https://www.reddit.com/r/TooAfraidToAsk/comments/1dssr87/if_trump_or_the_republican_party_is_actually_that/
lol, exactly the kind of laughable response I expected.
The whole thread is a gold mine.
I love this. "We can't do this because it would be horrible and bad, so we have no choice but to wait until our opponents do it. Shooting someone who is trying to kill you actually makes you just as bad sweaty."
I now genuinely believe if the actual Adolf Hitler was running for office, liberals would actually think the solution is to not vote for him.
99% Blue Hitler, 99% Red Hitler, or 100% Hitler Hitler. Either way its the most important election of our lives.
Either that, or they'd be saying that we need to support him to prevent Himmler from getting into office.
Holy shit, I can't believe liberals have yet to accuse people of being antisemitic for not voting for the lesser Hitler
"It's antisemetic to not vote for 99% Hitler sweaty because he said he'll kill fewer Jews, so ipso facto he is better for them than 100% Hitler"
Shooting someone who is trying to kill you actually makes you just as bad sweaty
You need to put libs into the mind of a cop, then they're all for it
Umm acktually that's different? When a cop shoots someone it is legal and therefore morally good?
I swear to God it's like Saturday morning cartoons and general cape shit ruined any discussions around violence in the West
The only political ideology the United States has committed to banning in the United States is communism.
According to the State, everything else is perfectly allowable.
America doesn't ban opinions or invoke legal morality in such ways just because people have different opinions from your own.
Ban a political ideology? May as well teach my iPhone to eat a cheeseburger.
"The Republicans are going to make the US a dictatorship and eat children but taking action to make sure they can never come to power would be rude so you need to vote for 99% Hitler."
Show
when they strip our citizenship, at least we held the moral high ground!
arbitrarily
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
So America is a two-party democracy where
- One of those parties is fascist and trying to install a fascist dictatorship
- The fascist party will enact said dictatorship only after accumulating enough power through elections
- The fascist party will abide by the result of elections that are not in their favor
- Any actions to reduce the ability of the fascist party to participate in elections is undemocratic
- Anyone exercising their democratic right to vote for the fascist party is contributing to the end of democracy (via item 1) but cannot be prevented from doing so by any means other than cajoling on social media.
This make sense to everyone?
It's the dead end of political pacifism. If you refuse to respond violently to a violent attack you're actually a noble person that honors humanity and totally not a loser than enables the power hungry sadist to terrorise innocents
"We're better than that."
My brother in christ we have a shit ton of nuclear weapons. If "going high" means giving the keys of the Armageddon car to a maniac you are being an irresponsible dipshit and threatening everyone at the same time. You're a suicide bomber with extra steps.
Liberals are married to “the meek shall inherit the earth.”
They think that if they just lie down and take it for all their lives, it will translate to good boy points and they’ll have the last laugh.
They’re married to American imperialism and all the treats it entails. There’s no evil they’ll not make peace with as long as they remain materially comfortable.
Why do I keep forgetting these people are hypocrites?
I live in Ohio (not by choice) and it fills me with dread that the lifestyle that’s forced upon me is so unsustainable. Why would I not want to live in a world that aligns with my values?
The liberals will cause a constitutional crisis just to allow Trump to run.
Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 3:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
RIGHT!? Like, there are SO MANY options to prevent this, but they won't DO any of them because they fundraise well against Trump and would rather wave the panic in front of their voters to keep them engaged.
Very functional government.
Crazy experience: I told the lib I work with that the democrats actually fund the crazier Republicans to encourage people to vote Democrat and he chuckled and said it's a good strategy (and yes, he said this unironically).
Libs who aren't affected by this election aren't very serious about it.
I got called a "crazy conspiracy theorist" by a good friend for saying that, despite including documentation.
It does feel like the average democrat's ignorant beliefs about the function and mechanics of government leave them mostly unable to understand how government actually functions.
It's a fairytale-level understanding. They believe stories, and know what should happen, and any evidence to the contrary is discarded.
I found myself compelled to apologize to my partner repeatedly as I was teaching them to see past the veil; confronting and analyzing one's beliefs is an extremely painful process when you're doing it for the first time.
Honestly, I'm probably giving them too much credit. Willful ignorance.
Just to anticipate the libs for a second, section 5 puts the burden on Congress to enforce it as SCOTUS pointed out in Trump v. Anderson (2024). However, let's not forget the Democrats had a trifecta in 2021-22 and could have pushed through legislation if they had wanted to ensure section 3 was applied/interpreted properly to this insurrection, which they easily should have been able to do — maybe even a resolution declaring Congress' intent was that it already applied under some old law would have been enough.
The actual answer btw is that you can’t revoke anyones citizenship if they were born in the u.s. It’s actually kinda interesting and goes back to slavery and the dred scott decision, where the supreme court ruled that slaves and their decedents couldn’t be citizens. In response, after the civil war when they were drafting the 14th amendment they added the “citizenship clause” which granted automatic citizenship to everyone born in the united states. So basically because the point of this amendment was to give certain people citizenship regardless of what congress or the government say, the supreme court later ruled in Afroyim v Rusk that congress can’t revoke the citizenship of anyone born in the us. Although, interestingly, the court later ruled in Rogers v. Bellei that congress could revoke the citizenship of someone born outside the us to american parents since that citizenship doesn’t come from the citizenship clause
Revoke a citizenship with this one weird trick
Constitutional scholars hate it!
You forgot about 8 USC 1481(a)(7) which considers inciting an insurrection (18 USC 2383) or even conspiring to assist one to be a voluntary act of giving up citizenship if done with the intent of giving up citizenship. A court that wanted to could say it was intentional certainly could...
There is literally precedent that the president can just order the killing of anyone in the world if it's for "national self-defense". The democrats' attitude of despair just isn't matched by the actions taken by their leaders.
I like the person who introduced a terrible analogy about an iphone eating a hamburger, and when you respond with real historic precedent they just continue to say "no that would never work in my analogy you don't get it"
I still can't get over that one.
Revoking a potential Hitleresque person's citizenship? "iphones can't eat cheeseburgers!"
Drone striking a citizen suspected of terrorism because they’re a potential threat of small scale violence?
Drone striking an immediate threat to the entire nation and liberalism itself?
People in Chile celebrate 9/11
This person has managed to say something sort of true (Chilean people commemorate 9/11 because of the coup and the bloodshed that came with it), for the absolutely wildest wrong reason. It's hilarious that this person thinks people in Chile remember 9/11 because it was bad for the US while the US was the one making the Chilean 9/11 happen in the first place.
What a fascinating mind.
I think the actually interesting part of this is how delicately they insist Republicans be handled vs the barbarism they recommend against other countries (or will at least justify once the barbarism has been done). Trump? Must be protected. Qaddafi? Tortured to death in a hole in the ground. Democracy.
Exhibit A that liberals don't believe a single word of the horseshit they spew
Noam Chomsky nailed it when he said that of course the media swings “liberal” because the whole point is “this is how left-wing you’re allowed to be.”
Of course we are permitted to disagree with them, sure, but we have to be total dipshits that tacitly believe that chuds are superhuman gods superior to us in every way.
Honestly the fact that the post has a zero rating (they can't be negative) tells me my suggestion upset them more than what Trump is promising to do.
Based on the upvote ratio, the score would be -10 (7 up, 17 down) or worse if allowed to be negative
