During Tuesday’s hearing, Gabbard told Warner that the Signal thread didn’t share any classified information but refused to share its contents, or even admit that she was on the chain.
“If it’s not classified, share the texts now,” Warner told Gabbard. “Share it with the committee. You can’t have it both ways. These are important jobs. This is our national security.”
Bitch, we can smell the bullshit 500 miles away.
Just to be clear -
It is not your criticism of liberals that lacks empathy, it’s your choice of timing in when to criticize them.
They deserve criticism, unquestionably.
But that criticism made more sense to discuss when it was the late 2000’s and libs were turning a blind eye to mass murder. They clearly aren’t now. So why shit on them as if they are, or ever will be able to again?
In short, modern Libs:
A) Are doing the right thing for once (by kinda being mad about mass murder) B) Not doing as much mass murder as Trump / Russia. C) Might not be around much longer due to Democratic party infighting and Trump working up towards arresting his political rivals.
Which means libs are now:
A) Choosing to be on the right side for once B) Not murdering anyone, and actively fighting Trump / Russia from doing the same. C) Are being openly oppressed.
And all that admittedly, in your very first response, “makes you mad.”
You have now spent days judging them for bullshit they are no longer doing, and haven’t done much of in decades because of Trump.
Which means, simply put:
Your are choosing to express hate towards them, instead of:
If this was 2009, the above wouldn’t be true, and your cticism of libs would be valid and warranting of empathy.
But the above now IS true, which means you are choosing to criticize the libs at the opportunity cost of criticizing those who are now actually doing mass murder.
So frankly, your entire opinion comes off as:
I only care about mass murder when the libs do it.
As that’s all the mass murder you’ve managed to talk about for days despite quite a lot of it being done by worse people now.
Your hate towards libs is clearly more important to you than those now being mass murdered as you only care to talk about one of these things.
If you want empathy, talk about the mudered, who the libs are now actually trying to help, instead of how much you hate them for existing.
Because no offense, the brain washed MAGA in the US blindly hate the libs the same way you do. So if you want to come off as having an opinion worth listening too, maybe have sympathy for the devil now that they’re clearly not as bad as the President that was just elected. Until then, you’re no different than a MAGA influencer blindly hating libs. The only difference is their reasons are made up, and yours are outdated at best.
Hate is addicting. I’ve watched decades of propaganda turn decent people into idiots who hate each other. So if you want to waste your time, I recommend doing it on something that doesn’t make you so angry for no reason. It’s clearly affecting your ability to act with empathy, as you seem to lack any towards libs despite their clear change in behaviour that caused you to hate them in the first place.
Okay I think that’s where you got me wrong. While empathy is still not what I’d call it, you’re kind of right in that it would make no sense to criticize liberals for their hypocrisy right now (though in an honest to goodness power struggle it is good ammunition if the left decides to go down that route). However, that’s not what I was criticizing; what I was criticizing is how liberals are still not mad about mass murder. Liberals are mad about the incompetent manner in which the mass murder was done, the bad opsec, but they don’t give a shit about the mass murder itself. That’s what’s ticking me off. Like these fuckers killed 53 people to protect their best buddies’ genocide and they’re getting worked up over bad opsec‽ If you’ll notice, liberals—both rank and file and leaders—are not calling for an end to the actual mass murder; they’re calling for the incompetent leadership to be removed so that competent leadership can come and do the same mass murder but competently. And when you point out that it makes no sense to call for better leadership for the mass murder machine you get downvoted to oblivion. If they were calling for an end to the mass murder (which they won’t because of “freedom of navigation” and “US interests in the region”) you’d be right and it’d make no sense to get mad at them; libs being hypocritical isn’t exactly news.
Here’s liberals, both rank and file, calling for an end to actual mass murder in 2022:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-democrats-urge-biden-overhaul-drone-strike-lethal-force-policy
Unfortunately, seeing as libs lost the recent election, there’s no way of telling the outcome this kinda of pressure would bring. But based entirely on the momentum Bernie and AoC are gaining, the flavor of lib you hate the most is fading fast from the favor of the Democratic party.
Even now, there’s fighting to change their leadership as the “New Lib” defense they’re putting up is about as effective as a wet paper towel.
Here’s a great article about the rise and fall of the “New Libs” that you hate (rightfully so, they suck), but it outlines they are indeed falling from grace at this very time:
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2025/02/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-new-liberals-how-the-democrats-lost-their-majority/
A popular base like their 50+ constituents calling to reform mass murder policies.
Unfortunately, Democrats currently have no power in any part of the US government. Trump is the only one in charge, and stopping him involves focusing on the part of his job he fucked up, particularly the Opsec.
That is something liberals DO have control over at this time. So it is what they are focusing on.
But if you look at what they were calling for when they were recently in power, it’s very much what you have been asking them to call for.
Okay you only seem to be interested posting liberal apologia rather than engaging with my point, so I won’t respond further. I will, however, note that I’m interested in what they’re doing now, not the one thing a minority of them did three years ago that, I should say, amounted to fucking nothing.
Any chance I could get enough of your empathy to explain what part of my comment is “liberal apologia?”
Because you just shifted to attacking me as an “apologist” instead of attacking the evidence I provided that you are wrong about your assumption of modern liberals.
Comparatively, if you were Israeli, and this conversation was about the Palestinians, you’d be telling me how much of a Palestinian apologist I am for pointing out that there’s some clear evidence that not all Palestinians are terrorists. I just provided some decent evidence to suggest that not all Libs are terrorists either.
Hate is addicting that way. Makes you assume the world is black and white when it’s always been shades of gray.
If you can’t admit it’s even possible your hateful assumptions about Libs are now outdated when presented some clear and unbiased evidence they very well might be, then you are choosing to believe your hate over reason.
Here’s another opportunity where you can choose to:
A) Have empathy and engage with the evidence I provided that your assumptions are wrong.
Or -
B) Have hate by dismissing me without evidence or good reason as you are now.
I guess we’ll find out in your next response if you like the way hating on Libs makes you feel so much that you’ve never stopped to considered when a good time to stop hating them would be.
Because someone with the political knowledge you have could certainly be doing a lot more with their life.
So in a nutshell: It’s the exact same rhetoric liberals use to whitewash Biden, Harris and the Democratic establishment’s support of Israel, and while that not may not necessarily be you 99% of people who say this either fundamentally don’t care about the people whose murder they’re justifying or are actually braindead. The citation of a small minority faction that cares, the appeal to some vague “pressure” that will cause change if we just have patience, and the implication that just because they don’t have official power they can’t and don’t need to do anything, you might not notice it but if you switched a few words you’d sound exactly like someone arguing that the Uncommitted Movement is literally Satan in August.
For more details, you took one action from three years ago that a minority of Congress democrats did that was not followed up by anything and that had no effect as evidence that liberals are calling for an end to the mass murder of brown people, but that’s literally not what’s going on. Some Democrats (which aren’t all liberals; AOC is a democratic socialist) wrote a letter saying they don’t think the president should have the unilateral power to murder brown people all over the world and when he ignored it did nothing. The so-called Congress Progressive Caucus has over 100 members so the fact that only 50 congressmen signed this letter is fucking pathetic. If any of these people actually cared, they’d do something about it. If signing one letter three years ago is supposed to convince me that they care beyond an extremely superficial level, then… uh… no.
Also, you raised Bernie and AOC as examples of a new trend within liberalism, but that’s straight up false. AOC is a (I think) democratic socialist, and Bernie ie a straight up socialist. These aren’t new flavors of liberal; they’re simply not liberals at all. The only thing liberals have done concerning these two is fight them at every turn.
Then you said that neoliberalism is in decline, which is not true. The people who actually run the show in the Democratic party are still all neoliberals. Schumer is still Senate minority leader, Jeffries is still House minority leader, Pelosi is still Pelosi. Maybe we’ll see neoliberals losing power in the midterm election if there’s even a free and fair midterm election, but now? Nope. And in places where neoliberals are being removed from power, they’re not being replaced by nice liberals (those don’t exist; the neo in neoliberalism is basically for show); they’re being replaced by socialists and other progressives. The existence of those people doesn’t make liberalism “nice” because these are also not liberals same as Bernie snd AOC.
And finally, the idea that criticizing the Trump admin’s opsec will somehow help stop him is laughable at best, dangerous at worst, because his supporters don’t give a shit. The arguments that Hegseth needs to be fired and all that do nothing to actually hurt Trump (who can just nominate whoever the fuck he wants). There’s no 5D chess game being played to oust Trump here.
I couldn’t be assed to write all this, so I just said liberal apologia and moved on, but there.
Dude I fucking wish. The math changes a lot for authoritarian states, particular ones where political apathy is as common as it is in Egypt. I do intend to he there if there’s ever an opportunity to change that, but for now? Nothing to do but wait.
Funny how all of this is your own personal feelings about what the libs are saying. Instead of, you know, acknowledging in any way they are saying exactly what you told me I could never find them saying.
Does “never” have a different definition to you I should be familiar with?
It doesn’t matter if YOU feel their words don’t matter here. They were still said, and your hate for assuming they never were is no longer justified or warranted.
You hate them when they DON’T say something. I show you them saying it. Now you hate them when they DO say it.
No matter how you feel about their words, they were still said. Which means you can’t hate them for NOT saying it like you did in your original comment.
You can only hate them for not saying it again, but this time, when the person they would need to say it to would be Trump. Who not only hates them, but is actively trying to persecute anyone who gives him criticsm.
You say it’s apathy they’re not talking about stopping drone strikes now, when it’s pretty clearly the threat of political persecution.
So really it just boils down to this:
When, exactly, would be the right time to stop hating liberals?
What metric do you have in mind, that once libs reach, you would no longer hate them?
Nothing left to talk about except this. Because I doubt it’s something you’ve ever considered.
I didn’t say that, though; you did. I said they’re not saying it right now, which they aren’t. Also again, the ineffectual actions of a minority don’t absolve the majority of responsibility, otherwise all of America right now would be free of blame for twenty five years of bombing brown people in the Middle East and 80 years of helping Israel ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Hint: It’s not.
Hate is a strong word. I’m pissed off at their current and past actions, and I’ve never liked them, but I don’t hate them. It’s mostly just disdain, disappointment and a hint of just desserts. That aside, if your question is what threshold for me not having negative feelings about liberals is? When they’re no longer liberals. I mean no leftist has anything resembling good feelings for liberals; the ideology is fundamentally about protecting capital while giving the masses breadcrumbs so they don’t revolt.
If “hate” is too strong word, then how would you describe your original use of “fucking disgusting?”
Is it somehow caring to be disgusted by someone’s existence?
And YOU think they aren’t saying anything right now because they’re disgusting fucking liberals? Right? NOT because Trump would further prosecute them?
I have pointed out several times, they face a literal existential threat by saying anything now. Which means they have an unquestionably legitimate excuse to say nothing, that you are insisting isn’t as valid as them just being fucking disgusting.
I’ve pointed out what over 50 liberals were saying BEFORE the Trump admin was persecuting them. And you’re belief is those words aren’t to be listened to because liberals are too fucking disgusting to be honest.
Okay, so when is that?
Because unless you’re willing to define what behavior MAKES them liberal, you are judging people instead of their behaviour. Which is racism /bigotry by its very definition.
Which is, comparatively, pretty easy to see you practicing in this conversation if we look at it through a different context:
If these were Jewish people, when would they be sufficiently not Jewish enough for you to not find them disgusting?
Because it’s not when they don’t talk like Jews. Its not like when they don’t act like Jews. And its not when the Jews have no power to hurt you, and are being persecuted by another group.
They’re all still Jews, I mean “Libs” to you. And that fucking disgusts you as you have made clear for days.
So would you agree that when a Lib talks, they will always sound too fucking “disgusting” to you too?
Or is there something they could say worth listening to? What would that be to you if it exists at all?