.
Everything changes, morals (not those about sexual life and religion and even honesty, but those about strength and dignity and friendship) don't, since not even Marcus Aurelius, but since Gilgamesh epic. That's because they are an evolutionary advantage. Nothing that isn't can perpetuate itself into future, and many generations have changed since then, but we still have those notions.
What kind of regime was Hamas again? It wasn't a democratic society. In fact their whole ideology centers around restoring ethnic makeup of the region to how it was in the past by the use of violence.
These were the kinds of ideas that were popular in 1939. Look at the photos of German cities in 1945. Now look again at the images you're seeing in the place that was ruled by Hamas. Same ideology, same end result.
You may have been made to believe that removing people who were born in certain place in the world should be removed by force because they're not of the same ethnicity of the people who lived there in the past. That may feel like justice, but it seems more like revenge. And when we're talking about a different generation of people wanting revenge for some perceived wrongdoing by someone's ancestors... well we've seen this kind of thing before.
Palestinians have a problem hatred. You may feel like that hatred is justified, but it makes no difference. Hatred lead to people choosing poor leaders because it's an emotion that can be easily manipulated by the corrupt. This current iteration of the conflict was initiated by Hamas to make Palestinians to hate so they won't think too hard about why their leaders are billionaires with palaces in Qatar.
The weird thing about the politics of hatred is that no matter how many times we see how self-destructive it is, people will continue to think that it makes them strong. But it ends with the same destruction.
Once Israel gets their people back and the current iteration of violence wanes, will the next generation of Palestinians be raised to hate Israelis? If that's the case we're going to see the same kind of conflict happen again in a decade or two with similar results. Germans managed to realize that it was their hatred that was the root cause of the destruction of their country. But with all of the external support Palestinian hatred receives, I'm not all that optimistic about Palestinians being able to do the same. At least not for a few more generations.
I'm not going to read this bullshit attentively because the problem is Israel and theft remains theft after many generations.
The state of Israel is built upon "restoring ethnic makeup" of something not 100, but 2000 years ago. If they don't like this logic, they should abolish it first and surrender.
Palestinians don't have a problem with hatred. It's clueless people like me who misunderstood how disgusting Israel is who thought before that they have a problem with hatred.
Germans managed to realize that it was their hatred that was the root cause of the destruction of their country.
And Israelis will too. Same ideology, same end result. They might think they are smarter.
This is you trying to deflect from the atrocities of US and Israel by reasoning that every other country is just as amoral.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. God bless America. Greatest nation on Earth. USA. USA.
You should look into the atrocities committed by Russia, if you like hearing about atrocities. Then you could look into some of the things Hamas has done.
How do you go about choosing which atrocities you care about and which ones you look the other way about? Is it based on the ethnicity of the perpetrators or the ethnicity of the victims? Or is it the atrocities that are committed against people in countries that are aligned with the US you look the other way on?
Just want to figure out method to your selective empathy.
The same Russia that's currently trying to invade Ukraine?
I’m sure you’ve heard of Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Did you know who stopped Pol Pot? It was Vietnam. Vietnam, already devastated by a series of wars, undertook a invasion of Cambodia and deposed Pol Pot, partly because Pol Pot was killing ethnic Vietnamese people who lived in Cambodia.
And throughout the whole thing, America condemned Vietnam. America accused Vietnam of being expansionist. America was on Cambodia’s side.
Just a thought.
Couldn't find anything good to say about Russia that wasn't a joke line?
That was a quick change of subject.
I'm not the one who tried to change the subject.
I'm saying the Russia/Ukraine situation seems very analogous to the Vietnam/Cambodia situation.
Who were the Ukrainians killing before Russia came to save them?
Ethnic Russians in the Donbas (a region of eastern Ukraine).
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/20/world/europe/ukraine-donetsk-residents-struggle/index.html
And who was president of Ukraine while that was happening? Viktor Yanukovich, pro-Russian stooge and convicted traitor.
Now, why would a pro-Russian Ukrainian be giving Russia cover to invade Ukraine? I'm sure we'll never know, but maybe there are some falsehoods we can flag and eliminate from consideration.
And who was president of Ukraine while that was happening? Viktor Yanukovich, pro-Russian stooge and convicted traitor.
No, it was Petro Poroschenko, the pro-European billionaire installed as president by an American-backed coup.
I agree we need Ukraine to stop Putin.
The Russia that is trying to liberate the Donbas from Ukrainian oppression, yes.
Lmao
(Reminder that the Donbas is majority ethnic Russian and has been fighting for independence from Ukraine since 2014, which resulted in them being bombed by their own government.)
(reminder that this is complete bullshit and in fact Hitler used an identical argument when he invaded Poland)
reminder that this is complete bullshit
Reminder that you don't know what you're talking about.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
Yeah when you raise a militia with the help of another country and shoot at the government it tends to shoot back.
Oh look, another Democrat cheering on war crimes.
Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city in early October 2014, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
This is another joke right? Russia has infamously been leveling towns to take territory, specifically targeting civilian shelters, and been caught torturing civilians.
I do wonder how much Russian IRA trolls get paid...
How much are you being paid? Because this whole sub should be called /c/FreeBlowjobsForBiden.
And I don't know what you think the Irish Republican Army has to do with anything.
And I don't know what you think the Irish Republican Army has to do with anything.
The Internet Research Agency, known in Russian Internet slang as the Trolls from Olgino or Kremlinbots, was a Russian company which was engaged in online propaganda and influence operations on behalf of Russian business and political interests. It was linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a former Russian oligarch who was leader of the Wagner Group, and based in Saint Petersburg, Russia.
But I have a feeling you're just playing dumb.
I've yet to see that claim from a reliable source.
Then pick up a newspaper. Any newspaper other than RT.
Gabbard is literally a Russian agent, though. It's not hyperbole.
They also say that about Jill Stein, and Tucker Carlson, and even Trump himself.
Do you honestly think it's possible that Russians could have taken over every aspect of American government, politics, and media except the valiant Democrats (because the Democrats are so noble and pure of heart and unable to be blackmailed).
If the Russians really could infiltrate America that thoroughly, then it would be all over already because they'd have the Democrats too.
But it's just a Democrat scare tactic to get you riled up.
yeah how dare they call a person who attends a state dinner at putin's table with general flynn a russian agent
When she was A Democratic Congressional Representative her top donors were Kremlin-linked interests.
When the intelligence agencies were saying a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary was a Russian agent they were talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Members of both parties were calling her a traitor. It wasn't until she started working with the Republicans that they stopped criticizing her treason.
She tried suing Clinton over saying she was a Russian agent, but she lost because truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
She's literally dined with Putin and General Flynn, who was found guilty of colluding with Russia but was pardoned by Trump.
She's a traitor and should be imprisoned.
They also say that about Jill Stein, and Tucker Carlson, and even Trump himself.
I know you're trolling, but it's hilarious you just posted a list of people with credible ties to Russian influence as your response to someone not having ties with Russia.
I love how hard you trolls have to flounder for your rubles.
Rubles ain't worth what they used to be, so they've got to take on 2, sometimes 3, separate troll jobs just to make ends meet!
In all this bullshit, there is one kernel of truth I want to address.
Russia hasn't created anything in the shitstorm they're inflaming. This bullshit we're dealing with with all our divisions is home-grown and home-made. If you believe that all our problems are Russian, you're just setting yourself up with some home-grown xenophobia while you ignore the real problem. And Russia just falling into a sinkhole one day won't solve the massive number of problems that America has, the same problems that Adolf Hitler schemed to exploit in World War 2.
But what is not gotten here is that Russia HAS exploited these problems, just like Hitler did in World War 2. Russia may not have 'taken over every aspect of American government, politics, and media', but they HAVE identified useful idiots and empowered them to disrupt our nation's well of discourse.
Jill Stein has literally been photographed sitting beside Putin, and she advocates for Pro-Russian positions like withdrawing our aid to Ukraine, while inflaming fake divisions like whether or not to vaccinate against diseases. Likewise with Tucker Carlson and Mr. "I'll end the war in Ukraine on day one" Trump. We're not keen on surrendering a nation to an authoritarian dictator like Putin, so he can go oppress gays and transgendered people over there. A Trump win here would definitely enable that, not to mention a very Russian-like playbook of capturing the government's Civil Service to staff with sycophants, a Unitary Executive that has absolute power without checks and balances from the other branches of government, the total evisceration of the Minority Party's power (and the relegation of the Dems to that minority status -- Permanent Republican Majority, which preceded Trump as a Republican goal), and the codification of oppression of Gays, non-Christians, non-Whites, and women. Dems may be using scare tactics around these truths, but they are truths, and sometimes you just gotta call a spade a spade.
Now, why might we call people like this a Russian troll? Well, let's stop and think for a moment. Trump is Russia's favourite candidate, end of line. He'll put pressure on Ukraine to play ball with giving up the disputed territories, and he'd definitely stop the flow of guns, missiles, bombs, tanks, and planes to Ukraine. While the EU may step up, 1) Russia has plans for the EU, and 2), the EU can't hope to replace what the biggest spender in military can afford to contribute. Getting the US out of Ukraine's side will improve Russia's odds and serve their purpose. We know that Russia is hiring trolls to influence Western thinking -- we have empirical evidence of this! It's part of a massive Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian) cyber plan. We've even seen their hardware -- massive banks of smartphones hooked up to a central computer run by an operator to post inflaming and discouraging comments.
Now, imagine a comment coming in having 'concerns' about how every post that defends Russian assets is 'Dems falling for scare-mongering', despite the clear evidence that Gabbard has been under Russia's thumb, defending Stein's own Russian connections, and claiming Trump of all people was not under his authoritarian buddy's thumb contrary to EVERYTHING we've seen these past 8+ years? I see the concern, pal, and see it for exactly what it is: a problem that exists only in certain stupid little heads, and I call them out on it.
People, this guy isn't here to honestly debate us. Keep up the good work calling his bullshit out, though!
Edited: To remove reference to an individual poster.
People, this guy isn't here to honestly debate us. Keep up the good work calling his bullshit out, though!
You know, I used to do quite a lot of volunteer organizing work for the Democrats when I was younger. I was even on the Christmas card list of a federal senator. (I mean, it's not a big deal, but I valued it. I held onto those cards until last year.) I spent years of my life on that.
Boy do I regret that now.
If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day...
If you run into assholes all day...
Then you must work in politics.
I keep wondering if he would have sat quietly while Biden commits a genocide in Israel, and I feel certain he wouldn't have. He was pro-Israel, but not like that.
The party has definitely changed.
This is the Democrat's equivalent of Obama is a secret Muslim.
The whole country has been watching too much Manchurian Candidate.
There are plenty of ass hats who are not seemingly tied to Russia. However Gabbard seems concretely tied to Russia, and Carlson explicitly went over there to help with Russian state propaganda. Trump has been heavily influenced by Russian manipulations, though I'm not sure if he's knowingly "on the take" or just super susceptible to being manipulated.
Haven't heard about Jill Stein, but hardly paid attention since she doesnt influence anything at all. I did look at her platform and saw the "just have Ukraine surrender to Russia" and thought that was super weird, but I chalked it up to being just terribly naive rather than assuming Russian influence.
Here's a Newsweek article about her Russian ties, including her having a meeting with Putin and Flynn and being photographed doing so. I get the calls to be careful about seeing Russians everywhere and not recognising that the asshattery is inside the house and not just looking out from within, but seriously, when someone is clearly working with the Autocrats in Russia, we should call that shit out.
Tulsi Gabbard isn't anti-war. She explicitly called herself a hawk on the War on Terror. She's a right-wing opportunist, and like other right wing opportunists (Tucker Carlson, for instance) she might occasionally have a broken clock moment where she criticizes a war, but it's only because she wants to pivot to starting other wars elsewhere.
Tulsi is also a Zionist. She voted for a ban on BDS and called the protests antisemitic. In fact, she said that they were "puppets" of a "radical islamist organization" and, “I’m concerned about it because leaders in the West are not combating it. … Unfortunately, President Biden seems to be afraid to be called an Islamophobe.” This is similar to her criticisms of Obama for being insufficiently hawkish (in her view) on the War on Terror.
Don't fall for right-wing grifters trying to take advantage of anti-war sentiment to push their agenda.
She voted for a ban on BDS and called the protests antisemitic. In fact, she said that they were "puppets" of a "radical islamist organization" and, “I’m concerned about it because leaders in the West are not combating it. … Unfortunately, President Biden seems to be afraid to be called an Islamophobe.”
Oh, I didn't know that. That's disappointing.
(Not much different from any other US politician, though.)
Don't bother with this one, folks. I recognize the name and that should tell you enough.
Move along now.
Move along.
Lol they are dumb as fuck but I almost admire their tenacity.
I almost admire their tenacity.
I guess I want to be 100% sure that Democrats are a lost cause before I give up on them.
I stupidly keep hoping Democrats will be rational enough to yield to facts. (Democrats are always saying that they're the rational side of politics in this country.) But I'm realizing Democrats have become nothing more than BlueMAGA.
Homerian, I've been rather patient. We both deserve some level of respect, if only as fellow human beings. So when I ask people to move along it's because I don't feel you'll have your mind or opinions changed by words on an online forum, largely due to how you don't typically listen rationally.
Among other reasons, most of us who lean Left recognize that there are commonalities and where comparisons can be made between the radicalization of the Right, and some of the more radical positions those on the Left can take. We also know not every position taken on any side is inherently good or bad. For the most part we make judgment calls, which is why there are so many groups with even small differences in opinion not-on-the-Right and why we bicker. It's a weakness we have as a larger community.
However, we are NOT MAGA. We do not subscribe willfully to a cult without first being tricked, nor do we go out of our way to cause harm. If Harris or Walz or Obama or fucking Abraham Lincoln came back and began yelling about how they will become King and suppress minorities, etc, we would absolutely turn against them. We follow those we follow because right now there aren't many choices, something we intend to change. We see that this is a step in the right direction, and a big one at that. Despite our honestly very valid hatred of Trump and the modern GOP, we want what's best for everyone in this country, including those on the Right. This is why we challenge you constantly. Because you're someone that wants to speak out and we strongly feel that despite your arguments you are not making strong cases, and certainly appear to be working against this greater good we are attempting to establish.
I wouldn't have spent this time if I don't feel strongly that Harris-Walz is the right direction. Nor would I stand so often if there wasn't something very real to lose. I just wish you, and others like you who don't speak up, would understand that. Y'know?
However, we are NOT MAGA [...] we want what's best for everyone in this country, including those on the Right.
Are you sure? Because, by the way, people in this thread have called me dipship, shithead, idiot, moron, puppet, troll, and told me to fuck off multiple times, invariably with a slew of upvotes.
And why? Because I said I don't think Gabbard is a Russian asset? They're making excuses for supporting genocide, but I'm the one who deserves abuse?
And you want me to believe that Democrats aren't like MAGA? It sure looks like MAGA to me, and you're telling me to not believe my own eyes. (Maybe easy for you when you're not the one being abused for the crime of disagreeing with people.)
Maybe the Democrats have become MAGA and you just don't want to notice it.
No, we're not like MAGA. I can't speak for everyone in this case, I am sure there are some who will take it too far. That's part of the nature of divisiveness. That said, let me make a list of what those on the left do agree on:
I'm sure some stuff is missing. Ya'll have to forgive me, I did my best off top of my head.
Somewhat more controversial is how some of us are tired of averting our eyes and turning our gazes away. Moreover, the Republicans play dirty. They fling shit, set fire to conversations, attempt to hide in plain sight in forums claiming to be someone else, will break laws if it means hurting someone they don't like, and they may even attempt to overthrow a country. Let me just grab the citation on that last one.
We are not like MAGA. We are sick of the shit. I was one of the people who pushed for us to stop being so damned tolerant BECAUSE tolerance is a BIG reason why we're where we are now. We believe in what's on that list for the benefit of all. Republicans fight against it for the benefit of the few, and more importantly the injuring of those they do not like.
So when you call us blueMAGA. When you claim we are no better. Yeah, Homerian, we tell you to suck it, because it's not true.
Btw, if Harris-Walz turned and started spouting MAGA bs, we'd turn on them in a heartbeat. We do not want a Trump or a MAGA in sheep's clothing.
By the way, the Democrats didn't become this way overnight. They were steered this way by their leadership.
The party in general follows the direction of the leaders. The people here are calling Gabbard a Russian agent because Hillary Clinton did that in 2016. The people here are okay with supporting Israel's genocide because Biden said he supports Israel.
I will be watching over the next two months to see if Harris and Walz can steer the party back to sanity, but so far it's not looking good.
Homerian, I've been rather patient.
You've been patient with me?
This is the first time I've said anything to you. I haven't demanded any of your time.
I don't feel you'll have your mind or opinions changed by words on an online forum, largely due to how you don't typically listen rationally.
Look at this thread. I'm being downvoted for correctly pointing out who was president of Ukraine during a particular event. For correctly pointing out when China last ruled Vietnam. For pointing out what "red scare" means.
If I fail to be persuaded by this particular online forum, it's probably because this particular forum is showing me that it doesn't care about facts.
We both deserve some level of respect, if only as fellow human beings.
Thank you. I appreciate you saying that, when so many others in this thread have used insults, called me stupid, and accused me of being a troll.
But you're also being very condescending. (I'm sorry, I don't know how else to respond to someone saying I "don't typically listen rationally".)
However, we are NOT MAGA. We do not subscribe willfully to a cult without first being tricked
Well, neither do the MAGA people. They've been tricked. They're the product of fearmongering and misinformation.
I've always hoped that the antidote to that kind of hysteria was facts and information, and I've been frustrated that MAGA people (including those in my family) aren't more receptive to facts. They've become skeptical of any information that isn't presented to them by "their side".
Now look at this thread. Facts are being downvoted. Anyone who disagrees with the Democrats must be an agent of Russian disinformation and we must distrust what they say (and we'll yell at them and insult them for good measure). And heaven forbid that anyone criticize Harris. That's what I mean by the Democrats becoming like MAGA.
If Harris or Walz or Obama or fucking Abraham Lincoln came back and began yelling about how they will become King
Trump didn't say he would be a King.
Others said that the supreme court ruling made the president like a king. Maybe you're thinking of that.
Trump also said he would be a dictator on Day 1 (by which he meant that he would pass a lot of laws by executive order on Day 1, not that he would rule like a dictator throughout his term in office). You might be thinking of that.
We follow those we follow because right now there aren't many choices
Yeah, I understand that. I honestly do.
Like, when I say I'm leaning towards voting Trump, it's not because I love Trump. I am similarly dealing with a lack of good options.
But backing a particular horse doesn't mean you have to be uncritical of that horse and attack others who do criticize that horse. That's where you start to seem like a cult.
Harris has said some good things. (Like, I think her housing initiative is very good.) But she's also said some worrying things. (I'm currently quite rattled by her staunch pro-Israel speech, which has been followed by Israel attacking Lebanon.) I think the way to advocate for Harris is to point out what you like about her, rather than attacking people who criticize her.
we want what's best for everyone in this country
I just want the best for people too.
You have though. In other threads, for other reasons. We have interacted. I recently re-read the Odyssey, so your name stuck with me. I know you get commonly downvoted and challenged, which is why I'm trying to be, well...hopefully understanding and not condescending. It's a fine line to walk and one I'm not sure I'm wise enough to navigate accurately, something you in fact point out. I'm not really sure how to fix that.
The reason I responded is because we aren't blindly supporting Harris, and many of us are tired of the shit flinging the Right tends to rely on. This is why I approached you here. It isn't necessarily that we don't agree with facts you may present, it's that you appear to us to be attempting to discount a hope we have that Harris and now Walz represents.
You do you. I just see you comment on here often and I feel as if it must be disheartening to constantly be getting downvoted. Challenge the status quo, express unpopular opinions. If you want people to not get defensive though, try to meet them on their level a bit. Unlike MAGA, we are reasonable. We will criticize Harris. It's just at the point where the alternative is so incredibly, maliciously evil that we, and I, legitimately fear them succeeding. We bite back because for years we were tolerant. Enough is enough.
I don't know if you'll listen or understand. I just put myself in your shoes and wanted to express what I feel must be some reasons why you seem to be disagreed with so often. Whatever others might believe, we need people who will speak out. This is just my lame attempt to make your words reach people more clearly.
I admire your effort here. I'm guessing this is how the Mods want us to engage with these kinds of people. The only reason this person won't be responding back to you is he overstayed his welcome in this community and got escorted out, but I can imagine his response if he could reply.
IMO, this person was not here to challenge us or be challenged. He was here to attack the Left for a nefarious purpose, and Lemmy's politics community trends left, so here he is. But if he's sincere and not just wanting to get Trump in office, your advice about meeting us half-way would be very great for him to take, assuming he pops in with a new account...
That's unfortunate. We really do need voices that are willing to speak out, even if it means being looked at as some naysayer. It just has to be done with reason and patience, which can be tough to achieve.
Anyway, I appreciate you letting me know! A little bit of tapping away on my phone to maybe change a mind for the better is a small price. Even if most of those who do come here with an agenda are unlikely to listen. Ah well! I tried!
Oh. My apologies for not recognizing your username.
Troll response
I just want the best for people too.
Press downvote to doubt...
She's not anti-war if she's supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine. She's anti-fighting back.
Haha this guy... Acting like Putin cares when he happily helped Assad bomb his own people all the while invading a Sovereign nation for imperial ambitions hahahah
when he happily helped Assad bomb his own people
And which side of the Syrian war are you on?
The side that wants to topple Assad and install an intolerant Sunni theocracy?
And which side of the Syrian war are you on?
FSA.
Anything is better than a walking shit-stain who uses chemical weapons against their own citizens, including children. You should be ashamed.
Boy, Russian troops really got fucked up America when they crossed the river in Syria. Got a hefty dose of what a C-130 Gunship can do, huh?
Got a hefty dose of what a C-130 Gunship can do, huh?
I'm not Russian.
Who said you had to be?
Still, I don't really believe you. So there's that.
Lets see what George Orwell wrote about that. Try to read all of it, especially the last paragraph. It isnt about being against pacifism, it's about how pacifism can be used by authoritarian regimes on liberal countries and how that societal asymmetry defines the end result.
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’.
The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.
Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with.
In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Not all wars are good. I was against the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. But this war is one of the few occasions where american interests mostly align with the moral thing, helping an invaded country defend against an imperial invader. This is one of the least controversial and relatively clean cut wars in history.
Awesome quote and context.
The First Iraqi War passed the test. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went in to give them a little taste of that #1 Military Spending and remind them that we're the big kid on the block, and in the moment, we were the big kid who beat up bullies and gave the little boy his lunch money back. Ukraine is much the same way, and we'd be justified in setting down troops in Ukraine and driving the Russians right back to the agreed upon borders and then stopping and hardening borders up there.
We're not always perfect. The Second Iraq War showed that. And while we entered Afghanistan with good intentions (Bin Laden sleeping with the fishes was a net good for the world), we got bogged down in the sort of stuff that turned Vietnam bad. But we can't throw the good wars (World War 2 and beating the Nazis being the biggest example of these) away just because we've done wrong in war. We just need to be cognizant of what we're doing in EACH war and be willing to draw our lines in the sand, much like Bush-41 did with the first Iraq war.
When it comes to military action, it is all about proportionality. Obviously Israel has the right to defend itself but killing(and starving) tens of thousands of people and flattening Gaza is not proportional. Obviously the US has the right to defend itself but invading and occupying Afghanistan for 20 years, suspending human rights(Guantanamo/cia black sites/patriot act) is not proportional.
And the Iraq invasion was straight up imperialistic, literally what Russia is doing now to Ukraine, which is why tankies use that invasion as a "gotcha". Which is why everyone in the EU opposed, even most EU governments. There were a lot of protests in EU in opposition of that invasion.
Excellent points. Thanks!
This dude sees rape and yells "stop resisting".
LOL that ratio. It's generally considered a landslide victory to secure 65% or more of the vote. You're hovering around 2.4%. Massacred.
Behold the Democrats. They love war, they love doubling down on war, and anyone who opposes their war agenda must be loudly denouced as a Russian.
None of them even tried to argue that the Democrats value peace (because they can't, can they?). They just tried to say Russia is worse.
You all thought liberalism meant peace. You were wrong. Liberalism is violence.
Take a good look at the world. Liberalism is violence.
The funny thing about you fucking morons is you pretend to know shit. We live in the most peaceful era since at least the 1400s.
Because of a decline in wars in Europe.
I already said that liberals care about conflict in Europe. They don’t mind sponsoring conflict elsewhere.
Look at the chart, you idiot.
Not to mention many more conflicts not explicitly called out in the chart, like the Russo-Japanese war, the umpteen conflicts in Myanmar, India-Pakistan, Korean War, Iran-Iraq, gulf war, Syrian revolution, East Timor… I could go on, but there’s no point. It’s like trying to teach a dog turd to go fetch.
Liberals only ever cared about peace in Europe. The rest of the world was an asset to be mined and exploited by whatever violent means necessary.
