[a green flag with a leaf stands above an utopian green city with vegetation and clean energy]
Greenists believe that the world should be a better place for green people, and everyone else too
[an orange fascist-looking star in a gear logo stands above a bleak concrete city]
Orangites believe that the world should only have orange people, and that all greens should be hung
[an orange character speaks smugly, in a bedroom that contains an orangite logo and a greenist/orangite flag]
Me?
I’m a greenist-orangite,
why do you ask?
… Think you missed the words: “world” and “everybody else”
No I didn’t. Extreme Greenists will be telling everyone in 3 years to not vote for Mamdani because of the police killing citizens that happened under his term.
Its not about police killing per se its more so the lack of accountability in police killings, since it’s unavoidable shouldn’t every police shooting have some kind of scrutiny. That’s the issue.
That’s because you aren’t an extremist.
The extremists wouldn’t vote for Obama because he killed some people while ignoring that he killed less than any other President in the last 50 years. In 3 years it will be “Mamdani the citizen murderer” while ignoring that ( I expect ) he’ll have less deaths than any modern mayor.
Do you have an actual source for that? Considering the hundreds of thousands of people he had killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe his death toll was lower than Clinton’s, or hell, even Bush Sr.
Iraq was effectively over when Obama started and Afghanistan slowed too by the end of Obamas second term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan
Bush Sr: 100-200k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Neither of those sources break down casualties by term. The idea that Afghanistan “slowed” seems to be entirely vibes-based and detached from reality - he escalated in both drone strikes and deployments, with the “troop surge.”
Yes, Bush Sr. killed 100-200k, which is still considerably less than the war in Afghanistan. If roughly half the deaths in Afghanistan were under Obama, then that would put him about on par with Bush Sr.
The graphs show that Afghanistan casualties were flat
https://www.statista.com/chart/20932/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-in-last-decade/?srsltid=AfmBOorw0E6-ZCL-OnLzljFLq8mSXw1D0XIQXn7QXZNhCI0sDTcuXFhm
It’s of particular interest that there is no data until 2009. Bush had made everything about the war secret and didn’t collect or release numbers. Do you really think the initial invasion which included all of NATO had less casualties?
The data shows ~6k per year which is 48k over 8 years.
The chart clearly shows 80k in 2016?
Also worth noting that this only counts civilian casualties. Fun fact, under Obama, the US counted any “military-aged male” killed in a drone strike as an “enemy combatant” under the logic that if they were standing underneath a drone they must have been up to something. Looks like these numbers are from the UN so probably more reliable. But the numbers of 100-200k for Bush Sr. I believe were total causalities.
No.
Bro it’s always a losing battle to talk with “leftists” who think they’re doing a good thing by not voting. They find the most specific and inconsequential shit in the grand scheme of things and just harp on it. Your original comment is gold.
I think you’re fighting against some super niche extremists then. And if they are so niche why are they living rent free in your head?
They aren’t a niche on Lemmy. They were everywhere before the election.
Then you are either conflating their numbers by the noise they make, or you’re not really interested in listening to peoples concerns and this is just team sports to you. Both make you a deeply unserious person not worth listening to. Peace dude!
You insult because you know you are wrong.