Trump suggests taking over New York City and Washington
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is dementia ramblings.
They could have asked him about cheese and I bet he would've talked about doing a tremendous job at making cheese grate again.
-
What a coincidence, I suggest Trump goes and fucks himself with the green side of a pineapple
Why just one side? Keep pushing it in until he can feel both sides.
-
So, to my fellow Americans in NYC, how are those gun laws working out? That's a smartass question, but more seriously, what will you do when the Gestapo comes rolling down Flatbush Avenue?
I'll never find it again, but a few years ago jihadis went rampaging down the streets in Iran, randomly shooting into apartment blocks. All I could think was, "At least that can't happen here."
I for one haven't forgotten that you think banging 17 year olds is fine
-
As a resident of Washington state, I really wish these articles would include D.C. when they refer to the country's capital. This time, they are referring to D.C.
It's a city named Washington which is the most relevant to US politics so it kind of makes sense.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Waiting any minute until I see Chairman Trump as a decoration.
-
I for one haven't forgotten that you think banging 17 year olds is fine
Oof, coming out of left field with a damn tank over here, when all this guy has is a plastic butter knife and sarcasm.
You got a link for this? Like, I don't want it to be true but holy shit, what a sentence.
-
Oof, coming out of left field with a damn tank over here, when all this guy has is a plastic butter knife and sarcasm.
You got a link for this? Like, I don't want it to be true but holy shit, what a sentence.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I tagged them long ago when they said something along the lines of "come on a 17 year old is really physically an adult" referring to sexuality. I often tag people if they say something sus or fucked up and i often see repeat behavior from them. So in this case I see another weird conservative viewpoint coming up from the same dude, I gotta call them.
I would find that comment for ya but it honestly might take a long time to do so.
-
It's a city named Washington which is the most relevant to US politics so it kind of makes sense.
Yes, but it's easy to confuse with the state when "D.C." isn't included.
-
Yes, but it's easy to confuse with the state when "D.C." isn't included.
Without context, surely so. With context I think a moment to process is all that is required. I guess it would have been a good idea not to name two important places in the US the same thing.
-
Fuck the mods!
Violence will be the only correct response if this is done.
Actively overturning an election bc the other party won, is a call to remove those in charge by any means.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fuck the mods
First off, to be clear, I don't agree with this statement, I think it's the wrong stance.
But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.
As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".
And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.
edit for clarity in brackets
-
This post did not contain any content.
All just because Cuomo lost to a progressive candidate. Americans, please be fully aware what lengths Trump is willing to take for total control
-
Yeah I went bug eyed there for a sec as a fellow resident
"for a sec"
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.- Martin Niemöller, Holocaust survivor
Are you only willing to act once they are at your doorstep?
-
Fuck the mods
First off, to be clear, I don't agree with this statement, I think it's the wrong stance.
But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.
As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".
And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.
edit for clarity in brackets
He means fuck the mods because they ban and delete comments that even hint at violence or Revolution, which only helps the oppressor. We are never going to get a better deal if every time we talk about getting mad, we get shut up and shut down.
It was a huge issue on Reddit and is becoming one here with the mods who just ban everyone who gets mad -
Fuck the mods!
Violence will be the only correct response if this is done.
Actively overturning an election bc the other party won, is a call to remove those in charge by any means.
Actively overturning an election bc the other party won
The election is in November ...
-
This is dementia ramblings.
They could have asked him about cheese and I bet he would've talked about doing a tremendous job at making cheese grate again.
Do. Not. Underestimate. This. Fascist.
America is on the brink.
-
As a resident of Washington state, I really wish these articles would include D.C. when they refer to the country's capital. This time, they are referring to D.C.
Don't worry, if he takes over those two your turn won't be far behind.
-
This is dementia ramblings.
They could have asked him about cheese and I bet he would've talked about doing a tremendous job at making cheese grate again.
It is until it isn't.
There's no way he'd implement a 250% tariff. That's just crazy.
-
Fuck the mods
First off, to be clear, I don't agree with this statement, I think it's the wrong stance.
But after that, I think this is a really an interesting point. [In general I understand a policy of not inciting violence] but if for instance, (purely hypothetically) the country were to fall into civil war (a crazy suggestion I know), wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
I mean, encouraging people to join the war effort would be a matter of course, to quash that sentiment and silence those voices seems unethical.
As we slip closer to that possible outcome, surely the time for seriously talking about violence would come before the first shot is fired, right? So where do you draw that line? At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".
And I for one, am very interested in how mods feel about this question.
edit for clarity in brackets
wouldn't this policy instantly seem inappropriate?
Out of context, yes. However, lemmy.world has been banning people for jokes or PERCEIVED call for violence.
It feels more like a "I'm having a bad day and i'm taking it out on you." On top of that, the incresing amount of fake news sites or uncreditable news outlets is alarming. If the goal was to be reddit 2.0 , Mission accomplish.
At what point is a statement which incites violence "violating site rules" and at what point is it "legitimate discussion of impending hostilities".
I feel this should be the point if his threat is carried out. Everything up to this point could be argued in a manner that it is still, no matter how crazy it sounds, in hia scope of power. Removing an elected political adversary due to their political party would mean starting over with a constitution.
-
So, to my fellow Americans in NYC, how are those gun laws working out? That's a smartass question, but more seriously, what will you do when the Gestapo comes rolling down Flatbush Avenue?
I'll never find it again, but a few years ago jihadis went rampaging down the streets in Iran, randomly shooting into apartment blocks. All I could think was, "At least that can't happen here."
When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun -
Actively overturning an election bc the other party won
The election is in November ...
Yes, if he overturns the election results after the election. I guess he could passive aggressively do it to.
