Then I don’t know why we’re even having an argument.

I said that agencies like the CIA being competently run was a bad thing because it would mean that they’re better at doing bad shit like hunting down leftists. You accused me of not being a leftist for saying that and corrected me to say that the CIA being competently run was a bad thing because it would mean that they’re better at doing bad shit like hunting down leftists. Then I said that I don’t have any sympathy for the CIA. You accused me of not being a leftist for saying that and then said that you don’t expect me to have sympathy for the CIA. Like, what even is this conversation? You’re just agreeing with everything I say in a bizarrely combatative way.

What’s really happening is that you’re twisting yourself into knots trying to reconcile the inherent contradiction between the obvious fact that the CIA sucks shit and the obsessive need to paint everything the Orange Man does as THE WORST POSSIBLE THING EVER and anyone who isn’t on the same page about whatever the latest story of the week is The Enemy, no matter what their actual positions are. And of course, if you can reaffirm your loyalty to the state and pass yourself off as “one of the good ones,” all the better.

Some of us are capable of recognizing that Trump is bad without 24/7 freaking out about everything he does, to the point of this bizarre doublespeak you’re doing about how the CIA is both bad and good. All it does is discredit the left and allow people to paint us as representatives of the widely (and correctly) hated establishment, which helps Trump (ridiculously) pass himself off as an outsider, while at the same time crying wolf and discrediting the left when we call out the actually heinous shit he does.

Of course, the US intelligence community is a much larger threat to what semblance of democracy we have than Russian intelligence could ever dream of. To say otherwise is to suggest that they lack either the capability or the willingness to interfere, both of which are absurd. The last president who seriously went against what the wanted was JFK, when he fired the guy who’s job was assassinating world leaders, then got assassinated shortly after, with the guy he fired being placed on the investigative committee into his death. Do you seriously believe that the agencies that would overthrow democratic governments around the globe if it meant a banana company could make 3% more quarterly profits didn’t put contingencies in place for Americans electing a socialist, or just anyone who would get in their way? Or do you think that Russian spies are just so much more competent that they have more influence than American spies do, even in their home field?

Oh, but those American spies are American, is the difference, isn’t it? Nevermind which class they work for, we have to put aside all those pesky class divisions and unite on national lines against the foreigners, amirite? But, like, in a totally leftist way.

Yes, clearly my insufficient level of sympathy for the fucking CIA proves that I’m just a misanthrope who hates everyone.

Or, alternatively, it’s precisely because I give a shit about the vast majority of humanity, which has been harmed by them, that I despise the CIA.

Again, y’all’s ideology is completely incomprehensible. Anyone who’s unsympathetic towards the CIA can’t possibly be a real leftist, right? Where the hell do you even get this ideology from? Is there, like, a book I can read that makes Anarcho-CIAism make sense?

For an article titled, “Dearborn residents show remorse,” it sure didn’t feature a lot of, you know, Dearborn residents showing remorse.

Boo hoo. I don’t give a shit about protecting people who hate me or their agenda.

The only thing I disagree about is that persuing leftists is an objective they previously had. The intelligence community is, always has been, and always will be, an enemy.

You’re trying to pick a fight with me for some reason, but nothing you said contradicts anything I said, but does contradict the article’s position. You’re saying that the agencies will be just as competent, but wrongly directed under Trump, which I completely agree with. The article is whining that they won’t be competently run, which is only a problem because of the assumption that their objectives would be good things. If that assumption isn’t true (it isn’t) and the things they’re trying to do are bad, then it would obviously be better if they persued those objectives ineffectively, and the article would make no sense.

Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post, but especially for ODNI. She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none. She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything.

Any reasonable person on the left should recognize that an incompetent and unqualified person being in charge of Trump’s spy network is the best case reasonable possibility. The idea of anyone claiming to be on the left clutching pearls about the intelligence community being incompetently run under Trump is completely absurd and laughable.

Tulsi is not antiwar lmao. She was fully supportive of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and attacked Obama for not being hawkish enough. She’s an opportunist.

Not the intelligence community 😢

Tulsi Gabbard is a shitty person and an opportunist but if she actually undermined the effectiveness of the intelligence community (which remains to be seen), it’d be a good thing. Like, oh no, what if they get mismanaged to the point where they can’t infiltrate leftist groups or coup governments? What if they don’t assassinate Assad and create a power vacuum for a group like ISIS to take over? The horror!

People have such bizarre, incomprehensible politics. “Trump is a fascist, but it’s super important that we make sure he has a highly effective spy network.” What? It boggles my mind that even in “normal” times, people care about the effectiveness of organizations that are illegally spying on all of us and which have brought chaos and war to every corner of the globe.

Anarcho-CIAism, not even once.

He pretty objectively is, yes. But that’s not because Ted Bundy wasn’t a monster, it’s because Joe Biden is.

How on earth could you possibly read that analogy as apologizing for Ted Bundy? Can you read?

I wrote about things he conceivably could’ve done differently. I also stated some possible reasons why he didn’t do those things. How is that a lie?

Because you completely ignored the stuff he actively did to make the problem worse. It’s like saying, like, “Sure, Ted Bundy could’ve been more supportive of women by donating or volunteering for various causes, but he was busy and short on cash. Sure, he could’ve done better.” It’s absolutely ridiculous. The lie is in the way you frame it. But Ted Bundy only killed 36 women while the weapons Joe Biden went out of his way to give to Israel have killed orders of magnitude more. So what you’re saying is even more absurd that that.

Absolutely inexcusable genocide apologia.

The Nazis would say it, sure. Would you agree with them? Because it sort of sounds like you’d agree with them.

First off, that’s a ridiculous assumption. Not everyone subscribes to your ideology of lesser evilism, and the vast majority of people who correctly reject that ideology are not accelerationists.

But secondly, just curious, if I was a German citizen who hated Nazi Germany and wanted it to fail, would that make me worse than the Nazis? The Nazis were just doing genocide, after all, but I committed what is apparently a far worse sin in your eyes, of insufficient patriotism.

You’re arbitrarily focusing on something Biden doesn’t control while intentionally ignoring the stuff he’s very clearly and intentionally done to materially support Israel. That’s obviously disingenuous. Suggesting that the problem is he just doesn’t have the power to do anything differently is a lie.

That is approval of weapons sales, not sending them more money.

And that matters why? We shouldn’t be giving them aid or selling them weapons?

In addition, Congress allocates funds to send to other countries and the President executes the orders he is given. Biden could’ve vetoed the aid bills I suppose

Biden literally bypassed congress to send more aid than what they had approved multiple times.

I hate the way liberals just shamelessly lie about this stuff, you don’t even have the excuse of the election anymore.

But I’ve been repeatedly informed that the democrats are secretly pro-Palestine and were only pretending to support Israel to win over Zionist voters. Now that Biden has nothing to lose, why isn’t he doing anything? Could it be that all those people were full of shit?

“Why should I break my head about the outside world? Let the outside world break it’s own head!”

“He’s right. As the good book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face.”

“Nonsense! You can’t close your eyes to what’s happening in the world.”

“…He’s right.”

“He’s right, and he’s right, they can’t both be right.”

“You know, you are also right.”

The car just slammed into a wall and it’s backing up and preparing to slam in into the same wall for the third time, and I’m yelling at the driver to turn left so it doesn’t hit the wall again, and your response is like, “Why are you criticizing the driver? You must be trying to distract them so the car crashes!”

Since you’re totally not saying that the democrats are above criticism, since that’s only me “twisting your words,” why don’t you tell me what the democrats did wrong that they could’ve done differently or could do differently in the future to avoid an outcome like this?

That’s completely upside down. Democracy means the people within the government structure are supposed to uphold the values of the broader population. If you think the people in the government structure should be the ones to set the values, then maybe democracy isn’t for you.