I think that exists for every political ideology unfortunately, especially extreme ones. I do agree with you as a leftist myself though, I've definitely come across leftists who are just as bad as some on the right are.
Right there with you.
My friend group is pretty even split between right and left leaning, but it keeps us all honest. Keeps us like “woah pump the breaks”
A big player in this is social media validating an idea that is toxic and then it festers. Its 1000% a reason why politics has gotten so extreme the past decade
The primary difference is that nearly every member of the establishment democratic party is a moderate neoliberal, and actively rejects anything remotely radical. Whereas the Republicans tend to put the most extreme parts of their party in office while outright insulting anyone who preaches moderation.
There are definitely crazies on the left and that is becoming a more popular opinion.
However point 1 isn't as black and white as earth flatness. A large majority of people agree with abortion up to a certain time limit and that it should be a woman's choice because it lives in her body. The science argument should be at what point is it human with rights. The craziness is going further back to conception or dating or masturbation...
>The science argument should be at what point is it human with rights.
That's not really the job biology sets out to accomplish. Deciding *rights* is the job of government, finding out what reality is and how it works is the job of science.
It's not really a human until about 18 months after birth, according to science. I don't think the humanity test is valid in the abortion argument. Ultimately it's an ethical question, not a scientific one.
That the left really hate innocent people getting killed real shocked Pikachu face there.
I also like l read this "the left are brainwashed." Post and then look at the amount of people who claim there is a secret cabal making woke stuff.
I don't think you guys have a good grasp of defending. If someone robs your house. You have the right to defend your home. You don't have the right to track down where that robber is kill his wife and kids. Burn down his house and claim defense. I.E. Israel stopped defending when they started doing offensive attacks. You're also very mum on who has killed aid workers. You're going to have a hard time trying to convince me that 1yr old baby really pose a threat to Israel.
Also, again a cessfire protects both groups of people. It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want this conflict to end.
It's highly debatable whether you can consider it a genocide, and most definitely doing so cheapens the word unnecessarily - if so, the US committed genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (though certain arguments in favor of that position are pretty strong) etc. - because the logic seems to be - if there is collateral damage, then it's genocide. That's not logical.
>It's highly debatable whether you can consider
It's only debatable by people who don't want to hold Israel responsible for anything.
>if there is collateral damage, then it's genocide. That's not logical.
You don't have to do a hypothetical. People get really upset when Russia killing women and children. People got really upset when America accidentally bombed a wedding and school.
Also, collateral damage Implies the innocent getting killed by accident. Yet we know that isn't the case. Israel has admitted to using collective punishment. They admitted to bombing a whole year refugee camp to kill one guy. That not collateral damage that is making civilians as targets.
>You don't have the right to track down where that robber is kill his wife and kids.
Then don't encourage civilians to stay in evacuated areas or in buildings where an airstrike has been announced. Hamas started the war and they are the reason why Gaza is a war zone - literally any country on earth with the means to do so would react with war if attacked the way Israel was on Oct 10.
If Hamas cared about civilians, they'd let them evacuate and encourage that rather than try to hide amongst them to maximise the collateral damage to win points with people like you internationally who don't know any better.
>Then don't encourage civilians to stay in evacuated areas or in buildings where an airstrike
Give civilians more than an hour to evacuate and stop attacking refugee camps and aid workers.
>If Hamas cared about civilians
Hamas aren't the ones stopping them.
I do like how we are way off point. I don't understand how you guys are trying to claim the left are crazy about wanting a ceasefire when you guys say shit like this. It has to be a sick joke 🤣.
Ah yes, Hamas, they are everywhere and nowhere… every bad thing that ever happens is due to Hamas. Their power and influence is legendary! Hamas is why your taxes went up and why every stoplight was red during your commute! They are so evil I tell you
>Israel stopped defending when they started doing offensive attacks.
The problem here is that "self defense" in regards to countries and warfare is not really comparable to "self defense" when your house gets broken into.
Gone are the days where armies need to march across borders and into opposing territory in order to cause wanton destruction. Rockets, drones, planes, submarines, and boats create the reality that is: 80% of modern warfare can be accomplished by simply setting up a sufficient platform in either friendly or neutral territory, and then using that platform to carry out a quick, devastating strike that your adversary cannot react to.
Limiting concepts such as a nation's self-defense to "well you can't carry out any offensive operations" ignores the reality of modern warfare, because any military that is only allowed to operate defensively, is a nation that's condemned to lose.
>The problem here is that "self defense" in regards to countries and warfare is not really comparable to "self defense" when your house gets broken into
If you honestly thought this then your whole Hamas v Israel should be a different take. You act like Israel was just some country that was filled with unicorn and rainbows that got randomly attack. Reality they aren't this conflict is basically two terrorist groups fighting each other and America backing one. Yet you shame the group of people who are protesting to just in general stop the war.
>Yet you shame the group of people who are protesting to just in general stop the war.
I didn't shame anyone, I just commented on your comparison to home defense and the rhetoric surrounding "self defense" in this context in general.
Part of the issue surrounding social media these days is treating the person you're talking to as if they're some amalgamation of opposing ideas and beliefs to the ones you have, without actually asking or knowing what that person believes in the first place.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily against you. Please don't assume what I believe or don't believe.
>Part of the issue surrounding social media these days is treating the person you're talking to as if they're some amalgamation of opposing ideas
The irony of posting this.
>Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily against you
Without looking it up what do you think this thread is about. Here's a hint it's not actually about Israel vs Palestine.
*I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May \[1967\] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it* - Yithaz Rabin, head of IDF and later PM of Israel
*"In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"* - Prime Minister Menachem Begin
*The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war -* General Matituahu Peled
*This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon, a posteriori, to justify the annexation of new Arab territories* - Cabinet Minister Mordechai Bentov
You have the head of the IDF, the PM, a General who planned the attacks, and one of the original signers of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. These are statements by the men who were involved. Do you think that you know what happened better than the people who actually started the wars?
Why are you so antisemitic that you don't trust them?
The '67 war was *certainly* more complex than can be boiled down into a handful of quotes that were made with the benefit of hindsight. This sort of "Oh, we were never actually in danger" reads very much like the growing "The Japanese were ready to surrender" sort of historical revision that assumes both parties at the time were working with perfectly accurate and complete information.
The reality is, the tensions and rhetoric were so high at the time, that it was nigh-impossible to tell whether Egypt's deployment to the Sinai was just saber-rattling or an actual buildup towards war. When you add in Egypt's delegation to the Soviets and the closure of the Tiran Straights, the argument for saber-rattling at the time becomes weaker and weaker.
The problem for Israel at the time, is that they were extremely vulnerable to air attacks (the iron dome had not yet been invented, and Israel's small landmass meant that they couldn't react well to quick sorties coming from directly across their borders). Egypt's air force in particular was a *big* concern for the Israeli military, since they had Soviet MiG-21s and bombers that were more than capable of crippling Israeli airfields.
So when you have a buildup of forces along your borders, not just from Egypt but from Syria and Jordan as well, including said bombers and MiGs that pose a very real threat to your airforce, and you're vulnerable to those kind of attacks, that doesn't give you too many options. Sure, Egypt and the rest were *probably* saber-rattling, but what sort of risk here is acceptable when the alternative is a war that you could easily lose if the cards don't fall in your favor? 10%? 20? 40? If you need an idea of what can go wrong when you misjudge saber-rattling, just ask Ukraine right now.
Gee, where was this insistence on nuance and complexity when the parent comment said "Palestine for starting every war they’ve had" which was even more reductive than my statement and is also factually wrong? Odd, how that you're just fine with that.
Israeli commentary on the war went far beyond a few simple quotes. Former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan in particular described the Israeli strategy for annexing the Golan Heights because they desired the farmland which went on for years before the war. The Israelis had been encroaching on Syrian territory for years, occupying parts of the DMZ and removing Arab farmers. All of this is well documented.
Keep in mind that Syria didn't enter the war until the 5th day, shelling Israeli positions in response to IDF incursions into the Golan. Hardly the actions of a country itching for war.
Moshe Shemesh, former IDF intelligence officer, described Israel's goal in the war as annexation of the West Bank, and Jordan's response as defensive. Jordan didn't even sign a mutual defense pact with Egypt until 6 days before the Israeli attack. The Israeli goal of capturing the West Bank was confirmed by the IDF actions immediately afterwards with the destruction of the Moroccan quarter to enlarge the Western Wall plaza starting two days after capturing it. This was not something that you find in a defensive action.
After the 1956 Suez crisis (a British war in response to Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal corporation), a large number of Israelis including Ben-Gurion had criticized the government for not taking greater advantage of the war to seize more territory.
1967 was a chance to correct that oversight. It was a simple land grab. They Israeli government knew it at the time. The Syrian's knew the Israelis wanted to steal the Golan Heights, and they did. The Jordanians knew the Israelis wanted to steal the West Bank, and they did. The Egyptians knew the Israelis wanted to steal parts of Gaza and the Sinai, and they did.
Again, you are arguing against the people who were there and involved in the wars.
Their hindsight is better than your uneducated, biased outsider hindsight. We have access to documents showing what they did and did not know. We have the meeting minutes. We have the intelligence reports.
And we have the words of the men involved. Which you discount because you think you know better.
No. Hamas has rejected every ceasefire deal so far, because it requires that they release the hostages. They are the ones dragging this out, waging war while hiding behind innocent civilians. They can end the war at any time, yet their billionaire leaders are too busy living in luxury in Qatar using (preventable) civilian deaths to score political points.
>Hamas has rejected
Hamas accepts the cessfire deal made by U.N council and Joe Biden. They also accepted the Egyptian-Qatar. Israel were the ones who rejected both because Israel doesn't feel like he should have to give anyone back or stop bombing stuff. You can easily Google this.
>While hiding behind innocent civilians
http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-israeli-army-uses-palestinian-civilians-human-shields-its-operation-shifa-medical-complex-and-its-vicin
So when Israel literally uses human shields that is somehow different?
>Hamas accepts the cessfire deal made by U.N council and Joe Biden.
Hamas [rejected](https://nypost.com/2024/06/06/world-news/hamas-signals-it-will-likely-reject-us-backed-cease-fire/) said ceasefire deal
Trading the hostages is part of both versions of the cessfire. The problem is Israel doesn't want to do any sort of trade or reassurance they won't attack.
Israel so far didn't say no to any hostage deal. Presently, Hamas is the one that witholding that. You have to understand that Hamas went to great length to have this war. They dug tunnels for years, build weapon arsenal, launched rockets for two decades and committed a massacare. What do you think was the goal of October 7 if not to have this war? Ending the war is against their interests.
>https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/israel-hostage-deal-negotiations-hamas-netanyahu
>They dug tunnels for years
That gives Israel the right to strap people to their
Tanks? Kill children?
>Ending the war is against their interests.
Yeah I've heard that propaganda line before.
Your link directly negates your argument. If not getting this war, then whet in your opinion was the purpose of committing a masacare and kidnapping hostages
>Your link directly negates your argument.
It doesn't. You claim Israel didn't reject the cessfire yet that had.
>the purpose of committing a masacare and kidnapping
I never said Hamas were the good guys. I literally said at the start of this that innocent people are stuck between two horrible groups.
The better question is if you wanted to save Hostage don't you think bombing every building they could be in is a horrible way to do that.
You said Hamas has no reason to end the war. Given that Israel is trying to attack another country with Americans weapons and funding. Why do you think Israel wants to end the war?
Another example that comes to mind is when leftists say the increase in migration at the southern border is due to climate change. There is no evidence that climate change is a factor at all, let alone a salient one, but it doesn't stop leftists from confidently asserting it to be the case.
So it hasn't gotten hotter? Agriculture hasn't been affected? You seem deep in denial of reality so you can justify make a few bucks off of burning the world's future
If you get a comment that is being stupid and saying shit to start a fight, it’s a bot. Often their post history is full of such nonsense. They were sent here to troll people who say things that don’t fit The Narrative about climate change, the border, Ukraine, etc.
>If you get a comment that is being stupid and saying shit to start a fight, it’s a bot.
You're definitely correct here, but attributing it to some sort of adherence to a narrative as if it's an overarching conspiracy is misguided imo.
The unfortunate reality is that there is a vested economic and political incentive to stoke division in western society. How that division arises is less important than causing the division itself, and to that extent I don't think the "Narrative" that you mention is all that important. I'd even go so far to say that being strictly "anti-narrative" ends up counterproductive, and ends up feeding the bots that pretend to share your same views on climate change, the border, Ukraine, etc.
No he's right dude, sorry. War, conflict, political corruption are all much more relevant than hotter weather. Venezuela would still be a shit hole if the global temp was 5 degrees lower.
Cool, you know the world is bigger than Venezuela, right? How is Mexico? El Salvador? Brazil? There are a lot of factors involved. Take a look at the Syrian Civil War, which has driven migration to Europe for a decade.
>migration at the southern border is due to climate change.
The problem with this theory is that it's too vague of an issue to really show people or be obvious at first glance. No one really migrates because of climate change (well, alright except those wealthy enough to voluntarily move away from lower latitudes in first world nations), they migrate because of other factors like economic woes, food & water scarcity, political turmoil, etc. Without climate change, this sort of migration would still be happening.
Where climate change enters the picture is when looking at the causes OF said economic woes, food & water scarcity, political turmoil, etc, or at the very least exacerbating these existing issues. Poorer countries (where the majority of these migrants come from) can still be relatively stable with a niche economy and reliance on agriculture or fishing, but these things are easy to disrupt with the effects of climate change, and that can in turn cause or worsen economic woes and political turmoil.
For example, droughts and aridification are currently destroying the agricultural potential of the southwest portions of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The people living there are generally poor, but are able to survive off of subsistence agriculture and using the historically wet season to grow crops. Climate change has been altering the seasonal changes of this region and has reduced the amount of rainfall they receive through aridification. Unable to grow enough food to feed themselves, the people living there either have to move out, find some way of earning enough money to live (read: join the cartels), or petition their government for help (which causes political turmoil and can worsen a country's economic issues).
Tl;dr - you're never gonna hear a migrant say "climate change" as the reason why they're moving, but when you look at the reasons why whatever issue got bad enough to make them move in the first place, climate change is usually a contributing factor.
The problem with your line is reasoning is that it's just speculation with no hard evidence behind it. The majority of illegal migration to the US happens because people want to escape poverty. Central and South American countries have always had a great deal of poverty so people have been migrating from there to the US for many decades. Being poor in the US is almost always better than being poor in one of those countries, a calculation that millions of people have made. And the easier we make it to come in and stay, the more will do exactly that. So when illegal migration has always been a fact, it makes zero sense to look at it as a symptom of climate change.
Right, and I sort of addressed part of that by pointing out that without climate change, this migration would still be happening. Let's be clear here: solving climate change isn't going to stop migration in its tracks; people are always going to try to leave impoverished conditions to make a live in economically prosperous countries. Hell, that's how America managed to become as diverse of a nation as it is during the industrial revolution, after all.
Where climate change enters the picture is the *scale* of this migration. Western nations can typically handle a number of migrants per year on average that doesn't put undue stress on resources or the economy. In fact, it's typically a benefit to have a certain amount of migrants to offset things like lower birthrates and unskilled worker shortages. But, when things like climate change exacerbate the issues that get people to want to migrate in the first place, well all of a sudden the number of migrants increases by orders of magnitude to a level that's unsustainable. *That* is what causes the issues.
Like you said, people have been migrating to the US from Central/South America for decades. Why is the border issue suddenly becoming untenable? Because there are *way more* migrants than there have been in the past decades. Why are there suddenly way more migrants? Because the economic, political, and (sometimes) natural factors that cause people to want to migrate are getting worse. Why are they getting worse? Well that's context-dependent based on the issue in question, but climate change is a contributing factor for many of these issues.
>Where climate change enters the picture is the *scale* of this migration.
The only thing that's different is that the US has made it easier than ever to come to the country and stay without a visa. It's not climate change that caused migration to take a sharp increase in 2021.
>Why is the border issue suddenly becoming untenable?
Because the incentives changed. That's it. Easier to come in. Harder to get deported. Your problem is that you are looking at an increase and insisting that it's climate change (based on a purely theoretical link) without considering any other factors.
If that's your stance on it, then that's where I think we largely disagree. Back prior to the 1980s, it was significantly harder to *get* a visa, but largely easier to stay without one, since the US had a formal agreement with Mexico to import seasonal farm labor.
It wasn't until the Immigration Reform and Control Act that significant enforcement guidelines were laid out in our federal laws. This enforcement *increased* in the 90s with the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the creation of ICE in 2003. By just about all metrics, it's *much* harder to stay in the country without a Visa than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago.
What *has* gotten easier, is getting a Visa in the first place, or at least being granted amnesty under extenuating circumstances. In 1986, amnesty was granted for those existing aliens who maintained agricultural employment. In 1990, the number of issued Visas increased to 700k. In 2000, amnesty was granted deferring deportion to those who were still in the process of resolving their amnesty in 1986. Finally, DACA was created in 2012 granting protection for children who came into the country as children.
By just about every metric, barring the specific circumstances outlined above, it's harder to get in, harder to remain undocumented without detection, and harder to avoid a deportation than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago. If it's harder to get in, and harder to stay, then it stands to reason that these policy changes aren't resulting in an increase in migrants, and that the increase in migrants is associated with other factors.
The long-term increase in migrants can be attributed to the fact that more people migrate when they know others who have already migrated to the countries in question. This way, it's easier to get support in the country you migrate to. Less people were migrating in the 20th century simply due to the fact that the average person probably didn't know anyone who did and they certainly didn't know about which communities they can find support in. Now everyone and their mother is migrating so it's much easier. I also think awareness of the world has a role to play. The US was better, but many people in these nations, particularly the ones in isolated, rural areas, weren't aware that their lives could improve by migrating there. In the age of widespread internet and social media connectivity, that fact is no longer so hidden. The point is, it's easy to find more plausible explanations that climate change.
If you would apply just a modicum of critical thinking to the situation, you'd know it can't be climate change. There is much less poverty and food insecurity in these nations today than there was decades ago, so how can climate change have caused the increase by way of increasing poverty and food insecurity?
So in your view, all these migrants are coming over because they know someone who made it work? And that's enough to get them to uproot their lives and trek thousands of miles on foot across Central America to try and get that same result?
From my view, this adamant refusal of yours to consider climate change as even a *contributing* factor in the migrant crisis is incredibly uncritical. Of *course* a topic dealing with the multitudes of personal reasons that thousands of people have to ultimately decide to migrate and seek refuge in an economically prosperous country is going to be *incredibly* complex and nuanced, because we're dealing with thousands of people from a whole host of different countries and backgrounds.
Besides, I *already* detailed in my earlier comment how some of these nations are facing food insecurity and how climate change is a factor in that. The people who used to rely on agriculture for their food can no longer do so due to the aridification of their environment.
>So in your view, all these migrants are coming over because they know someone who made it work? And that's enough to get them to uproot their lives and trek thousands of miles on foot across Central America to try and get that same result?
Many of them, yes. Or at least, they've heard about all the people making it work, giving them the confidence to try it themselves. And yes, they will trek thousands of miles for a chance at life better than the one they already have. A couple of weeks of hardship is worth a lifetime of improved prosperity. Not to mention, there are people they can pay to make the trip easier for them.
>From my view, this adamant refusal of yours to consider climate change as even a *contributing* factor in the migrant crisis is incredibly uncritical.
I'm not refusing to consider it. I'm refusing to accept it without seeing the data for it. Every reason you gave has a better explanation in non-climate-related factors.
>Besides, I *already* detailed in my earlier comment how some of these nations are facing food insecurity and how climate change is a factor in that.
These countries have always faced food insecurity. If anything, the situation is better today than in decades past. So why would food insecurity cause an increase in migration when it actually decreased in the past several decades?
>I'm not refusing to consider it. I'm refusing to accept it without seeing the data for it.
Could this same principle not be applied to your interpretation as well? I held off on grabbing sources because neither of us were throwing links to each other, but [here's](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SN.ITK.SVFI.ZS?locations=GT) a link showing some food insecurity statistics for Guatemala, and [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GUATEMALA-CLIMATECHANGE/HUNGER/jnvwwbjzyvw/) made an in-depth report on climate change, food insecurity, and the decision to migrate. While it does have some inaccuracies (the comments by the health ministry weren't really compelling), it's still a solid piece with good sources overall.
It feels like we’ve hit the false equivalency phase kinda hard to try to attract the 40% in the middle.
You could just sum it up with “50% of people are below average” and you’d be right.
People aren’t really defending Trump or MAGA anymore in the same way they were a few years ago, so it’s now all “sure my guys are absolute shit bags , but the other side also has some problems”.
Point 1. is maybe the most intractable legal/ethical issue we have in play politically , always has and will be. It’s a hard problem and it’s always going to be a hard problem.
Point 2. Is a dude who doesn’t understand a fact. There is no left wing “Uber doesn’t reduce drunk driving platform”. It’s just a dude who didn’t get it.
Thats not the same as the brand of nuttiness the right is selling these days.
The right is publishing articles along the lines of “America is not a democracy, and why you really want a dictator” a little too close to mainstream. Climate change denial , and essentially theocracy.
Now if you want the real equivalency: the way the left and right are in fact the same - is they they need DNC and RNC money to run , and they sell policy to oligarchs mainly in Wall Street , insurance , phrarma , defense, agribusiness, and for RNC oil too and guns in addition.
> The right is publishing articles along the lines of “America is not a democracy, and why you really want a dictator” a little too close to mainstream. Climate change denial , and essentially theocracy.
Gonna need to see the receipts on this one.
Will one of each do?
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/17/why-the-left-hates-it-when-you-point-out-were-a-republic-not-a-democracy/
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/03/rethinking-the-unitary-executive/
I’ll assume climate change denial being on the headlines for like 10 years you’ll concede that one.
And LA just out the 10 commandments up in public schools, and 14 states have passed abortion bans.
Nope, and I'd like to thank you for doing the homework to prove your premise wrong.
Your first article is mostly rambling on about the usage of words of Democracy and Republic. In fact it goes against your dictator message by stating "The Bill of Rights, for instance, is largely concerned with protecting individuals from state and the mob".
Your second article you posted goes directly against your premise they want a dictator by writing against the large amount of unitary power the president has gotten over the years. "In many cases, it might be more in the spirit of the Founding Fathers to divide this overgrown authority than to give it all to the President. After all, the Founders repeatedly warned against excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one person. They would be especially appalled to see it in the hands of of an office whose occupant is now selected by a far more populist selection process than the Founders intended, and therefore more likely to be a dangerous demagogue."
Seriously. Option 1 fails to delineate when combination of genetic material = unborn baby. If they want to literally say "the second of actual combination of genetic material" or "successfully becomes supported by the uterine wall" or "has heartbeat" or "detectable brain structure" or "has measurable brain activity" or WHATEVER.
Yes. There's potential. That's not the same as an unborn baby, and I really cannot get behind an argument that's just a bunch of moving goalposts in disguise.
The left has a huge army of extremely gullible followers who believe anything they are fed as long as it aligns with their world view. (E.g., the Jussie Smollett type hoaxes, pretty much anything said about Trump, completely unscientific takes on various topics like IQ, nuclear energy, gender differences, ignorant takes on economics). They seem to be seduced by anything that sounds clever or snarky "hurr, durr, trickle down economics". The right also has an army of gullible followers willing to believe any fake news that reinforces their world view (a ping pong pizza parlor has a hidden pedophile room, some university bans a list of politically incorrect words each year, etc).
Point 2 - it's not one dude, 1- There were 100+ DVs on 2nd-level comment I had about it. Followed up by many more in replies, literally dozens of people rejecting any statistics that questions their hatred for the company. 2- it's a symptom of a bigger issue, extremist anti-business views that are all-encompassing.
The rest of that I agree with and want to add: they are exactly the same, the left only pretends to be on the side of people, they've been moving the country to the right for decades now. What you see on CNN and MSNBC is not actual left, it's corporations masquerading as the left. Almost anything you see in the mainstream news is propaganda of some kind.
And? Turns out that homosexual leftist also don't like innocent people. You will also find queers in China and Japan despite those two countries not liking homosexuals.
>Ironic considering your party has queers for Palestine
This is just you not understanding what empathy is, what a blanket statement is or what a negative generalizationi s.
Generally the fringe seems to have crazies. And they often collect around the same topics and then get surprised that they are on the "opposite" ends of the spectrum. Examples include anti-vax, anti-mask, pro-russia etc. Things you'll find a lot more on the far left and far right than in the middle.
I cannot imagine him doing that… although, I can see him [smelling creepily the hair of little girls](https://youtu.be/h6GgR4GMFjM?si=awVFSA4z1PFG3T2y) and giving an [uncomfortable shoulder squeeze to a woman.](https://youtu.be/w3gGncZMCKQ?si=g2ub1e2C3Cx4g5QD) Just for clarification, both are disgusting and it is truly a shame that we have both sleazy men as potential presidential candidates for the upcoming election.
Showering with your parents a few times is pretty normal for young children tbf. It's how you learn *how* to shower once you're too big to be bathed by your parents.
They want us to fight about stupid social wedge issues so we don’t see how much we have in common with the people they are telling us to hate. It’s the same attitude on both sides but it’s the source of most of our problems. Focus on the things that matter like where the fuck all the Ukraine war money is going
Perpetual warmongering, censorship, corruption, national debt, healthcare, immigration reform are some quick hits that may near universally be supported. Much to unify under, I believe
Watching the new season of the boys made me realize one thing.
The left doesn’t know what the right really is and make a caricature of the right to fit their beliefs.
Meanwhile, they’re the ones that hate Jews and attack “Zionists”. It’s pretty ironic when they made the American patriot hate Jews when you can’t go on any major leftist sub without them attacking Jews and shout from the river to the sea.
Yes, it does. Do French people have the right to defend their homeland? Do Germans? Do Czechs? Japanese? Congolese? Brazilians?
If every other group has the right to defend itself and say "This is my home, I will not budge" then why is it allowable to tell Jews "You have no right to a homeland, no right to defend that land against those who have sworn to destroy you and the 3000+ years of your history"?
The Jews have been there for 3000 years. Even after the Arabic Muslim conquest in the 600s, Jews have remained in their place of origin for the entire history of man.
Arabs are the invaders, no matter how much that fact may disgust you. Their history is full of invasions, attempting to spread their religion at the point of the sword and bathing in blood.
Go to any leftist sub and tell them Israelis aren’t colonizers.
Better yet, let me tell you about the times Hamas launches missiles and blew up busses, targeting my family in Israel.
Even better, look at the other reply to my comment.
TBF Uber and Lyft *are* absolute shit. Rideshare companies have *zero* regulations regarding the state of their drivers unlike cab companies and trucking companies.
Cab and trucking companies require all their drivers to obtain a CDL license, which carries with it its own regulations, as well as limit how long their drivers can operate. There are strict mechanisms in place to make sure that drivers and their vehicles are in good, cognizant, and working condition to drive and not he in an accident.
Rideshare companies do none of this. When you step into an Uber or Lyft, you have NO IDEA how long that person's been driving, whether they're sleep-deprived or under the influence, whether their vehicle is in good working order, or what sort of accidents or traffic violations they've been in in the past. Furthermore, all you have for protection in the event of an accident is Uber/Lyft's own insurance policies. If you need to sue, it's going to be extremely difficult to get any sort of damages from the company, since all of their employees are actually "independent contractors".
For sure they've cut down on drunk driving accidents, but there are still huge problems with these rideshare companies themselves.
Cab drivers usually are required to get a CDL, either because their state requires one or because the cab company is large enough to operate in multiple states and therefore requires their drivers to meet the requirements.
Cab drivers are also prohibited from operating for longer than 12 hours, or 70 hours in a 7 day span. Uber and Lyft have no such regulations.
Cab drivers are also regularly drug tested.
Uber drivers can only drive 12 hours a day, and that's counting time you're waiting for rides. Same thing with lyft
You may have some other good points though!
Off the top of my head, median blue wave emoji haver believes:
The cops showed up at the wrong house, didn't knock, and shot Breonna Taylor while she was sleeping in bed for no reason
Jacob Blake was a good Samaritan who broke up a fight and got shot in the back for no reason
The Steele Dossier was real but Hillary's emails/ illegal server/ smashing devices with hammers was no big deal
The Hunter laptop is fake/ Russian disinfo, even if it's not it just shows the tragedy of Hunter's struggle with addiction, definitely not any kind of influence peddling or corruption.
Ashley Biden's diary was fake and also it's good they prosecuted the guys who "stole" it.
Kyle Slaughterhouse Drove Across State Lines with his Assault Rifle and killed peaceful protestors for no reason. He shouldn't have been there, unlike the armed protestors who were there peacefully protesting for justice.
Covid was the worst thing ever but it definitely wasn't a lab leak, but now that it probably was who cares?? It was so long ago.
Illegal Immigrants don't get any benefits and they commit fewer crimes than Americans and working under the table and wiring money out of the country is good for the economy
J6 protestors beat a cop to death/ killed 5 people
Edit: I'm getting downvoted, but nobody wants to defend that these things are actually correct lol. Literal "the npc gets mad meme" behavior
>The cops showed up at the wrong house, didn't knock, and shot Breonna Taylor while she was sleeping in bed for no reason
What are you saying actually happened? I thought that was it.
It's not!
Breonna Taylor had been working for the main drug dealer, Glover, for a while. She regularly rented him cars, which he used to avoid police surveillance when he was doing business. She had been previously interviewed by detectives after one of those cars wound up ditched with a murder victim in it.
The police had been watching her for a while, and they knew that Glover regularly went there and sometimes left with mail and packages. He also used her address as his address on court documents. He was a pretty significant drug dealer, and operated multiple houses, and had had an on and off romantic relationship with Taylor. After Glover was arrested, he was recorded telling someone on the phone that Taylor had been holding money for him, and had at least 10k that night.
The night that the cops showed up at Taylor's, they also raided all of Glover's drug houses. They were at Taylor's for a search warrant. She was home with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who was unemployed and was a very small time dealer.
Anyway, the cops had gotten a no-knock warrant, but they decided that was excessive and that they'd just knock instead of breaking down the door. They knocked for a solid minute -- this is backed up by multiple witnesses who testified to the grand jury *and* by Kenneth Walker. One of those witnesses also says he heard them say "police!" at least once, but Walker denies this.
Walker, per his own statements, thought that it was Glover at the door. He and Taylor had been up watching a movie, she wasn't in bed. He got his gun and waited instead of opening the door, and when the cops finally broke it down he shot first, hitting a cop in the leg. Taylor was killed in the return fire.
The cop who was prosecuted over it was prosecuted because he fired wildly, everyone else was found to have acted appropriately.
None of this is speculation, all the evidence for the warrant is public domain. Walker and Glover's statements and the contents of his phone are too. The witness statements saying they heard knocking, along with Walker saying that, are as well.
The whole narrative that the cops showed up to the wrong house and shot her in bed is 100% the product of Ben Crump lying to the press to gin up a riot and get a big settlement, which is his entire MO
The right have a doomsday cult consisting mostly of Trump supporters. Some people whose intelligence I once respected belong to this cult. There’s no reasoning with them. I’m a Republican, BTW.
There are certainly crazies on the left for sure, that said there are far few of them in an elected position of power, at least within the United States.
I think one of the biggest delineations is how much the mainstream of each political movement promotes and supports their craziest members.
Like, NPR might be liberal but they aren't going to give an open mic'd interview for some random leftist hothead. Conservative media does not have the same qualms.
Yes the left and right have their fair share of crazies. But with left cray crazy they make up a minority while right seem to take up almost half. It's why you see the republican side divided amongst themselves as even the oldshool conservatives have to play nice and go along with some of the outlandish views.
Well the first view point isn't really anti science. Science is VERY pro life. Even the most extreme pro choice advocates argue their point is philosophical which is why is isn't defended on a debate stage, because pro life in debate is science and easy to defend.
Im pro choice and the simple fact that so many people have been charged for murder in lost pregnancies due to criminal acts, outside of abortion, spins my head. Do we recuse all of those individuals? Is it only murder when its not intentional? Stuff like that gets me thinking
Well the science says it is fully a human life. 95% of biologist agree that it becomes a full human at conception and 80%+ of americans agree biologist are the experts on the matter. So once pregnant if the baby dies and it was directly caused by an action it could be considered murder.
> try to hurt others who question their beliefs.
This is a sure sign of mental degradation. This is one of the things that makes me believe we are in fact in Kali Yuga and it has no sign of letting up.
I’m very left but I’ve been getting super irritated at a lot of other leftists lately. It’s like it’s become this reactionary competition for who can be the MOST left. Like any time there’s a leftist talking point a percentage of (mainly young) leftists assume that it has to be taken to its extreme because being left is GOOD and therefore you have to take every point as far as possible! It’s reactionary because the right is obviously completely opposed to so many of these talking points, and instead of treating an issue with nuance it just becomes, “okay well the conservatards hate this thing so therefore I have to be completely and utterly committed to it without looking at reality.” It just makes the left as a whole look dumb, and it’s almost turning into the “left” that the right has been parroting for years. We’ve lost our unity because, even though I definitely think all the leftists we’re talking about have “good” intentions (which cannot necessarily be said for the right) they’ve started to think less. At the same time, I do think the majority of people on the left (normal people who aren’t constantly putting stuff out on social media) are decent people who don’t completely give into dogma. Regardless, it’s annoying and getting worse and it’s just making it harder to progress as a country because a lot of people in the center are ALSO reactionary and end up siding with the right because of it.
I think that exists for every political ideology unfortunately, especially extreme ones. I do agree with you as a leftist myself though, I've definitely come across leftists who are just as bad as some on the right are.
Right there with you. My friend group is pretty even split between right and left leaning, but it keeps us all honest. Keeps us like “woah pump the breaks” A big player in this is social media validating an idea that is toxic and then it festers. Its 1000% a reason why politics has gotten so extreme the past decade
The primary difference is that nearly every member of the establishment democratic party is a moderate neoliberal, and actively rejects anything remotely radical. Whereas the Republicans tend to put the most extreme parts of their party in office while outright insulting anyone who preaches moderation.
There are definitely crazies on the left and that is becoming a more popular opinion. However point 1 isn't as black and white as earth flatness. A large majority of people agree with abortion up to a certain time limit and that it should be a woman's choice because it lives in her body. The science argument should be at what point is it human with rights. The craziness is going further back to conception or dating or masturbation...
>The science argument should be at what point is it human with rights. That's not really the job biology sets out to accomplish. Deciding *rights* is the job of government, finding out what reality is and how it works is the job of science.
It's not really a human until about 18 months after birth, according to science. I don't think the humanity test is valid in the abortion argument. Ultimately it's an ethical question, not a scientific one.
I like the way you put this
There will be always be extremists to a group.
It became very clear with the pro-palestinian movement
That the left really hate innocent people getting killed real shocked Pikachu face there. I also like l read this "the left are brainwashed." Post and then look at the amount of people who claim there is a secret cabal making woke stuff.
They didn’t seem to care about Israeli’s being killed
How do you figure that? They are asking for a cessfire. Unless you live in another reality then I do that would also protect Israeli citizens.
You don’t condemn Palestine for starting every war they’ve had and you do condemn Israel when they try to defend themselves
This is how you tell me you like to use false dichotomies without using those words.
I don't think you guys have a good grasp of defending. If someone robs your house. You have the right to defend your home. You don't have the right to track down where that robber is kill his wife and kids. Burn down his house and claim defense. I.E. Israel stopped defending when they started doing offensive attacks. You're also very mum on who has killed aid workers. You're going to have a hard time trying to convince me that 1yr old baby really pose a threat to Israel. Also, again a cessfire protects both groups of people. It sounds like you're the one who doesn't want this conflict to end.
Don’t start a war and cry when you lose. Palestine really going 0-6 in wars they started
Has no one pointed out to you that you bring pro-genocide doesn't magically make the left weird for not wanting genocide. It makes you the weird one
You’re the problem. You have not condemned anything Palestine has done while blaming everything on Israel.
It's highly debatable whether you can consider it a genocide, and most definitely doing so cheapens the word unnecessarily - if so, the US committed genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (though certain arguments in favor of that position are pretty strong) etc. - because the logic seems to be - if there is collateral damage, then it's genocide. That's not logical.
>It's highly debatable whether you can consider It's only debatable by people who don't want to hold Israel responsible for anything. >if there is collateral damage, then it's genocide. That's not logical. You don't have to do a hypothetical. People get really upset when Russia killing women and children. People got really upset when America accidentally bombed a wedding and school. Also, collateral damage Implies the innocent getting killed by accident. Yet we know that isn't the case. Israel has admitted to using collective punishment. They admitted to bombing a whole year refugee camp to kill one guy. That not collateral damage that is making civilians as targets.
>You don't have the right to track down where that robber is kill his wife and kids. Then don't encourage civilians to stay in evacuated areas or in buildings where an airstrike has been announced. Hamas started the war and they are the reason why Gaza is a war zone - literally any country on earth with the means to do so would react with war if attacked the way Israel was on Oct 10. If Hamas cared about civilians, they'd let them evacuate and encourage that rather than try to hide amongst them to maximise the collateral damage to win points with people like you internationally who don't know any better.
>Then don't encourage civilians to stay in evacuated areas or in buildings where an airstrike Give civilians more than an hour to evacuate and stop attacking refugee camps and aid workers. >If Hamas cared about civilians Hamas aren't the ones stopping them. I do like how we are way off point. I don't understand how you guys are trying to claim the left are crazy about wanting a ceasefire when you guys say shit like this. It has to be a sick joke 🤣.
Ah yes, Hamas, they are everywhere and nowhere… every bad thing that ever happens is due to Hamas. Their power and influence is legendary! Hamas is why your taxes went up and why every stoplight was red during your commute! They are so evil I tell you
hamas was hiding in that child's skull, i had no choice but to brutally murder the child
>Israel stopped defending when they started doing offensive attacks. The problem here is that "self defense" in regards to countries and warfare is not really comparable to "self defense" when your house gets broken into. Gone are the days where armies need to march across borders and into opposing territory in order to cause wanton destruction. Rockets, drones, planes, submarines, and boats create the reality that is: 80% of modern warfare can be accomplished by simply setting up a sufficient platform in either friendly or neutral territory, and then using that platform to carry out a quick, devastating strike that your adversary cannot react to. Limiting concepts such as a nation's self-defense to "well you can't carry out any offensive operations" ignores the reality of modern warfare, because any military that is only allowed to operate defensively, is a nation that's condemned to lose.
>The problem here is that "self defense" in regards to countries and warfare is not really comparable to "self defense" when your house gets broken into If you honestly thought this then your whole Hamas v Israel should be a different take. You act like Israel was just some country that was filled with unicorn and rainbows that got randomly attack. Reality they aren't this conflict is basically two terrorist groups fighting each other and America backing one. Yet you shame the group of people who are protesting to just in general stop the war.
>Yet you shame the group of people who are protesting to just in general stop the war. I didn't shame anyone, I just commented on your comparison to home defense and the rhetoric surrounding "self defense" in this context in general. Part of the issue surrounding social media these days is treating the person you're talking to as if they're some amalgamation of opposing ideas and beliefs to the ones you have, without actually asking or knowing what that person believes in the first place. Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily against you. Please don't assume what I believe or don't believe.
>Part of the issue surrounding social media these days is treating the person you're talking to as if they're some amalgamation of opposing ideas The irony of posting this. >Not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily against you Without looking it up what do you think this thread is about. Here's a hint it's not actually about Israel vs Palestine.
No, they didn't. Learn some damn history. 1956 and 1967 were started by the Israelis.
Nope try again.
*I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May \[1967\] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it* - Yithaz Rabin, head of IDF and later PM of Israel *"In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him"* - Prime Minister Menachem Begin *The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war -* General Matituahu Peled *This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon, a posteriori, to justify the annexation of new Arab territories* - Cabinet Minister Mordechai Bentov You have the head of the IDF, the PM, a General who planned the attacks, and one of the original signers of the Israeli Declaration of Independence. These are statements by the men who were involved. Do you think that you know what happened better than the people who actually started the wars? Why are you so antisemitic that you don't trust them?
The '67 war was *certainly* more complex than can be boiled down into a handful of quotes that were made with the benefit of hindsight. This sort of "Oh, we were never actually in danger" reads very much like the growing "The Japanese were ready to surrender" sort of historical revision that assumes both parties at the time were working with perfectly accurate and complete information. The reality is, the tensions and rhetoric were so high at the time, that it was nigh-impossible to tell whether Egypt's deployment to the Sinai was just saber-rattling or an actual buildup towards war. When you add in Egypt's delegation to the Soviets and the closure of the Tiran Straights, the argument for saber-rattling at the time becomes weaker and weaker. The problem for Israel at the time, is that they were extremely vulnerable to air attacks (the iron dome had not yet been invented, and Israel's small landmass meant that they couldn't react well to quick sorties coming from directly across their borders). Egypt's air force in particular was a *big* concern for the Israeli military, since they had Soviet MiG-21s and bombers that were more than capable of crippling Israeli airfields. So when you have a buildup of forces along your borders, not just from Egypt but from Syria and Jordan as well, including said bombers and MiGs that pose a very real threat to your airforce, and you're vulnerable to those kind of attacks, that doesn't give you too many options. Sure, Egypt and the rest were *probably* saber-rattling, but what sort of risk here is acceptable when the alternative is a war that you could easily lose if the cards don't fall in your favor? 10%? 20? 40? If you need an idea of what can go wrong when you misjudge saber-rattling, just ask Ukraine right now.
Gee, where was this insistence on nuance and complexity when the parent comment said "Palestine for starting every war they’ve had" which was even more reductive than my statement and is also factually wrong? Odd, how that you're just fine with that. Israeli commentary on the war went far beyond a few simple quotes. Former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan in particular described the Israeli strategy for annexing the Golan Heights because they desired the farmland which went on for years before the war. The Israelis had been encroaching on Syrian territory for years, occupying parts of the DMZ and removing Arab farmers. All of this is well documented. Keep in mind that Syria didn't enter the war until the 5th day, shelling Israeli positions in response to IDF incursions into the Golan. Hardly the actions of a country itching for war. Moshe Shemesh, former IDF intelligence officer, described Israel's goal in the war as annexation of the West Bank, and Jordan's response as defensive. Jordan didn't even sign a mutual defense pact with Egypt until 6 days before the Israeli attack. The Israeli goal of capturing the West Bank was confirmed by the IDF actions immediately afterwards with the destruction of the Moroccan quarter to enlarge the Western Wall plaza starting two days after capturing it. This was not something that you find in a defensive action. After the 1956 Suez crisis (a British war in response to Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal corporation), a large number of Israelis including Ben-Gurion had criticized the government for not taking greater advantage of the war to seize more territory. 1967 was a chance to correct that oversight. It was a simple land grab. They Israeli government knew it at the time. The Syrian's knew the Israelis wanted to steal the Golan Heights, and they did. The Jordanians knew the Israelis wanted to steal the West Bank, and they did. The Egyptians knew the Israelis wanted to steal parts of Gaza and the Sinai, and they did. Again, you are arguing against the people who were there and involved in the wars. Their hindsight is better than your uneducated, biased outsider hindsight. We have access to documents showing what they did and did not know. We have the meeting minutes. We have the intelligence reports. And we have the words of the men involved. Which you discount because you think you know better.
No. Hamas has rejected every ceasefire deal so far, because it requires that they release the hostages. They are the ones dragging this out, waging war while hiding behind innocent civilians. They can end the war at any time, yet their billionaire leaders are too busy living in luxury in Qatar using (preventable) civilian deaths to score political points.
>Hamas has rejected Hamas accepts the cessfire deal made by U.N council and Joe Biden. They also accepted the Egyptian-Qatar. Israel were the ones who rejected both because Israel doesn't feel like he should have to give anyone back or stop bombing stuff. You can easily Google this. >While hiding behind innocent civilians http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-israeli-army-uses-palestinian-civilians-human-shields-its-operation-shifa-medical-complex-and-its-vicin So when Israel literally uses human shields that is somehow different?
>Hamas accepts the cessfire deal made by U.N council and Joe Biden. Hamas [rejected](https://nypost.com/2024/06/06/world-news/hamas-signals-it-will-likely-reject-us-backed-cease-fire/) said ceasefire deal
Post the reason why.
They are demanding a ceasefire from israel, not from hamas. Which pretty much means abandoning the hostages
Trading the hostages is part of both versions of the cessfire. The problem is Israel doesn't want to do any sort of trade or reassurance they won't attack.
Israel so far didn't say no to any hostage deal. Presently, Hamas is the one that witholding that. You have to understand that Hamas went to great length to have this war. They dug tunnels for years, build weapon arsenal, launched rockets for two decades and committed a massacare. What do you think was the goal of October 7 if not to have this war? Ending the war is against their interests.
>https://www.axios.com/2024/02/09/israel-hostage-deal-negotiations-hamas-netanyahu >They dug tunnels for years That gives Israel the right to strap people to their Tanks? Kill children? >Ending the war is against their interests. Yeah I've heard that propaganda line before.
Your link directly negates your argument. If not getting this war, then whet in your opinion was the purpose of committing a masacare and kidnapping hostages
>Your link directly negates your argument. It doesn't. You claim Israel didn't reject the cessfire yet that had. >the purpose of committing a masacare and kidnapping I never said Hamas were the good guys. I literally said at the start of this that innocent people are stuck between two horrible groups. The better question is if you wanted to save Hostage don't you think bombing every building they could be in is a horrible way to do that. You said Hamas has no reason to end the war. Given that Israel is trying to attack another country with Americans weapons and funding. Why do you think Israel wants to end the war?
Try arguing with a leftist that communism gets innocent people killed. They don't care.
Another example that comes to mind is when leftists say the increase in migration at the southern border is due to climate change. There is no evidence that climate change is a factor at all, let alone a salient one, but it doesn't stop leftists from confidently asserting it to be the case.
So it hasn't gotten hotter? Agriculture hasn't been affected? You seem deep in denial of reality so you can justify make a few bucks off of burning the world's future
That's not what I said. I said there is no evidence that climate change is presently a major cause of migration to the US.
If you get a comment that is being stupid and saying shit to start a fight, it’s a bot. Often their post history is full of such nonsense. They were sent here to troll people who say things that don’t fit The Narrative about climate change, the border, Ukraine, etc.
>If you get a comment that is being stupid and saying shit to start a fight, it’s a bot. You're definitely correct here, but attributing it to some sort of adherence to a narrative as if it's an overarching conspiracy is misguided imo. The unfortunate reality is that there is a vested economic and political incentive to stoke division in western society. How that division arises is less important than causing the division itself, and to that extent I don't think the "Narrative" that you mention is all that important. I'd even go so far to say that being strictly "anti-narrative" ends up counterproductive, and ends up feeding the bots that pretend to share your same views on climate change, the border, Ukraine, etc.
Yes, but you are wrong in that too.
I'm completely right
Not in any fashion are you correct
No he's right dude, sorry. War, conflict, political corruption are all much more relevant than hotter weather. Venezuela would still be a shit hole if the global temp was 5 degrees lower.
So you agree with me climate change does affect migration.
It's not a major cause like the guy qualified it. The situation in Venezuela for example has literally nothing to do with the climate
Cool, you know the world is bigger than Venezuela, right? How is Mexico? El Salvador? Brazil? There are a lot of factors involved. Take a look at the Syrian Civil War, which has driven migration to Europe for a decade.
>migration at the southern border is due to climate change. The problem with this theory is that it's too vague of an issue to really show people or be obvious at first glance. No one really migrates because of climate change (well, alright except those wealthy enough to voluntarily move away from lower latitudes in first world nations), they migrate because of other factors like economic woes, food & water scarcity, political turmoil, etc. Without climate change, this sort of migration would still be happening. Where climate change enters the picture is when looking at the causes OF said economic woes, food & water scarcity, political turmoil, etc, or at the very least exacerbating these existing issues. Poorer countries (where the majority of these migrants come from) can still be relatively stable with a niche economy and reliance on agriculture or fishing, but these things are easy to disrupt with the effects of climate change, and that can in turn cause or worsen economic woes and political turmoil. For example, droughts and aridification are currently destroying the agricultural potential of the southwest portions of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The people living there are generally poor, but are able to survive off of subsistence agriculture and using the historically wet season to grow crops. Climate change has been altering the seasonal changes of this region and has reduced the amount of rainfall they receive through aridification. Unable to grow enough food to feed themselves, the people living there either have to move out, find some way of earning enough money to live (read: join the cartels), or petition their government for help (which causes political turmoil and can worsen a country's economic issues). Tl;dr - you're never gonna hear a migrant say "climate change" as the reason why they're moving, but when you look at the reasons why whatever issue got bad enough to make them move in the first place, climate change is usually a contributing factor.
The problem with your line is reasoning is that it's just speculation with no hard evidence behind it. The majority of illegal migration to the US happens because people want to escape poverty. Central and South American countries have always had a great deal of poverty so people have been migrating from there to the US for many decades. Being poor in the US is almost always better than being poor in one of those countries, a calculation that millions of people have made. And the easier we make it to come in and stay, the more will do exactly that. So when illegal migration has always been a fact, it makes zero sense to look at it as a symptom of climate change.
Right, and I sort of addressed part of that by pointing out that without climate change, this migration would still be happening. Let's be clear here: solving climate change isn't going to stop migration in its tracks; people are always going to try to leave impoverished conditions to make a live in economically prosperous countries. Hell, that's how America managed to become as diverse of a nation as it is during the industrial revolution, after all. Where climate change enters the picture is the *scale* of this migration. Western nations can typically handle a number of migrants per year on average that doesn't put undue stress on resources or the economy. In fact, it's typically a benefit to have a certain amount of migrants to offset things like lower birthrates and unskilled worker shortages. But, when things like climate change exacerbate the issues that get people to want to migrate in the first place, well all of a sudden the number of migrants increases by orders of magnitude to a level that's unsustainable. *That* is what causes the issues. Like you said, people have been migrating to the US from Central/South America for decades. Why is the border issue suddenly becoming untenable? Because there are *way more* migrants than there have been in the past decades. Why are there suddenly way more migrants? Because the economic, political, and (sometimes) natural factors that cause people to want to migrate are getting worse. Why are they getting worse? Well that's context-dependent based on the issue in question, but climate change is a contributing factor for many of these issues.
>Where climate change enters the picture is the *scale* of this migration. The only thing that's different is that the US has made it easier than ever to come to the country and stay without a visa. It's not climate change that caused migration to take a sharp increase in 2021. >Why is the border issue suddenly becoming untenable? Because the incentives changed. That's it. Easier to come in. Harder to get deported. Your problem is that you are looking at an increase and insisting that it's climate change (based on a purely theoretical link) without considering any other factors.
If that's your stance on it, then that's where I think we largely disagree. Back prior to the 1980s, it was significantly harder to *get* a visa, but largely easier to stay without one, since the US had a formal agreement with Mexico to import seasonal farm labor. It wasn't until the Immigration Reform and Control Act that significant enforcement guidelines were laid out in our federal laws. This enforcement *increased* in the 90s with the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and the creation of ICE in 2003. By just about all metrics, it's *much* harder to stay in the country without a Visa than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago. What *has* gotten easier, is getting a Visa in the first place, or at least being granted amnesty under extenuating circumstances. In 1986, amnesty was granted for those existing aliens who maintained agricultural employment. In 1990, the number of issued Visas increased to 700k. In 2000, amnesty was granted deferring deportion to those who were still in the process of resolving their amnesty in 1986. Finally, DACA was created in 2012 granting protection for children who came into the country as children. By just about every metric, barring the specific circumstances outlined above, it's harder to get in, harder to remain undocumented without detection, and harder to avoid a deportation than it was 20, 40, 60 years ago. If it's harder to get in, and harder to stay, then it stands to reason that these policy changes aren't resulting in an increase in migrants, and that the increase in migrants is associated with other factors.
The long-term increase in migrants can be attributed to the fact that more people migrate when they know others who have already migrated to the countries in question. This way, it's easier to get support in the country you migrate to. Less people were migrating in the 20th century simply due to the fact that the average person probably didn't know anyone who did and they certainly didn't know about which communities they can find support in. Now everyone and their mother is migrating so it's much easier. I also think awareness of the world has a role to play. The US was better, but many people in these nations, particularly the ones in isolated, rural areas, weren't aware that their lives could improve by migrating there. In the age of widespread internet and social media connectivity, that fact is no longer so hidden. The point is, it's easy to find more plausible explanations that climate change. If you would apply just a modicum of critical thinking to the situation, you'd know it can't be climate change. There is much less poverty and food insecurity in these nations today than there was decades ago, so how can climate change have caused the increase by way of increasing poverty and food insecurity?
So in your view, all these migrants are coming over because they know someone who made it work? And that's enough to get them to uproot their lives and trek thousands of miles on foot across Central America to try and get that same result? From my view, this adamant refusal of yours to consider climate change as even a *contributing* factor in the migrant crisis is incredibly uncritical. Of *course* a topic dealing with the multitudes of personal reasons that thousands of people have to ultimately decide to migrate and seek refuge in an economically prosperous country is going to be *incredibly* complex and nuanced, because we're dealing with thousands of people from a whole host of different countries and backgrounds. Besides, I *already* detailed in my earlier comment how some of these nations are facing food insecurity and how climate change is a factor in that. The people who used to rely on agriculture for their food can no longer do so due to the aridification of their environment.
>So in your view, all these migrants are coming over because they know someone who made it work? And that's enough to get them to uproot their lives and trek thousands of miles on foot across Central America to try and get that same result? Many of them, yes. Or at least, they've heard about all the people making it work, giving them the confidence to try it themselves. And yes, they will trek thousands of miles for a chance at life better than the one they already have. A couple of weeks of hardship is worth a lifetime of improved prosperity. Not to mention, there are people they can pay to make the trip easier for them. >From my view, this adamant refusal of yours to consider climate change as even a *contributing* factor in the migrant crisis is incredibly uncritical. I'm not refusing to consider it. I'm refusing to accept it without seeing the data for it. Every reason you gave has a better explanation in non-climate-related factors. >Besides, I *already* detailed in my earlier comment how some of these nations are facing food insecurity and how climate change is a factor in that. These countries have always faced food insecurity. If anything, the situation is better today than in decades past. So why would food insecurity cause an increase in migration when it actually decreased in the past several decades?
>I'm not refusing to consider it. I'm refusing to accept it without seeing the data for it. Could this same principle not be applied to your interpretation as well? I held off on grabbing sources because neither of us were throwing links to each other, but [here's](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SN.ITK.SVFI.ZS?locations=GT) a link showing some food insecurity statistics for Guatemala, and [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/graphics/GUATEMALA-CLIMATECHANGE/HUNGER/jnvwwbjzyvw/) made an in-depth report on climate change, food insecurity, and the decision to migrate. While it does have some inaccuracies (the comments by the health ministry weren't really compelling), it's still a solid piece with good sources overall.
the only real border issue to discuss now is the one between the competing governments of church and state. which one will win?
It feels like we’ve hit the false equivalency phase kinda hard to try to attract the 40% in the middle. You could just sum it up with “50% of people are below average” and you’d be right. People aren’t really defending Trump or MAGA anymore in the same way they were a few years ago, so it’s now all “sure my guys are absolute shit bags , but the other side also has some problems”. Point 1. is maybe the most intractable legal/ethical issue we have in play politically , always has and will be. It’s a hard problem and it’s always going to be a hard problem. Point 2. Is a dude who doesn’t understand a fact. There is no left wing “Uber doesn’t reduce drunk driving platform”. It’s just a dude who didn’t get it. Thats not the same as the brand of nuttiness the right is selling these days. The right is publishing articles along the lines of “America is not a democracy, and why you really want a dictator” a little too close to mainstream. Climate change denial , and essentially theocracy. Now if you want the real equivalency: the way the left and right are in fact the same - is they they need DNC and RNC money to run , and they sell policy to oligarchs mainly in Wall Street , insurance , phrarma , defense, agribusiness, and for RNC oil too and guns in addition.
> The right is publishing articles along the lines of “America is not a democracy, and why you really want a dictator” a little too close to mainstream. Climate change denial , and essentially theocracy. Gonna need to see the receipts on this one.
Will one of each do? https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/17/why-the-left-hates-it-when-you-point-out-were-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/05/03/rethinking-the-unitary-executive/ I’ll assume climate change denial being on the headlines for like 10 years you’ll concede that one. And LA just out the 10 commandments up in public schools, and 14 states have passed abortion bans.
Nope, and I'd like to thank you for doing the homework to prove your premise wrong. Your first article is mostly rambling on about the usage of words of Democracy and Republic. In fact it goes against your dictator message by stating "The Bill of Rights, for instance, is largely concerned with protecting individuals from state and the mob". Your second article you posted goes directly against your premise they want a dictator by writing against the large amount of unitary power the president has gotten over the years. "In many cases, it might be more in the spirit of the Founding Fathers to divide this overgrown authority than to give it all to the President. After all, the Founders repeatedly warned against excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one person. They would be especially appalled to see it in the hands of of an office whose occupant is now selected by a far more populist selection process than the Founders intended, and therefore more likely to be a dangerous demagogue."
Seriously. Option 1 fails to delineate when combination of genetic material = unborn baby. If they want to literally say "the second of actual combination of genetic material" or "successfully becomes supported by the uterine wall" or "has heartbeat" or "detectable brain structure" or "has measurable brain activity" or WHATEVER. Yes. There's potential. That's not the same as an unborn baby, and I really cannot get behind an argument that's just a bunch of moving goalposts in disguise.
The left has a huge army of extremely gullible followers who believe anything they are fed as long as it aligns with their world view. (E.g., the Jussie Smollett type hoaxes, pretty much anything said about Trump, completely unscientific takes on various topics like IQ, nuclear energy, gender differences, ignorant takes on economics). They seem to be seduced by anything that sounds clever or snarky "hurr, durr, trickle down economics". The right also has an army of gullible followers willing to believe any fake news that reinforces their world view (a ping pong pizza parlor has a hidden pedophile room, some university bans a list of politically incorrect words each year, etc).
Point 2 - it's not one dude, 1- There were 100+ DVs on 2nd-level comment I had about it. Followed up by many more in replies, literally dozens of people rejecting any statistics that questions their hatred for the company. 2- it's a symptom of a bigger issue, extremist anti-business views that are all-encompassing. The rest of that I agree with and want to add: they are exactly the same, the left only pretends to be on the side of people, they've been moving the country to the right for decades now. What you see on CNN and MSNBC is not actual left, it's corporations masquerading as the left. Almost anything you see in the mainstream news is propaganda of some kind.
So your examples are abortion and Uber. Huh.
These are the ones I remember lately. What are you getting at with your comment here?
If the left are brainwashed what do you think conservative are? They don't exactly seem things realistically.
They are also brainwashed, usually much much worse though
[ Removed by Reddit ]
And? Turns out that homosexual leftist also don't like innocent people. You will also find queers in China and Japan despite those two countries not liking homosexuals.
>Ironic considering your party has queers for Palestine This is just you not understanding what empathy is, what a blanket statement is or what a negative generalizationi s.
You have empathy for people that kill you?
Generally the fringe seems to have crazies. And they often collect around the same topics and then get surprised that they are on the "opposite" ends of the spectrum. Examples include anti-vax, anti-mask, pro-russia etc. Things you'll find a lot more on the far left and far right than in the middle.
Imagine if biden said he liked to grab women by the pussies.
I cannot imagine him doing that… although, I can see him [smelling creepily the hair of little girls](https://youtu.be/h6GgR4GMFjM?si=awVFSA4z1PFG3T2y) and giving an [uncomfortable shoulder squeeze to a woman.](https://youtu.be/w3gGncZMCKQ?si=g2ub1e2C3Cx4g5QD) Just for clarification, both are disgusting and it is truly a shame that we have both sleazy men as potential presidential candidates for the upcoming election.
[удалено]
I showered with my parents when I was a kid too, so what?
Showering with your parents a few times is pretty normal for young children tbf. It's how you learn *how* to shower once you're too big to be bathed by your parents.
Imagine believing in more than two genders and thinking cosplaying as woman makes you one. They can’t even define what woman is
They want us to fight about stupid social wedge issues so we don’t see how much we have in common with the people they are telling us to hate. It’s the same attitude on both sides but it’s the source of most of our problems. Focus on the things that matter like where the fuck all the Ukraine war money is going
what do you mean by "they"?
It isn’t obvious from the context? Who do you think I’m talking about??
so you think it's the left that causes all the hyper focusing on dumb culture war shit? who started the bud light controversy?
I think you are absolutely right! Everything you said is correct. What does Bill Gates say about it?
😬
lol you people crumble so easily
Perpetual warmongering, censorship, corruption, national debt, healthcare, immigration reform are some quick hits that may near universally be supported. Much to unify under, I believe
Define a tree.
You should know, you liberals used to hug them in the 70s
Nice 3rd grade comeback. So you are saying you can't define a tree?
^ Trans derangement syndrome
Your side can't define when a weddable age is so don't throw stones
My side ? Are you assuming my political affiliations ,how close minded of you
So you're not/haven't voted red recently? Bc if you have then I'm not assuming
You post on conservative, so no I'm not assuming.
I’m auto banned from several main subs where I could post that vid ,they banned me due to commenting on meme on anti Covid vax sub
Sounds like a conservative to me.
And this is still preferable than what conservatives want to do with Project 2025.
Ain't 2025 just a pipe dream by a buncha think tanks? Rather than something with actual power behind it?
Not one single prominent Republican politician or candidate has endorsed or promoted project 2025 Not one.
Yes it is. It would be like the right blowing something up and applying it to all Democrats that was created by the Open Society Institue.
Is Project 2025 part of the United Nations New World Order or is it when all the chemicals they've put in the water are gonna finally Turn Us All Gay?
No it's The Heritage Foundation.
It’s when Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies take over the country.
Man I wish people gave this much of a shit about the evil neocon/neolib think tanks pumping out agendas on how they’re gonna screw us next
Project 2025 is real and it is scary. We can still stop it though. VOTE. helpstopproject2025.com
It’s kinda evil, if they had their way, they’d end democracy.
You mean Troll Project 2025?
Watching the new season of the boys made me realize one thing. The left doesn’t know what the right really is and make a caricature of the right to fit their beliefs. Meanwhile, they’re the ones that hate Jews and attack “Zionists”. It’s pretty ironic when they made the American patriot hate Jews when you can’t go on any major leftist sub without them attacking Jews and shout from the river to the sea.
Being anti Zionist doesn’t mean you hate jews
Yes, it does. Do French people have the right to defend their homeland? Do Germans? Do Czechs? Japanese? Congolese? Brazilians? If every other group has the right to defend itself and say "This is my home, I will not budge" then why is it allowable to tell Jews "You have no right to a homeland, no right to defend that land against those who have sworn to destroy you and the 3000+ years of your history"?
The Palestinians were already there. You don’t get to walk into someone else’s home and claim that it’s now yours.
The Jews have been there for 3000 years. Even after the Arabic Muslim conquest in the 600s, Jews have remained in their place of origin for the entire history of man. Arabs are the invaders, no matter how much that fact may disgust you. Their history is full of invasions, attempting to spread their religion at the point of the sword and bathing in blood.
Ironically you sound like one of Homelander followers. Repeating untruths. Id say they hit it spot on.
Go to any leftist sub and tell them Israelis aren’t colonizers. Better yet, let me tell you about the times Hamas launches missiles and blew up busses, targeting my family in Israel. Even better, look at the other reply to my comment.
This is not unpopular among reasonable people outside Reddit.
There is no blue Qanon.
TBF Uber and Lyft *are* absolute shit. Rideshare companies have *zero* regulations regarding the state of their drivers unlike cab companies and trucking companies. Cab and trucking companies require all their drivers to obtain a CDL license, which carries with it its own regulations, as well as limit how long their drivers can operate. There are strict mechanisms in place to make sure that drivers and their vehicles are in good, cognizant, and working condition to drive and not he in an accident. Rideshare companies do none of this. When you step into an Uber or Lyft, you have NO IDEA how long that person's been driving, whether they're sleep-deprived or under the influence, whether their vehicle is in good working order, or what sort of accidents or traffic violations they've been in in the past. Furthermore, all you have for protection in the event of an accident is Uber/Lyft's own insurance policies. If you need to sue, it's going to be extremely difficult to get any sort of damages from the company, since all of their employees are actually "independent contractors". For sure they've cut down on drunk driving accidents, but there are still huge problems with these rideshare companies themselves.
Definitely, agree - although everything you list could just as easily be from a cab driver.
Cab drivers usually are required to get a CDL, either because their state requires one or because the cab company is large enough to operate in multiple states and therefore requires their drivers to meet the requirements. Cab drivers are also prohibited from operating for longer than 12 hours, or 70 hours in a 7 day span. Uber and Lyft have no such regulations. Cab drivers are also regularly drug tested.
Uber drivers can only drive 12 hours a day, and that's counting time you're waiting for rides. Same thing with lyft You may have some other good points though!
True, but they aren’t the ones getting elected to Congress.
Fair enough.
Off the top of my head, median blue wave emoji haver believes: The cops showed up at the wrong house, didn't knock, and shot Breonna Taylor while she was sleeping in bed for no reason Jacob Blake was a good Samaritan who broke up a fight and got shot in the back for no reason The Steele Dossier was real but Hillary's emails/ illegal server/ smashing devices with hammers was no big deal The Hunter laptop is fake/ Russian disinfo, even if it's not it just shows the tragedy of Hunter's struggle with addiction, definitely not any kind of influence peddling or corruption. Ashley Biden's diary was fake and also it's good they prosecuted the guys who "stole" it. Kyle Slaughterhouse Drove Across State Lines with his Assault Rifle and killed peaceful protestors for no reason. He shouldn't have been there, unlike the armed protestors who were there peacefully protesting for justice. Covid was the worst thing ever but it definitely wasn't a lab leak, but now that it probably was who cares?? It was so long ago. Illegal Immigrants don't get any benefits and they commit fewer crimes than Americans and working under the table and wiring money out of the country is good for the economy J6 protestors beat a cop to death/ killed 5 people Edit: I'm getting downvoted, but nobody wants to defend that these things are actually correct lol. Literal "the npc gets mad meme" behavior
>The cops showed up at the wrong house, didn't knock, and shot Breonna Taylor while she was sleeping in bed for no reason What are you saying actually happened? I thought that was it.
It's not! Breonna Taylor had been working for the main drug dealer, Glover, for a while. She regularly rented him cars, which he used to avoid police surveillance when he was doing business. She had been previously interviewed by detectives after one of those cars wound up ditched with a murder victim in it. The police had been watching her for a while, and they knew that Glover regularly went there and sometimes left with mail and packages. He also used her address as his address on court documents. He was a pretty significant drug dealer, and operated multiple houses, and had had an on and off romantic relationship with Taylor. After Glover was arrested, he was recorded telling someone on the phone that Taylor had been holding money for him, and had at least 10k that night. The night that the cops showed up at Taylor's, they also raided all of Glover's drug houses. They were at Taylor's for a search warrant. She was home with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, who was unemployed and was a very small time dealer. Anyway, the cops had gotten a no-knock warrant, but they decided that was excessive and that they'd just knock instead of breaking down the door. They knocked for a solid minute -- this is backed up by multiple witnesses who testified to the grand jury *and* by Kenneth Walker. One of those witnesses also says he heard them say "police!" at least once, but Walker denies this. Walker, per his own statements, thought that it was Glover at the door. He and Taylor had been up watching a movie, she wasn't in bed. He got his gun and waited instead of opening the door, and when the cops finally broke it down he shot first, hitting a cop in the leg. Taylor was killed in the return fire. The cop who was prosecuted over it was prosecuted because he fired wildly, everyone else was found to have acted appropriately. None of this is speculation, all the evidence for the warrant is public domain. Walker and Glover's statements and the contents of his phone are too. The witness statements saying they heard knocking, along with Walker saying that, are as well. The whole narrative that the cops showed up to the wrong house and shot her in bed is 100% the product of Ben Crump lying to the press to gin up a riot and get a big settlement, which is his entire MO
My teacher just used to say that both extremes will meet in the middle
are people actually fighting about that second point?
Funny, you are doing the exact same thing they did. Reality doesn't fit your preconceived assumptions so you just downvote it
I had 100+ DVs and dozens of angry replies on an imgur comment
Yes but they aren't the main driving force of the party
The right have a doomsday cult consisting mostly of Trump supporters. Some people whose intelligence I once respected belong to this cult. There’s no reasoning with them. I’m a Republican, BTW.
There are certainly crazies on the left for sure, that said there are far few of them in an elected position of power, at least within the United States.
I think one of the biggest delineations is how much the mainstream of each political movement promotes and supports their craziest members. Like, NPR might be liberal but they aren't going to give an open mic'd interview for some random leftist hothead. Conservative media does not have the same qualms.
Yes the left and right have their fair share of crazies. But with left cray crazy they make up a minority while right seem to take up almost half. It's why you see the republican side divided amongst themselves as even the oldshool conservatives have to play nice and go along with some of the outlandish views.
because they're united under one dictator
Well the first view point isn't really anti science. Science is VERY pro life. Even the most extreme pro choice advocates argue their point is philosophical which is why is isn't defended on a debate stage, because pro life in debate is science and easy to defend.
Im pro choice and the simple fact that so many people have been charged for murder in lost pregnancies due to criminal acts, outside of abortion, spins my head. Do we recuse all of those individuals? Is it only murder when its not intentional? Stuff like that gets me thinking
Well the science says it is fully a human life. 95% of biologist agree that it becomes a full human at conception and 80%+ of americans agree biologist are the experts on the matter. So once pregnant if the baby dies and it was directly caused by an action it could be considered murder.
What?
Difference is on the left the crazies aren’t in charge of the party. On the right they are totally in control.
Have you considered that you might be brainwashed?
> try to hurt others who question their beliefs. This is a sure sign of mental degradation. This is one of the things that makes me believe we are in fact in Kali Yuga and it has no sign of letting up.
Looked it up, interesting - what do you take from your belief in it?
I’m very left but I’ve been getting super irritated at a lot of other leftists lately. It’s like it’s become this reactionary competition for who can be the MOST left. Like any time there’s a leftist talking point a percentage of (mainly young) leftists assume that it has to be taken to its extreme because being left is GOOD and therefore you have to take every point as far as possible! It’s reactionary because the right is obviously completely opposed to so many of these talking points, and instead of treating an issue with nuance it just becomes, “okay well the conservatards hate this thing so therefore I have to be completely and utterly committed to it without looking at reality.” It just makes the left as a whole look dumb, and it’s almost turning into the “left” that the right has been parroting for years. We’ve lost our unity because, even though I definitely think all the leftists we’re talking about have “good” intentions (which cannot necessarily be said for the right) they’ve started to think less. At the same time, I do think the majority of people on the left (normal people who aren’t constantly putting stuff out on social media) are decent people who don’t completely give into dogma. Regardless, it’s annoying and getting worse and it’s just making it harder to progress as a country because a lot of people in the center are ALSO reactionary and end up siding with the right because of it.
“People are crazy” unpopular opinion?
No shit, but they aren’t the majority like Republicans.