The White House is considering executive action that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border to migrants crossing unlawfully, according to three sources familiar with the matter—a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.
And you all told me the blue maga border bill that Republicans rejected was 4d chess.
Because you think if 70% of the population believes we should dehumanize and imprison innocent people, then you’re just fine with that.
I think that if 70% of the population thinks we should dehumanize and imprison innocent people, opposition is pretty clearly not a position that’s going to win a majority of the vote, which is necessary to win an election. Put another way - Truman running on desegregation in the late 1940s, but not gay marriage, was completely acceptable, because there was no fucking way the majority of the population was going to vote in favor of gay marriage.
You address what problems you can with politicians - the rest, you have to change minds on the ground. You want to change this situation? Argue with your fellow citizens. Get them out of their mindset of border hysteria. But throwing a fit over how democracy works on a basic level isn’t going to help anyone.
So your answer is: Yes, you would support a genocide if 70% of the population supported it.
I know enough not to try talking any sense into you. I’ve seen that you’re nothing but a conservative status quo warrior. But I’m thankful anyone who sees this thread will be clear on what you are.
You’re using the history of an appalling state founded on racism with a history of genocide that made the Nazis shudder?
Maybe don’t use US history as an example of what we should look up to. It’s a cautionary tale.
And we don’t need to decide between freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. Any valid system would protect these things in spite of what 70% of people might be deceived into believing
It is if a large proportion of the voters believe in terrible positions
And you’re just fine with that, so the answer to my question was “yes”
And that’s… not how anarchy works. People are only excluded if they are doing something really egregiously antithetical to anarchism – for example, attempting to introduce hierarchical structures or otherwise treat others inequitably.
Because you think if 70% of the population believes we should dehumanize and imprison innocent people, then you’re just fine with that.
YOU SAID IT, not me.
I think that if 70% of the population thinks we should dehumanize and imprison innocent people, opposition is pretty clearly not a position that’s going to win a majority of the vote, which is necessary to win an election. Put another way - Truman running on desegregation in the late 1940s, but not gay marriage, was completely acceptable, because there was no fucking way the majority of the population was going to vote in favor of gay marriage.
You address what problems you can with politicians - the rest, you have to change minds on the ground. You want to change this situation? Argue with your fellow citizens. Get them out of their mindset of border hysteria. But throwing a fit over how democracy works on a basic level isn’t going to help anyone.
So your answer is: Yes, you would support a genocide if 70% of the population supported it.
I know enough not to try talking any sense into you. I’ve seen that you’re nothing but a conservative status quo warrior. But I’m thankful anyone who sees this thread will be clear on what you are.
“I oppose the end of slavery without gay marriage.” - LinkOpensChest_wav circa 1861
You’re using the history of an appalling state founded on racism with a history of genocide that made the Nazis shudder?
Maybe don’t use US history as an example of what we should look up to. It’s a cautionary tale.
And we don’t need to decide between freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. Any valid system would protect these things in spite of what 70% of people might be deceived into believing
Thank you for confirming you don’t believe in democracy as a means of coming to decisions.
I do believe in democracy. A democracy is not “vote for this terrible person who’s less terrible than the other terrible person.”
Anarchist communities have democracy, we don’t
It is if a large proportion of the voters believe in terrible positions.
I’m curious - what happens when the anarchist community votes to exclude others from their community? Is that anarcho-fascism?
And you’re just fine with that, so the answer to my question was “yes”
And that’s… not how anarchy works. People are only excluded if they are doing something really egregiously antithetical to anarchism – for example, attempting to introduce hierarchical structures or otherwise treat others inequitably.
Read the table of contents to find the relevant section. I understand not comprehending anarchism because anarchists too have been historically oppressed and our ideas muddied.