Classic authoritarian move': Critics alarmed as Trump eyes classifying fentanyl as WMD

King Harlem

Superstar
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
5,585
Reputation
979
Daps
21,701
Everyday it's something.
Can he take a couple weeks to go play golf or something?
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
23,639
Reputation
9,238
Daps
101,113
Yeah sure. And if there's never any war against Mexico and Canada normal mfs are gonna (rightfully) look at you like you're stupid for immediately escalating it there instead of framing it in a more grounded outcome.
The problem is that Trump and his allies have already floated military action in Mexico, and this WMD designation gives them the legal pretext to do it. Even if it doesn't happen immediately, history shows how these kinds of policies get used later. Have you forgotten "The War on Terror" and everything that came from that, that's still affecting people today?

Once you give the government a justification like this, it doesn't just go away, it expands. Ignoring that risk because it hasn't happened yet is how we keep repeating the same mistakes.
 

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,923
Reputation
1,818
Daps
18,230
The problem is that Trump and his allies have already floated military action in Mexico, and this WMD designation gives them the legal pretext to do it. Even if it doesn't happen immediately, history shows how these kinds of policies get used later. Have you forgotten "The War on Terror" and everything that came from that, that's still affecting people today?

Once you give the government a justification like this, it doesn't just go away, it expands. Ignoring that risk because it hasn't happened yet is how we keep repeating the same mistakes.
Hmhm, no the problem is that throwing theories out like this are negative sum in that

1.) The average person cannot do anything to prevent Trump from starting a war with Canada and Mexico.
2.) If there is no war between Canada and Mexico it makes you and the people pushing the idea out there look crazy to normal people for suggesting something like that will happen in the first place.

Frame the issues in a more down to earth manner.

“They also suspect that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens.”

This should be the main thing that we're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
23,639
Reputation
9,238
Daps
101,113
Hmhm, no the problem is that throwing theories out like this are negative sum in that

1.) The average person cannot do anything to prevent Trump from starting a war with Canada and Mexico.
2.) If there is no war between Canada and Mexico it makes you and the people pushing the idea out there look crazy to normal people for suggesting something like that will happen in the first place.

Frame the issues in a more down to earth manner.

“They also suspect that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens.”

This should be the main thing that we're talking about.
Hmm, yes. These little rhetorical tricks you're trying to use to downplay the real risks here don't really work.

First, your appeal to social consequences is not an actual rebuttal. Just because something might be unpopular doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. You're trying to make it sound like raising concerns about military escalation will make people sound "stupid," which is nonsensical.

Second, you're presenting a false dilemma. We *don't* have to choose between domestic and international concerns. Both are valid, and both are interconnected in how policies like this could be used. You're also dismissing the idea that people can't stop these kinds of actions, which ignores history. Public opposition to war has been a powerful tool in stopping disastrous policies before.

Finally, you're distracting from the broader issue by wanting to focus only on the "down-to-earth" approach, which only ignores the potential for abuse of power both domestically *and* abroad. We can talk about both, without ignoring the past mistakes made when we didn't.
 

Bugzbunny129

All Star
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
3,054
Reputation
1,261
Daps
7,240
You can accomplish the same thing with no war but ya know. America. Gotta make a buck.
The get off drug industry is too big to legalize or do the heroin clinics like europe but its the only thing to convince some to become actual citizens worth something. Theyd bend over backwards to get it.

Fents a real scurge tho
 

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,923
Reputation
1,818
Daps
18,230
Hmm, yes. These little rhetorical tricks you're trying to use to downplay the real risks here don't really work.

First, your appeal to social consequences is not an actual rebuttal. Just because something might be unpopular doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. You're trying to make it sound like raising concerns about military escalation will make people sound "stupid," which is nonsensical.

Second, you're presenting a false dilemma. We *don't* have to choose between domestic and international concerns. Both are valid, and both are interconnected in how policies like this could be used. You're also dismissing the idea that people can't stop these kinds of actions, which ignores history. Public opposition to war has been a powerful tool in stopping disastrous policies before.

Finally, you're distracting from the broader issue by wanting to focus only on the "down-to-earth" approach, which only ignores the potential for abuse of power both domestically *and* abroad. We can talk about both, without ignoring the past mistakes made when we didn't.
Hmm, nope. These aren't rhetorical tricks, you clearly did not understand my viewpoint and I was bored enough to provide that clarity for you.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
23,639
Reputation
9,238
Daps
101,113
Hmm, nope. These aren't rhetorical tricks, you clearly did not understand my viewpoint and I was bored enough to provide that clarity for you.
They absolutely are. And I understood your viewpoint. I also remember your history on here.
 

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,923
Reputation
1,818
Daps
18,230
They absolutely are. And I understood your viewpoint. I also remember your history on here.
You very clearly did not understand my viewpoint. It's why you made this dumbass post in the first place:

We saw how this country lied about WMDs to justify an illegal war, and now Trump wants to pull the same trick with fentanyl. Calling it a weapon of mass destruction shouldn't be shrugged off as empty rhetoric with this admin, given how it's been openly hostile to Mexico and Canada. This is priming people to accept military action, violent crackdowns on homeless people and non-citizens, all under the guise of national security.

Meanwhile, they're gutting Medicaid, which actually funds addiction treatment. How does that make any other sense? You have to be blind to believe this is about stopping overdoses, when it's only expanding state power. Ignoring this because of some disingenuous belief about THE LEFT!!!!!!??!!! is how people like you and @Seoul Gleou get blindsided.
:russell:
 

boogers

cats rule, dogs drool
Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
9,617
Reputation
4,206
Daps
27,676
Reppin
#catset
if i knew it was only to punish dealers and smugglers i wouldnt be so mad but this is clearly designed to imprison junkies for life, and i would not be surprised if trumps plan for places like kensington in philly would be to just execute them. christ, we are so far gone in this country.

i dont like junkies either but they are still human beings.
 

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
70,905
Reputation
14,080
Daps
300,567
Reppin
Toronto
what a coincidence. the one that comes from China is the WMD. but the ones coming over the southern border are not. sounds like a foreign policy play is coming next

people in here taking this shyt at face value with Trump :skip: y'all can't be serious
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
23,639
Reputation
9,238
Daps
101,113
You very clearly did not understand my viewpoint. It's why you made this dumbass post in the first place:


:russell:
My post is grounded in reality, yours is in historical revisionism under the guise of looking reasonable.

Your entire outlook prioritizes optics over substance:

I'm really going to need y'all to not give these people another talking point they can use to make the left look crazy.
 
Top