For the record, the number of die hard MAGAs is smaller than that, it’s just a subset of the gop. Then consider that a lot of MAGAs are duped into just thinking “oh, he jokes a lot, but he’s a businessman so he’ll do a good job!”
So the number of actual outright fascists is going to be pretty small when we weed out the people that just fall for their promises and lies. We need to distinguish between a fascist and a fool.
Yeah, that’s a good point, I didn’t think of that.
That’s cute, but the point is that despite Hilary’s very broad appeal to the big dollar doners, she was beaten by Obama in 2008 due to his, at the time very novel, online small dollar fundraising campaign. She was again defeated in 2016, despite having far more money given to her campaign than Trump.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16 https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html?iref=nextin
So the idea that the big doners actually dictate election results does not match our recent historical realities at all.
Kudos to the guy for doing the right thing, but lets be real here. What else was he going to do, just keep rolling?
“The waters have risen to the roof of her car, and her screams seem to have stopped now. This indicates these are very dangerous floodwaters folks, and I’ll say again that it is recommended that you never…”
All that aside, still humansbeingbros.
This is key. It’s why they tend to message on virtue signaling so much, there’s kinda a fundamental belief that all people are shitty deep down, and they’re just more “real” about it. All the rest of us are just pretending so we look good, but we’re all just as bad as they are, and they’re just the courageous ones.
It’s pretty twisted.
Not necessarily. Kinda like how blood money could sorta be emotionally redeemed if you just donated it all, the equipment could be redeemed if it was used to produce something useful and beneficial instead of manufacturing fear.
Wonder how cheaply it’ll all go for.
Yeah, that sorta counts. Definitely shitty.
Little more likely you’ve simply been misled. Someone below quoted four sources, and the very best they had was one man’s testimony which was contradicted by the Kurds.
Note, the keyword is indiscriminate. Not shells aimed at fighters in a village, but a village with nobody fighting from it. That part is key.
From the first article:
The Kurds told reporters covering the offensive that there were a thousand Islamic State fighters at the mountain base.
While another source disagrees, this is a “he said she said” situation.
From the second:
Ground-launched cluster strikes caused hundreds of civilian casualties across Iraq. Human Rights Watch documented cases in most of the major cities, including al-Hilla, al-Najaf, Karbala’, Baghdad, and Basra. Doctors at local hospitals provided statistics that supported individual testimony of deaths and injuries. The majority of these casualties resulted from the heavy use of cluster munitions in populated areas where soldiers and civilians commingled.
The third quotes the very paragraph above from the second, but quotes around and omits the line about areas where soldiers and civilians comingled.
From the fourth:
Although human-rights activists insist that the coalition could have done more to protect civilians, Townsend is right: unlike Russia, America does not bomb indiscriminately. The U.S. razed an entire city, killing thousands in the process, without committing a single obvious war crime.
Note, US propaganda aside, I absolutely agree that war crimes were committed, specifically with regards to the use of certain types of munitions. This is a separate allegation from deliberate targeting and indiscriminate destruction of exclusively civilian populations though.
War is hell, after all. All war is hell. It always kills civilians if they are present, yet it remains legal if pursued with appropriate “care”. It takes more, then, than fighting occuring within residential areas to demonstrate the targeting of civilians.
Uh huh. I’ll go “do my own research” right away, thanks.
Still waiting on that specific example. I’m also a little leery of the “explicit murder of over 1.5 million known civillians” claim. Source on that one?
Normalizing distrust for any large institutions, even including themselves. If you want to pave the way for a strongman ruler, you first have to break down all the alternatives until one individual’s strongman rulership becomes the most preferential option.
Fighting opposing military forces in a village and indiscriminate shelling of a village are not the same thing. Unless you can think of a time some random village got shelled for no reason?
Unless you’re counting war materiel sent to the IDF, I’m not sure what villages we’ve indiscriminately shelled in recent years.
Better than just, y’know, never. That’s what happens most of the time.
I too have seen cats pant on hot days.
If I remember right though, they’re originally descended from desert animals, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a higher tolerance for temperature extremes than dogs do.
This period of online extremism is a little reminiscent of Golding’s Lord of the Flies.
Convenient scapegoat. What is easier to admit, that we are causing our own problems by not addressing new challenges appropriately, or pointing a finger at an outside group and going “their fault!”.