Wait, are you saying you DON'T think those countries considered themselves at war with us?
You're saying you believe there are some countries whose citizens saw that their country had been bombed by us and still considered themselves not at war solely because we didn't declare it?
You're saying you believe there are some countries whose citizens saw that their country had been bombed by us and still considered themselves not at war solely because we didn't declare it?
June 22, 2025 at 9:17 PM
Wait, are you saying you DON'T think those countries considered themselves at war with us?
You're saying you believe there are some countries whose citizens saw that their country had been bombed by us and still considered themselves not at war solely because we didn't declare it?
You're saying you believe there are some countries whose citizens saw that their country had been bombed by us and still considered themselves not at war solely because we didn't declare it?
Got it.
So if the United States got bombed, you WOULD automatically say that we are at war with the country that bombed us even if they quickly retorted that they haven't declared war on us, correct?
So if the United States got bombed, you WOULD automatically say that we are at war with the country that bombed us even if they quickly retorted that they haven't declared war on us, correct?
June 22, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Got it.
So if the United States got bombed, you WOULD automatically say that we are at war with the country that bombed us even if they quickly retorted that they haven't declared war on us, correct?
So if the United States got bombed, you WOULD automatically say that we are at war with the country that bombed us even if they quickly retorted that they haven't declared war on us, correct?
You didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat.
If the United States were bombed, would you say we are at war, or would you say we weren't if they didn't declare war?
If the United States were bombed, would you say we are at war, or would you say we weren't if they didn't declare war?
June 22, 2025 at 8:40 PM
You didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat.
If the United States were bombed, would you say we are at war, or would you say we weren't if they didn't declare war?
If the United States were bombed, would you say we are at war, or would you say we weren't if they didn't declare war?
If someone bombed the United States but made sure not to declare war, would you say that we are or aren't in a war?
June 22, 2025 at 8:05 PM
If someone bombed the United States but made sure not to declare war, would you say that we are or aren't in a war?
I'm done. This is gross behavior.
June 14, 2025 at 5:34 PM
I'm done. This is gross behavior.
You set a standard that death is the red line, yet you actively boosted the candidate who - AS YOU ADMIT - would cause more death.
Shameful. And disgusting.
Shameful. And disgusting.
June 14, 2025 at 5:33 PM
You set a standard that death is the red line, yet you actively boosted the candidate who - AS YOU ADMIT - would cause more death.
Shameful. And disgusting.
Shameful. And disgusting.
That's why you're lashing out and name-calling. Somewhere deep down, you know that you are responsible for Medicaid, USAID, and Medicare being cut. You are responsible for the mass deportations.
You caused this, and you won't answer the question because of the guilt of what you've done.
You caused this, and you won't answer the question because of the guilt of what you've done.
June 14, 2025 at 5:27 PM
That's why you're lashing out and name-calling. Somewhere deep down, you know that you are responsible for Medicaid, USAID, and Medicare being cut. You are responsible for the mass deportations.
You caused this, and you won't answer the question because of the guilt of what you've done.
You caused this, and you won't answer the question because of the guilt of what you've done.
You're avoiding answering the question because you know that you are just as guilty of what you accuse the Dems of being - complicit in death.
You yourself acknowledged that Dems save more lives than the GOP, but you still chose not to vote for them. By your own standard, you are a murderer.
You yourself acknowledged that Dems save more lives than the GOP, but you still chose not to vote for them. By your own standard, you are a murderer.
June 14, 2025 at 5:25 PM
You're avoiding answering the question because you know that you are just as guilty of what you accuse the Dems of being - complicit in death.
You yourself acknowledged that Dems save more lives than the GOP, but you still chose not to vote for them. By your own standard, you are a murderer.
You yourself acknowledged that Dems save more lives than the GOP, but you still chose not to vote for them. By your own standard, you are a murderer.
Miniscule?! That's 50 extra people dying!! You said death is a red line for you, but you're willing to sacrifice MORE life just to preserve these principles?
Explain that. Wouldn't a better option be to vote for the option that saves the most life while also pushing for change within that party?
Explain that. Wouldn't a better option be to vote for the option that saves the most life while also pushing for change within that party?
June 14, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Miniscule?! That's 50 extra people dying!! You said death is a red line for you, but you're willing to sacrifice MORE life just to preserve these principles?
Explain that. Wouldn't a better option be to vote for the option that saves the most life while also pushing for change within that party?
Explain that. Wouldn't a better option be to vote for the option that saves the most life while also pushing for change within that party?
Do not pivot. Answer the question. How do you square the fact that your inaction, by your own admission, has led to the death and of thousands? How can you truly say that death is a red line for you when you actively chose not to save lives?
June 14, 2025 at 2:40 PM
Do not pivot. Answer the question. How do you square the fact that your inaction, by your own admission, has led to the death and of thousands? How can you truly say that death is a red line for you when you actively chose not to save lives?
You're literally admitting that Democrats save more lives here. You understand that, right? You're admitting that if you'd have voted for a Democrat, the lives of every single minority in the United States of America would be better. Why is that not enough for you? Why are their lives expendable?
June 14, 2025 at 1:33 PM
You're literally admitting that Democrats save more lives here. You understand that, right? You're admitting that if you'd have voted for a Democrat, the lives of every single minority in the United States of America would be better. Why is that not enough for you? Why are their lives expendable?
Your image proves my point! Those two people would be alive if you go straight. Are you not complicit in their deaths by refraining from voting for the candidate that causes FEWER deaths?
Change the system, sure, but in the meantime, save as many people as possible. Why are you against this??
Change the system, sure, but in the meantime, save as many people as possible. Why are you against this??
June 14, 2025 at 1:20 PM
Your image proves my point! Those two people would be alive if you go straight. Are you not complicit in their deaths by refraining from voting for the candidate that causes FEWER deaths?
Change the system, sure, but in the meantime, save as many people as possible. Why are you against this??
Change the system, sure, but in the meantime, save as many people as possible. Why are you against this??
Essentially, your argument is:
"Candidate A will lead to 1,000 deaths.
Candidate B will lead to 500 deaths.
I will support neither because I have principles."
But you could have prevented the death of 500 people by picking B. Are you not complicit in their deaths?
"Candidate A will lead to 1,000 deaths.
Candidate B will lead to 500 deaths.
I will support neither because I have principles."
But you could have prevented the death of 500 people by picking B. Are you not complicit in their deaths?
June 14, 2025 at 3:39 AM
Essentially, your argument is:
"Candidate A will lead to 1,000 deaths.
Candidate B will lead to 500 deaths.
I will support neither because I have principles."
But you could have prevented the death of 500 people by picking B. Are you not complicit in their deaths?
"Candidate A will lead to 1,000 deaths.
Candidate B will lead to 500 deaths.
I will support neither because I have principles."
But you could have prevented the death of 500 people by picking B. Are you not complicit in their deaths?
We'll get to how much power a Vice President has over foreign policy in a moment, but let's stay with this for now.
You're saying that the moral choice would be not to support either, but one of them is going to win, yes? So why not vote for the one who is going to save the most lives?
You're saying that the moral choice would be not to support either, but one of them is going to win, yes? So why not vote for the one who is going to save the most lives?
June 14, 2025 at 3:36 AM
We'll get to how much power a Vice President has over foreign policy in a moment, but let's stay with this for now.
You're saying that the moral choice would be not to support either, but one of them is going to win, yes? So why not vote for the one who is going to save the most lives?
You're saying that the moral choice would be not to support either, but one of them is going to win, yes? So why not vote for the one who is going to save the most lives?
Gotcha. So, loss of life is where you draw the line, regardless of progressive boxes that are checked? Does that apply in every single circumstance? For example, USAID being cut, Medicaid, etc.?
June 13, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Gotcha. So, loss of life is where you draw the line, regardless of progressive boxes that are checked? Does that apply in every single circumstance? For example, USAID being cut, Medicaid, etc.?
Awesome. Okay, let's say there's a candidate who supports 7 out of 9 of those proposals but has a different viewpoint on the other two. Are they progressive? Or does this candidate have to support all 9 to be progressive with no exceptions?
June 13, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Awesome. Okay, let's say there's a candidate who supports 7 out of 9 of those proposals but has a different viewpoint on the other two. Are they progressive? Or does this candidate have to support all 9 to be progressive with no exceptions?
We're the only developed country without Medicare for all? Or do you mean universal healthcare? Those are different things. You can achieve universal healthcare THROUGH Medicare for All, sure, but you can do it through other ways as well.
What other progressive policies do you believe in?
What other progressive policies do you believe in?
June 13, 2025 at 2:53 PM
We're the only developed country without Medicare for all? Or do you mean universal healthcare? Those are different things. You can achieve universal healthcare THROUGH Medicare for All, sure, but you can do it through other ways as well.
What other progressive policies do you believe in?
What other progressive policies do you believe in?
You keep changing your arguments, man. You'll make statements like, "Nobody thinks Kamala is progressive." And then when I show that isn't true, you shift.
I love Zohran. I myself am a progressive, lol. I'm just practical. The NYC constituency is way different from the U.S. as a whole.
I love Zohran. I myself am a progressive, lol. I'm just practical. The NYC constituency is way different from the U.S. as a whole.
June 13, 2025 at 2:21 PM
You keep changing your arguments, man. You'll make statements like, "Nobody thinks Kamala is progressive." And then when I show that isn't true, you shift.
I love Zohran. I myself am a progressive, lol. I'm just practical. The NYC constituency is way different from the U.S. as a whole.
I love Zohran. I myself am a progressive, lol. I'm just practical. The NYC constituency is way different from the U.S. as a whole.
That would be news to the entire Republican party who called her a Marxist every single day. Also, again... I posted evidence proving that she had the most progressive voting record in the Senate for her entire time there. It's literally statistics. You are wrong.
I am. What about it?
I am. What about it?
June 12, 2025 at 8:46 PM
That would be news to the entire Republican party who called her a Marxist every single day. Also, again... I posted evidence proving that she had the most progressive voting record in the Senate for her entire time there. It's literally statistics. You are wrong.
I am. What about it?
I am. What about it?