@LiberalRetvrn's banner p

LiberalRetvrn


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 19:14:16 UTC

they don't understand the things i say on twitter.


				

User ID: 1892

LiberalRetvrn


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 19:14:16 UTC

					

they don't understand the things i say on twitter.


					

User ID: 1892

I don't get it. It looks like the wheels turn to the right before she starts moving forward. Clearly trying to avoid the ICE agent. Or is the first part of the clip reversed or something?

Do you think that it's a "basic freedom" to be allowed to live anywhere you want without citizenship or a visa?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced by the "other countries do it" argument. The question we should be asking is, what have we done so right that we're arguably the only country on earth with basic freedoms? I think our skepticism of federal authority has a lot to do with that. It's hard to enforce draconian immigration policies without infringing on our freedoms. In any situation where we have to choose between freedom and safety, we err on the side of freedom. I think a few people being murdered by illegal immigrants is a small price to pay.

Police should have more duties than the general public, not fewer. That's what we're paying them for. The threshold for a cop shooting someone in self-defense should be higher than a normal citizen.

Cities could assist with ICE warrants just as they assist with other federal law enforcement

My city has more important things to do than deporting our own labor force. The police aren't "forbidden", our sheriff is elected by the people, and the people don't want him to spend resources on this nonsense. That's democracy in its purest form. If people don't want to live in our city, they can leave and go to a city and/or state with policies they agree with. That's why states' rights is such a good system.

I mean, I don't really agree with either person's decision-making here. I wouldn't have stepped in front of a running car as means of "stopping" it. I also wouldn't have tried to drive away if I were being arrested. And if I was standing in front of a moving car, I would prioritize jumping out of the way rather than shooting the driver, given how newtonian mechanics work.

So I agree that this woman's poor decisions got her shot, but that doesn't necessarily mean the officer is innocent. At best, he made a blunder that put himself in a position where he "needed" to use deadly force. But I think even that is debatable, because shooting the driver really has nothing to do with why he survived. He survived because he got out of the way of the car. He essentially shot the driver to stop her from escaping, which is questionable.

America is the only major country on the planet where people think that basic immigration enforcement is evil.

America is also the only country on the planet that protects free speech and the right to bear arms. Maybe I'll care what those other countries are doing when they've established basic freedoms.

People are allowed to try to prevent their own murder.

And maybe she was trying to prevent her own murder as well? She just saw a group of masked thugs surrounding her car. How could she know it was safe to surrender to them?

  • -15

well I don't care about minnesota, but in my state we need our illegals to pick crops. It's really that simple. If Trump actually deports them all it will be a major economic blow, and we have the right to maintain our way of life and our livelihoods. The US is meant to be a loose confederation of states that each run themselves how they see fit.

  • -19

I think red states enforcing checkpoints sounds like a better idea than forcing a federal solution on everyone. As much as possible, we should try to let states make their own policy and let people move to whichever state seems to be running most efficiently. That lets the maximum number of people live under policies they support. Slavery was morally egregious enough to justify a civil war, but it seems like a waste to risk starting one over a minor disagreement like this.

  • -13

Probably, but when aggressive people are surrounding your car, the flight or fight response might kick in. Being arrested by ICE is also not quite the same as being arrested by your local police department, since we don't really know what happens to everyone who goes into ICE custody. If the police are trying to arrest me unjustly, I would assume I'll get my day in court. But if ICE deports me to a costa rican gang prison it might be hard to prove my innocence.

  • -19

Cops should be willing to take some risks to serve and protect the public. Which most cops are, because they have a sense of civic responsibility to the town they live in. That's the problem with having masked federal agents roaming the country shoving random people into the back of a van. They don't know anyone in the neighborhood they're supposedly "policing", and they begin to see the people as pests getting in the way of meeting their monthly deportation quota.

  • -15

This is exactly the kind of situation I was afraid of when ICE started running amok in states where they aren't wanted. I don't see how it can be a "narrative" when we point out that the thing happened that we warned would happen. Giving a paramilitary organization the power to make people disappear without due process was always a recipe for disaster. These ICE agents now appear to be so power-drunk that they are shooting unarmed white women, something normal cops very rarely do.

From what I can see in the video, the ICE agent chose to put himself in front of the SUV to block the woman from leaving. Then she called his bluff and began driving anyway. At that point, shooting her made no difference in his ability to survive the situation. Even if she were killed instantly by a headshot, the car would still have the same amount of momentum when it hit the officer. If anything, he could have gotten out of the way faster if he weren't dealing with his gun. I don't see any justification here.

  • -20

I never went to no drivers' ed class, but I'm not being "polite" to a police officer who is openly trying to charge me with something. The police are owed nothing from the citizens who pay their salaries. And ICE are not even police.

  • -20

The humanities are inherently biased. The instructor needs discretion to assign whatever grade they see fit on an assignment. Maybe other people submitted bad papers, but in that TA's estimation, those papers weren't as bad as the one that got a zero. Which makes sense, if they thought the paper was both low quality and morally reprehensible. If a Muslim student submitted a paper arguing for all infidels to be unalived, the grader should be allowed to be morally outraged and give a 0%. That's free speech for both parties - the student is allowed to say whatever they want in their paper, and the TA is free to evaluate the paper honestly.

  • -15

American leftist college students may support Palestine, but that doesn't make actual Palestinian Muslims left wing. They are still religious fundamentalists who despise progressive values. Is there really such a difference between "old school antisemitism" and Muslim antisemitism?

There is no "strategy", it was one guy. If polemicists weren't taking security precautions for their public appearances until now, that's on them. Democrats had a Minnesota state rep shot and you don't hear us complaining about stochastic terrorism or whatever. That risk is part of being a public figure, especially in highly tense political times like we're in now.

The guy who killed Charlie Kirk is suffering the consequences. He will likely be executed. What more do you want? Random innocent people to be punished as vengeance? People getting shot by random crazies is a fact of life in a free society, and the only person responsible is the killer.

There shouldn't be participation trophies in college. If she submitted an essay completely devoid of the type of content the assignment asked for, she should get a zero. There's no reason to give points for turning in a piece of paper with words on it.

Rejecting the premise of the question is a perfectly legitimate way to answer an essay question.

No it's not. The assignment wasn't to give her opinion, it was to analyze a paper within a particular framework. You can't do that if you refuse to entertain the framework as true long enough for the assignment. She shouldn't have taken the class in the first place if she refused to do that.

okay, in the future I'll be sure to use more euphemisms and censor what I actually believe to avoid offending anyone.

Regardless of the content of the budget, forcing a shutdown was good hardball politics from the democrats. They need to do a lot more of that - obstruct, filibuster, anything to keep Trump from accomplishing his goals. We have an authoritarian fascist regime in office and democrats should be doing everything they can to win this civil war.

There aren't just two sides here, plenty of the people who were victims of illiberal leftist cancel culture were not conservatives. It's fairly selfish for conservatives to claim the right to permanently destroy society just to satisfy their need for vengeance. If anything, conservatives benefited from cancel culture more than anyone else. The republican party was dead until Trump came along and harnessed the anti-woke movement. Without good old wokeness to kick around, the republicans would still be running on "drill baby drill" and tax cuts for the rich.

Who is this creator if not God?

Whoever built the computers that are running the simulation we're in. The founders called him the "clock maker" but that's how I interpret it now.

We can go after the doctor Mengeles that pushed the practice on unsuspecting parents of vulnerable children

We can always just counter by pointing out how many of the same people opposing trans kids have also defended circumcision. Personally I think chopping off a baby's genitals with a meat cleaver is a little worse than letting them dress in opposite-sex clothes. An unwoke democratic party would be able to take the gloves off and make arguments like this without worrying about being called anti-semitic.

The country was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state. The founders were significantly less Christian than any powerful politicians after their time. Even a democrat nowadays couldn't get away with blaspheming the way Jefferson did. After "under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance and the currency, everyone has had to pay the Jesus tax.

I think focusing on transgenderism was good for their electoral prospects in 2024. But if republicans make it their main culture war wedge issue in 2028, I think it could wear out its welcome. It's a safe-edgy position that everyone on the right can sort of get behind - it unites evangelicals, fundamentalist Jews, wignats, groypers, IDW debate bros, and even some feminists. But most people haven't met a trans person in real life, I think there is a limit to the amount of vitriol that can be stirred up. The constant drumbeat of trans bad will just sound like bullying the longer it goes on, especially when it takes the form of the same old misandry that young white males have been dealing with their whole lives. If the right doesn't embrace white identity, I think there's a good chance they won't be able to unite behind anything after Trump is gone.

But if you were the left, why the hell would you declare an armistice

Because the 2028 election will probably be determined by which side acts less obnoxiously hysterical in the next 3 years. If the republicans spend that time shrieking about transgenderism and canceling people, the democrats have a good chance at recapturing the normie vote. The 2024 election proved to anyone paying attention that any flavor of smug wokeness is not good politics. So we can either have a continual orgy of vengeance in which each side takes power, alienates the normies and then loses in 4 years, or both sides can decide to actually try winning.