This website contains age-restricted materials including nudity and explicit depictions of sexual activity.
By entering, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age or the age of majority in the jurisdiction you are accessing the website from and you consent to viewing sexually explicit content.
I think you need to do some reading if you think this is somehow some sort of low-death event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march
But sure, keep defending your hero. His hero Andrew Jackson is on your side too.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance “racial segregation and apartheid” are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the “lesser evil” has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
I never said there to be good aspects of ethnic cleansing and that should be clear with me calling it a tremendous and horrific crime. But i think it cannot be used to defend genocide, as is the consequence of people claiming that things would be better if the same people remained in power that enabled the genocide.
This you?
Because it has your username attached to it and that is very much saying there’s an upside to it.
This is not an upside to ethnic cleansing. It is an upside to the loss of the Democrats in November.
Speaking of which, now would be a great time for the Democrats to attack Trumps Gaza ideas and propose an ethical alternative in accordance with international and humanitarian law. They would have to drop Zionism for that though. As the ADL has defended Musks Hitler salute now would also be a great moment as opposing Zionism is overlapping more and more with opposing Fascism in the US.
That is not what you said. You are changing what you said. This is what you said:
That is you saying that now, because of ethnic cleansing, there is an upside, which is that Democrats might start acknowledging that Zionism is a bad thing.
I am not that blind or that stupid believe it or not. I am able to read.
Removed by mod