uncle bernard

Since I know it will come up in this thread his position on Israel is that it has a right to exist as a state with equal rights. Should be pretty non-controversial, but have fun arguing against it.

Been in NYC all week. Fantastic city. You’d think it was a warzone based on the way conservatives describe it. Mamdani won because he actually believes in something and presents a positive worldview that treats people equally regardless of race or religion.

you’ve created an entire world in your head that doesn’t exist

sorry i left you out. you definitely belong to the group described.

Anti-War Conservative: Against every war except the current one. I support complete nuclear disarmament, but that won't happen. The world would probably be safer if Iran had a nuke. Iran certainly would be. Number one lesson of the 21st century: You're only safe from the USA as long as you have a nuke. Ask Gaddafi.

a very moving portrait of @Scouts Honor and @Caveira as well.

He’s talking about most of you.

I’ve never supported the Ukraine war. When do you deploy?

well said mr president

When do you deploy?

I for one am shocked that our local MAGA peaceniks are all jumping on board immediately lol. It’s almost like they never believed any of it in the first place….

actually longer lol

All this does is prove to Iran that they need a nuke. It’s the only reliable deterrent of US attack. If they weren’t working towards one already (and our own intelligence has confirmed that they have no evidence they were), they certainly will be now. They would be insane not to. Today, Trump has all but guaranteed a nuclear Iran.

Wrong. They were no longer beholden to those numbers if the Us withdrew from the deal, which they did. Iran is actually still compliant with the nuclear deal to this day. If Trump wanted them to stay at the lower number, he shouldn’t have withdrawn.

Succinct description of Iran's nuclear program, as it actually exists. You guys are falling for the WMD lies again. There's really no excuse for that kind of stupidity. Learn the lessons of history!

Why does that matter? It's not illegal. Should we not hold police officers to a higher standard than random civilians?

Again, you should be able to approach a police officer like he's a human being, not a dangerous animal. No other Western Democracy has this issue, at least to this degree. This is the consequence of training our officers with occupation tactics. They view the civilian populace as an inherently hostile force looking to harm them. It's not a coincidence that a huge portion of our nation's police forces receive training from the IDF or former IDF members. Here's a fun anecdote: A cop once pulled his gun on me. He saw me speeding. Instead of putting his lights on and pulling me over, he followed me into a parking lot. Once I parked, he put his lights on (no siren) and pulled up behind me. By that time, I was reaching to my passenger seat floor to grab a bag. I got out of the car without realizing he was there. He immediately pulled his gun and yelled at me to get back in the car. This was in a Midwest suburb with a literal ZERO percent murder rate. Yet, this cop behaved like he was in Fallujah stopping a suspicious vehicle. It's a fundamentally dangerous worldview for a police officer to have. Being a cop comes with risk. That's what you sign up for. You are committing to public service. Part of that service is putting the public safety ahead of your own. That means you shouldn't be drawing your gun at every sudden movement or unexpected approach from a stranger. If I manage to avoid doing that everyday, I think it's fair to expect our police officers to do the same.

It's not a good thing that you have to approach cops like they're dangerous animals. They're supposed to protect us, not the other way around.

Just wait until you find out about the last 40 years of Republican judicial strategy.

I'd recommend taking an elementary civics class if you want to learn the answers to these questions.

You aren't addressing my point because you know you can't refute it. The Trump administration is allowed to disagree with a district court decision. They aren't allowed to ignore it. They have to appeal it according to the legal process. So whether you think those court decisions are wrong or not is totally irrelevant. They were ordered by a court to do not do something and they did it anyway. That's illegal (which is why several of those courts are mulling Contempt charges). The Supreme Court has already issued rulings to the Trump administration that they've ignored. There are two cut and dry examples of this in the article. So apparently Trump doesn't always comply with SCOTUS. By your metric, he's officially a King or Dictator.

The Judiciary and Legislative branches. Quick tip: google "checks and balances." I live in the US. I'm starting doubt you do though, considering you seem to think the President can't be ordered to do anything.

Remarkably quick to catch on to the joke for your standards. Proud of you!