A real statement

[husaberg]

That's funny. I was just thinking that people who believed trans people reading to kids was brain washing had a diagnosable mental illness.

US Federal law prohibitions
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" from possessing firearms or ammunition. However, a mental illness diagnosis alone does not automatically ban someone, as federal law prohibits the sale or possession of firearms to individuals in these specific legal situations.

So, right-wing retards are not actually precluded from gun ownership.... although they are mentally defective MERICA....

[sugilite:Me]

Then show me the condemnation of the radical left by the moderate Left.

Whether it is US politics, NZ Politics, UK Politics - Show me this moderate left annexing the fringe left.

The irony is I can show the reverse, I can show examples of the Radical Left lambasting the likes of Labour for not being left enough, I can show a myriad instances of moderate democrats/left-wing types getting torn-apart by the radical fringe - but never the inverse.

YAWN, same applies to the right, same team player roles. But fucking hell, all I was saying is the vast population of voting constituents do not give a huge fuck about anything that happens outside of the united states, yet alone of reaching the threshhold of anything remotely like what levvit was calling them. Did you transfer this part of the conversation/move the goal posts to this drivel in order to bore me into submission? Serious question.

Is it a Genocide? Or is it that you keep fighting until the Enemy has no more will or capacity to fight? This could be solved very quickly. Hamas could put on uniforms, act like a regular military, they would get annihilated quickly - minimal collateral damage.

But they don't and they won't - because civillian deaths serve their purposes both domestically and abroad.

To be clear - I am not happy about this - but both sides believe that the other is an existential threat to them - there is only one solution at this point - a fight to the death.

Perhaps it would be more humane to let them get on with it so that the issue can be solved once and for all.

Compared to the VAST resources at the IDFs disposal, the other side has jack shit to fight back with in the first place. Removing 86 percent of the food crops then blocking aid is genocide. You can pretend it is not if you want.

All great points - none of which is the real problem.

When reading what the average activist thinks or says - they are largely unconcerned about labour costs or other things - The telling slogan:

"No one is illegal on Stolen Land"

They believe that illegal migrants are an oppressed class, and as an oppressed class, they are justified in doing whatever they like to their oppressor.

Your point sure brings into sharp focus how your morals allow you to be such a fan of the criminal in chief.
According to you, it is not the super rich class that has had it's thumb on the political scale in ensuring themselves an endless supply of cheap migrant labor to exploit. Oh no, it is those loud mouth leftie windbags whose howling indignation's and protestations are about as effective as pissing into a headwind. Yep, they are the real problem huh

It looks like the necessary work of cleaning up years of deliberate acts by previous administrations. This is where the philosophical meets the Pragmatic - look at El Salvador - we can debate the legitimacy of the numbers, we can talk about the heavy-handed approach, we can talk about all these things - but it does seem that by actually addressing the problem, the problem got fixed. By all accounts, the Murder rate has decreased and El Salvador is a better country for it.

Oh yeah, El Salvador is reeeeeeal peachy about now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezue...alvador-cecot/

Just deport them to their own country at least FFS. No masked agents in unmarked vans etc either. I have no problem with properly marked/uniformed officers nabbing and deporting them at all.

As for 2A - on some of the spicier Left-wing sources I read, this has been coming up more and more - and the ones where there are also Right-wingers present - Suffice to say the Right Wingers have been fully on-board. To be clear - when the Left tries to mock the right and go 'Maybe we should arm ourselves to defend against ICE tyranny' - the Right, in all sincerity, goes: "It is your god-given right to do so"

My point is, if trump goes to far, to fast in transferring his supporters wealth to himself and other billionaire mates - and he is at this point, it will be his own followers most likely to rise against a tyrant. Check this out, I can see a point in it where he lets his guard slip just for a moment. He is freaked out at just how many have turned against him already. A real reality check for him.

How many people from Jan 6th had extensive wrap sheets of violent criminal offending?


Tell you what - when the majority of illegal migrants (especially those with criminal convictions) have been deported and people who repeatedly demonstrate they cannot live in polite society are behind bars - Prison or Pscyhe ward - then, we can talk about the appropriate punishment for the Jan 6th rioters.

Hmm, TDL "Justice" is tiered , interesting.
But if course you are right, even though they were let out wholesale - all they did was smash in police heads with fire extinguishes and so on, started building a gallows to hang the vice president. I can see it from your view now, just minor stuff huh. Just let them face justice after another group of subhuman lefties get theirs first

The fact is, the meat and potatoes of that was the actual interesting subject regarding presidents abuse of the pardon system and do they deserve to have that power if all they do is abuse it? But here you are whining about the left - again.

To admit that though is to admit that the Sexes and Genders are different. Unfortunately all of their house of cards rests upon that one idea.

You mean the one idea that lives in your head on never ending repeat, right?

I deleted the your "if" statements and decided not to debate things I do not have a full understanding of - having never walked a mile in their shoes - something I suspect you have not done either - but somehow you feel you know enough to speak for an entire genre of people and psycho analyze all of them and pronounce judgement.

Just to reiterate, a huge percentage of your reply just came across as unbalanced whinging about the left as if the right does not have politically symmetrical pitfalls and failings. Look under the wiring, past the symptoms. Look at the class of the people that really run the show - and all their lovingly crafted hate packages they are pedaling and the ridiculous amount of people buying into said hatred. Do I need to say by both sides at this point? Sheesh.

[TheDemonLord]

YAWN, same applies to the right, same team player roles. But fucking hell, all I was saying is the vast population of voting constituents do not give a huge fuck about anything that happens outside of the united states, yet alone of reaching the threshhold of anything remotely like what levvit was calling them. Did you transfer this part of the conversation/move the goal posts to this drivel in order to bore me into submission? Serious question.

Except it doesn't. And just a simple experiment on this, assuming for the minute that Fascism is extreme-right wing - can you find a parliamentarian who is an open Fascist - as in says "I am a fascist" or belongs (or did belong) to a Fascist organization?

Because I can find plenty that are open Socialists and Communists.

Both ideologies have enough corpses buried under their name that both should be inexcusable.

Compared to the VAST resources at the IDFs disposal, the other side has jack shit to fight back with in the first place. Removing 86 percent of the food crops then blocking aid is genocide. You can pretend it is not if you want.

And? They are still fighting back. If they stop fighting, then so will Israel, if they keep fighting, then so will Israel. Disparity of Force is not my concern.

Don't get me wrong - I am not happy about the situation, it's been going on my entire life and since the creation of Israel. When both sides believe the existence of the other is an existential threat to them - then there isn't much room for negotiation. So at this point - let them have at each other until one side emerges victorious.

Oh - and if you want - I would be more than happy to see not a penny more in Aid sent to Israel.

Your point sure brings into sharp focus how your morals allow you to be such a fan of the criminal in chief.
According to you, it is not the super rich class that has had it's thumb on the political scale in ensuring themselves an endless supply of cheap migrant labor to exploit. Oh no, it is those loud mouth leftie windbags whose howling indignation's and protestations are about as effective as pissing into a headwind. Yep, they are the real problem huh

Let's for a moment agree (for the sake of this point) that yes, all the Billionaires are colluding to bring in foreign migrants.

The first question is which President tried to limit Migration (illegal and legal) and which one didn't? Between Trump and Biden, it's pretty clear.
The second question is which side is trying to impede the efforts of ICE to deport illegal migrants with criminal histories?

Double irony points for those same people opposing ICE will vociferously agree with you that it is the Billionaires rigging the system whilst doing the very thing that the Billionaires want.

Oh yeah, El Salvador is reeeeeeal peachy about now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/venezue...alvador-cecot/

Just deport them to their own country at least FFS.

Maybe not in the prisons - but the Citizenry aren't getting murdered - which is pretty good.

No masked agents in unmarked vans etc either. I have no problem with properly marked/uniformed officers nabbing and deporting them at all.

I get the sentiment here - and I agree, I do not like anonymous law enforcement on principle. However, given the actions of organized criminal elements (the Cartels) and how they are not above targetting people's families - this one I have to accept.

Of course - if the US was able to leverage it's Military power and eradicate the Cartels to the point that they did not dare target federal agents and their families - then maybe they could go openly.

My point is, if trump goes to far, to fast in transferring his supporters wealth to himself and other billionaire mates - and he is at this point, it will be his own followers most likely to rise against a tyrant. Check this out, I can see a point in it where he lets his guard slip just for a moment. He is freaked out at just how many have turned against him already. A real reality check for him.

He looks more like a dad irritated at trying to do something important and being disrespected - but that's just my view.

There was a different clip I saw, about Chinese University students, I believe it was a Fox clip where the reporter was grilling him about it. He tried to make the business case that without foreign students some universities will fail - the reported replied 'And?' or something similar. Trump wasn't too happy.

Hmm, TDL "Justice" is tiered , interesting.
But if course you are right, even though they were let out wholesale - all they did was smash in police heads with fire extinguishes and so on, started building a gallows to hang the vice president. I can see it from your view now, just minor stuff huh. Just let them face justice after another group of subhuman lefties get theirs first

Let's for a moment assume that this was an accurate portrayal of events - Someone with zero history of criminal offending being involved in one riot is not the same as someone with a well documented history of violent assaults.

The fact is, the meat and potatoes of that was the actual interesting subject regarding presidents abuse of the pardon system and do they deserve to have that power if all they do is abuse it? But here you are whining about the left - again.

Pardons are, IMO, the final check and balance against the judiciary. If you want the philosophical view - it is that people can be technically guilty of a crime (as written by law) but morally innocent - and that the head of State has the ultimate delegated power to weigh that.

As such, I believe that Pardons for the January 6 rioters is well within a Presidents remit. Regardless how you feel about it.

I deleted the your "if" statements and decided not to debate things I do not have a full understanding of - having never walked a mile in their shoes - something I suspect you have not done either - but somehow you feel you know enough to speak for an entire genre of people and psycho analyze all of them and pronounce judgement.

The If was there for a reason - it depends on how you quantify 'Different'.

We can talk about the baseline concept of Legal equality - whereby all people are equal before the law.

However if the goal is total equality between the Sexes, then the prescence of differences is a fundamental problem for this goal.

This is not speaking for an entire genre of people - this is talking about an incompatibility of the philosophy with reality.

And to make it clearer what I am talking about - The initial grievances of Feminism (Suffrage, Right to work, Equal Pay, Legalized discrimination) all fall under the idea of equality before the law - something that most people, including myself, agree with.

But take something like Sport - If you want to watch the absolute fastest/strongest human being, it will always be a Man. That holds a prestige that being the fastest/strongest woman will never have. That prestige has real-world consequences.

Can you equalize between the two? In some senses, you can - you can appreciate the drive and dedication from the top female athletes... But do you feel the same awe at seeing Lucy Underdown Deadlifting 325 KG as you do from seeing Eddie Hall being the first human to lift half a tonne?

And this is where I say Feminism has painted itself into a corner: If they admit that Men and Women are different - someone can make the argument of "Since Men are Y and Women are X, therefore Men should do A and Women should do B", That argument is anathema to Feminism so they are stuck saying there are no differences at all and therefore Men and Women are completely interchangeable.

Just to reiterate, a huge percentage of your reply just came across as unbalanced whinging about the left as if the right does not have politically symmetrical pitfalls and failings. Look under the wiring, past the symptoms. Look at the class of the people that really run the show - and all their lovingly crafted hate packages they are pedaling and the ridiculous amount of people buying into said hatred. Do I need to say by both sides at this point? Sheesh.

You can have all the propaganda you want both Hate and Pride/Acceptance - but there is no smoke without fire.

For example:

People don't hate Immigrants, people don't like seeing negative changes in their community - caused by people who do not hold the same values.

[Katman]

If they stop fighting, then so will Israel.....

Don't be mistaken, Israel has no intention or desire to share any land with the Palestinians.

They've been trying to get rid of them since 1948.

[husaberg]

Don't be mistaken, Israel has no intention or desire to share any land with the Palestinians.

They've been trying to get rid of them since 1948.

Nice attempt at a rewriting of undeniable historical facts. It's like you enjoy being proven to be rather dim as well as exceptionally racist.

On May 15, 1948, the day after Israel declared its independence and the British Mandate expired, the new state was invaded by the regular armies of several neighboring Arab nations.
This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt t. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command.

Though the United Nations brokered two cease-fires during the conflict, fighting continued into 1949. Israel and the Arab states did not reach any formal armistice agreements until February. Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967.

Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 primarily due to their rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and their opposition to the establishment of an independent Jewish state. The Arab League viewed the UN resolution as a violation of the principle of self-determination and sought to prevent its implementation, aiming instead for a unified, independent Arab Palestine.
Key motivations for the Arab invasion included:
Rejection of Partition: Arab leaders and governments unequivocally rejected the UN's plan (Resolution 181), which allocated approximately 56% of Mandatory Palestine to a Jewish stateThe Arab nations' goal was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and create a unified Arab Palestine, a goal they ultimately failed to achieve. The war ended with armistice agreements in 1949, which left Israel with more territory than originally allotted by the UN, while the remaining Palestinian areas were occupied by Jordan (the West Bank) and Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

Prior to being a British occupied territory, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to that, it was under various times Byzantine, Roman, Crusader, Greek Mongol, and other rule. i dont recalll a time it was under self rule of its inhabitants. prior to 1 day in 1948. prior to it being invaded by its own arab neighbours.....

Mahmoud Abbas President of the Palestinian National Authority has previously publicly stated that the PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, while demanding that any future “Palestine” be recognized by Israel as an Arab state.

UNGAR 181 for the partition of the Mandate for Palestine specifically proposed a partition of the Mandate into a Jewish state (mentioned 30 times in the text of the resolution) and an Arab state (mentioned 22 times in the resolution.)

[Katman]

Nice attempt at a rewriting of undeniable historical facts. It's like you enjoy being proven to be rather dim as well as exceptionally racist.

Have you never heard of Plan Dalet?

[Berries]

Was that the dyslexic episode of Doctor Who that got banned?

[husaberg]

latest attempt at misdirection...

Was that the one you came up with last night as you were that butt hurt about being shown you were making up shit again... or is it not a well-known historical fact that in 1948 the surrounding Arab countries, Egypt, Transjordan, lebanon and Syria invaded and took over the area given to Arabs as part of the partitioning of the British Mandate Palestine into two areas, one Israeli and the other Palestinian?

Which for reasons known only to your own highly racist belief you like pretend happened some other way.

As for your latest attempt at misdirection, before you go on about something you might want to read it.

The introduction of the plan, which was used after the arabs invaded Palestine after Israel declared independence, states:

(a) The objective of this plan is to gain control of the areas of the Hebrew state and defend its borders.....
The strategy called for the fortification and stabilization of a continuous Jewish-controlled line within the areas of the designated Jewish State and along its putative borders,

fuck how dare they defend their borders and fight back...
Odd you dont seem to be able to ever acknowledge Israel never invaded Palestine but in actual fact in 1948 its arab neighbors did invade palistine , its a bit too inconvenient to admit it for your racially motivated antijew agenda isnt it stevo

[Katman]

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj...ol36-141_b.pdf

[husaberg]

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj...ol36-141_b.pdf

This is a link to extracts of a novel ,you might as well link in Harry Potter. Or india jones and say its about the bible.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...nce-march-1948

So again who invaded the Palestinian Palestine and Israel in 1948 Stevo? this is the third occassion in reply to this postwhere you have run and hidden like the huge coward you are.

Don't be mistaken, Israel has no intention or desire to share any land with the Palestinians.

They've been trying to get rid of them since 1948.

Don't be mistaken, Israel has no intention or desire to share any land with the Palestinians.

They've been trying to get rid of them since 1948.

Nice attempt at a rewriting of undeniable historical facts. It's like you enjoy being proven to be rather dim as well as exceptionally racist.

On May 15, 1948, the day after Israel declared its independence and the British Mandate expired, the new state was invaded by the regular armies of several neighboring Arab nations.
This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt t. Saudi Arabia sent a formation that fought under the Egyptian command.

Though the United Nations brokered two cease-fires during the conflict, fighting continued into 1949. Israel and the Arab states did not reach any formal armistice agreements until February. Under separate agreements between Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Syria, these bordering nations agreed to formal armistice lines. Israel gained some territory formerly granted to Palestinian Arabs under the United Nations resolution in 1947. Egypt and Jordan retained control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively. These armistice lines held until 1967.

Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948 primarily due to their rejection of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and their opposition to the establishment of an independent Jewish state. The Arab League viewed the UN resolution as a violation of the principle of self-determination and sought to prevent its implementation, aiming instead for a unified, independent Arab Palestine.
Key motivations for the Arab invasion included:
Rejection of Partition: Arab leaders and governments unequivocally rejected the UN's plan (Resolution 181), which allocated approximately 56% of Mandatory Palestine to a Jewish stateThe Arab nations' goal was to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state and create a unified Arab Palestine, a goal they ultimately failed to achieve. The war ended with armistice agreements in 1949, which left Israel with more territory than originally allotted by the UN, while the remaining Palestinian areas were occupied by Jordan (the West Bank) and Egypt (the Gaza Strip).

Prior to being a British occupied territory, it was part of the Ottoman Empire. Prior to that, it was under various times Byzantine, Roman, Crusader, Greek Mongol, and other rule. i dont recalll a time it was under self rule of its inhabitants. prior to 1 day in 1948. prior to it being invaded by its own arab neighbours.....

Mahmoud Abbas President of the Palestinian National Authority has previously publicly stated that the PA will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, while demanding that any future “Palestine” be recognized by Israel as an Arab state.

UNGAR 181 for the partition of the Mandate for Palestine specifically proposed a partition of the Mandate into a Jewish state (mentioned 30 times in the text of the resolution) and an Arab state (mentioned 22 times in the resolution.)

.... you seem to be avoiding this fact stevo,
Seems to be a bit odd unless it's a fact the destoys your own racist anti-Jewish narrative

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be mistaken, Israel has no intention or desire to share any land with the Palestinians.

They've been trying to get rid of them since 1948.

On this point - I believe there are two types of people in this world:

Those that have read enough history on the Middle East to have an opinion about the Israel/Palestine conflicts
And those that haven't.

And near universally - those that have read enough history tend to be Religious Scholars of either Jewish or Islamic persuasion - and so their analysis always ends up biased anyway.

[sugilite:Me]

On this point - I believe there are two types of people in this world:

Those that have read enough history on the Middle East to have an opinion about the Israel/Palestine conflicts
And those that haven't.

And near universally - those that have read enough history tend to be Religious Scholars of either Jewish or Islamic persuasion - and so their analysis always ends up biased anyway.

Have the history books caught up with the fact that several doctors that have provided their services in other armed conflicts say that the largest difference they can see with this conflict is the sheer amount of children that have been killed with head shots from snipers? Have the history books also caught up with the war crime riddled IDF that constantly deliberately commit war crimes like wiping out 5 ambulances and a fire truck in a single sortie, then hiding the bodies in a dirt pit all the while swearing they were not at fault - before inconvenient footage revealing the IDF mass murder event as being fact. Whereupon they basically came out and said, ohhhhhhhh, that incident - our soldiers made "mistakes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_paramedic_massacre

Honestly I have no idea how a person can have room for both a trump and netanyahu dick in their mouth at the same time - must be because they have grand delusions they are "informed" after reading "history" books combined with fucking big ignorant mouths and a ravenous insatiable appetite for outright barefaced lies.

[TheDemonLord]

Have the history books caught up with the fact that several doctors that have provided their services in other armed conflicts say that the largest difference they can see with this conflict is the sheer amount of children that have been killed with head shots from snipers? Have the history books also caught up with the war crime riddled IDF that constantly deliberately commit war crimes like wiping out 5 ambulances and a fire truck in a single sortie, then hiding the bodies in a dirt pit all the while swearing they were not at fault - before inconvenient footage revealing the IDF mass murder event as being fact. Whereupon they basically came out and said, ohhhhhhhh, that incident - our soldiers made "mistakes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_paramedic_massacre

Honestly I have no idea how a person can have room for both a trump and netanyahu dick in their mouth at the same time - must be because they have grand delusions they are "informed" after reading "history" books combined with fucking big ignorant mouths and a ravenous insatiable appetite for outright barefaced lies.

Whatever makes you think I include myself in the group that has read enough history to have a valid opinion?

[sugilite:Me]

Except it doesn't. And just a simple experiment on this, assuming for the minute that Fascism is extreme-right wing - can you find a parliamentarian who is an open Fascist - as in says "I am a fascist" or belongs (or did belong) to a Fascist organization?

Because I can find plenty that are open Socialists and Communists.

Both ideologies have enough corpses buried under their name that both should be inexcusable.

Sorry to disturb you while you are moving the goalposts all over the show in an attempt to gloss over what levit said, but your goalposts have moved into my "I don't care" realm.

And? They are still fighting back. If they stop fighting, then so will Israel.

That must have been why the IDF carried on operations after the ceasefire was agreed to.

Don't get me wrong - I am not happy about the situation, it's been going on my entire life and since the creation of Israel. When both sides believe the existence of the other is an existential threat to them - then there isn't much room for negotiation. So at this point - let them have at each other until one side emerges victorious.

Genocide is never the answer. Your plan just rubber stamps isreals genocide.

Let's for a moment agree (for the sake of this point) that yes, all the Billionaires are colluding to bring in foreign migrants.

The first question is which President tried to limit Migration (illegal and legal) and which one didn't? Between Trump and Biden, it's pretty clear.

Loving the way you paint this as if illegal migration just turned up in the last few election cycles - meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh

Maybe not in the prisons - but the Citizenry aren't getting murdered - which is pretty good.

Unless of course the US has deported you to said prison even though you are not from El Salvador.

I get the sentiment here - and I agree, I do not like anonymous law enforcement on principle. However, given the actions of organized criminal elements (the Cartels) and how they are not above targetting people's families - this one I have to accept.

Of course - if the US was able to leverage it's Military power and eradicate the Cartels to the point that they did not dare target federal agents and their families - then maybe they could go openly.

Nope, no excuse for it. Do border officials at the border wear masks? Do politicians making the laws targeting cartels interests wear masks? This stupid masking must have opened up a fantastic season for kidnappers to just roll up and take anyone they like as everyone will just assume they are ice.

He looks more like a dad irritated at trying to do something important and being disrespected - but that's just my view.

Another post from you depicting trump as dad again

Let's for a moment assume that this was an accurate portrayal of events - Someone with zero history of criminal offending being involved in one riot is not the same as someone with a well documented history of violent assaults.

Defence lawyer TiDdLes: "Your honor, this is the first time my client has smashed in the head of a police officer with a fire extinguisher, surely we can just let this one slide?"

Pardons are, IMO, the final check and balance against the judiciary. If you want the philosophical view - it is that people can be technically guilty of a crime (as written by law) but morally innocent - and that the head of State has the ultimate delegated power to weigh that.

As such, I believe that Pardons for the January 6 rioters is well within a Presidents remit. Regardless how you feel about it.

I'm not entirely sure what you are doing with the goal posts here, but you just confirmed what I said about pardons, then regurgitate your position on jan 6th rioters as if that is all who trump has pardoned. Just in the last few weeks he has pardoned very wealthy crims that pleaded guilty - sure as hell not a case of the law being an arse there - just trump abusing the pardon system to pump up his crypto account. I have to say AGAIN the dem presidents also issued many dodgy pardons themselves, but as you have the memory of a goldfish in regards to me saying such things....... Just remove the ability for presidents to pardon as president after president just abuses the system.

I see the trump administration got rid of trans out of the military and denied them pension benefits, keep telling yourself that admin is not targeting trans groups disproportionately.

Whatever makes you think I include myself in the group that has read enough history to have a valid opinion?

For precisely the reason you feel I'm targeting you with that statement

[Katman]

Genocide is never the answer. Your plan just rubber stamps isreals genocide.

Now if I'd said that, our resident Berk would be all over it.