Trump, Who Destroyed Roe, Thinks He Can Run As an Abortion 'Moderate' in 2024
Donald Trump, who destroyed Roe, thinks that he can run for president in 2024 as a 'moderate' on the issue, sources tell Rolling Stone.
And enabling Trump to sell more arms to more fascists is better how?
I'd argue that Biden is the one enabling Trump here
Sure is. And Hitler is worse than Trump. Would you vote for Trump if he were running against Hitler? I wouldn't.
I'll be using this. thank you
That's as silly as saying Ramaswamy is anti fascist because he supports Israel less than Trump. Or saying Trump is anti fascist because he supports Israel less than Pence.
Meanwhile in Israel:
"[Ben-Gvir] was known to have a portrait in his living room of Israel-American terrorist Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 others in Hebron, in the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.
As a teenager, he adopted religious and radical right-wing views during the First Intifada. He first joined a right-wing youth movement affiliated with Moledet, a party which advocated transferring Arabs out of Israel, and then joined the youth movement of the even more radical Kach and Kahane Chai party, which was eventually designated as a terrorist organization and outlawed by the Israrli government. He became youth coordinator at Kach, and claimed that he was detained at age 14. When he came of age for conscription into the Israeli Defense Forces at 18, he was exempted from service by the IDF due to his extreme-right political background.
In a November 2015 interview, he claimed to have been indicted 53 times.
Ben-Gvir has been convicted of incitement to racism, destroying property, possessing a terror organization's propaganda material and supporting a terror organisation.
In December 2021, Ben-Gvir was investigated after a video surfaced of him pulling a handgun on Arab security guards during a parking dispute in the underground garage of the Expo Tel Aviv conference center. The guards asked Ben-Gvir to move his vehicle as he was parked in a prohibited space. He then drew a pistol and brandished it at the guards. The guards were unarmed.
His most recent outrage-inducing comments came last week [Aug 27 2023] when he admitted that his right to move around unimpeded is superior to the freedom of movement for Palestinians in the West Bank. 'My right, the right of my wife and children to move around Judea and Samaria is more important than freedom of movement for the Arabs,' he said in an interview, using the biblical term for the occupied territory.
Ben-Gvir also wants to expel 'disloyal' Palestinian citizens of Israel. In August, a local radio station's online poll found that nearly two-thirds of Israelis support the proposal.
In 1995, at the height of the Oslo Peace Accords, when he was 19, Ben-Gvir showed TV cameras the bonnet ornament from then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's car, declaring: 'We got to his car. We'll get to him, too.' A few weeks later, Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli ultranationalist at a rally in support of the peace agreement and the planned withdrawal from Palestinian territory.
Ehud Barak, a former Labour party prime minister, prophesied 'dark days' if Ben-Gvir entered government, while left-wing leader Zehava Galon said the elections would 'determine whether there will be a free country here or a Jewish theocracy.' "
Yeah, anybody who supports this guy and arms him with all the weapons he wants is a fascist piece of shit, no matter which side of the aisle.
I honestly don't care. My comment was deleted I'm guessing because it was moderately critical of Israel, which isn't allowed here.
Your first paragraph betrays your useless argument. Relative comparison is always useless is my original argument. Typing that much is a waste of chat gpt.
i think your comment was removed because you used an insult
you disingenuous fuck.
Yeah maybe. Still stand behind that statement. Insults are useful for people arguing in bad faith, those people should always be shouted down.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.
Entering an argument in good faith with someone who obviously is arguing in bad faith is pointless. The biggest problem is often that those who make bad faith arguments don't know they are doing so. Instead they lean into semantics to justify making bad faith arguments. Then start doing the "no u" thing before they start whining.
I choose to yell first because it triggers these types of defensive responses they would do anyways at the end of a good faith discussion. Kind of like splashing the antichrist with holy water so we can just know who they are.
those who make bad faith arguments don't know they are doing so.
then it's not bad faith. in order to be operating in bad faith, you must be choosing to use intellectually dishonest rhetoric. what youre describing is just amateurs.