”Mayors Karen Bass, Brandon Johnson, Barbara Lee, Brandon Scott and Eric Adams are responding to President Trump’s suggestion that their cities — LA, Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore and New York — may need federal intervention like what he is doing in D.C.“
…now if I could just put my finger on what it is about these mayors in particular that’s piqued Trump’s interest
I did not say that I was, read it again. And it is based on what you have said so far, it goes to you if you want to continue with the silliness.
Trump is sending troops to occupy American cities.
Which one do you feel this qualifies as? Genocide, slavery, or nuclear war?
I ask because apparently these words have meanings I am unaware of.
It’s yet another necessary step towards genocide.
But remember, kids - you can’t point out genocide is in progress until there are enough dead bodies to officially qualify. At which point we’ll be told yet again that it was the fault of the people pointing it out “too early”.
You’re saying that if we stop Trump from occupying American cities with troops, we stop any potential for future genocide as well.
So I’m not waiting for genocide. I say let’s stop him when he’s occupying American cities with troops.
Technically, he is not sending troops to occupy American cities. He is sending troops to some American cities for purposes of (law enforcement / intimidation / flexing power / whatever), but there is no military occupation underway.
You really shouldn’t exaggerate if you don’t want to turn people off completely.
In your mind, at what point does genocide start?
As an exercise, try to find an alternate meaning to these words: “Fuck you, you slimy self-serving little troll”.
So I can put you down as a “maybe”?
If being a scold wasn’t your goal, you really should hold off on writing any more OPs until you understand how to convey tone and meaning.
No, it’s lost its impact thanks to people like you trying to define it out of existence. Why try to fight genocide when you can simply use word games to define it away?
I’m sure that if you’re rounded up and killed, your last words will be trying to explain to your fellow condemned why their deaths aren’t really genocide.
No. It will be about why the whole thing is the fault of the chicken little, sky is falling, panic mongers. Who forced the hand of the genociders by unfairly labeling them when all they were doing was enforcing quite reasonable time and place restrictions on certain undesirables.
‘They wouldn’t have resorted to genocide if you hadn’t opposed their ethnic cleansing!’
The problem with posting nonsense like this is that this is a message board. People can read the things I’ve actually said. Like how I’ve repeatedly said we should be opposing Trump and the Republicans when they do things like illegal arrests.
It’s people like you who say you’re too busy fighting against genocide when you’re asked to join the fight against illegal arrests.
Hey, too (two Os idiot) stupid to see the obvious?
The fight against illegal arrests is the fight against genocide.
No, I’m not too stupid to see the obvious. Or spell it correctly.
I’ve pointed out several times that fighting the steps that lead to genocide is better than fighting genocide directly. Because if you stop the steps that lead to genocide, like illegal arrests, you stop both the illegal arrests and the genocide. But if you stop the genocide, you might still have the illegal arrests.
So why do you guys keep talking about how we should be fighting genocide?
Yes, this is what happens when you change a sentence in the middle of writing it and you miss things that those changes do to the structure of said sentence.
“There are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn’t advise you to try to invade.”
Notably, not a thing anyone has said.
Okay but they’ve said that genocide is a real problem. I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt and assuming they’re trying to fight it.