Message from @Schedrevka
Discord ID: 517071312414310420
tear gas is used on civilians all the time, isn't it?
Indeed it is
I suppose they'd rather him use bullets
They are also correct, but the geneva convention only governs the rules of warfare
yeah, that's more of a rule about not carpeting a city with gas and then rolling through
and against deadly gases like mustard gas and chlorine
I suspect they would, however they could never admit it publicly
liberals get the bullet, too
I think that the thrust of this talking point is similar to what tim was talking about with activist groups
Where radical groups would provoke a police reaction and then recruit moderates/average people who showed up to protest and got caught up in it
They want a higher body count at the border so the case for letting them in gets the moral high ground
(((they))) being leftists
exactly
they were excited that a few kids got put in "cages" because that was ammo to use against Trump - never honest compassion and sympathy for the people
Minorities are and always have been pawns.
Gamers are the most oppressed minority!
it's time we RISE
>Geneva convention only counts for warfare
>lefties mad at Trump for apparent violations vs migrants
>yfw lefties call it an invasion too
"how dare trump used banned weapons, THATS OUR JOB!"
I don't really get the "it's not an invasion" idea. Like, it's certainly not a military invasion, and shouldn't be treated as one, but how is that not an apt word to describe a large group of people simultaneously entering an area they're not allowed in?
I can understand that it can be seen as unnecessarily emotional rhetoric to make it seem worse than it is, but it's still accurate by definition.
>large group of people simultaneously entering an area they're not allowed in
>ITS NOT AN INVASION
did someone ever try to ask _why?_ it isn't
>muh asylum seekers?
"but they are asylum seekers!"
"....so why aren't they waiting at the port of entry with their friends who have seeked asylum?"
like, i wasn't aware Mexico was so dangerous that storming a border seemed like a valid way to seek asylum
like is there literally an armed force following them into mexico that warrants running away?
Here is my US external perception of the american political landscape. First thing: In my country political parties are strictly ideological, there is a communist party, socialist party, social democrat party, social liberal party, liberal party, libertarian party, conservatives party, populist party, muslim party, far right party. Since you need a majority, we tend to see a division down the middle, with the social liberal party switching side regularly. (Liberal used in the classical EU sense)
In the US the two major parties are not strictly ideological, but more act as an election block. Since there are fringes in both parties, the left tries to label all republicans white supremacist and the right tries to label all dems as communists. The resent shift to the left in the dems have caused the libertarian and classical liberal minded voters to abandon the dems. Only a minority of them have gone to the republicans. If you agree with Martin Luther King or John F Kennedy your positions are now best represented by the republicans.
@Grenade123 "like, i wasn't aware Mexico was so dangerous that storming a border seemed like a valid way to seek asylum"
Even that one doesn't work, because they stormed the mexico's border too
😂
Also Mexico offered them Asylum
and they said "NO WE WANT MURICA"
What's that about beggars and choosers?
they even gave them housing
At this point.
can we just give mexico to the drug cartels in exchange for them kicking the caravans out?
the cartels want the US/mexico border to be as open as possible, so probably not
Which is why they want to get rid of migrants. They are bad for business, and makes the border guard more alert.
I don't usually post videos but this felt important
Only to System Press