Did you know that if you say you just took something without intending to return it, you're not guilty of theft?

[goaded]

It's only the description that matters, not the act itself!

It's not a war, it's a "military operation".

[jshm2]

Lol, Trump isn't the brightest. He knows nothing, and just reads out whatever is put before him without thinking.

We need to prosecute the people around him for elder abuse, as they are taking advantage if his sundowning.

I don't think the "reinterpret meaning" defence has ever worked in any court in the world.

Can you imagine "I didn't hit him judge!, my hand just slipped off his face as I was removing a fly!" being used as a defence for battery?

[purplepoppy]

If you call it a war then you have to abide by the Geneva convention. You know, stuff like when you sink an unarmed ship outside of the war zone you're supposed to rescue the survivors.

By avoiding the use of the word war Trump can argue he's just an ordinary criminal and not a war criminal. But if he wants to extend his presidency by a decade then he needs to use the word war.

[goaded]

US law, as well. I'm pretty sure sinking a ship and watching the survivors drown without helping is illegal even more without there being a declared war.

[purplepoppy]

Trump fully intends to test the powers of impunity he granted himself

[purplepoppy]

Actually you are

[goaded]

@FrankBruno How is "Sinking a ship... not ilegal"? It's not your ship!

[purplepoppy]

But that was a real war. We we're under attack by a much larger more powerful country. It wasn't sank for social media "likes"

[WindAtMyBack]

He's just saying outright what all the other presidents know. At least the last seven presidents have attacked in the Middle East, and none of them called it war. Trump is simply stating how it works.

[NathanDavis]

it's not a war... it is intervention

and it's not illegal... it is clandestine

[goaded]

I thought it was an excursion.

[NathanDavis]

that's called recon...

[goaded]

It must have been a good clandestine operation, nobody has noticed!

[NathanDavis]

the Congress didn't know... many of them found out at the same time we did, lol

[goaded]

160 children never knew what hit them.

[NathanDavis]

and according to you... they don't matter... there's still million of children in Iran, so that small number is not significant

[goaded]

We both know I was talking about elections, where a dozen fraudulent votes can't swing a result, but restricting the ability of hundreds of thousands or even millions of voters might, not about people's lives being violently ended.

I know you don't think a vote is the same as a life, so you're just full of shit.

[NathanDavis]

you were talking about poop and turds in your chocolate... even if microscopical your arguments were literally full of it...

so... if you compare pears and apples... might as well bring oranges as well

[goaded]

@FrankBruno Why not call it a "special military operation", like Putin?

[goaded]

@NathanDavis Way to intentionally miss the point. Then I was talking about the legal limits of rat poop in US chocolate as a analogy to the illegal votes in US elections. You're still trying to pretend that childrens' lives being violently ended is anything like that.

[NathanDavis]

but that's your logic... not mine

"selective analogies" is just your excuse

[goaded]

Clearly you're going to keep pretending not to see my quite obvious points:

* 160 children dying horribly is a far greater tragedy than a few votes that couldn't possibly affect the results of the elections they're cast in.

* Ignoring your lack of morals for a second, for the number 160 to be as insignificant as non-systemic voter fraud in the US (e. g. voting for a dead relative), Trump would have had to have killed TWO BILLION other people.

The number of people committing voter fraud is so low, they're a tiny fraction of the variation in recount results (Arizona found 360 more votes for Biden, there weren't that many people cheating in the whole country).

On the other hand, rigging the system to reduce the number of people who will be able to vote in an election among groups who vote predominantly against Republicans is a genuine threat to US democracy, which is why Trump is pushing it.

[NathanDavis]

California did rig their electoral map to neutralize and eliminate the votes of thousands of people

but you are okay with that... as long as it benefits your party, and yet you're against it... when it benefits the party you hate

and then... also, according to you

low numbers are not significant and they do not matter... when it suits your narrative, but when it does not suit your propaganda... then every little number counts to the max

it's not about morals... just your selective logic

[goaded]

Funny how you don't bother to mention that California only acted (a) in response to Texas, at Trump's request, doing the same in the other direction, and (b) only after asking the voters in the state to approve it.

Every accusation is a confession.

Do you agree that "every accusation is a confession"? ↗

I never said "low numbers are not significant and they do not matter", I said that one in ten million or more is not a problem in elections, but one in a few hundred or even thousands can be. In other words, even the Republicans convicted of voting for other people had no chance of changing the results of federal elections, Republicans in Congress do.

[NathanDavis]

there you go...

fine it benefits you... but no if others do it to you...

[goaded]

Clearly, to anyone who can read and comprehend plain English, you're wrong. Reacting to bad behaviour to nullify it is not the same as choosing to behave badly in the first place.

[NathanDavis]

yeah, most bad actors always try to justify their wrong doing

[goaded]

You certainly are. Self defence is acceptable. You're just upset because people saw what the right was doing, and nullified it. California only acted in response to Texas, at Trump's request, doing the same in the other direction, and only after asking the voters in the state to approve it.

[NathanDavis]

I don't even vote

the one thing that makes me upset is the stupidity of extremists who fail to recognize that they're just the other side of the same coin... lol

[NathanDavis]

actually... they know it very well, they just don't care about it, lmao

[goaded]

Strange, because your propaganda about both sides being the same is objectively utter bullshit and only helps Republicans.

California only acted in response to Texas, at Trump's request, doing the same in the other direction, and only after asking the voters in the state to approve it. How is that the same?

[NathanDavis]

both eliminated the free votes of the people... to their benefit

how is that not the same end, at the end...

[goaded]

OMG. Is hitting someone in the face to steal something from you the same thing as them hitting you back?

[Shiprex]

He's almost dumb enough to forget he is a president

[jamesgoldman]

Only difference is Trump is too cocky and stupid enough to say the quiet part out loud... loads of governments have used odd loopholes like UN peacekeepers toting machine guns

[Snakeyes7]

How could this possibly be considered a war anyway? We don't even have boots on the ground and simply by bombing them, several if their military branches have been erased.

[goaded]

"How could this possibly be considered a war anyway?" That's quite simply the most stupid question I think I've ever read.

[Snakeyes7]

That came out wrong. I meant to say that I hardly consider this a war as it is nothing like we have done before. Not a single boot is on the ground at the moment and I am fine with that as long as it remains that way.

[goaded]

There's a couple of burned out US aircraft on the ground, and they had US boots next to them.

[Snakeyes7]

You mean the guy we just rescued?

[goaded]

The rescuers, but yes.

How can it not be a war? “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.

[Mike_Hum]

I’m SHOCKED! This is the first time a US president has taken military action without the approval of congress! OMG