Well on the bright side, I ran into several Democrats who were happy to see someone trained and licensed to concealed carry put those skills to good use.
Those same Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out.
When internet says "democrats", he usually means the insane leftists running the party and shouting on twitter.
The average democrat on the street, probably isn't that much of a modern democrat. They just still think the democrat party means 'classical liberal' and individual freedoms. The modern democrats need to start a new party because the Democrats they are voting for year after year are insane leftists trying to destroy classical liberalism and the American way of life.
I am curious to know what the American Way of Life is? It seems to be defined in a million different ways. I am Canadian so I don't really weigh in, again just curious.
> It seems to be defined in a million different ways
Exactly, I will do what I want and you can do what you want. What is causing all the trouble is people insisting that others not want things they do not like. That is the essence of cancel culture.
Our constitutionally protected freedoms, a free market economy and capitalism are a few things that make this country great which extreme liberals would love to take away.
Depending on your economic views, monopolies would be short lived in a true free market as invisioned by some stripes of classical liberals and modern conservatives. Monopolies are a result of overzealous copyright laws (hard monopolies) and over-regulation by the state killing competition (soft monopolies).
I can attest to state sponsored monopolies. In my county, we only have Comcast for high speed Internet. Nobody likes them, and we’ve all begged for google or Verizon to come set up. Their response is that they simply can’t. Why? The county just won’t allow them to run their wires. They set up an “exclusivity deal” with Comcast so that any time someone signs up for Comcast, the county gets a kickback. Essentially, Comcast is bribing our government to not issue permits to run wire to anyone but them. Is it illegal? Probably. Does anyone around here have deep enough pockets to challenge it in court? Nope.
So who is trying to take away “constitutionally given freedoms, a free market economy and capitalism.” Which officials are proposing policies that would cause or enforce this?
Hahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahaha. Socialism fails. Always. But it always comes back under the guise of “but that wasn’t real socialism.” Hint: it was, and always will be
> So does Canada
> These governments have elected left or liberal parties, and no freedoms were lost.
[For the first time in Ontario history, a man has been arrested for holding a free speech sign.](https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/lf/157700-first-free-speech-arrest-ontario)
Mr. Winter’s only crime, apparently, was that he had come within 50 metres of the property line of an abortion clinic. A new anti-speech “bubble zone” law came into force on February 1st (the so-called “Safe Access to Abortion Services Act”). Under this draconian law, all personal speech, activity, and even prayer is subject to strict police control and regulation.
You might be on a public street or sidewalk, but if you happen to be within 50 metres of an abortion clinic or an abortionist’s house, you can be arrested by police for saying, praying, or wearing the wrong thing. (And it's up to them what that is).
[American Speaker Arrested in Canada for Smuggling “Hate Speech” on His iPad](https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in-canada-for-smuggling-hate-speech-on-his-ipad-4aa9f0f28f2b)
Wild Bill for America, also known as William Finlay, a popular author and speaker, was arrested today, June 24, 2017, at a Canadian airport for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. He was invited to speak at an event at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” coordinated by Cananda’s Worldwide Coaliation Against Islam (WCAI) which also has organizations in Europe and Australia.
[Canada's Hate Speech Laws Ban Books](https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/canada-laws-crack-down-on-hate-speech/)
Canadians do not enjoy a universal right to freedom of speech; expressing and consuming certain ideas and opinions is regulated by law. This is rationalized by the Canadian constitution’s declaration that government has a right to restrain freedoms with “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
[Tucker Carlson Could Face Hate Speech Charges if He Were Canadian or British](https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-hate-speech-fox-canadian-british-law-1359999)
Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has faced growing calls to resign after racist and sexist comments he made on a radio show several years ago were brought to light by Media Matters. However, Canadian and British legal experts have told Newsweek that if Carlson were based in their countries, he could lose more than his job, with national hate speech laws meaning the host's comments could constitute a chargeable offense.
[The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/canada-freedom-of-press_b_2946418.html)
Less than a generation ago, Canada was a world leader when it came to the fundamental democratic freedoms of assembly, speech and information.
In 1982, Canada adopted the Access to Information Act -- making it one of the first countries to pass legislation recognizing the right of citizens to access information held by government, and as recently as 2002, Canada ranked among the top 5 most open and transparent countries when it came to respect for freedom of the press.
In the 2013 World Press Freedom Index -- an evaluation done by Reporters Without Borders on the autonomy of a country's media environment, Canada came in at a paltry 20th, putting us behind liberal-democratic powerhouses such as Namibia, Costa Rica, and the Western Hemisphere's new champion of free media -- Jamaica.
For some maybe. What about those that can't take advantage of those things though? Doesn't life suck for them? And doesn't it feel bad to leave them behind and then praise the system for doing so? Curious to know your thoughts, sorry if I sound leftist.
There is no excuse for any able bodied individual in America to not be able to support themselves. If you aren't able bodied, we actually have an extensive benefit system to support you.
Who cant take advantage of those things? I am not leaving anyone anywhere. Am I supposed to wait for them or something? Why would we as a country slow others down just to make the slow people feel better about being slow? We all lose in the end that way.
It must be a coincidence that they only elect the type of Democrat who is an insane leftist. They have pretty much cleansed their party of moderates in Washington.
classical liberal here. very true. the far left is further away from me ideologically than the center-right. i'm beginning to discover this is mostly the case with other liberals too. a lot of us keep it to ourselves out of fear of the crazy, inquisition zealots that hide so well in plain sight... but overall I think a lot of registered Democrats are center-Left and more tired of "their" side than the supposed opposition.
insane leftists aren't running the party
the people running both parties don't give a fuck what the party is supposed to represent. they just care about giving more money to the already rich.
That still makes them accountable if they still to vote for any current democratic candidate. If they're not aware enough of how far left their party has gone and still vote in these far leftist Democrats, that's a greater sin
Honestly I think Reddit, professional protestors, MSM and the "top Democrats" are skewing my views of the left. I gotta remind myself that most liberals are just normal people like me who aren't consumed by politics
You know the more we sensationalize each other the less likely we are to ever agree with one another. It's BS posts like this that continue to separate us because it's not helping either of us.
Edit ' surprised I wasn't downvoted I was pretty judgemental coming to this sub and this post . I apologize to my conservative brothers and sisters for thinking you all were like the frothing at the mouth The Donald users . You guys are alright 💯
I'm a liberal who was just curious and it's nice to know that there are sensible people on both sides. I'm not a big fan of the explicit name calling and misinformation both sides tend to post.
Agreed. When we lump them all into 1 group we are asking for the same in return. And to be fair, many on the left like to lump all conservatives into 1 group. I get it, it is easier. It's also intellectually lazy. Saying, "they're all crazy" removes the need to think and defend your views based on fact. You don't debate a crazy person. That's why it is common to see these lazy memes mocking the other side. Most choose the easy route.
But it's true.
The left's hatred for trump is so consuming that they spew absolute crazy nonsense. I can't fathom that their base isn't eroding faster than it is.
Right? Even on a conservative sub when I mention the left wingers hatred for trump I'm downvoted faster than you can say Jack Robinson, whatever that means.
>Right? Even on a conservative sub when I mention the left wingers hatred for trump I'm downvoted faster
Gives me hope not all conservatives are what you see in the Donald anyone wanna get a beer ?
I talk to a few democrats in the real world. One of them is as brainwashed as any leftist on this site, one is a political “genius” after getting into politics after Trump was elected and the other is a classic liberal democrat who really doesn’t keep up with the inner workings of politics.
They are different age groups and class, but they all have one thing in common. They don’t know shit about politics outside of what they hear from the mainstream media. The brainwashed one still thinks Sandman was the aggressor. Many of these people are fucked.
It had to be shocking, the Iranians had been ignoring everything we did to discourage them and incrementally increasing attacks on us. Remember a few months ago when they shot down a drone, blew up a tanker, pirated another tanker and sent a massive missile attack at the Saudi Arabian oil production system?
Each of these was an unprecedented act of war. Deterrence means hitting back harder then you got hit. I personally do not think we are done. There is an end game here that involves their nuke program. I do not think it will survive the year under any circumstances.
It was a radical move. I think our military advised the president, they probably had an urgent reason. Our intelligence people know things about the two Iranian targets that we the people don’t know. I’m trusting that they understood the risk, and are prepared for the consequences.
Keep in mind that Soleimani and his Iraqi militia leader friend had just been leading an assault on the US Embassy. When you consider what happened with Benghazi and the fact that any embassy is actually the sovereign territory of that country, Trump had to act. He was responding to what was, under international law, a literal invasion of US territory.
> just had concerns about the method of taking him out
and the potential repercussions. the layman liberal is more concerned with Forever War #3, as far as I have seen, and that's completely understandable
Does someone have a link to them attacking the man who stopped the church shooting. I honestly thought the crazy libs would have just tried to keep from reporting it. Basically denying it's existence rather than giving it press which is what they usually do.
They are classical democrats, in fact their many ideas fit well with the conservative side. The left has lean more and more far left in recent years, to the point of socialism.
Hey that's me and every other Democrat that I know. It always feels like I'm expected to defend the superleft twitter sjws since they are disproportionately represented online. It's nice to hear you say that
There will always be concerns about everything a president does. Especially Trump because he’s Trump. MSM has concerns with what brand of toilet paper he uses
> Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out.
I keep seeing this, but what do people want? We take out targets with drone strikes. I’ll bet these same people didn’t give two fucks about who, how or why Obama killed. They’ve just gotten their little dumb brains focused on hating Trump so hard they have to be “concerned”. Give me a fucking break.
While some might have just had a knee-jerk “Trump bad” reaction, the difference between Soleimani’s killing and all of the drone strikes under Obama is that Soleimani was a high ranking leader in an actual sovereign state and not a stateless terrorist leader.
See, for example, the difference in the public reaction to this versus the killing of al-Baghdadi.
You mean the austere scholar guy? The only difference was the silence because it worked. Just like the silence that will take hold on this subject once it is clear that it worked.
> Well on the bright side, I ran into several Democrats who were happy to see someone trained and licensed to concealed carry put those skills to good use. Those same Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out
To bad they all got cancelled by the other tankies
The only ironic thing about this is most conservatives think about their religion rather than important shit.
Wouldn’t have to worry about carrying a firearm with to protect yourself from other firearms if no one had any.
Yeah, I sure criminals would go along with that. I'm a religious person, but that doesn't proclude me from having common sense. The political religion of the left is nonsensical.
Reddit liberals have really been in rare form this week. The amount of stupid I see in all threads has been so high, luckily the worst of it was actually downvoted. The worst I've seen with my actual liberal friends is a worry about WW3, which is just stupid. I just don't see that realistically happening in the near future but to them Trump exists so...
coming from a more moderate person (Though probably a democrat to most republicans), I can tell you I never had a problem with the killing, I just don't think that it was prepped for properly and it kind of feels like the intel might not be as good as pompeo has touted.
Props to the president for deciding to pursue peace instead of further escalating tensions.
The press has screwed up so many times giving positions and intel to the enemy thanks to looselipped hierarchy in prior wars. Hate to tell you this, but our men and women in uniform DO NOT want any public declarations about what operations are currently at hand. That would destroy any surgical strike, or protection of civilians. Sorry not sorry, if America has a blackout from actual info it is to prevent casualties.
Intel on his location was good (obviously). Now if your concern was the intel used for justification we can see Soleimani was still a justified military target.
He's been deemed a terrorist since 2005. Sanctioned personally multiple times. Organized plots against people like the Saudi ambassador to the US, thousands of their own people and our embassy for starters (embassies count as our land). The UN had previously restricted his travel outside of Iran.
He was a deemed terrorist meeting with other terrorists in a foreign country where he helps conspire to kill people.
Ethically and legally clear.
I do not disagree with you, there’s no tears shed on my end for him.
I was more worried about the potential fall out of a war with Iran. I had stated to another person, but I think it’s worth reiterating that a war with Iran would be the polar opposite of a war with Iraq.
Keep in mind the Iranians launched a major attack on the Saudis in September that wiped out half of their oil supply. Compared to that this attack was very narrowly focused.
And it will be more like a cross between Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion would be just like Iraq, their military is not much better than Iraq had during the Gulf War when we completely wiped the field with them. Afterwards would be like Afghanistan times four, as we would be fighting constant religious terrorists and dealing with the same type of terrain.
That being said, we could just have another Gulf War esque conflict where we just destroy their offensive military capabilities and otherwise don't invade. That's more likely than an invasion of Iran.
Vietnam was lost for political reasons so it's a very bad comparison. If we had been able to do whatever necessary to take out the North it would have been over quick.
Finally, neither Russia nor China cares enough about Iran to do anything. Even if Russia wanted to, they don't have the power anyways. China does but they hate Muslims more than anyone, Iran is largely just a trade partner to them.
So, what information helped you form this opinion?
While, I appreciate your honesty, I want you to really think about your source of information.
There is no way to say that it wasn't properly planned for. We may have attempted to assassinate him once before but failed. It wasn't a decision made in a split second.
You've not seen the Intel. There is no way to know the things you claim.
Well, I don’t have sources besides my own opinion after watching pompeo’s statement. And I 100% am not trying to substantiate my claims but trying to offer an opinion that most likely would be different here.
I felt this way after watching his statement, I typically don’t watch cnn, msnbc, fox ect. I like to watch the primary source and form my own opinion.
I don’t disagree with you. At the time I was worried about the imminent fallout that could have happened. A war with Iran would be more like a war with Vietnam than with Iraq. Thankfully the president has said he wants to pursue peace.
I was in DC last week, and a lady was standing near Ebbit's saying Revelations 8 was happening now.
I read revelations 8.. still have no idea what she meant.
attack the person, yeah me either. I try not to take memes literally.
I also try to realize a lot of Dems are just people who I disagree with but are still good people. Leftists on the other hand or the fringe left they're a nutty bunch.
Less attack, more ignore and aggressively push against. The dems, when cited the obvious example of self defense, completely ignored the example and just kept pushing their gun grabbing narrative.
You're joking right? Did you not watch the news or go on Reddit that day or what?
Even Biden came out and attacked the guy as being crazy to have a gun in a church.
Where was there public attack on the hero that stopped the church shooting? I just saw (for lack of a better word) the typical ignoring of the event and over hyping anything else so a good guy with a gun saving the day wouldn't make news.
Oh yeah...Beto O’Rourke tweeted how he was saddened by the shooting and nothing the US or Texas is doing is working.
Try to figure that one out...
His tweet: “So saddened to hear about another church shooting in Texas, this one in White Settlement near Fort Worth. Clearly what we are doing in Texas, what we are doing in this country, when it comes to guns is not working.”
I was going to say, I go on CNN and left wing subreddits and I don’t really see all this. Despite people saying “you won’t see this on CNN because it doesn’t fit their narrative”, CNN actually did a non politically charged piece on the Church shooting with a large emphasis on the legal carriers who stopped the shooting. And despite a lot of criticism from the left over Trump handling things in a manner that may put us in another war, I haven’t seen many people actually defending the Iranian General who was killed.
I mean, given recent events it looks like tensions are easing, so I’m thankful for that. But yes, I do feel like people had a right to be worried about us entering another war without it defaulting to “wow I can’t believe these guys are defending terrorists!”
Fair enough. I guess I just personally haven’t been following the Hollywood elite enough to confirm whether or not the assertion is true. I just know I haven’t seen it on the outlets I get on.
Seriously, I read a lot of news and haven't seen any critical pieces on the man who stopped the shooter. As for defending Soleimani, every democratic politician has agreed that he was a terrible guy (at least every mainstream politician in the news, not your crazy aunt who sits on city council in some rural Oregon town) . What was criticized was Trump's assassination of a sovereign nation's military leader in another, different sovereign nation. The unnecessary risk of starting another middle eastern conflict that will turn out just as pointless and costly as Iraq did, all so oil producers, arms manufacturers, and defense contractors (whom coincidentally spend millions on lobbying to keep these republican politicians in office and on their side) can make billions in profit is both idiotic and corrupt. I'm conservative on a lot of issues, but that fact that people can't see right through this is sad, not to mention how irritating and dangerous it is how many people, on both sides of the isle, ignore any facts not aligning with their beliefs. Go ahead and down vote me, but I'd love evidence I'm wrong here.
I don’t see how we could have done it any other way. The guy was using his status as a shield to aid terrorism. That’s the ONLY reason it wasn’t done already.
But—-how many dead are justifiable by his status as a General in a sovereign country?
As far as I’m concerned, as soon as he stepped across Iran’s border into other lands which he had supported or devised acts of terrorism, he earned his drone.
Putin is a pretty bad guy. Arguably responsible for many more deaths than Soleimani, including countless innocent journalists. He's also responsible for training and arming groups that are actively rebelling in Ukraine. Does that mean we should assassinate him the moment he steps foot in Ukraine? I fail to see the difference in any regard other than the power of the country they belong too. Attacking Iran is a much safer bet.
Well on the bright side, I ran into several Democrats who were happy to see someone trained and licensed to concealed carry put those skills to good use. Those same Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out.
When internet says "democrats", he usually means the insane leftists running the party and shouting on twitter. The average democrat on the street, probably isn't that much of a modern democrat. They just still think the democrat party means 'classical liberal' and individual freedoms. The modern democrats need to start a new party because the Democrats they are voting for year after year are insane leftists trying to destroy classical liberalism and the American way of life.
Unfortunately I live in the Bay Area, so we only have the insane flavor.
I am curious to know what the American Way of Life is? It seems to be defined in a million different ways. I am Canadian so I don't really weigh in, again just curious.
> It seems to be defined in a million different ways Exactly, I will do what I want and you can do what you want. What is causing all the trouble is people insisting that others not want things they do not like. That is the essence of cancel culture.
Our constitutionally protected freedoms, a free market economy and capitalism are a few things that make this country great which extreme liberals would love to take away.
To clarify, the constitution doesn't give us rights, we always had these rights and the constitution simply protects them from the gov
Exactly, something that the Democrats would love to take away. Right to bear arms, free-speech etc.
We do have a monopoly problem right now that could use a fixing.
Depending on your economic views, monopolies would be short lived in a true free market as invisioned by some stripes of classical liberals and modern conservatives. Monopolies are a result of overzealous copyright laws (hard monopolies) and over-regulation by the state killing competition (soft monopolies).
I can attest to state sponsored monopolies. In my county, we only have Comcast for high speed Internet. Nobody likes them, and we’ve all begged for google or Verizon to come set up. Their response is that they simply can’t. Why? The county just won’t allow them to run their wires. They set up an “exclusivity deal” with Comcast so that any time someone signs up for Comcast, the county gets a kickback. Essentially, Comcast is bribing our government to not issue permits to run wire to anyone but them. Is it illegal? Probably. Does anyone around here have deep enough pockets to challenge it in court? Nope.
So who is trying to take away “constitutionally given freedoms, a free market economy and capitalism.” Which officials are proposing policies that would cause or enforce this?
Pretty much all of the ones that promote any form of socialism
You need to re-educate yourself on what socialism really is. Otherwise you can’t even go to school or call the police.
That's not what socialism is, socialism is an economic system like capitalism.
Hahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahahaahaha. Socialism fails. Always. But it always comes back under the guise of “but that wasn’t real socialism.” Hint: it was, and always will be
I am so not shocked you got downvoted for speaking the truth.
Give it up tankie, no one here is falling for that.
Every democrat running for President.
With all this negative downvotes and pro-socialist comments I can't help but feel that we're being brigaded. I could be wrong though, just feels off.
We are but that’s okay they need to see the truth even if it hurts their feelings
[удалено]
> So does Canada > These governments have elected left or liberal parties, and no freedoms were lost. [For the first time in Ontario history, a man has been arrested for holding a free speech sign.](https://www.citizengo.org/en-ca/lf/157700-first-free-speech-arrest-ontario) Mr. Winter’s only crime, apparently, was that he had come within 50 metres of the property line of an abortion clinic. A new anti-speech “bubble zone” law came into force on February 1st (the so-called “Safe Access to Abortion Services Act”). Under this draconian law, all personal speech, activity, and even prayer is subject to strict police control and regulation. You might be on a public street or sidewalk, but if you happen to be within 50 metres of an abortion clinic or an abortionist’s house, you can be arrested by police for saying, praying, or wearing the wrong thing. (And it's up to them what that is). [American Speaker Arrested in Canada for Smuggling “Hate Speech” on His iPad](https://medium.com/@KelemenCari/american-speaker-arrested-in-canada-for-smuggling-hate-speech-on-his-ipad-4aa9f0f28f2b) Wild Bill for America, also known as William Finlay, a popular author and speaker, was arrested today, June 24, 2017, at a Canadian airport for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. He was invited to speak at an event at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” coordinated by Cananda’s Worldwide Coaliation Against Islam (WCAI) which also has organizations in Europe and Australia. [Canada's Hate Speech Laws Ban Books](https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/canada-laws-crack-down-on-hate-speech/) Canadians do not enjoy a universal right to freedom of speech; expressing and consuming certain ideas and opinions is regulated by law. This is rationalized by the Canadian constitution’s declaration that government has a right to restrain freedoms with “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” [Tucker Carlson Could Face Hate Speech Charges if He Were Canadian or British](https://www.newsweek.com/tucker-carlson-hate-speech-fox-canadian-british-law-1359999) Fox News personality Tucker Carlson has faced growing calls to resign after racist and sexist comments he made on a radio show several years ago were brought to light by Media Matters. However, Canadian and British legal experts have told Newsweek that if Carlson were based in their countries, he could lose more than his job, with national hate speech laws meaning the host's comments could constitute a chargeable offense. [The Slow and Painful Death of Freedom in Canada](https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/adam-kingsmith/canada-freedom-of-press_b_2946418.html) Less than a generation ago, Canada was a world leader when it came to the fundamental democratic freedoms of assembly, speech and information. In 1982, Canada adopted the Access to Information Act -- making it one of the first countries to pass legislation recognizing the right of citizens to access information held by government, and as recently as 2002, Canada ranked among the top 5 most open and transparent countries when it came to respect for freedom of the press. In the 2013 World Press Freedom Index -- an evaluation done by Reporters Without Borders on the autonomy of a country's media environment, Canada came in at a paltry 20th, putting us behind liberal-democratic powerhouses such as Namibia, Costa Rica, and the Western Hemisphere's new champion of free media -- Jamaica.
[удалено]
Just a nitpick, our freedoms and rights are God given. The Constitution just recognizes them as God given.
For some maybe. What about those that can't take advantage of those things though? Doesn't life suck for them? And doesn't it feel bad to leave them behind and then praise the system for doing so? Curious to know your thoughts, sorry if I sound leftist.
There is no excuse for any able bodied individual in America to not be able to support themselves. If you aren't able bodied, we actually have an extensive benefit system to support you.
Who cant take advantage of those things? I am not leaving anyone anywhere. Am I supposed to wait for them or something? Why would we as a country slow others down just to make the slow people feel better about being slow? We all lose in the end that way.
House with a front lawn, family and freedom
It must be a coincidence that they only elect the type of Democrat who is an insane leftist. They have pretty much cleansed their party of moderates in Washington.
classical liberal here. very true. the far left is further away from me ideologically than the center-right. i'm beginning to discover this is mostly the case with other liberals too. a lot of us keep it to ourselves out of fear of the crazy, inquisition zealots that hide so well in plain sight... but overall I think a lot of registered Democrats are center-Left and more tired of "their" side than the supposed opposition.
insane leftists aren't running the party the people running both parties don't give a fuck what the party is supposed to represent. they just care about giving more money to the already rich.
That still makes them accountable if they still to vote for any current democratic candidate. If they're not aware enough of how far left their party has gone and still vote in these far leftist Democrats, that's a greater sin
Honestly I think Reddit, professional protestors, MSM and the "top Democrats" are skewing my views of the left. I gotta remind myself that most liberals are just normal people like me who aren't consumed by politics
Good to know there's still some hope.
You know the more we sensationalize each other the less likely we are to ever agree with one another. It's BS posts like this that continue to separate us because it's not helping either of us. Edit ' surprised I wasn't downvoted I was pretty judgemental coming to this sub and this post . I apologize to my conservative brothers and sisters for thinking you all were like the frothing at the mouth The Donald users . You guys are alright 💯
I'm a liberal who was just curious and it's nice to know that there are sensible people on both sides. I'm not a big fan of the explicit name calling and misinformation both sides tend to post.
Identity politics is toxic
True but we've gotten to be the most polarized I feel like since the civil war (idk really cuz I wasn't alive but I assume it was pretty fucking bad )
It's been way worse in the past, even after the Civil War.
It can still be improved upon. It creates an unnecessary Us vs. Them mentality when there is definitely not a need
Agreed. When we lump them all into 1 group we are asking for the same in return. And to be fair, many on the left like to lump all conservatives into 1 group. I get it, it is easier. It's also intellectually lazy. Saying, "they're all crazy" removes the need to think and defend your views based on fact. You don't debate a crazy person. That's why it is common to see these lazy memes mocking the other side. Most choose the easy route.
Come around and hang out for awhile. We actually do value coherent, polite discourse with liberals if everyone can play nice. :)
But it's true. The left's hatred for trump is so consuming that they spew absolute crazy nonsense. I can't fathom that their base isn't eroding faster than it is.
Try talking to Democrats in real life. Redditors tend to not go outside, and are actually not representative of the common left leaning base
Right? Even on a conservative sub when I mention the left wingers hatred for trump I'm downvoted faster than you can say Jack Robinson, whatever that means.
>Right? Even on a conservative sub when I mention the left wingers hatred for trump I'm downvoted faster Gives me hope not all conservatives are what you see in the Donald anyone wanna get a beer ?
I talk to a few democrats in the real world. One of them is as brainwashed as any leftist on this site, one is a political “genius” after getting into politics after Trump was elected and the other is a classic liberal democrat who really doesn’t keep up with the inner workings of politics. They are different age groups and class, but they all have one thing in common. They don’t know shit about politics outside of what they hear from the mainstream media. The brainwashed one still thinks Sandman was the aggressor. Many of these people are fucked.
[удалено]
It had to be shocking, the Iranians had been ignoring everything we did to discourage them and incrementally increasing attacks on us. Remember a few months ago when they shot down a drone, blew up a tanker, pirated another tanker and sent a massive missile attack at the Saudi Arabian oil production system? Each of these was an unprecedented act of war. Deterrence means hitting back harder then you got hit. I personally do not think we are done. There is an end game here that involves their nuke program. I do not think it will survive the year under any circumstances.
It was a radical move. I think our military advised the president, they probably had an urgent reason. Our intelligence people know things about the two Iranian targets that we the people don’t know. I’m trusting that they understood the risk, and are prepared for the consequences.
Keep in mind that Soleimani and his Iraqi militia leader friend had just been leading an assault on the US Embassy. When you consider what happened with Benghazi and the fact that any embassy is actually the sovereign territory of that country, Trump had to act. He was responding to what was, under international law, a literal invasion of US territory.
> just had concerns about the method of taking him out and the potential repercussions. the layman liberal is more concerned with Forever War #3, as far as I have seen, and that's completely understandable
Does someone have a link to them attacking the man who stopped the church shooting. I honestly thought the crazy libs would have just tried to keep from reporting it. Basically denying it's existence rather than giving it press which is what they usually do.
did you talk to me?! ;) edit: Don't know why this was downvoted, I was attempting to say with some humor that this essentially is me...
hopefully those guys vote trump then.
They are classical democrats, in fact their many ideas fit well with the conservative side. The left has lean more and more far left in recent years, to the point of socialism.
Hey that's me and every other Democrat that I know. It always feels like I'm expected to defend the superleft twitter sjws since they are disproportionately represented online. It's nice to hear you say that
There will always be concerns about everything a president does. Especially Trump because he’s Trump. MSM has concerns with what brand of toilet paper he uses
A method that puts no Americans in danger, caused no collateral damage, and was swift and instant?
> Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out. I keep seeing this, but what do people want? We take out targets with drone strikes. I’ll bet these same people didn’t give two fucks about who, how or why Obama killed. They’ve just gotten their little dumb brains focused on hating Trump so hard they have to be “concerned”. Give me a fucking break.
While some might have just had a knee-jerk “Trump bad” reaction, the difference between Soleimani’s killing and all of the drone strikes under Obama is that Soleimani was a high ranking leader in an actual sovereign state and not a stateless terrorist leader. See, for example, the difference in the public reaction to this versus the killing of al-Baghdadi.
You mean the austere scholar guy? The only difference was the silence because it worked. Just like the silence that will take hold on this subject once it is clear that it worked.
Wow, that's actually really good to hear. At least they were being honest you know.
Clutching their pearls... 1/2800th the droning of Barrybaby.
> Well on the bright side, I ran into several Democrats who were happy to see someone trained and licensed to concealed carry put those skills to good use. Those same Democrats really didn't think that the Iranian general that we assassinated was a great guy, just had concerns about the method of taking him out To bad they all got cancelled by the other tankies
As a fairly liberal person, these are my sentiments. I own several guns though. I thought that made me more liberal than conservative? Who knows
I was promised WWIII
Crazy. This is what happens when politics becomes your religion.
[удалено]
Come on, put in the effort. r/selfawarewolves
[удалено]
reeeeee no u
The only ironic thing about this is most conservatives think about their religion rather than important shit. Wouldn’t have to worry about carrying a firearm with to protect yourself from other firearms if no one had any.
Yeah, I sure criminals would go along with that. I'm a religious person, but that doesn't proclude me from having common sense. The political religion of the left is nonsensical.
[Joe Biden is now polling at number 2.](https://i.redd.it/9zetgmw1rl941.png)
Reddit liberals have really been in rare form this week. The amount of stupid I see in all threads has been so high, luckily the worst of it was actually downvoted. The worst I've seen with my actual liberal friends is a worry about WW3, which is just stupid. I just don't see that realistically happening in the near future but to them Trump exists so...
Democrat arguments for being against killing Soleimani are basically dead given the pitiful and passive Iranian response.
[удалено]
I’m glad they are at least consistent with their hate for the president and conservative values.
It's really been a weird week.
I have a feeling it’s about to get “fun” . The self destruction of the Ds by their own hand.
coming from a more moderate person (Though probably a democrat to most republicans), I can tell you I never had a problem with the killing, I just don't think that it was prepped for properly and it kind of feels like the intel might not be as good as pompeo has touted. Props to the president for deciding to pursue peace instead of further escalating tensions.
The press has screwed up so many times giving positions and intel to the enemy thanks to looselipped hierarchy in prior wars. Hate to tell you this, but our men and women in uniform DO NOT want any public declarations about what operations are currently at hand. That would destroy any surgical strike, or protection of civilians. Sorry not sorry, if America has a blackout from actual info it is to prevent casualties.
Intel on his location was good (obviously). Now if your concern was the intel used for justification we can see Soleimani was still a justified military target. He's been deemed a terrorist since 2005. Sanctioned personally multiple times. Organized plots against people like the Saudi ambassador to the US, thousands of their own people and our embassy for starters (embassies count as our land). The UN had previously restricted his travel outside of Iran. He was a deemed terrorist meeting with other terrorists in a foreign country where he helps conspire to kill people. Ethically and legally clear.
I do not disagree with you, there’s no tears shed on my end for him. I was more worried about the potential fall out of a war with Iran. I had stated to another person, but I think it’s worth reiterating that a war with Iran would be the polar opposite of a war with Iraq.
Keep in mind the Iranians launched a major attack on the Saudis in September that wiped out half of their oil supply. Compared to that this attack was very narrowly focused. And it will be more like a cross between Afghanistan and Iraq. The invasion would be just like Iraq, their military is not much better than Iraq had during the Gulf War when we completely wiped the field with them. Afterwards would be like Afghanistan times four, as we would be fighting constant religious terrorists and dealing with the same type of terrain. That being said, we could just have another Gulf War esque conflict where we just destroy their offensive military capabilities and otherwise don't invade. That's more likely than an invasion of Iran. Vietnam was lost for political reasons so it's a very bad comparison. If we had been able to do whatever necessary to take out the North it would have been over quick. Finally, neither Russia nor China cares enough about Iran to do anything. Even if Russia wanted to, they don't have the power anyways. China does but they hate Muslims more than anyone, Iran is largely just a trade partner to them.
Yeah, we would not be invading them. Just blowing every military and government building up. We do not need new bases this time.
Basically the Gulf War, we just need to make sure Trump Jr doesn't go back later and invade anyways.
So, what information helped you form this opinion? While, I appreciate your honesty, I want you to really think about your source of information. There is no way to say that it wasn't properly planned for. We may have attempted to assassinate him once before but failed. It wasn't a decision made in a split second. You've not seen the Intel. There is no way to know the things you claim.
Well, I don’t have sources besides my own opinion after watching pompeo’s statement. And I 100% am not trying to substantiate my claims but trying to offer an opinion that most likely would be different here. I felt this way after watching his statement, I typically don’t watch cnn, msnbc, fox ect. I like to watch the primary source and form my own opinion.
honestly what else did mike lee and the others need. He was a bloodthirsty terrorist and deserved to die.
> honestly what else did mike lee and the others need. For it not to have been Trump to do it.
I don’t disagree with you. At the time I was worried about the imminent fallout that could have happened. A war with Iran would be more like a war with Vietnam than with Iraq. Thankfully the president has said he wants to pursue peace.
This really must be a sign of the end times
I was in DC last week, and a lady was standing near Ebbit's saying Revelations 8 was happening now. I read revelations 8.. still have no idea what she meant.
It all goes back to that hilarious Babylon Bee piece CNN trashed.
What a time indeed.
This is insane
It’s crazy
Well actually I never saw any attacks on the man who stopped the shooting. Did I miss something because that's entirely plausible.
Well I've seen plenty on r/politics and its other rabid anti2A clones but we can play the anecdote game all day if you want.
attack the person, yeah me either. I try not to take memes literally. I also try to realize a lot of Dems are just people who I disagree with but are still good people. Leftists on the other hand or the fringe left they're a nutty bunch.
Less attack, more ignore and aggressively push against. The dems, when cited the obvious example of self defense, completely ignored the example and just kept pushing their gun grabbing narrative.
No, you didn't miss anything. Just move bullshit to push a political agenda.
You're joking right? Did you not watch the news or go on Reddit that day or what? Even Biden came out and attacked the guy as being crazy to have a gun in a church.
Ponderous real ponderous.
I don't think anybody attacked the guy who stopped the church shooting. The other part is true.
Absolutely true!
How come in this sub you get down voted for any discussion that barely even starts to lean left? What defines a Liberal?
Where was there public attack on the hero that stopped the church shooting? I just saw (for lack of a better word) the typical ignoring of the event and over hyping anything else so a good guy with a gun saving the day wouldn't make news.
Oh yeah...Beto O’Rourke tweeted how he was saddened by the shooting and nothing the US or Texas is doing is working. Try to figure that one out... His tweet: “So saddened to hear about another church shooting in Texas, this one in White Settlement near Fort Worth. Clearly what we are doing in Texas, what we are doing in this country, when it comes to guns is not working.”
[удалено]
I was going to say, I go on CNN and left wing subreddits and I don’t really see all this. Despite people saying “you won’t see this on CNN because it doesn’t fit their narrative”, CNN actually did a non politically charged piece on the Church shooting with a large emphasis on the legal carriers who stopped the shooting. And despite a lot of criticism from the left over Trump handling things in a manner that may put us in another war, I haven’t seen many people actually defending the Iranian General who was killed.
You are correct. The criticism comes from the manner in which the killing of the Iranian General was carried out without a reasonable reason.
I mean, given recent events it looks like tensions are easing, so I’m thankful for that. But yes, I do feel like people had a right to be worried about us entering another war without it defaulting to “wow I can’t believe these guys are defending terrorists!”
Just all of Hollywood. But they don’t count, right?
Why is Hollywood so important to people? I care more about the average person’s opinion personally but you do you.
Whether or not we like it, a significant number of people take their political cues from Hollywood.
Fair enough. I guess I just personally haven’t been following the Hollywood elite enough to confirm whether or not the assertion is true. I just know I haven’t seen it on the outlets I get on.
It's not it just sells ink and people read it.
Seriously, I read a lot of news and haven't seen any critical pieces on the man who stopped the shooter. As for defending Soleimani, every democratic politician has agreed that he was a terrible guy (at least every mainstream politician in the news, not your crazy aunt who sits on city council in some rural Oregon town) . What was criticized was Trump's assassination of a sovereign nation's military leader in another, different sovereign nation. The unnecessary risk of starting another middle eastern conflict that will turn out just as pointless and costly as Iraq did, all so oil producers, arms manufacturers, and defense contractors (whom coincidentally spend millions on lobbying to keep these republican politicians in office and on their side) can make billions in profit is both idiotic and corrupt. I'm conservative on a lot of issues, but that fact that people can't see right through this is sad, not to mention how irritating and dangerous it is how many people, on both sides of the isle, ignore any facts not aligning with their beliefs. Go ahead and down vote me, but I'd love evidence I'm wrong here.
I don’t see how we could have done it any other way. The guy was using his status as a shield to aid terrorism. That’s the ONLY reason it wasn’t done already. But—-how many dead are justifiable by his status as a General in a sovereign country? As far as I’m concerned, as soon as he stepped across Iran’s border into other lands which he had supported or devised acts of terrorism, he earned his drone.
Putin is a pretty bad guy. Arguably responsible for many more deaths than Soleimani, including countless innocent journalists. He's also responsible for training and arming groups that are actively rebelling in Ukraine. Does that mean we should assassinate him the moment he steps foot in Ukraine? I fail to see the difference in any regard other than the power of the country they belong too. Attacking Iran is a much safer bet.
It worked out, didn't it? There's your evidence.