Trump Cancels Policy to Report Civilians Murdered in Drone Strikes

"The White House National Security Council said in a statement that Trump’s order removes 'superfluous reporting requirements' that 'distract our intelligence professionals from their primary mission.'"

Primary mission…

Let’s see. What is the primary mission of the United States military? 

Is it to spend trillions of dollars on war for an indefinite number of years with no actual goal written, seeing as no war has been declared by Congress since WWII? Well, check. 

Is it to set up the world’s largest spy organization that keeps a tally of not only every American’s activity, but often the citizens of other countries simply to “collect data” with absolutely no regard to the Fourth Amendment? Well, again, check. 

Is it to routinely set up military bases in other countries, often act on bad information, ransack innocent people’s homes, torture anyone they suspect with no due process, and outright kill enough people with the purpose of riling up enough other people to form and join terrorist organizations to stop it? Well, would you look at that, we’re on a roll! 

You want to know what’s superfluous? Nine hundred bases across the world, tens of thousands of troops in Japan, Germany, and England, and about the same amount of money spent on the US military as all the other military budgets in the entire world combined. 

It has never been about keeping us safe. Look up footage of Osama Bin Laden giving his reasons as to why he formed a terrorist organization and killed three thousand innocent people. He did it in response to the United States bombing hundreds of thousand of people in his country for the decade prior. What happened was a phenomena that the CIA themselves teach: blowback. If the US wanted to keep us safe, they would not invade other countries and provide them reasons to attack us. 

US politicians love to talk about the absolute atrocity of 9/11; the lives lost for nothing that they did. But when it comes to innocent lives lost in other countries at the hands of the US military, not only does it not matter, not only do we not owe our respect, not only must we scoff it off as if it is nothing in comparison to our “primary mission”… we can’t even be bothered to count the fucking bodies.

http://time.com/5546366/trump-cancels-drone-strike-rule/?fbclid=IwAR1FJC--Jdr8KvCYf19Gcp956hJOsPwzFUTu2A4HFCgNwZpeUFwgt_NVEkA

Censorship on Social Media

There’s been some focus lately on right-leaning content being suppressed and banned from platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Many conservatives and self-proclaimed libertarians are advocating for government involvement in ensuring that free speech is allowed on these platforms.

In order for a given platform to remain the product that it is, it must censor some content. For example, excessive gore, pornography, and extraneous vulgarity are not allowed on sites such as Facebook or YouTube in order to foster a somewhat professional-friendly and kid-friendly environment. If you visit one of the platforms that do not censor virtually any speech (Voat, 8chan, etc.), you’ll see an abundance of racial slurs and other choice content. Surely, not all social media platforms would be required to submit to such circumstances. Under the implementation of some law promising free speech on social media, some content would be allowed to be censored by the given website but other content would not. The government would need to define what speech would be considered legal or illegal to censor. In order to consistently keep up with content, clearly define terms, and enforce these rules, either a new government agency would be created or an already existing agency would be expanded. In effect, such a law would mean a new Federal Communications Commission for the Internet. Having a government agency regulating what sites can restrict what content is a far further impediment on our free speech than any social media platform banning users.

These platforms should have the legal right to restrict whatever content they desire on their own websites. Freedom of speech implicates freedom of association, and these platforms are exercising said freedom. To take away this legal right is to deprive these companies of the very thing that these conservatives/”libertarians” are claiming to be champions of: freedom of speech. Few contest that social media platforms have the right to ban, mute, or suspend members from their networks; people are now taking issue with the why -- the motivation behind the action. Government regulation of the “why” is intervening within the thoughts of the owners. People have a problem with companies banning members due to the thought-process of anti-right bias. They don’t have a problem with businesses banning people due to some other mental deliberation.

My personal opinion is that Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube should foster free speech by permitting people to voice whatever controversial statements they want on their forums. However, if I were to endorse the idea of forcing that opinion onto others, I would be violating the very philosophy of freedom that leads me to endorse the concept of fostering free speech. Free speech is important and I’m glad that it is in the Constitution, but to say that everyone must personally endorse the idea of unrestricted speech and implement that into their own businesses is an anti-free speech, and anti-freedom, position.

Trump Will Win Re-Election. Here's Why

In 2015, Trump dominated the primary elections. His debate strategy had very little to do with valid political theory and had much to do with coming across as the alpha on stage. Up against the 17 other contenders, Trump's condescending and arrogant personality came across as being the person with the most leadership qualities. He dominated the stage. He owned it. He was in charge. That's what people want to see in a leader.

When it came to Hillary, the same condescending and arrogant personality looked horrible next to a woman. Trump came across as a bully rather than the alpha male. However, he still was strategic enough to win the general election.

Trump is someone who sets his mind out to do something and accomplishes it. He has had plenty of failures, as all successful entrepreneurs have, but he does anything and everything he can in order to win. Whatever roadblock comes up to prevent him from personal success, he will trample. That's just Trump.

This year, it looks certain that a man will be elected as the Democratic presidential candidate. On the debate stage, Trump will look like the alpha male and will dominate the election once again, as he did against 17 other male candidates. The general population doesn't use reason and evidence in order to come to conclusions about what positions they should take on all the political issues and then measures those up with the positions of each candidate, both in their rhetoric and in their track records, and makes a decision based on that. People are stupid, and they vote stupidly. They're going to vote for the alpha, the leader, the person who owns the stage, and that person is going to be President Trump.

Great Facebook Thread

This is a discussion thread on Facebook over someone posting this image:

Josh Cardosi "You personally not liking murder is not a reason to ban murder for everyone who needs to murder someone"

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 6d
•  · Edited

Hide 15 Replies

• 

  Luna Pearl Crowley Good thing you don't have a vagina or uterus^^^^ when you do chiming in on those things would be valid

  1

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Luna "You're a man" is also not a valid argument.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Luna Pearl Crowley Josh Cardosi I'm not going to argue with you on facebook about a womans right to the decisions she can make within the realm of her body. Believe whatever you believe I don't care

  2

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Luna Of course you're not, because you probably have no valid argument to support the termination of innocent life.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Luna Pearl Crowley Josh Cardosi give me a break...

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Luna About what? The fact that abortion is the literal termination of a human life?

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Luna Pearl Crowley Josh Cardosi Do you have nothing better to do than try to pick a fight with me on facebook? Go believe your own nonsense and leave me alone please and thanks

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Luna I'm on duty I don't have anything better to do lol. You replied to me -- not the other way around. You can go about your business. I'm just stating facts.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• Active Now

  Carly Parker Josh you’re still a massive hypocrite for being anti-abortion. Someone so pro-anarchy doesn’t have a lot of say about what should and shouldn’t be law

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Carly Anarcho-capitalism ≠ lawlessness

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• Active Now

  Carly Parker Josh Cardosi getting rid of big government in order to have a free market means also getting rid of big government that both supports and outlaws abortions

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Josh Cardosi Carly I'm in favor of quite a few laws. Laws that prohibit violating other people's rights. Laws against assault, battery, theft, murder (which includes abortion) are some of the most basic ones that most people would agree should be law. The conflict with abortion is deciphering whether or not it is actually murder. Pro-choicers may consider abortion to be nothing more than the killing of a few cells that had no meaningful life on their own, or the rightful ejection of whatever you want from your own body.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 5d
• 

  Drexel Blair There's a lot of reasons somebody might choose to have an abortion.
  1) The fetus has already passed away and the mother does not want to give birth to a stillborn.
  2) The mother lacks the financial stability to raise a child, and if she were to give birth, it could result in homelessness for both the mother and child, leading to a higher risk of death.
  3) It's literally a bunch of cells. Having an abortion at the beginning of pregnancy is basically the equivalent to using birth control. It has the same purpose and effect.
  4) Babies can only be aborted close to childbirth if it poses a serious health risk to the mother or child. In some cases, abortion can literally be life saving.
  5) It may not have been the mother's choice to become pregnant, whether she was sexually assaulted or not. It's her choice whether or not she wants to have a child. Having children can be an incredibly stressful burden upon a person's life, especially if they're single or were assaulted. I can't imagine the emotional torment of giving birth to the child of your abuser/assaulter.
  
  Anti-abortion groups want to ban ALL abortions, and whether or not you support that, you're still contributing to it. Outlawing abortions WILL result in the deaths and homelessness of thousands of women. And it won't prevent abortions either. When it's a life or death situation, people will turn to illegal abortions that are not safe and will have higher casualty rates. This has been proven in the past. Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions from existing, it'll stop safe abortions from existing. 
  
  But honestly? Idk why I'm wasting my time arguing here. It's not like you're gonna change. "Pro-life anarcho-capitalist" just spells out dumbass in the most ridiculous way.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1d
• 

  Josh Cardosi *1) The fetus has already passed away and the mother does not want to give birth to a stillborn.*
  I wouldn't define that as abortion, but if you want to, that's fine. You'd be hard-pressed to find a pro-lifer who thinks that an already passed away unborn baby cannot be removed from the womb. 
  
  *2) The mother lacks the financial stability to raise a child, and if she were to give birth, it could result in homelessness for both the mother and child, leading to a higher risk of death.*
  
  This is not a valid reason for abortion if we are to accept that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. Now, of course, you can make the argument that the fetus is not equivalent to a normal human life and does not have the same rights as a regular human. In which case, such justifications about financial stability are irrelevant. If the fetus has no rights, the mother should be able to abort it for whatever reason she wants. However, if the fetus does have rights, financial stability is not a justification for killing. For example, if a single mother were to lose her job and money while she has a two-year-old son, she is obviously not justified in killing the child. 
  
  *3) It's literally a bunch of cells. Having an abortion at the beginning of pregnancy is basically the equivalent to using birth control. It has the same purpose and effect.*
  
  Birth control prevents the conception of a human entity (I’ll just go with the word “entity” instead of “life” for now) versus abortion terminates an already existing human entity. I should note that the morning after pill is a form of contraceptive, and pro-lifers often mistake it for an abortion pill. But by pro-life standards, the morning after pill should be allowed since it is preventing the conception of a human entity rather than terminating one that already exists. 
  
  Abortion is certainly not uniformly performed at the very beginning of pregnancy. While the majority of abortions indeed take place in the first trimester (quite the stretch to describe a 12 week old fetus as a “clump of cells” given a Google search on the characteristics, but I digress), there are still thousands of abortions legally performed every year after that point. Certainly, you must recognize that the fetus is not a “clump of cells” for nine months, and then appears into a fully formed baby at birth. There is a process of human development in which the fetus becomes more and more formed as the pregnancy moves forward. 
  
  I can understand how one can be easily tempted to describe the zygote, for example, as nothing more than a “clump of cells” and therefore not deserving of rights. But no honest and sane person on Earth would claim that a 8 month, 3 week old fetus is merely a “clump of cells” and has no discernible human characteristics that make it deserving of a right to life. Thus, using the “clump of cells” argument is dishonest if we were to apply to all abortions, or the legal status of abortion now in the US, which allows it up to 24 weeks (with some variations depending on the state). 
  
  The more relevant question is: where is the line drawn? At what point does the fetus transition for a “literal clump of cells” into a rights-bearing individual? What determines that? Why does that determine that? 
  
  No other determining factor beside being an individual living human entity with its own unique DNA signature can hold up to logical scrutiny, which is why conception is the only logical conclusion as to where you can draw that line. For example, consciousness doesn’t work since it would implicate that anyone who is unconscious does not have a right to life. Ability to feel pain doesn’t hold up since that would implicate that murder of a grown person is justified as long as the process is painless. Putting forward the proposition that human beings cannot be killed (unless for self-defense) starting from the conception of their existence does not lead to any of these logical flaws. 
  
  Where do you draw the line? How do you determine that? Does it stand up to logical scrutiny? 
  
  *4) Babies can only be aborted close to childbirth if it poses a serious health risk to the mother or child. In some cases, abortion can literally be life saving.*
  Mostly, in the US, as I mentioned before, abortion can be performed for any reason up to 24 weeks. 
  
  Yes, in some cases, abortion can be life saving, and most pro-lifers agree that there should be exemptions to the rule, such as the case in which the fetus literally threatens the life of the mother (and, in turn, the fetus). 
  
  *5) It may not have been the mother's choice to become pregnant, whether she was sexually assaulted or not. It's her choice whether or not she wants to have a child. Having children can be an incredibly stressful burden upon a person's life, especially if they're single or were assaulted. I can't imagine the emotional torment of giving birth to the child of your abuser/assaulter.*
  The majority of pro-lifers also think that rape should be an exemption. 
  
  *Anti-abortion groups want to ban ALL abortions,* 
  I don’t know of any that do not recognize that there should be any exemptions (e.g., the mother’s life is in danger). 
  
  *and whether or not you support that, you're still contributing to it. Outlawing abortions WILL result in the deaths and homelessness of thousands of women.*
  Keeping abortion legal will result in the deaths of millions of unborn fetuses — approximately 50 million a year, worldwide. 
  
  *And it won't prevent abortions either.* 
  Outlawing abortion will not prevent all abortions — I agree. If the general ethical attitude toward abortion remains the same and the law changes, the number of abortions might not even reduce by that much. The black market is incredibly powerful and can provide any goods or services that is not offered on the legal market. I think a more effective means to ending abortion is education and changing the moral perception of it. However, this isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be a law against it. The current law against murder may do little to actually reduce murders — if you’re actually willing to murder someone, I don’t think you’re the type of person to refrain from doing it simply because it’s against the law. It will incentivize them to mask the evidence but prevent murder altogether, obviously not. But we all agree that murderers should be punished and separated from the rest of society. Likewise, if abortion, is, indeed, murder, then the application should be the same.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1d
  •  · Edited
• 

  Drexel Blair I'm not even gonna read that. I don't wanna waste my time on your mansplaining. Bye ya sexist!

  3

  • Love
  •  · Reply
  •  · 1d

  
  

  https://www.facebook.com/ReAnnnnnnnnnna/posts/2315627128761030