Yep. And we've somehow gone backwards from there.
Objection
joined 1 year ago
Sucks that they're lying and whitewashing but hey, at least they're pretending to be anti-war. If we're really lucky, we might even get a candidate in 2028 who says war is bad, and then pivots immediately if elected.
There hasn't been a legitimately anti-war presidential nominee from either party in my lifetime, and there never will be, unless something changes drastically.
Whitaker followed up, asking, “If Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?”
“I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment,” said the vice president.
I really hope you someday get to experience the receiving end of the politics you support.
Worse, unquestionably.
"""Saddam apologist""" here meaning, anyone who opposed the Iraq War.
Fucking hawks, I stg. Every time.
They learned how to avoid being held responsible for genocide by outsourcing it.
I don’t fully agree that ~~Israel~~ Iran is violating international law. When a country’s existence is being questioned by ~~Iran or Hamas~~ Israel or the US, it’s not so easy to respond strictly within the framework of international law
Who struck first?
Ah but of course, PoC don't get to have security concerns, do they?
The problem is that you see people dismissing criticism and think it's a disagreement of principle when in fact they hold the same principle and disagree on what does or does not meet the agreed upon criteria.
I haven't added any extra meaning at all, nor is there any attempt to "derail" the conversation. You're attacking something that nobody actually believes.
See, like, I see my criticism as factual and respectful, and you disagree. You don't think it's factual because you disagree with my analysis. Virtually all disagreements about what criticism is valid are like that.
Lol, no it isn't. Ever since Cold War times, the law has been that the president can not only launch missiles, but even deploy troops on the ground, without congressional approval. There's a limit on how long the troops can be deployed, iirc, but once you've started a ground invasion it's a bit late.
Obviously it's unconstitutional, but there's no legal precedent that would say so. If you think this is the first time this has happened, you really need to learn more about history. The US never formally declared war on Vietnam, for example.
I'm not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, "My group is above criticism" but what they say is, "The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful." Everyone agrees with the principle you've said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it's nonfactual or disrespectful.
If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it's just "I agree with criticism I agree with." I don't really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, "I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful." Maybe you don't think it's disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don't find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don't. It's pretty meaningless.
Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren't disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?
I specifically disabled my watch history to get this. If I want to watch something, I'll go to my subscriptions. Why would I want to interact with YouTube's algorithm?