If you were a citizen of Greenland and there was a poll asking would you like Greenland to become part of the USA. Would you vote yes or no?

[Anonymous]

I would vote no.

[BonzoInBitburg]

Right now they are a part of Denmark which consistently ranks high as one of the happiest country to live in. The US is the opposite of a happy place to live right now so why the hell would they want any part of that.

[DryGermanGuy]

That poll was already done with 85% of the people against it, 5% for it and the rest undecided. Pretty obvious result, huh?

[DryGermanGuy]

https://youtu.be/r5EL_cmM7YY?si=K-1_82v0nt41oIq6

[lightbulb27]

honestly I don't know since have never been there. It is so easy to be comfortable with what you have and not want the mess I'd see on TV. Sadly, our most pathetic people make it to the front screens... kardashians and such. Taylor swift is ok.

Add to it, I don't see how to trust the USA, they break every rule and have lots of impoverished people as they steal from them.

As well, my culture is different in Greeland.

But then again, if it's a yes, maybe I have more wealth and access to a whole country including warmth.

It be a tough call eh?

[Curmudgeon]

To be honest... about Donald Trump...

What he *always* does, from tariffs to treaties, is start out with a blustering hard line, then he negotiates downward. And time and time again, the tariffs have ended up reduced or even rescinded, in exchange for concessions from the other nation (s). Empirical evidence of this was his first term 2017-2020. "The Donald" may be crude and crass and oafish, but by gum, he gets results.

And so it will likely be with the Greenland treaties. I predict that in the end, Greenland will stay Danish, the USA will get the base (s) it wants on the terms it wants, and life (and the NATO alliance) will go on.

Moreover, those bases are intended to keep an eye on Putin, and the same people finding fault with Trump's hardball negotiation strategy were previously accusing him of being soft on Putin. You can't square that circle...

But enough of that. How about those Seahawks?

[TwoDecisions]

They can already have more bases in Greenland, they even been offered to look into the agreement that's already is set in place 60ish years ago to give the US better terms. Yet the US has not requested or accepted anything, since it really isn't about defence but Trumps ego, it's sad how people don't truly see that. Minerals and ego.

Also funny how Putin is such a "good guy" and someone who can be talked with but now all of a sudden he's a huge threat. Make up your minds.

[Chazmatazz269]

I’d have to know more about how that country functions. I don’t think Greenland benefits a great deal from Starbucks and McDonald’s popping up every three blocks. However, they should definitely have the means to tap into the natural resources there in a way that the citizens primarily benefit and it doesn’t mean the destruction of the earth, water and air. That’s not an easy balance to achieve and maintain. Honestly, i think that if i was a Greenlander, i’d favor independence. It appears that they’re lacking the leadership to put that together though.

[Miristheiss]

I do not even know what any of this means.
It belo gs to Greenland... yet Denmark is involved some how. What does Denmark do? What is their relationship? What are we wanting to do?
Outside of putting bases there to keep the polar region secure from Russia or China I do not know what else we'd do there.
Denmark cannot keep Russia out. I do not know what Greenland and Denmark have as faral as a deal.

[permanent]

It seems like Denmark is being conquered by Islam at the moment based on the laws they are adopting. So unless you are a Muslim Greenlander, it's basically a death sentence to stick with Denmark. Remember when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied Denmark in WWII? Well they were Muslims. If I were a Greenlander I'd want to be liberated from the Nazis (Islam). But eh some people like concentration camp life.

[purplepoppy]

Absolutely not. The waters around there are well protected by nato already and its only a short hop from uk basis. If need be we can get boots on gyound a lot quicker than russia can get there.

[Spencer10]

OK sorry but this is a silly question... this question needs to be ask to legitimate Greenlanders. I do think polls show 85% of Greenlanders want the USA to go away.

[FreyaRed]

I wouldn't but it doesn't matter if they want or not. Denmark neglected to build up a basic defense position there and they can be taken by anyone country with a landing ship and a division soldiers.

[Kaneki05]

I know zero about Greenland so how could I say? But if it was England my vote would yes, though I'd worry about how they'll screw with benefits but it would remove a lot of fascism that our country is into.

[goaded]

You seriously think the US is less fascist than the UK right now?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Obviously and always has been. Tell me which country has more freedom the country that bans guns or the one that don't? The one that has weed legal in many states and easy to get?
Which country just released an Anti-extremism game that's so coated with propaganda fascism it unironically talks about re-education?
Which country has introduced an online safety act making you need ID to see boobs online? And yes I know there is one state or something that has done the same in US but thanks to how states work it's way more freeing as you can just go to another.

And most importantly which country do you get arrested for sharing a meme on facebook? Ya know the country that does not have freedom of speech in it's constitution and only really has some form of freedom of speech thanks to European Convention than our own what does that tell you?

[goaded]

The UK, hands down. Because all those guns aren't stopping the authorities grabbing citizens off the street in the US, are they?

The UK hasn't banned guns, you just need a better reason than "I'm scared" to own one. I, for one, prefer the freedom not to have to worry about being shot by accident, and when I'm in England, I'm usually in North London, which is not the most crime-free area of the country.

Is someone forcing you to play a game?

"Retired cop jailed for 37 days over Charlie Kirk meme sues, saying his First Amendment rights were violated" edition.cnn.com/.../retired-cop-jailed-over-charlie-kirk-meme

Calling Palestine Action a terrorist organisation when they don't scare anyone is an abuse, but not worse than the POTUS calling the entire Democratic party terrorists.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Is it less freedom? It's a simple answer? yes. I don't think guns are good but the simple fact is it's less freedom. Same goes for laws on cigs we have, to porn.
We have so many more restrictions on our freedom this be simply true, therefore I am right. And of course you go to the nice area and think wow England is perfect... not bias at all there want some real tourism? I'll happily show you the real sides of our country, I'll come all the way down to London to show you the major spots you missed.

Love the link, he gets to sue? And has a strong case and probably will win that sue? Almost like that is proof of freedom of speech actually working not the opposite? Would love it if I could get paid for my memes by wrongful conviction over here.

As to the game of course, do you think that's not been forced in school right now? There is a reason they made it, the kind of bs they show you at school which you are forced to partake.
So while not directly impacting me, it will directly be forced onto our younger generation and would've been me only a few years ago.
And I can already say back then they showed us some rubbish like that too, fearing not to use your brain or the internet absurd.
So glad it backfired online, stand with Amelia and hopefully kids realize it for what it is but odd thing they never taught George Orwell in school for me... oddly interesting ain't it?
In fact they don't teach much about important historical people other than Shakespeare and Hitler though I'm sure they'll stop teaching kids about Hitler soon or at least the important parts they'll coat in it black and white rather than explain why he came to power and the historical importance to how he gained control.
Probably blame germans for just being crazy.

[goaded]

Restrictions on freedom are not the same as fascism.

Fascism (a 1940's US government pamphlet states) “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

Tell me how that's not happening in the US when you can be locked up for saying things the administration doesn't like? They don't care if you get to sue afterwards, it's just taxpayer money, they care that it stops people saying things they don't like. How about when someone in authority shoots someone to death or sets off a bomb under a family car and they're not even investigated, let alone prosecuted?

The game: "do you think that's not been forced in school right now?" Uh, how about you show that it is, instead. Then whether it's one school or all of them, or somewhere in between. (All I know about it is someone posted a question on here about it.)

You do know I'm English and grew up in the England, right?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded So you grew up England what 50-60 years ago? And are seriously trying to use that as some pretense that you know how it is now? Along with your nice Area of London conveniently ignoring the rest of London eh?

You take your definition of fascism from US but claim them more fascist? Such irony. And yes restrictions on freedom are fascism once it reaches a point which is to a degree subjective but in UK in having even less freedom than US shows it more in the other? Unless we are going to sit here saying well a country can restrict all the freedoms they like yet not be fascist.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and our country does a lot more so.

They do care about being sued actually cause it costs money and the government cares about money because money is power, and what do governments need? Power. Once it costs them money there will be an investigation to whom and how to see if they can layoff anyone who created that situation.
And no it does not stop anyone if we can sue and make money from it? Like I said I would love that. Everyone would do it all the time? It's free money to post a meme and be jailed for a night? Sign me up. Hence why you have to fire those who did their job wrongly by arresting him in the first place this because it becomes a free money glitch?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded How can I show you? I ain't in school? But It's a logical conclusion to why they even bothered to make it? Did you think they spent money on it to just randomly post it up for adults? When it's cleared focus on students and has very simple child like video so it can be understood by children? It has hallmarks of what such videos I've already experienced at school and is very obviously made to be shown in schools.
It's a simple deduction of intent and I'm sure if you find their website it will tell in programs with etc etc education.
But hey I know your a big fan of links rather than just thinking so here's a link that I'm pretty sure shows full intent it's for schools. www.hullcollaborativepartnership.org.uk/.../5

Had to do this in two separate comments cause long lol

[goaded]

It's a good job you never jump to conclusions, isn't it? By the way, my borough of London has the second highest crime rate after Westminster, and I didn't leave the country when I was 18.

I took a 1940's definition of fascism from when the US was anti-fascism, and you think that means they aren't fascist today?

If you prefer a 1922 definition of fascism: "Any right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist ideology characterized by centralized, totalitarian governance, strong regimentation of the economy and society, and repression of criticism or opposition."

Not happening in the UK, definitely happening in the US.

Have you seen the current definition of "domestic terrorist" over there?

"ICE and other agencies performing civil immigration enforcement were given a directive from the President of the United States to label them as “domestic terrorists.” On September 25, 2025, before the Martinez shooting, Trump issued an executive order titled, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Political Violence.” This EO changed the definition of who is considered by federal agents to be a “domestic terrorist” to include:

anti-Americanism

anti-capitalism

anti-Christianity

support for the overthrow of the United States Government

extremism on migration

extremism on race

extremism on gender

hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family

hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on religion, and

hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on morality."

As for the game, yes, I do prefer links over just guessing, and your link shows that the game is a county council production, made with funding from the government.

Teachers are free to use it or not, which doesn't sound very fascist to me.

[Kaneki05]

Ah sorry I read that wrong, 'which is not the most crime-free area of the country.' I missed the not. My bad on that one. Hence the conclusion which would've been rational if you had said what I thought.

But oh great now you took a definition of fascism that's even worse as it includes right wing as if only right winged fascism exists.
Surely restricting all freedoms based on left ideology isn't fascism right?
Not that left or right even matter anymore. UK has gone so backwards it see's Islam as left and very progressive somehow?

It has become clear to me that for whatever reason you only see fascism as something directly forced through violence or order of some kind. That's not... how that works. Softpower and suggestions, to many other small pushes create the effect too before it spreads, as propaganda can be and mostly is suggestive half the time not forced at gun point.
Just because teachers are free to use it or not seemingly does not make the game any less propaganda and fascist. And I'm sure some teachers are told by those above to run a course and show this, than they all thought to do it themselves right?

And the best part is not all forced order or violence is fascism to use your own point back to you upon this. Yet you do not see the difference between orders from a president elected to do that to prime minster not elected to do that.
I can assure you nobody actually English voted for our prime minister with the goal to bring upon messages about we need to invite more Islam in.
Same way I can assure you many actual Americans voted for trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not I bet a lot voted for him to do exactly that and the ones who didn't want that lose the election simple as.

But yet the one doing the thing he was voted in for is... a dictator? Not the other who isn't? Everyone knew about trumps stance on immigration and not only did they vote him but twice? Kinda seems like they wanted it.

[goaded]

What's your definition of fascism, then? Find me whatever definition of fascism you like (within reason) and I'll show you the US doing it and not the UK. Also, should we ignore the essential half that is "forced at gun point"?

Democracy allows changes to society, but democracy can change them back if they turn out to be a bad idea (think prohibition in the US). Fascism isn't like that, fascism prevents the people deciding their fate through voting, it's how it works. That's what makes it fascism. Government by the few, for the few.

Feel free to quote ANYONE saying Islam is "left and very progressive". Some individual Muslims are, I've known a few, because they don't all think alike, any more than all Jews support the genocide in Gaza. While you're at it, quote Starmer saying "we need to invite more Islam in".

"Just because teachers are free to use it or not seemingly does not make the game any less propaganda and fascist." Yes, it does. And what do you base the idea that it's "propaganda and fascist" on anyway? Maybe it's just teaching children to have empathy and not to be assholes.

Yes, Trump's a dictator. He's doing it will the full cooperation of Republicans in Congress, who are refusing to uphold their power as an equal branch of government.

Who do you think determines what "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity" mean?

My God, he pardoned people who were literally attempting to overthrow the United States Government.

"Extremism" on migration, race, gender, means what the right want it to mean, not any objective criteria.

"Hostility" is called domestic terrorism? But only when it's hostility to the right, not to LGBT or the entire Democratic party, because that would mean the president is a domestic terrorist.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Actions speaker louder than words, Starmer does not need to say it to be doing it. Islam has grown in UK thanks to him along with our other useless leaders. Unless you think it's growing despite heavy pushback from Lefts? When you'll find it's our Rights who are the ones pushing back not Lefts. Lefts here side with Islam thinking it's great, annoys me to hell.
Anyone who's sane and Left would never agree with Islam as it's backwards, it's the one issue that both non Islam conservatives and liberal should agree on but it isn't.
They instantly call you just racist if you think Islam is bad... but Islam is bad it has been forever it's a dogmatic religion that's not progressive at all and is racist it self? Not to mention sexist. But hey I'm racist for not liking it... woohoo why else do you think they arrest for anti Islam memes?

Again you mean trump is doing the things he was voted in to do? Those who voted for him want him to pardon those people? They wanted him to push those views?
You're really not understanding that's what happens when on side loses the vote and the other get what they voted for. Come back in the next election and hope you win next time. Simple as that.
Now if there is no future election we can talk about how yes it is fascism.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded
Fascism is an attempt or being a single powered authority that does not allow democracy, does not allow free thought nor criticism, and propagates control by misinformation and propaganda to keep the status quo. Put it's needs for control over it's citizens freedom or what they voted for.
But the most important key thing is following through on that democracy, it's doing what you were voted to do, trump besides not releasing the files is doing what his voters wanted whether you like it or not.
You can't cry fascism when he is doing what people voted for, he talked about before he was elected all his plans even Greenland. So no shock came to me when he enacted his plan? You don't like it complain to the wall for the next 3 years I don't know.

Starmer keeps focusing on issues that he never even mentioned part of his plan therefore no one voted for that. Which is why everyone wants to boot him. And notice how everyone wants reform now? Hopefully reform will win and actually do what they are saying not some other things. But that's seemingly what all our leaders do at least from my memory.
Nothing short of Fascism.

Ironically first term of trump was more fascist to me because he didn't do at all what he said more mimicked it, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't due to his fault now after seeing how much better he is following through this time.
This is what leaders are meant to do. But maybe one forgets that when they have sleepy biden do nothing and trump build a fake wall, to whatever obama did or didn't do.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded And yes I'm sure it's empathy and not to be an asshole to fearmonger about not using the internet and interact with friends, nor go to a protest as a peaceful protester. Sure totally empathy not trying to control and hinder your freedom of thought and expression at all.

I'm sure it's very innocently trying to tell you to be nice not make any option seem scary or bad to do if they haven't told you it's okay to do.

[goaded]

Oh, a Gish Gallop.

"Actions speaker louder than words" Trump has had people shot in the face for their speech, declared half his country are domestic terrorists and seems intent on invading Denmark because Norway didn't give him a prize their government has nothing to do with.

Guess what? Muslims are people, too. Most of them just want to get on, just like Christians and the nearly 40% of the country that doesn't have religion. Some Muslims are murdering, rapist assholes, so are some Christians.

Fewer than 50% of voters elected Trump in 2024. Maybe 30% of the country. Many of them regret it because they thought they were voting to get rid of "the worst of the worst", not their pastors, and neighbours, and not while stomping on citizens' rights.

Didn't you notice Trump getting Republican states to gerrymander themselves? They thought Democratic states wouldn't react, because they had laws and constitutions that required fair representation. That was how they were going to steal the next elections.

Who voted to invade Greenland?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded He talked several times about taking Greenland so yes everyone voted for him did vote for that, if they didn't want they'd vote someone else pretty simple.

Oh no not gerrymandering which democrats have done many times... it's not like that has existed for such a long time and been done by both parties all the time.
But no let's pretend that's a unique evil of trump go ahead smh.

And now you change your pitch to also supporting Islam proving my point thank you. I really hope more lefts will wake up to the fact Islam is not on their side but for now a lot of delusional lefts exist. And the sane ones are having to become independent or right winged to get away from them.
Because the main problem is if it keeps going this way... conservatives are going to start and keep winning elections and democrats will never have a chance since ever sane left can't agree nor vote with the non-sane ones.
So keep pushing away a left like me with nonsense points and see who'll get in voted in because it won't be who you want.

[goaded]

No. ""Buying Greenland" appeared on a list of foreign policy goals that the incoming administration prepared after the election." Why do you think that electing one person means you automatically approve of everything they want to do? Especially as he got less than 50% of the popular vote.

Also: en.wikipedia.org/.../Opinion_polling_on_the_second_Trump_presidency

You're really going to keep supporting Trump, no matter what, aren't you?

No, gerrymandering half way between censuses is almost unheard of, and it was explicitly done to keep Republicans congress even if the vote would be as against him as it's expected to be.

And now the lies start: "change your pitch to also supporting Islam". No. I didn't. Accepting that some Muslims aren't raging terrorists might look like that to you, but that's because you are a bigot.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Thanks for proving my point further criticize Islam and the radical left call you racist or bigot or whatever fun word you want to use, and find anyway to make it some race issue than a policy issue.

And nope once again trump already talked about doing this. Did you ever watch any of his speeches? He made it clear that this was his goal. If you really think it came out of nowhere all the sudden that's a you problem based on a fantasy you came up with not reality.

Gerrymandering has been done many times in US, you want the whole history of it? en.wikipedia.org/.../Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States
Go have fun. Think you'll find it was around since the founding fathers. And I don't care when it's done the fact is it's been a thing since the start of america so who cares? Unless we are gonna say every president and the fathers were fascists too... go ahead.

[goaded]

No, you're a bigot because you're tarring a whole group of people with the same brush. It's practically the definition of the word: "One who is narrow-mindedly devoted to their own ideas and groups, and intolerant of (people of) differing ideas, races, genders, religions, politics, etc.".

Do you not understand that because someone's a Muslim that doesn't make them a terrorist? That's true of most Muslims. You want me to denounce ISIL, the Taliban, al Qaida? No problem, because they chose to be like that. Being born into a Muslim family doesn't make you worse than someone being born into a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Antheist family.

I don't demand you denounce all Christians just because of the Catholic church or the Southern Baptists cover up child rape, do I? Not even all Republicans because the Trump DoJ is doing the same; lots of them voted to release the Epstein files. Trump's willing to take the country to war to avoid their full release.

Have you considered that some people might vote for someone despite disagreeing with some of their policies? Only Trump's most extreme supporters want things like every immigrant out of the USA or invading Greenland, the rest foolishly believed his lies about reducing prices and ending the war in Ukraine on day one, deporting only "the worst of the worst" of illegal immigrants, etc., because that was what was important to them.

Now you're ignoring the important points about the current round of gerrymandering.

1. It's being done by Republicans or in response to Republican gerrymandering.
2. It's almost never been done half way between censuses
3. I bet you can't find another president who explicitly called for states to gerrymander on his behalf

Democratic states generally adopted non-partisan redistricting laws, which is why California put their reaction to Texas to a vote, Republicans states don't, which is why they didn't have to.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Mention once where I even said terrorist besides this comment right now... I'll wait for you to quote that back to me and if you can. And if you can't? Thanks for proving my point and saying something I never even talked about so well done.
And yes by the way Christianity also is bad as an ideology, lefts should not agree with it as it's conservative and awful.

Your points are only getting more wrong and dumb.
But anyway go ahead quote where I said Terrorist before this reply because I didn't at all...

[goaded]

Fair enough. What exactly is it you think I should be criticising about Islam, then? Specifically.

Have you considered that some people might vote for someone despite disagreeing with some of their policies? Only Trump's most extreme supporters want things like every immigrant out of the USA or invading Greenland, the rest foolishly believed his lies about reducing prices and ending the war in Ukraine on day one, deporting only "the worst of the worst" of illegal immigrants, etc., because that was what was important to them.

Now you're ignoring the important points about the current round of gerrymandering.

1. It's being done by Republicans or in response to Republican gerrymandering.
2. It's almost never been done half way between censuses
3. I bet you can't find another president who explicitly called for states to gerrymander on his behalf

Democratic states generally adopted non-partisan redistricting laws, which is why California put their reaction to Texas to a vote, Republicans states don't, which is why they didn't have to.

93% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republican said the U. S. is off on the wrong track under Trump. d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/.../...t_WCk0aqK.pdf

They obviously didn't think they were voting for all this nonsense, like you claim.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded The fact that Islam is conservative therefore should not be supported by a left at all yet lefts have seemingly convinced themselves somehow that Islam is their friend.
If Marx was here he'd be having a heart attack seeing so called socialists today not understanding religion is oppressive and needs to be removed.

You can show me whatever you want, simple fact is they voted for him and he's doing what he talked about doing before he was voted for.
If people didn't want that should've voted for someone else or not at all. If people vote to push the button and the button does several things that the announcer told you what it will do well guess who's fault that was? The people hence democracy was upheld.

And your still banging on about gerrymandering though it's been done since literal founding of America? It's a core aspect to US voting system? But seemingly you don't get that nor care.

[goaded]

Both Islam and Christianity are conservative, but that doesn't mean all Muslims and Christians are. Many of them support the messages of hospitality and acceptance in both religions, which are left-wing views Jesus said feed the poor and what you do for the least of us, etc.. Most of both are reasonable people anyone can get on with.

I'll say the Taliban, ISIS, al Qaida, US White "Christian" nationalists are all bad, I won't say all Muslims or all Christians are because it's not true.

Religion removes itself, given half a chance in a secular society. There are nearly as many people with no religion in the UK as Christians, only a bare majority are religious at all.

I agree, everyone should have voted for someone other than Trump, including the one in four Republicans who see he's taking the country in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, lots of people stayed home and didn't vote for Harris.

Politicians aren't supposed to just look at their victory in the last election, they're also supposed to pay attention to the effect their actions will have on the next. Trump, rather than moderating his actions, as decided he's better off cheating in the next election as he tries to trump up charges against people who ran the fair elections in 2020.

Like I said earlier: You're really going to keep supporting Trump, no matter what, aren't you?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded A Christian or Muslim pretending to be left is just that pretending truth is they're deep routed in conservativism and Islam is currently using left ideology of acceptance to propaganda their conservativism. And Islam is on the rise in England which is the exact opposite of what we want. Wolf in sheep's clothing is more than warning.
Opium des Volkes

It's funny you are so blinded by your hate to trump you'd see me as a supporting him. That's how wild lefts have become they're forgetting everything for the sake of their own emotions than logic. Because logic would tell you, I am not a trump voter because one I am not even American and the next is I'm against religion... wanna know know something? trump is not an atheist and the most obvious thing is my quote.

[goaded]

Well, lying for Trump seems to me to be supporting him. I'm not "blinded", I see exactly what he's doing, and it's what I've been saying since before he was elected the first time. I never said you were Trump voter, did I? UKIP/Reform UK, probably, considering the amount of right wing propaganda you like to put out there. Do you think Trump is religious? He thinks he's God.

Do you think Jesus would be for or against universal health care? Pro- or anti-genocide?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yes trump is religious just look it up takes 2secs. And I never said you said I was trump voter smh, I was pointing out obvious facts to why I ain't a supporter.
Which the only liar is the one who say's I am going to keep supporting trump no matter what when I don't even support him.
You just can't handle any opinion that is opposed to your rage on for him by taking a rational look than emotional blindless, because I am way more left then you'll ever be and using Jesus for an argument only proves me right.

Imagine this Marx in the future we'd have some self declared leftist using jesus ya know a figurehead of a religion that has killed and oppressed millions but nah that's not think about that one too hard. Rolling in his grave I swear.

[goaded]

My God, you'll believe anything! Does Trump go to church? Which one? Ever heard of Two Corinthians?

Supporting his obvious lies, by the way, is supporting him.

All religions have some good in them: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;", “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "So give the relative his right, as well as the needy and the traveler. That is best for those who desire the countenance of Allah, and it is they who will be the successful.", etc. People who choose those over the "eye for an eye", "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", and so on are what you'd call "leftist". I welcome non-judgemental support from anyone.

Since you didn't respond, I guess I was right that you're Brexit/UKIP/Reform. You and yours have done tremendous damage to the country.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Go read Marx's works and learn why religion is not to be accepted. Then maybe you'll learn what being a socialist actually is.
And nope he's not lying he said he wants greenland and is trying to get it where is the lie? Please tell me how he is lying about that? Is he actually not trying to do that? And just lying considering after all don't believe anything he says right?
Your point now eats it self lmao.

And nope I don't vote but nice try. I don't vote for two lesser evils.

[Kaneki05]

And ya know when reform will win because it will, it's obvious. And does some good things I'll happily say good for them doing that since that's what the people voted for. And disagree with anything they do I didn't want, but if it's what people voted for I digress because that's the right thing for them to do.

[goaded]

So you're saying I'm not a socialist? That makes a change. I see myself, and other people who support social democracy, as decent human beings with empathy. I don't care if they support those goals because of religion, the golden rule, or just because it makes them all tingly. I don't like people who want to be shitty to anyone just because someone who looks or follows the same religion as them is an asshole.

Are you sure you're from the UK? Because if you were, you'd know you have four or five serious parties to vote for. It's not America.

Also, if you've read Marx, I'm a kangaroo.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded I've literally quoted Marx to you and expressed my views on religion be oppressive... who do you think expresses that same view?
It shows who really hasn't and who has. Bet you don't even know George Orwell was a socialist too? I wasn't just mentioning him out of accident ya know?

What? Five parites yeah as if any of them actually have a chance apart from the main two labour and tory, thanks to how messed up tory did they are pratically gone now too. So it's Reform vs Labour their the only two that have a chance if you think otherwise you don't understand how voting works at all.
There could be 10 parties but 2 of the most popular always become the two with most chance therefore it's lesser evils. Plus those other parties suck too but ya know...

[goaded]

I can quote the Bible, but I haven't read it. How many pages do you think Das Kapital has? How thick is a paperback copy? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5cm? Quick quiz. I have one on my bookshelf. Two, if you count the German one.

Of course I know Orwell was a socialist, and that 1984 was supposed to be called 1948. I think it might even have been taught at school, all I know is that I read it, and Animal Farm.

"Five parites yeah as if any of them actually have a chance apart from the main two labour and tory"
It's not that long ago that the lib-dems (or whatever they were called at the time) held the balance of power. Unfortunately, they got played like a fiddle by the Tories and ended up blamed for disastrous Tory policies.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded I wouldn't quote what I don't understand, and I for sure have learnt a lot on Marx to Lenin etc.
If you did you'd know Opium des Volkes meaning and that just like him I am right.
Unless you disagree and oppose such view but then that brings into several questions that make you less socialist, as you are more supportive of one of the leading causes of oppression throughout history?

Or it's the parties sucked didn't do the things people voted for and did things the people didn't vote for? Which has been every single Pm I can remember and I'm sure if I could be bothered which I can't to look into ones before my time it would be the same old story.

[goaded]

You're ignoring the fact that opium wasn't thought of as a particularly bad thing in the 19th century. And saying you "understand" it isn't the same as having read it. How many pages? To the nearest 100?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded I've read his works multiple times but clearly you haven't.
You really don't know the meaning behind such words if that's argument back. Great job at telling me you have really missed his entire point and are seriously trying to argue with me on this.
Like it isn't a well known common fact that Marx saw religion as oppressive, even a capitalist who's never read his work would know this.

[goaded]

So, how thick is the book?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Notice how your reply has no argument about what Marx said or his meaning... very telling ain't it? Because you don't have a clue. And you for sure aren't going to tell me I am wrong because you know I am not.
And how on earth would I know... you know it's called the internet right? You can read everything on there and I have.

[goaded]

No, it just makes it obvious that you have no idea how thick the book you claim to have read multiple times is. OK, you've read it on the internet. How many pages? 100, 200, 300?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yeah so I just sit around remember exactly how many pages everything has... ya know my favorite book is the exorcist I've read it at least 10 times couldn't tell you the page amount. This be a pointless strawman argument and you know it.

[Kaneki05]

It's actually sad.

[Kaneki05]

by the way I could just google it so even more a pointless ask no?

[goaded]

It's about 2 inches thick. I know because I have a copy. I don't believe you've read it.

[goaded]

The Exorcist is about half as thick, I read it a couple of decades ago.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Your logic is something else so because I don't know the exact thickest of said book nor the exact amount of pages you don't believe I've read it.
Well then I've never read anything in my life by that rationale. Must be the same for shows too right? If I don't know the exact length of a film I've never seen it.

What mind-numbing point that can only be made when you have no better argument.

[goaded]

I just don't believe you. That's all.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yup you don't believe me based on a idea so outstandingly dumb it makes my brain hurt. I've never read The god's delusion either because I couldn't tell you how many pages that is.
I'm just a dude who lies about reading, and lies about not being a fan of religion, and lies about not knowing Marx yet I love him based on that very fact he stood against it. Same way I'd lie about liking Dawkings or Hawkings despite me looking up to such people.

[goaded]

No, I don't believe you because you claim the UK is more fascist than a country with masked government agents snatching people off the streets and killing with impunity.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yup that's why you brought up the dumb argument of how many pages the book is, makes perfect logical sense.
I wonder how many pages does The Book Thief has oh no that must mean I've also never read that one though I'm pretty sure my college teacher allowed me take a copy home because I loved it but surely without knowing it's page count I'm lying.

You have no rationale to follow so no wonder you think what you think, it's based from bias than reality.
Come back when you can even acknowledge Marx saw religion as oppressive because you not been able to shows a bias so far within you that you can't even acknowledge a simple fact.

[goaded]

No, I just don't think someone with your level of thinking could possibly have read the whole of the book. Seriously, thinking the US, where people are being grabbed off the streets by masked agents of the government and sent to concentration camps is somehow less fascist than the UK is seriously ridiculous. When was the last time a police officer in the UK shot and killed someone, and did the government simply say they weren't going bother to investigate?

By all means, impress me with your understanding of the finer points of Marxism, but how many people in the UK are afraid their doors will be kicked down by armed masked men from the government?

[goaded]

I haven't read Marx, but people who have say: "He believed religion survives because of oppressive social conditions. When this oppressive and exploitative condition is destroyed, religion will become unnecessary, according to Marx. At the same time, he saw religion as a form of working-class protest against poor economic conditions and alienation."

Which country, US or UK, has more religion?

Could it be because the UK doesn't have as much of the "oppressive and exploitative condition"?

Without which "religion will become unnecessary, according to Marx"
Christianity 46.53%
Islam 5.97%
No religion 37.75%
Religion not stated 5.91%

US:
Christianity 76.0%
Muslim 0.6%
None/No religion 15.0%

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Ah so it was the ultimate deflect because you've never read it, you just assume others haven't amazing. And therefore turned out I was right saying it was clear you hadn't.
You see that's the difference between you and me, all you can do is recite whatever the internet tells you and not think for yourself.

If you thought for yourself you'd see that Islam being such a high percentage is way more of a worrying factor here. Because which religion Christianity or Islam do you think stands up currently to this idea more so than less social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.
In case you are confused it's the idea Marx had about how women are seen in society. Last I checked Islam has much more oppressive nature on women currently than Christianity no?

You talk of which has more religion but don't understand it's a wider debate than that and what impacts, to how religion and culture has softened. Because you aren't thinking just reciting hoping it makes a point.

[Kaneki05]

Also the mockery of someone claiming to be left but isn't familiar with his work truly wild to me but then again I'm a bit obsessed with him because he was incredibly right and smart but still being a socialist and not knowing is just absurd.

[goaded]

What "high percentage"? Under 6%, or under 1%? If you weren't a bigot you'd realise that neither is a problem. I notice you haven't explained how you think the kidnappings and murders by the US government doesn't make them far more fascist than the UK which does neither.

[Kaneki05]

Not that you would know but Marx was critical of immigration now not the idea but the way the government uses it, how the elite class uses it. Pitting us against each other and making it harder for labour workers to get fair wages.
Our government is doing that all the time and why it lets in so many. They call it necessary even... now I wonder why?
Turns out Marx was right like always. Trying to get rid of them is an answer, though from a problem they created and wanted. I don't think any elites actually want to get rid of them though it's just for show.
It's a repression in it's own kind keeping those distracted for whom it benefits.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Oh yeah keep using that excuse while it's growing when it hits 10 or 20 or 40 I am sure that won't be a problem either right? 5% is a lot whether you realize it or not just compare it to America and you can see lmao.

[Kaneki05]

And yup by my own theory and his, I don't think even trump wants to get rid of them. It's a grand show of nothing and you're being blinded like the sheep. But hey he's doing what those voted for right?
See I am cynic people are never going to learn and we aren't ever going to reach what we could if we followed his ideology as a collective.

[goaded]

You still haven't explained how you think the kidnappings and murders by the US government doesn't make them far more fascist than the UK which does neither. (Oh, and your precious "freedom" to legally carry a firearm just got someone exercising that right shot and killed by the US government.)

So you're saying Marx wasn't critical of immigration, just exploitation of immigrants. Feel free to give some quotes to back that up.

Something like this: "The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the N******* in the former slave states of the U. S. A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this."

That's the kind of antagonism you're stoking by encouraging hatred towards Muslims.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Great the guy who knows little about his words is trying to use them as if he gets it, and turn it back on me how cute. Once again reciting not understanding. Also do you think immigrants mean only Muslim you seem to think so, also do you think religion means exclusive to one? Also did you not get the point about the fair sex standing?
And I shouldn't need to quote go get educated yourself, I've quoted him several times already but ya know again the guy who's read his work and is obsessed with him wouldn't know anything right?
Maybe just realize something I know more on this than you that'd be a big learning moment for you.

And yeah I ignore your point about murders and kidnapping cause there hasn't been any, I know what your referring to but detaining illegals and those who harassing to attacking federal officers isn't kidnapping nor is when one dies because that's what will happen in such situations as accidents happen.
If you want to see real regime doing that look to Iran but I'll pretend they don't exist for the sake of your own bias.

[Kaneki05]

by the way I agree fully that any law enforcement shooting should be investigated to see whether it was wrongful or not. Alex Pretti seems like a solid case, though I need to see more. To see ya know if it was an accident or not.
Once in a while yeah a wrongful shooting will happen. Which then like anything should be settled in court. But that does not mean cops to ice agents or whatever other law enforcement exists should just stop doing their job, otherwise it would be Purge time.
And at the same time people shouldn't be harassing such officers. Is it so hard for people to agree that this a reasonable middle ground?

[Kaneki05]

And fun fact unlike Marx I do agree with death penalty, so if this officer as it seems to be the case did shoot him wrongfully while he was on the ground and had the gun taken off him.
Then I want to see equal punishment as that's my opinion on punishment it should be give what you get.
Marx calls it ineffective but he was more an optimist idealist on that humans inherent criminal acts come from class I am not, as I know psychology well and humans are violent and selfish by nature. Even if you removed all class disparity people would still hurt each other.

[goaded]

No, this is "cute": "as if he gets it". If I show Marx saying the opposite of what you claim he thought, how does that not show that you are wrong? Feel free to quote something that shows he agreed with you instead. You won't, you'll waffle, which makes me more certain you didn't read all his work.

"And yeah I ignore your point about murders and kidnapping cause there hasn't been any"
Except there have been, many, and you're choosing to ignore them because they don't fit your ridiculous narrative that the UK is more fascist than the US. I also mentioned concentration camps, where people legally in the country have been sent.

We could have a sensible discussion as to whether the UK government is fascist or not (it's not, you can vote for candidates from multiple parties and it happens from time to time that a third party holds the balance of power in parliament, if not the prime minister position). The question I asked you in response to your opinion was "You seriously think the US is LESS fascist than the UK right now?", remember?

Fascism is not the presence of laws passed by democratically elected governments that can be revoked, it's government by the few, for the few, with a side-order of violence and terrorism against the populace. All things that are very clearly happening right now in the US.

10 shots "by accident"? Life in prison is worse than the death penalty, so that's another case where Marx and I disagree with you.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded What you recited proves my point not my fault you can't read it. The government did it on purpose to hurt the working class, hence the point. He didn't disagree with immigration as an idea but the way it was been used. But go ahead tell me how I'm wrong when it states it very clearly.
'This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power.

This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organization. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.'

[Kaneki05]

In an 1870 letter regarding the impact of Irish labor in England, Marx argued that the English bourgeoisie had a vested interest in the "forced immigration of Irish workers," which allowed them to reduce wages and break the power of English workers.
Since I know you just want factoids from online, rather than ya know someone who knows a lot about him and his views already. Perhaps in the future you should educate yourself on a topic before you pretend to get it nvm try to say the other person is lying about knowing his work.

[Kaneki05]

Do you really think if he was here today, he wouldn't be saying how the government is using even more forced immigration to create working class problems and keep the power for elites?
Because I know for 100% fact he would, because his views on this were very super duper clear.

[goaded]

You just repeated what I said, how is that proving me wrong?

Because you now say "forced immigration", an obvious lie designed to encourage antagonism, which is what you repeatedly claimed to be against, I just had a quick look back to see where immigration came into this conversation about fascism. I mentioned ICE and Trump using them to terrorise the US population (a fascist action), then you said:

"I can assure you nobody actually English voted for our prime minister with the goal to bring upon messages about we need to invite more Islam in."
Which is the same kind of statement. (I didn't even note your use of "English", rather than British at the time, but that's telling, too.) The government isn't importing workers from a colony like Ireland, it's not the same at all.

Then, with an amazing shredding of logic, you assured me: "many actual Americans voted for trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not I bet a lot voted for him to do exactly that and the ones who didn't want that lose the election simple as."

Can you not see that your own statement says most Americans never wanted "trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not"? Trump got less than 50% of the popular vote. By your admission some (probably most; he's even lost Joe Rogan and you only claimed "many" were for) of his voters didn't want it, so most voters (let alone people) didn't want "trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not". But you'll defend his government by the few, for the few. (Where did I see that phrase before? Oh, yes, the definition of fascism.)

[Kaneki05]

@goaded I just told you feel the need to re-read if you want. I know you don't get it though that me Marx agree on this issue and if you ever bother to read his letters to books along with his other history you may come to understand but maybe not since you purposefully just miss my points.

And yes they voted for trump hence why he is president thank you next?

[goaded]

Nice try. "Many" Trump voters may have wanted "trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not", most US voters sure as hell didn't. Even the ones that voted for him mostly didn't want it and the ones who didn't vote for him (most voters) certainly didn't.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yup that's everyone voted for Harris instead and she's in power in fact. Unless you want to start saying all elections are rigged because they don't go by the votes you think matters then shush, and if that is your point okay. Still don't make me wrong just you disagree with the system of how it's done which tbf I would too but ya know it is what it is.

[goaded]

So you're just going to ignore simple, clear statements of fact to defend Trump's government by the few, for the few - the definition of fascism.

It doesn't surprise me, considering your dislike of Islam and attempts to demonise all Muslims on the back of it, and your claims that the UK is more fascist than the US where people are being arrested, shot, murdered, rounded up and put in concentration camps, even if they've broken no laws.

"Many" Trump voters may have wanted "trump to kick out immigrants whether legal or not", most US voters sure as hell didn't. Even the ones that voted for him mostly didn't want it and the ones who didn't vote for him (most voters) certainly didn't. People sometimes vote for a politician despite what they stand for, but a fascist will claim a mandate where there clearly isn't one.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Imagine liking religion that has oppressed societies for generations on end then pretend to care about fascism I would call it irony but I don't find it funny just awful really.

And yes they did unless again you arguing the system is rigged which I've already said okay cool to.

[goaded]

Imagine making up lies about me to continue a ridiculous conversation rather than simply admitting a country that's shooting protesters, breaking their own laws, and filling concentration camps is more fascist than one that, well, isn't.

Trump lied to the electorate, over and over again. He claimed Project 2025 was nothing to do with him because he knew the things in it (which he's doing now) were extremely unpopular. He lied about immigrants, even worse than your implications that every follower of a religion believes all the worst of that religion. Then you pretend that a vote for one of two candidates means you want the most extreme (and often denied - "the worst of the worst", "rapists and murderers", not parsons and ice cream salesmen) policies of that person.

Yes, the right wing fascists hoped for what Trump's doing, some people were duped into voting for him because they believed the lies that he wasn't really serious about it, and more people voted against him than for him.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Only liar here is you 'your implications that every follower of a religion believes all the worst of that religion' only lie here because when did I ever imply such things?
You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower is absurd since not all of them are alike. Simply not understanding my point at all.
As you never have here.

Ya know Uk is a monarchy right? But I'm sure you'll tell yourself somehow a monarchy is not fascist in anyway "In monarchy we have the people of the constitution, in democracy the constitution of the people".

And you still really can't get over this idea he was voted in can you?

[goaded]

Why are you still avoiding the whole murder, violence against peaceful protesters, concentration camps, arrests of innocent citizens, etc. in the US? Why are you still pretending that being elected by a minority of voters means the whole country has to cater to the president's every fascist inclination?

"when did I ever imply such things?" Every time you referred to "Islam" (the religion) and not "Muslims" (normal people). Muslims don't all agree with everything the extremists say their religion says, same as Republicans don't all agree with everything Trump says and most Americans don't agree with anything Trump says.

This doesn't make any sense at all: "You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower is absurd since not all of them are alike"

I particularly enjoyed your pathetic attempt to equate a monarchy with fascism. Maybe the king will have your head chopped off!

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Monarchy is but guess that's another one you don't agree with Marx on, see who's really more of a left socialist here I wonder?
The one thinks Monarchy should be abolished or the one mocking and pretending it's not a problem.

Why are you still avoiding the whole murder, violence against peaceful protesters, concentration camps, arrests of innocent citizens, etc. in the US?
Already answered that multiple times but you just ignore what I say or don't understand.

"You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower is absurd since not all of them are alike" it does, I have no clue how you read that and don't get it's meaning.

[goaded]

I remember you lying about the murders: "I ignore your point about murders and kidnapping cause there hasn't been any", and you haven't mentioned concentration camps once (you do understand that these conversations are searchable, right?).

A 21st century monarchy is totally different to a 19th century one, and not really a problem. At least they stay largely out of politics, unlike US billionaires.

You really think "You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower is absurd since not all of them are alike" makes sense? "follower" of what?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded What concentration camps? Don't tell me you believe where they take criminals who've entered a country illegally is the same to you as Hitler taking jews to do weird experiments on, to forced labor and gassing. Because if so again you are the liar here, though more delusional than liar as I get it you don't understand.

Ha if you think they stay out of politics they have really got you exactly thinking what they want. Elites with money and power are always controlling everything, especially a monarchy.
You be a capitalist without even knowing it by believing their act which I find ignorance more worse than owning it. They'd love you.

Follower of religion? Ya know what we were on about? Though it could be said about anything tbh as the logical applies to any ideology that one follows.
To make it simpler, You don't need all followers of said ideology to do bad for it to cause a negative outcome. For example there is a good people who are living under capitalism and even support it but does that make capitalism a good thing?

[goaded]

You clearly don't know what a concentration camp is, either. They're where people are already dying in the US, and half of them aren't criminals (even then, "Most detainees with a criminal conviction were found guilty of traffic violations"). People are being taken there who are in the country legally, going through the process. People who entered legally but over-stayed are not criminals, it's a civil violation, not a criminal one.

It's also how death camps start out, but it takes a while. About 10 years for the original Nazis.

I am a capitalist, with limits - social democracy. Whatever made you think otherwise?

You think you suddenly makes sense when you clarify that you mean "follower of religion"?

"You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower [of religion] is absurd since not all of them are alike"

It still doesn't, especially as about 40% of the UK are not followers of any religion at all. I've never claimed anything of the sort.

Oh, I get it, you think that my pointing out that control of the government by a minority who claim that they have a mandate to do whatever they want (including killing innocent citizens, apparently) means that I wouldn't be satisfied with anything but 100% consensus.

That would be a gross misrepresentation of what I've said, so par for the course.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Oh I know what they're it's more you don't you'd think getting arrested and taken a to jail would count probably. But hey I digress how about show me said proof of said camps and no doubt when you show that proof it will show that they were people committing a crime.

'It still doesn't, especially as about 40% of the UK are not followers of any religion at all. I've never claimed anything of the sort.' This has nothing to do with my point, it's wild to me you don't understand such a simple sentence even further after I tried to simplify the point.
You think you suddenly makes sense when you clarify that you mean "follower of religion"? and yup because it can apply to any ideology but I know you don't get that.

Ah so you are capitalist... then thus is proof I am more left than you despite you were thinking the opposite to begin with. No wonder my ideals don't make sense to you cause I'm a socialist.

[goaded]

Again, you're not making any sense: "Oh I know what they're it's more you don't you'd think getting arrested and taken a to jail would count probably.". Are you intentionally doing it now?

Here's the previous one: "You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower [of religion] is absurd since not all of them are alike".

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, try re-phrasing them to mean something.

I'm not surprised you have no doubt the Trump administration isn't lying to you, but they are (and even they only claim 70% have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, which leaves 30% that don't).
www.politifact.com/.../

I think you're right-wing, a bigot, probable Reform voter, based entirely on your statements in this conversation being anti-Islam, anti-immigration, and pro-Trump's fascist actions. Not to mention the initial opinion where you think the UK is more fascist than the US where they're illegally invading people's homes and openly shooting innocent protesters and filling up concentration camps.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded 'Giving you the benefit of the doubt, try re-phrasing them to mean something.' Already did but ya know you don't read 'To make it simpler, You don't need all followers of said ideology to do bad for it to cause a negative outcome. For example there is a good people who are living under capitalism and even support it but does that make capitalism a good thing?'
And if you don't get that just leave it alone as you aren't going to understand so what's the point?

Okay so this proof all this shows is they arrest people who are thought to be a criminal which makes sense then it turns out they made mistakes on a sum of them. Cool I guess? What do you want me to say? That I hope they getting better at not making such mistake? Cause yes I agree. They should get better get it down to maybe 20% margin of error even lower would be great.
But at no point is this proof they're taking non-criminals on purpose to just randomly taking innocent people from the streets, I'd imagine they'd had reasoning why said person was taken to be arrested not just they walk around arresting some random dude they see going by his day.

Imagine thinking a guy who uses Marx as to his ideology is right winged, that's how bias you are not seeing anything but red when it's opposed to what you think. Guess I must've missed the part where Marx was actually a right winged bigot since I follow his views eh?

[goaded]

Your new version didn't seem to have anything to do with "You seem to think a systematic change to society would need to be based upon every follower [of religion] is absurd since not all of them are alike". Like, it didn't explain what it was you thought I thought about "systematic change".

But OK. So, what's the negative outcome of Islam, in particular, since you singled it out? My point is that grouping all members of an ideology as representing the worst of that ideology is bigotry, especially when it comes to religion. I don't care what religion law abiding people follow, do you?

Was I right when I said "you think that my pointing out that control of the government by a minority who claim that they have a mandate to do whatever they want (including killing innocent citizens, apparently) means that I wouldn't be satisfied with anything but 100% consensus."? If not, in what way?

"I'd imagine they'd had reasoning why said person was taken to be arrested not just they walk around arresting some random dude they see going by his day."
They are doing exactly that. They are even stopping off-duty police and demanding papers that no citizen is required to have, but only if they happen to be brown.

This is why I think you're right-wing: the bigotry, the willful ignorance of current events, and the ridiculous attempts to defend Trump's actions, including state-sanctioned murder.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded I've explained my problems very clearly with religion because it's oppressive by nature. Go do any history and you'll see it through out generations repress people. I don't see what you are confused by, and honestly not my problem if you are.
Not my job to make you understand socialism nor the work of Marx if you oppose such ideals or don't get them but it is absurd to call me right winged for that along with whatever reasons you think I'm.
Just anyone who disagrees or you don't get their point be like Eh he's right winged. With the obvious irony that religion is conservative.
Also I have to ask you know what devils advocate means? Because that's more my view on trump which I don't know how you haven't understood this.

Okay show me proof they're randomly arresting people on the street not doing anything? Because what you sent me wasn't that.

[Kaneki05]

"you think that my pointing out that control of the government by a minority who claim that they have a mandate to do whatever they want (including killing innocent citizens, apparently) means that I wouldn't be satisfied with anything but 100% consensus."? If not, in what way?
Never said that sooo I have no clue what this point is about.

[Kaneki05]

I never said anything about killing people is okay and do whatever they want lol

[goaded]

Why do you so often make three posts in response to one of mine? And lie about what I've said.

You're supporting Trump, rule of a minority, anti-immigrant bigotry, and ignoring the facts of the day. That's why I think you're right wing pretending to not be.

You demand proof while claiming without any proof (and against all evidence) that the UK is more fascist than today's US where carrying a firearm to a protest is OK if you're against the protest but a capital offence if you're with them, even after it's been taken away from you.

www.independent.co.uk/.../...fficers-b2904908.html

Did you explain "Oh I know what they're it's more you don't you'd think getting arrested and taken a to jail would count probably.", yet? What do you think you were saying?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Oh great a link to an article I can't view because it needs cookies or to sub to which I won't do either. But from what I could make out for the brief seconds it's accounts of people saying Ice agents talked to them which is not proof they're randomly arresting folk. Then them trying to claim it was based on race why they were spoken too.
And that the other response to this was that they do not racially profile. Not that it matters really cause if they're legal and can prove it, them stopping to ask if you are does not impact you in anyway.
Yet still not proof they just randomly arrest folk.

Also I don't need proof because everyone knows guns are more legal in US, everyone knows weed is more legal in US, everyone knows US have more free speech, you can buy a knife on Amazon in US ya know but not in England that'd be a crime?, etc etc to more freedoms we simply don't have. But somehow less freedoms = more freedom?
And by your rationale me moving to US and getting more freedom to do things would be more fascist.
If you say more freedom is fascism then hell I guess I agree with fascism and want to go wherever that thrives the most by that logic. But last I checked Iran has less freedom or other dictatorship I could fathom to think of.

Did you explain "Oh I know what they're it's more you don't you'd think getting arrested and taken a to jail would count probably.", yet? What do you think you were saying?
What do you think I was saying? Jeez man use some thinking look at the context and figure it out.

[goaded]

That must mean the headline isn't true!

"Law enforcement leaders in Minnesota’s Twin Cities region said off-duty officers are among those who have been targeted by federal agents as they expressed wider concerns about “civil rights violations” in the area.

Three police officials from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area hosted a Tuesday press conference to sound the alarm on concerns about “discrimination,” “profiling” and “civil rights violations” as federal immigration officials operate in the region.

The Department of Homeland Security launched “Operation Metro Surge” in the region last month, and agents have made 10,000 arrests since, the agency said Monday. The operation has sparked protests and backlash from local officials, which further intensified after an ICE officer shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, on January 7 in Minneapolis.

Local officials are “receiving endless complaints about civil rights violations in our streets from U. S. citizens,” according to Mark Bruley, the police chief of Brooklyn Park, a suburb of Minneapolis. Off-duty police officers have also been targeted, he said.

“We started hearing from our police officers the same complaints as they fell victim to this while off duty. Every one of these individuals is a person of color who has had this happen to them,” Bruley told reporters."

[goaded]

Of course, you're the only one talking about "randomly arresting people" as a straw man. I said they're arresting people without criminal records let alone convictions, many of them are and green card holders or arrested when they turn up to legally required court dates to work through the process of becoming citizens, and you're fine with that: "Cool I guess? What do you want me to say?"

api.politifact.com/.../

Once again, the presence of laws to reduce the number of people getting killed is not an indication of fascism; having different rules whether you support or oppose the government is.

"Oh I know what they're it's more..." is just babbling.

(Two posts because there's a long quote in the first one.)

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yes you quoted the things on the article that was exactly what I made out... so?
Okay so you aren't talking about them randomly arresting people? So where is the problem?
The problem is they're arresting specific persons whom they believe to be guilty which... ya know is a thing officers do that's their job.
I've been arrested for something I wasn't involved in and you know what? I didn't blame the cops they're doing their job for thinking I was.
Do you need a criminal record or convictions to be a suspect in a crime? The answer is no yet you make a point out of that like it means anything.

'Once again, the presence of laws to reduce the number of people getting killed is not an indication of fascism; having different rules whether you support or oppose the government is.' I'm sure Iran would argue the same to their people, 'We've lessened your freedoms to make you safe' ah is that what Iran is doing nvm not a dictatorship at all then.
They'd love you. Brilliant propaganda for them. Obviously less freedom is fascism and how it thrives, otherwise again by such logic more freedom I have somehow the more oppressed I am? When clearly the more freedom means less oppression.

[goaded]

"Obviously less freedom is fascism"? "Iran is doing nvm not a dictatorship at all then"?
When was the last democratic election in Iran? Sorry for assuming you weren't a disingenuous asshat and would realise that I was talking about democratically agreed to laws.

"Analysis of government data shows most people the [US] government has detained have not committed violent crimes. And people who are facing criminal charges aren't necessarily accused of a violent crime, and they could be acquitted." api.politifact.com/.../

Trump campaigned on "the worst of the worst" and "rapists and murderers", Trump is instead detaining for deportation of people without even accusations of criminal behaviour against them.

Rounding up and putting innocent people into concentration camps is fascist. The US is doing it, the UK is not. The UK is not more fascist than the US. You're obviously wrong.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Oh sorry I must've missed the part where England allowed me to vote on what laws we have?
Democratically agreed to my arse. And elections typically have nothing to do with law changes? Besides maybe minor ones. Not as if you can just vote for a elected official and overnight he can just change laws at his whim? Like if a runner said when elected they'd make murder legal, if everyone voted for him that wouldn't happen. Because law does not work like that. It's not a democratically voted on thing which is the problem.

So arresting people and getting it wrong is fascist. Did you know Prisons have wrongfully convicted inmates who are innocent? It's not good that the margin error exists but it's not fascism. Otherwise let's just stop arresting people unless they have a criminal record right? Let everyone else off the hook?

[goaded]

Representative democracy. Look it up. I can't be bothered with your misrepresentations of absolutely everything I say any more. Feel free to post yet another pack of lies.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Yeah and I don't agree with it. It makes laws that I never got to vote nor agree with, and takes away freedoms I never asked to be taken.
Therefore Fascism to me and anyone else who feels the same way which there will be a lot, look at how much push back digital ID's got because nobody asked for that. Reality is if the people didn't vote for it and didn't ask for it and they're trying to do it anyway that goes against the people and sides with the elites who came up with it.

[goaded]

They didn't do digital ID, because of public pressure, didn't you notice?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Ah yes so the systematic problem is solved because of some push back? When it shouldn't have even been brought up in the first place and by the way they still want to do it, just trying to navigate it and trick us in some form it will be okay and then it will be everywhere.
And it didn't stop Online safety act against porn did it?
Nor did it stop any of the other laws they've put out we as the people have never asked for.

[goaded]

People asked for them, just not you. You want lots of guns, so the murder rate can go up 500% to America's, and the freedom to say all Muslims should be locked up or deported, stuff like that.

Do you want to shoot people? Do you want to express hatred toward a person on the basis of their skin colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation?

Or do you think it would just be nice if people had the freedom to do that to you?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded No they didn't. It's elites who are coming up with these ideas, notice how they don't let the public actually vote on it?
Because the people aren't in power like they should be. But keep defending the elites for sure ain't socialist just a democrat that loves it when elites make laws that the people didn't have control over.
Power to the people, not power to the controlling elite class.

'You want lots of guns, so the murder rate can go up 500% to America's, and the freedom to say all Muslims should be locked up or deported, stuff like that.

Do you want to shoot people? Do you want to express hatred toward a person on the basis of their skin colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation?'

Nice try never said any of that, it's funny who really lies here because you know I am right.
Representative democracy I disagree with this because I am a socialist not a democrat welcome to the truth you aren't getting.

'Revolutionary/Marxist Socialists often disagree with liberal representative democracy. They argue that parliament and liberal democratic institutions are "bourgeois scams" designed to defend capitalist interests rather than the will of the majority. They often advocate for a different form of democracy—such as council democracy or "workers' councils"—where workers have direct control over their workplaces and society.' I am such, and you aren't.
Hence the difference. Not right winged though... maybe one do you'll see not all lefts are the same as each other.

[goaded]

You said the US was less of a fascist nation because they can have guns and can say anything they like.

You said Islam is a threat to the UK.

You said "which country do you get arrested for sharing a meme on facebook".

You said the UK is more fascist than the US.

Do you want to shoot people? Do you want to express hatred toward a person on the basis of their skin colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation?

Do you think the UK would be better if people legally could? (Not that anyone would be for saying it in private; it's the encouragement that's bad.)

"Revolutionary/Marxist Socialists often disagree with liberal representative democracy..."
Great, do they also say that it's better when the proletariat are being shot by the government?

Me, I think they, unlike you, recognise full-on fascism when they see it and don't dismiss the leader doing far worse than he campaigned on (and actively denied) as being the acceptable results of an election.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Indeed they're less fascist cause they have more freedom. Something you don't understand being a democratic compared to me who puts freedom above everything.
If the people voted tomorrow to nuke everything then I'd be okay with it cause at least they voted. Don't even mean I agree with that, as obviously I don't want nuke everything. But that's the point, people should vote on what freedoms they have.
America have more freedoms simple as. And I do think america is not perfect ya know? It needs a lot of change too just simply by simple facts it has more freedoms.

[goaded]

As long as the people have to opportunity to choose what freedoms they have, problems are only temporary. The UK has chosen the freedoms to go about their business without fearing being shot, accidentally or on purpose, with the freedom to leave a job without losing health coverage, with the freedom to have 20 days or more paid holiday a year, and so on. American workers don't seem that free to me.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Has chosen without it's people. And so has America but my point was never saying America ain't a problem too just they have more freedom that hasn't been taken away from them
without even voting on it. If I moved there I would have more freedom.

And it was pretty obvious voting for trump would lead to what it has so shouldn't of voted trump if they didn't want that, and hell if you say the popular vote wasn't for him isn't that aligned with me? Because I would agree that everything should be done on popular vote not by whatever pull elites votes have.
But since you agree with democratic representation voting you'd disagree which makes no sense to me. I want direct democracy like Athens but ya know with letting everyone vote not excluding women or others.

[goaded]

"Has chosen without it's people". No. That's you lying. Representative democracy is still democracy, and if there was a referendum on having a US-2A style law in the UK, it would be voted down in a heartbeat.

It may have been obvious to people paying attention what Trump would do, but that's why Trump lied about everything and the media pretended that Harris was lying when she said Trump would use the military on citizens. Trump literally has the military on standby to deploy to US cities and already had them doing gardening in DC.

If we're "aligned", then why do you defend Trump's actions at every turn? He didn't get a majority of voters, let alone a majority of potential voters or all citizens.

Also, no, not everything should be based on the popular vote, certainly not a simple majority; there have to be laws and rights that come first. Brexit has been a disaster and Putin's wet dream, so is Trump's presidency.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded It's not me lying, it's me having a difference view on how things should be voted. Don't you understand that?
It's not lying to have a different view on that. Like I said I disagree Representative democracy meanwhile you don't. Cool, not me lying though that I prefer I different more socialist democracy.

'if there was a referendum on having a US-2A style law in the UK, it would be voted down in a heartbeat.' We'd never know because they'd never let us!
I wish we could see the actual results of that on each voted issue directly by the people. But nope...

[goaded]

No, you're lying because you're saying elections have absolutely no effect on laws or policy. That's not true. Does it have as much as it should? Maybe not, but it's not nothing.

How many people said they regretted their vote for Brexit? How many would vote for it now?

[Kaneki05]

@goaded 'No, you're lying because you're saying elections have absolutely no effect on laws or policy. That's not true.' Never said that but nice try

[goaded]

"Has chosen without it's people"

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Indeed that does not mean 'elections have absolutely no effect on laws or policy.' obviously they do but it's more the elite class pulling the strings not the people. And unless you are going to try tell me US or England are a direct democracy I am right, and they aren't so...

[goaded]

Nowhere has a direct democracy, that's the stupid argument right wingers in the US use when they say the US isn't a democracy.

[Kaneki05]

It's not right winged, in what world to you was Marx right winged? This is part of his ideology and point that I follow. Socialism is not right winged but you just call anything you disagree with right winged which is sad.

[goaded]

I didn't say that, I said exactly this: "Nowhere has a direct democracy, that's the stupid argument right wingers in the US use when they say the US isn't a democracy."

This is why this discussion is so pointless. That was two grammatically and factually correct statements, and you "misunderstood" it. As usual.

Two different groups of people can make the same stupid argument. The argument is still stupid.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded No they can't, right wing don't care for socialism nor make this argument. But okay I get you disagree with Marx so? What do I care?

[goaded]

It's exactly the same argument: a democracy isn't a democracy if it isn't direct democracy with everybody voting on everything. It's stupid.

The right use it to pretend the US isn't a democracy, you use it to pretend the UK isn't. And you do that to distract from your ridiculous assertion that the UK is in some undefinable way more fascist than the US. Having laws is not fascist, having laws that applied differently to in- and out-groups is.

For example, openly carrying firearms to a protest is encouraged when you're on the side of the government, it's a death sentence if you are on the side of the protesters, even if nobody sees it and you never touch it. That's one way the US is fascist at the moment.

Another is that the rich can spend huge amounts of money to get their candidates elected.

To pretend Marx's position wouldn't have changed over the last 150 years is as ridiculous. When he died, women couldn't even vote, for example.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Why would his views change? We still have very much the same systematic problems and his idealism for a better world wouldn't have change because women got the right to vote which ya know he was advocate too for obviously.
Elites are still corrupting how votes are and immigration is still been used in the same way. We still don't have it done by popular vote or direct democracy?

So now your just making myths up in your head that he would've changed. Meanwhile I am going by his actual vision so don't mind me. I don't care if you disagree that.

And no it's not, in fact right wing take a position to argue against it since it can't be done and hasn't been that's their thinking. Just asking any about a truly communist state and they'll tell you it's impossible or makes places shit holes. So I have no clue what you are on about but agreeing with them in fact.

[Kaneki05]

It's actually super simple just ask any right wing what they think on Marx, you won't find them supporting his ideals. So this be utter nonsense.

[goaded]

"Why would his views change?" Because he wasn't an idiot. Only an idiot wouldn't recognise that the world has changed enormously over the last 150 years. I'm sure he'd be disappointed in some ways and encouraged in others (like the fading of religion in the UK, education into adulthood, the NHS, etc.).

Did Marx ever advocate for pure democracy with everybody being given a vote on everything?

You've seriously never seen a right wing American claim that their country is a Republic and not a Democracy? You should pay more attention. It happens often enough that I wrote questions about it.

The United States is too a democracy! ↗
What's the difference between a country being a democracy and not? ↗

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Pretty much every he said lines up with that yes, hence why 'Revolutionary/Marxist Socialists often disagree with liberal representative democracy. They argue that parliament and liberal democratic institutions are "bourgeois scams" designed to defend capitalist interests rather than the will of the majority.'
If you read his works he goes into depth about how government is controlled by the elites and does these scams, to making the people votes matter less. But ya know maybe you should go read his work than arguing with me.

And what is a republic? Is that socialist pure democracy state? No?
In fact 'A republic is a representative system where officials are elected to make laws according to a charter or constitution, which protects individual rights against majority rule.' the complete opposite.
For some odd reason you be equating two opposite things from their entirety. And aren't still understanding that democrat socialist is different Marx one to the point I wouldn't even call democrats socialist since they ignore so much of socialism it's wild, but if they want to note themselves that okay but they at least have to realize it's different to us who agree with Marx.

[Kaneki05]

Yes, Karl Marx was a strong advocate for universal suffrage (the right for everyone, regardless of property or class, to vote) during his time. In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that one of the first steps of the working-class revolution was to "win the battle of democracy".

Even AI gets it right, and pretty much points to everything I already know by the way that you really just need to read yourself and educate yourself on.

[goaded]

One more time: You and American right-wingers both argue that only pure democracy is a democracy, and every other system isn't democracy.

That's in defiance of every definition of the word democracy and every possible workable democratic system.

I am not saying you're a right-wing American, although you'd fit right in with your anti-Muslim bigotry. (Belatedly saying Christianity is also sort of bad-ish is not the cover you think it is.)

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Lol he's back at again cause he thinks anyone thinks religion is bad is somehow a bigot it's a really good argument that I totally care about. What's next you going to call me a Nazi too somehow? Go ahead, it don't work.

One more time, right wingers don't agree with pure democracy nor want to achieve it unlike me so such point is irrelevant to me. Comparing apples to oranges.

[goaded]

No, I think anyone who thinks all followers of a religion are bad people is a bigot, especially if you single out a particular religion.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded 'all followers of a religion are bad people' Good luck finding when I said that...

[goaded]

It happens when you blithely say "Islam [is] backwards", "Islam is bad", and object to Muslims in the country despite the fact there have been some for hundreds of years. Christianity supports most of the same primitive rules as Islam, but most Christians have moved beyond being ruled by iron age laws, as have most Muslims.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Christianity is bad, you happy?
Because I never said it wasn't. But ya know nice try.

[goaded]

No, because you started with the minority religion, you complained that there are more of them in the country than before, you pretended that they're being forced to come to the UK, and you treat them as a homogenous group when they're all individuals.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Not my fault you don't get my view on immigration because you don't understand Marx's and we have the same view on it.

[goaded]

We've been through this, Marx was talking about forced immigration, bringing cheap Irish labour into the country, that's not the case today.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Nope it's the same today it's still forced for that exact same reason. Countries use it to scam the people of their rights, to make cheaper labour and political power exact same as back then. Do I need to just repeat all the points you don't get because your a democrat who can't see that Marx was as right as he was back then as he is today?
They argue all the time that's a need for economy just like they did the Irish.

[goaded]

Just like "Starmer saying "we need to invite more Islam in".", which you also made up.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded When did I say say Starmer said that? Only one making up things is you.
And when are you going to leave me alone face it you and I are not going to agree, as you follow what i wouldn't even call socialism but a mockery of it.

[goaded]

"I can assure you nobody actually English voted for our prime minister with the goal to bring upon messages about we need to invite more Islam in.", shortly before you said "Starmer does not need to say it to be doing it."

When are I going to leave you alone? When you stop lying about what I say. It's easy, just stop talking.

I called it on the other time you claimed the UK was fascist, you avoided answering there, where people might see it, in favour of carrying on here, defending fascism in the US while simultaneously denying it.

Fascism is not the democratic passing of laws, although it can start that way. Fascism is using laws differently for in- and out-groups of people. Today, the out-group is Islam and immigrants generally.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Funnily enough what you actually just quoted which is correct is not this smart guy "Starmer saying "we need to invite more Islam in"."

[goaded]

If he never said it, of course nobody voted for it. Your problem is that he isn't doing it, either.

[Kaneki05]

@goaded Huh? That's my point he never said it yet does it with actions but nobody voted for that?
If he said it and people voted for that I would have no problem.

[Kaneki05]

Though still a slight problem since it's not ya know it's not direct democracy so the votes will be swayed by elites.

[msc545]

I would vote no, of course. There is no advantage in becoming part of the USA, and many disadvantages. Major among them at this point is having to deal with Trump even more up close than we already do.

[Kelley1]

I would not wish to be a tax slave to the USA. Therefore, I would vote "No."

[AviatorTom]

Most have already said No. I would join them.

[exitseven]

I would vote YES. I would love to participate in the American Dream. Besides the US would be better than Russia.

[FunkyMonkee]

Hell yeah!! As long as no democrats ever get to be in charge, again!!! Those motherfuckers are bat shit CRAZY!!!

[Anonymous]

Yes. If the US is willing to give me and every greenlander $600,000 each, low taxes and subsidies for living here a long with full US citizenship

[Dargil]

Absolutely yes. My standard of living would improve and there would be a lot of industrial development.

[beefcakebradybatson]

NO !!! Who wants to be under the Yankee heel, especially under Trump?

[slatyb]

Hell to the no.

[katiesmuff]

I'd say FUCK NO!

[Pterodon]

Yes.