Then you’re letting sentiment drive you rather than reason.

So you wouldn’t want the genocide to end if it came at the cost of someone killing themselves? Why?

Is the entire Palestinian population who are suffering a genocide worth less than a western life to you?

But I refuse to allow that someone’s opinion should be given more weight than mine just because they mutilate or kill themselves.

His opinion holds more weight than yours because he is right and you are attacking a martyr rather than focusing on the cause he was martyrd for.

Their mental disorder doesn’t confer moral superiority, it detracts from it.

Your insistence that they must be mentally ill/disorderd doesn’t negate moral superiority, it only further reveals your apologist mindset.

That’s unfortunate

It’s unfortunate that you would rather attack a man for the way he opposes a genocide than move on and oppose a genocide yourself.

You can’t support him because it would support his truth that we are all culpable, and you can’t face that reality.

And yes, it is America’s fault he has genocide on his conscience and felt compelled to go to such measures, he is a victim of America’s genocide. Was Hitler just suicidal in that bunker? Or do you recognize that external actions can influence such things in that case, and just choose to remain ignorant in this one?

Would you like me to be pro-suicide.

I would like you to be a sympathetic understanding human being opposed to genocide, who even if they don’t agree with this man’s actions themselves, recognizes the context they exist in and focuses towards the true goal of opposing a genocide, rather than attacking a righteous martyr.

But that’s a tall ask for Americans in the core of the genocidal imperialist project, unfortunately.

deleted by creator

Damn you’re pathetic and evil.

That’s tame in comparison to the genocide he is protesting.

What’s nuts is you attacking the man who was killed by the US support for genocide, rather than continuing to attack the US genocide.

If you disagree with his form of protest against the genocide, fine, ignore it and go do your own form of protest.

What’s the point in criticizing him? Make yourself feel better?

Self immolation is a long standing form of protest.

What have you been doing to bring an end to this genocide, besides criticizing others who made the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom?

And your time would be better spent electing better leaders instead of setting yourself on fire.

So I take it this totally isn’t just your excuse/rationalization for attacking someone actually willing to take action against genocide and you will be following through on your idea?

So which candidate will you elect who opposes the genocide?..

Anyone who tacitly supports the genocide and doesn’t do everything in their power to bring an end to and oppose the genocide is culpable.

There is no form of protest against ongoing genocide which can be deemed “too extreme” because any form of protest will pale in comparison to the genocide.

The people who need help are the ones who can sit by and criticize people for their opposition to a genocide.

It’s not some silly game. Our lives are not more meaningful than Palestinians, this is awful, but it pales in comparison to what we are putting Palestine through.

For some people, not taking any action they can to try and stop the genocide, no matter how hopeless, is worse than death. When the pain becomes unbearable…

This man is a martyr and a hero, and he didn’t kill himself, the US and Israel killed him in the name of their genocide.

The true factor is that Israel is a solid foothold for the US in the Middle East long term.

Israel is also currently acting as a testing ground for weapons and feeding the military industrial complex information and funds.

Don’t absolve Biden and the US of our level of culpability by reducing us to followers led astray by Netanyahu (not saying it’s your intention to do this, but a side effect), this genocide is entirely supported by the US, we aren’t just riding along.

You really don’t want to have policy be swayed by suicides.

Yes I do.

I don’t care what method brings about the end of the genocide.

It encourages more people to kill themselves.

Yeah, if you stop a genocide thanks to people self immolating then people will start doing it to try and get weed legal next…

What really sucks is that America is aiding a genocide and most people don’t care.

How evil must you be to act like the people who talk about it often are “bullshitters and bot nets” because we don’t ignore the state of the world like you seemingly can.

If you refuse to speak up and take a principled stand against genocide, you are culpable.

Tacit support for genocide is indicative of mental illness.

This doesn’t change or oppose anything I said.

Project 2025 is a list of basically every conservative policy that they will present to the next president for them to choose from. It’s basically a standard right wing political transition plan and has only blown up because of the marketing. (Me)

Vs

The critical job of institutions such as Heritage is to lay the groundwork. And Heritage does such an incredible job at that.

And a bunch of rambling…

The heritage foundation isn’t new and they didn’t just recently start proposing policies with project 2025. They were around in 2016 as well.

Mandate for Leadership is a series of books published by The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank based in Washington, D.C. They offer specific conservative policy recommendations designed to be implemented by the federal government.

The books have traditionally been released to coincide with an incoming U.S. presidential administration. The first edition was released in 1981, following the election of Ronald Reagan, to serve as policy guidance for the incoming Reagan administration. The latest edition, published in April 2023, is a major component of Project 2025.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Leadership

You are dealing with fascists, homes. They are going to use the military against us right out of the gate.

Yeah, the famous saying “first they came for everybody all at once and everyone knew they had to stand up against them”…

The vast, vast majority in both parties support the legalization of weed. Republicans are good at politics, they wouldn’t die on that hill.

We did prohibition once already.

I wouldn’t discount that as being a possibility for weed.

We aren’t in the prohibition era though, things are different. That’s the point of legalizing weed now.

We already have tons of small businesses/ individual entrepreneurs selling weed (dealers).

The point of the “legalization and regulation” process is to make it prohibitive to sell legally and transfer the market into the hands of big businesses who can afford it.

Trump is not the project 2025 list.

Project 2025 is a list of basically every conservative policy that they will present to the next president for them to choose from. It’s basically a standard right wing political transition plan and has only blown up because of the marketing. Trump has also made it clear he disagrees with certain parts.

This leads me to believe he will do the parts he agrees with (cement Republicans power, target immigrants, militarize police etc), but not do the parts he disagrees with.

A 2nd Trump term will probably be the same politics as the first, just a different more efficient/powerful execution (from build the wall and some are fine people [2016], to round them up and it will be bloody [2024] for example). But I don’t think he will shift his targets to be anyone who smokes weed, that would be a terrible move and probably bring ruin to the party as most Americans (including Republicans) are for the legalization of marijuana.

1. yes it did, he was very anti-abortion during his 2016 campaign.

2. He’s been president already. He didn’t make weed illegal no matter what and start mass arrests.

What makes you say this?

Trump’s record on weed doesn’t seem to be radical prohibitionist or point to a desire for mass arrests of weed users.

Ah, yes thank you.

Would you rather have an incompetent person you agree* with or a competent person you disagree with?

Edit: why in earth is this downvoted? I’m explaining their logic lol

Edit 2: *