I have no idea what that means, I haven't "bashed" anyone by pointing out what other people on X thought should be done. Again I never said I agreed with resignations, clearly some on this website have a reading comprehension issue.
Sounds like you're the one jumping to conclusions, I explained what another post linked to because someone asked for it to be explained, the post was saying Hegseth/Waltz should resign, I never said I agreed with that.
My post literally says why isn't anyone else discussing this, not that it isn't a strategy or a mistake.
They wanted their views on Europe known.
That's a stretch, far easier ways to let Europe and the world know.
Trump has come out on national TV and said as much and more towards this point of allies not doing enough to protect themselves vs the USA stepping in all the time.
I'm surprised there's not a bigger post about this, this makes them look really dumb.
I can't imagine why this would've been intentional, the reporter didn't leak the story before it happened either so it's not like they could claim he was trying to ruin something not to mention the reporter did nothing to gain access to this information, he was invited so it feels more like entrapment if they're going to claim the reporter was acting malicious or intentionally trying to gather and leak information.
People are saying Hegseth needs to resign because why are they using signal to discuss this and not a SCIF, and they're saying Waltz needs to resign because he's the one that added an unknown number and person to a group chat discussing it.
Do you have a source on this? I thought he snubbed the ICC.
I'm getting real tired of this. There are people who are shouting from the roof tops that Israel is corrupt and committing genocide, among a whole host of other criminal activities, but for some reason the US government is supporting it for optics?
Fuck out of here with that "Just following orders" bullshit.
Edit: I love how people downvote on here like cowards when someone makes a point or asks a question, why not respond with your criticism so we can have a discussion and the best argument wins instead of just clicking a button like a child.
how is antisemitism defined
That's the confusing part, it isn't defined. Some state laws define it locally in the actual text of the law but even then it's super vague, other laws refer to Jewish organizations for their definition.
I'm still confused by all the laws for anti-semitism, on the one hand we know Israel is ran by fake Jews and real Jews don't like Israel as it exists, on the other hand it makes people questioning Israel look bad.
I've been wondering if eventually something will come out about Israel that will make the world react to anyone claiming to be Jewish, regardless of their stance, and this is suppose to help prevent that but even that idea seems a little weak.
Alright fair, I still don't understand the purpose or benefit of such a vague definition because that could be applied to any group of people and labeled as harassment so why make a special law just for antisemitism.
They took out ISIS: https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/1850216151122681863
That’s a real sad excuse for something that suppose to have been planned for decades, they can’t find a trustworthy lawyer who doesn’t need to be bought and paid for? That can’t be the reason.