r/videos 18h ago

Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.

https://youtu.be/8ZuV5L0QL04?is=7oWMXrS0l-KeMfGa
32.4k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.7k

u/SpiderSlitScrotums 18h ago

The Democrats really need to put joining the ICC on their 2026 and 2028 platforms.

369

u/jasoncross00 17h ago

The Democrat campaign should be: Orange jumpsuits for all criminals.

Just start listing all the criminals in the Trump admin, including Trump, and promise to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. And that includes international criminals.

Stop caring so much that people will accuse you of politicizing the justice department. They already do, and they're going to anyway. Don't let it stop you from actually holding criminals in government accountable, FULLY and PUBLICLY accountable.

92

u/Brochoa 14h ago

It’s amazing literally nobody in the Democratic Party has done this since Trump has been in office. The dems are fucked if they can’t rally around the simplest agenda such as “lock up the criminals in our government”. They’re all pussies and going to lose another election in two years because of it. There is no front runner right now and I fear there won’t be for a long while. They won’t have anyone to blame but themselves for another election

23

u/OppositeSecretary862 13h ago

Theres rumour AOC is gonna make a bid, but the Democrats love shooting themselves in the foot. They had Bernie, and fucked him over.

8

u/PM_YOUR_BOOBS_PLS_ 6h ago

AOC isn't that popular. She'd be less successful than Kamala. Fact of the matter is, we are still a long way away from a woman ever being president.

5

u/fatalityfun 5h ago

lol no AOC would 100% do better than Kamala, she actually has charisma and people know her. Pre-presidential run Kamala was only known for overprosecution of petty crimes and thought she would win simply because she’s not Trump

10

u/smokeweedNgarden 4h ago

Get off Reddit and out of your personal sphere.

She is hated by many, lukewarm to others, and the GOP is spending a large amount of money and manpower to make her the next Hillary 

0

u/fatalityfun 3h ago

I don’t disagree, but I don’t have a shred of doubt in my mind that Kamala was even worse than that. She tried to capitalize on the black vote and even that didn’t work

4

u/smokeweedNgarden 3h ago

Dude, Kamala got 85% of the black vote what are you talking about?

1

u/StarksPond 2h ago

Lets put it to a vote!

1

u/mocityspirit 3h ago

Pretty sure AOC would actually make it to the primaries, unlike Kamala.

1

u/Zeppelanoid 1h ago

If the Democrats run another woman candidate all it will prove is that they haven’t learned a single thing from their recent failures

u/youngishgeezer 8m ago

I hate that I think you are right. AOC would be great if we could just get her elected. Mamdani would be great too.

8

u/mrpanicy 6h ago

The establishment Democrats are neo-liberals just like the GOP. They only care about the economy doing better and protecting corporate interests with a MINOR interest in doing something for the people that the GOP doesn't share. But they will bail on that minor interest if the economy is better served that way.

Neo-liberals will like a fascists boot if it means the economy will do better. Always been the way.

1

u/dangerous_beans 4h ago

I'm gonna be honest: if after these four years of Trump and everything his administration has done Democratic voters still sit out on the election because they aren't 💖in love 💖 with the candidate the party has presented, this country is beyond saving and deserves to become an autocracy. 

1

u/mocityspirit 3h ago

Buddy they couldn't put trump in prison after he tried a literal coup. They do not care.

1

u/AddAFucking 2h ago

Because the bulk of them are part of the same system.

1

u/TheBoogieSheriff 10h ago

Ok, sure, but if you feel that way, you need to give credit where credit is due. Kinda hard to lock up criminals when basically the entire GOP is fighting you every step of the way

3

u/Deprisonne 10h ago

It's 'kinda hard' to enforce anything when the executive (whose job that would be) is enamored with supporting fascists and their policies. Or do you actually believe that all the law enforcement agencies that Trumpists have spent the better part of a decade flooding with their incompetent toadies are going to turn around and say 'welp, it's the dems turns now. We better start following the law again.'

0

u/TheBoogieSheriff 9h ago

…Did you read my comment? Sorry if it wasn’t clear, you’re preaching to the choir brother. That’s exactly what I’m talking about, I agree with you!

12

u/PhonB80 15h ago

They would love to do that except they probably aren’t very clean themselves. Don’t throw rocks in a glass house.

6

u/scrappybasket 14h ago

That’s exactly it. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it

1

u/Slipsonic 7h ago

This is the energy we need. Mamdani is the best leader the US has seen in decades. Leagues above the pedophile liar. 

1

u/MadeByTango 7h ago

The Democrat campaign should be: Orange jumpsuits for all criminals.

Half of them would be chasing themselves, and we all know it.

1

u/Ange1ofD4rkness 6h ago

They'd need jumpsuits for themselves as well.

1

u/MaleficentPlate69 4h ago

Orange jumpsuits for all criminals?

But Trump would melt into one orange silhouette and this would act as a perfect camouflage.

1

u/RichardCrapper 2h ago

We’ll call them “Trumpsuits”. Finally a fad they can all join!

0

u/RareObject8705 13h ago

That’s the bare minimum for my vote. There has their’ once in a lifetime’ election and completely fucked it up in every way. 

Prove to me you have the capability of a win mattering. 

666

u/Iron_Maniac 17h ago

The International Cricket Council?

859

u/AwesomeMcPants 17h ago

Icecrown Citadel.

18

u/DeuceHundy 15h ago

This guy raids

2

u/Ergok 8h ago

It's even invisible 🫥

63

u/BakingSoda1990 17h ago

10 or 25?

47

u/Moses-the-Ryder 17h ago

Transmog runs, 25H

3

u/BIGt0eknee 3h ago

Alright I'm rolling need on everything.

8

u/7m1a0x 17h ago

SFSs HR

3

u/asdlkf 11h ago

link unobtainable gear for invite

174

u/DirtyDiceakaWildcard 17h ago

Ice Town Costs Ice Clown Town Crown

43

u/dange616 17h ago

Who hasn't had gay thoughts??

38

u/VelocityRD 17h ago

More like Turd Crapley.

12

u/donotgotoroom237 13h ago

The Low Cal Calzone Zone

5

u/jq_threetwo 13h ago

Baba Booey!

3

u/HyKaliber 12h ago

Never fails to make me laugh, good lord

4

u/steppe5 16h ago

Gazebo? More like Ga-zoinks-bo.

3

u/Blackboard_Monitor 17h ago

Youngest huh?

1

u/Particular-Mark-5771 5h ago

found the Riddler

→ More replies (1)

26

u/Rael_Sianne 17h ago

Still pissed about the saurfang trinket

2

u/RyanOver9000 3h ago

I was playing a Warlock at the time. Got shafted twice on Dislodged Foreign Object. Still salty.

10

u/DKFShredder 17h ago

My word, it's been a long time.

3

u/Laxku 13h ago

No king rules forever.

13

u/MrBigBMinus 17h ago

I mean one guy with ppwer commands an army of brainless ghouls that do literally whatever he tells them even if it results in their demise is kind of how the other party works to be fair lol.

12

u/rowrowfightthepandas 17h ago

Someone must don the Helm of Dementia

17

u/BBZL2016 17h ago

Lmfao! Literally the first thing that came to mind before International Criminal Court.

4

u/Thisgah 14h ago

Annnnnnd now I'm hooked again. There goes the next few years of my life.

6

u/Skadoosh_it 17h ago

Dibs on shadowmourne shards.

5

u/Castianna 17h ago

This is how i read it

2

u/Ghstfce 14h ago

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!

2

u/katosjoes 4h ago

Suffer, mortals, as your pathetic magic BETRAAAAYS YOOUU!

2

u/Pollylocks 16h ago

Zug zug

2

u/Vio94 15h ago

My life for Ner'zhul. He has my vote for King.

1

u/PercivalBlatherskite 15h ago

I'll join as Heals the the Netanyahu part of ICC.

1

u/ExplorationGeo 9h ago

7.2k gear score resto shaman lfg ICC 25H

1

u/MemeHermetic 3h ago

I'm in. Still need Invincible.

u/one_love_silvia 1m ago

God damnit that got me lmao

1

u/ConcentrateDirect523 17h ago

Stop poking me! 

0

u/pogulup 16h ago

Icelandic Curling Club

0

u/Laxku 13h ago

Why is it called invincible if you can see it??

→ More replies (2)

52

u/justlike_myopinion 17h ago

Look man, they just learned about FIFA this year, give it some time

13

u/WHTLGHTNNSTDFMTNDW 17h ago

To be *faaaaaaair* Americans did learn cricket existed in 2024 when the men’s team beat Pakistan and knocked them out of the tournament.

All through the power of friendship. Just as the founding fathers intended.

2

u/Darkwing_ducksauce 16h ago

To be faaaaaair

2

u/DinoRoman 17h ago

No dude it’s the itchy coochie counsel.

1

u/I_am_the_BEEF 17h ago

Idiotic Circus Clowns.

1

u/elguille_resurrected 16h ago

insane clown club

1

u/Skader 16h ago

International Color Consortium

1

u/Attention_Bear_Fuckr 15h ago

You messed around, I caught you out, HOWZAT!

1

u/hopsinduo 10h ago

Don't bother. Cricket is boring. It's somehow shitter than baseball! 

1

u/Nkosi868 17h ago

Indian Cricket Council*

1

u/illegal_sandwich_ext 17h ago

5

u/Nkosi868 17h ago

I know what I said. 🙃

2

u/StuM91 16h ago

They are making a joke that the BCCI run the ICC.

1

u/TheLesserWeeviI 17h ago

About bloody time.

11

u/cefriano 17h ago

Given that they've been totally on board with having the US be the lone "no" vote (aside from Israel) on UN resolutions, I don't think the ICC would be particularly excited about us joining.

4

u/Inprobamur 11h ago

ICC isn't structured like that.

1

u/bascule 3h ago

The ICC seeks universal participation and would prefer all countries ratify the Rome Statute

53

u/WirelessZombie 17h ago

Are they trying to win a federal election in the US or show off how moral they are?

It's great to see but this guy is mayor of New York and what works there might not work as a federal strategy. Even with anti-Israel (not pro Palestinian unfortunately) sentiment at an alltime high, international beurocratic orgs are not exactly super popular with the voter base.

23

u/BigTimeTimmyTime 16h ago

Dems have been entirely focused on virtue signaling since like 2016

5

u/informat7 8h ago

And it's been an extremely effective strategy at losing elections.

15

u/BigTomBombadil 14h ago

You’re getting downvoted but you’re not wrong. Taking stances on the moral high ground, even if I agree with the stance, to alienate a lot of people unfamiliar or uneducated on the issue isn’t a winning strategy while the other side is playing a very dirty version of what they see as a competitive sport.

2

u/urlach3r 11h ago

Hey, now! They've also sent several very sternly worded letters.

1

u/GentlemenHODL 2h ago

Dems have been entirely focused on virtue signaling since like 2016

Which has created a deeply frustrating and annoying culture amongst liberals especially in the newer generations that are now becoming adults.

I'm super liberal but this shit annoys the fuck out of me. Anyone else noticed that Reddit has a deeply rooted white knight syndrome? Virtue signaling is the catalyst for that behavior.

The last thing I want to see is this same behavior broadly applied to the entire population. We would never get anything fucking done because everyone would be too busy arguing about who might be offended.

Unfortunately the time to get dirty is long past. Democrats need to take off the gloves and start wrestling with the pigs. The moral high ground has lost us our democracy.

0

u/DotA627b 5h ago

That's ALL they do.

→ More replies (1)

-7

u/Trumpisanorangebitch 16h ago

1

u/KageStar 16h ago

Did you really link a survey from 8 years ago? Even anything over 3 years is pushing it for current general sentiment.

5

u/Trumpisanorangebitch 14h ago

There isnt any polling on a niche thing like this. How about you go find some.

-1

u/KageStar 13h ago

I'm not doing your work for you. You made a claim to refute OP, then used outdated numbers to back it up.

7

u/Trumpisanorangebitch 13h ago

Nah, I posted polling and you and OP posted nothing. Onus is on you to provide something. So go find some.

-12

u/[deleted] 17h ago edited 17h ago

[deleted]

9

u/scrotalayheehoo 17h ago

This is a pretty awful take overall. The pressure is what is getting more pro Palestine people in office. You think wanting more progress means always unhappy with progress? Very narrow and ignorant view of the real world.

→ More replies (5)

42

u/AHole95 17h ago

Political suicide hardly worth the moral grandstanding

0

u/OrangeBasket 17h ago

It won't be moral grandstanding once the ICC gets real political backing

20

u/BigTimeTimmyTime 16h ago

Same time as when pigs will fly I imagine. Can't wait.

2

u/Mr_Evanescent 15h ago

No thanks I'd rather not have International courts have jurisdiction over American citizens, thanks

4

u/KtotheC99 14h ago

Why not? What makes us special?

You like wealthy criminals avoiding punishment of any kind simply due to their class?

2

u/WorkSucks135 14h ago

Because the ICC would enforce the same 2 tiered justice system that US courts enforce, and every other country's courts enforce.

-5

u/Mr_Evanescent 12h ago

This is unbelievably stupid

I'd prefer to not be beholden to foreign laws thanks, we're literally the only country in the world with practicable free speech, what is wrong with you lol

if you wanna slag off europe so bad, go move there

2

u/smallchinesetitties 2h ago

I like how the only thing that Americans have to feel great about left is the ability to freely degrade each other.
Health care that doesn’t ruin your life savings? Functional social safety nets? Functional press, even? It doesn’t matter. What matters the most is that American can maybe in certain narrow situations which most will never encounter spew a slightly more violent bullshit than in Norway. Just don’t spew it near the cop, they might shoot you.

1

u/Mr_Evanescent 2h ago

You do understand that the vast majority of us have absolutely no issues with obtaining healthcare that doesn't hurt our life savings, right? Just because a bunch of NEETs on reddit complain once they age out of their parents' healthcare plans doesn't mean it's doom and gloom over here

more europeans die every summer from not having AC than americans die of gun violence (including all gun suicides)

stay wrong

u/smallchinesetitties 51m ago

How much debt do you have for the life support on that hill you chose?
There is no credible expert who doesn’t agree that American health care economy is fucking its citizens in a record breaking fashion. Your insurance system is fragmented, highly dependent on employers and/or circumstances and badly proportioned to the costs of healthcare, even adjusting to the salaries. Tens of millions of your citizens are not insured and those who are still not very well protected by it. Medical debt itself is a well known concept for Americans and extremely rare occurrence for the rest of the developed world.
I am scared of getting a serious life threatening disease but not the cost of it. Can you say the same?
Come on, USA can do much much better than that, stop protecting this shit.

u/Mr_Evanescent 27m ago edited 22m ago

I have 0 debt. I'm in my 30s, grew up lower middle class (parents each worked 4+ jobs), inherited nothing. No 'connections.' Most I got from them was help with childcare. I have 4 kids, I own my own home over 2000 sq ft, I have no student loans.

Medical debt is largely fake and can be immediately alleviated by bankruptcy. There's a reason it can be purchased for $0.01 per $1

I have absolutely no fear of being able to afford a life threatening disease because I have insurance, lol.

The USA is doing just fine, most American Redditors are just absolute losers who will never achieve anything

u/KtotheC99 46m ago

Defending the exploitative and outright stupid American healthcare system just because 'I've got mine' continues to be baffling. Insane how easily you'll defend fucking pharma CEOs and the insurance industry for no reason

You live in a society with others.

One day you'll get free healthcare whether you like it or not. So will millions of people who could be crushed by massive debt from one illness.

u/Mr_Evanescent 20m ago

I have no love for pharma CEOs and the insurance industry, but my point is entirely that, due to the nature of the US being what it is, it's the best option available. I'm OK with it.

Society not catering to the literal lowest common denominator at all times is not a bug

2

u/KtotheC99 6h ago

Abiding by the ICC when they issue warrants for war crimes doesn't mean we have to give up our free speech laws. Those same laws which are constantly under attack by our own government as they try and bring back Mcarthyism.

"just go move there" is the real unbeliveably stupid statement here.

1

u/PinheadForPresident 16h ago

Yeah, good luck with that

0

u/BigTomBombadil 14h ago

They could just take the moral high ground after being voted into office and having the numbers/ppwer. I’ve been told there’s strategy in politics, but it doesn’t seem like the two parties have even played the same game the last 15+ years.

1

u/jermleeds 5h ago

He's the most popular NYC mayor in decades. He has political capital, and is spending it. This is hardly political suicide.

2

u/Dull_Bid6002 12h ago

It's part of a treaty, which has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Plus they'd need to undo the Hague Invasion Act. I knew of the latter, didn't realize ICC was a treaty. That shit is never getting passed in our lifetimes.

I'm sure some lawyer could find a loophole. I'd send them Clinton, Bush and Obama if the ICC wanted to run trials on them too,

2

u/Stubbs94 10h ago

Why would they? The leaders of your centre right party openly supports the actions of the state of Israel.

2

u/Thejollyfrenchman 7h ago

The idea of giving a foreign body oversight over Americans is anathema to most Americans. Giving that body the power to prosecute Americans would be electoral suicide. There's a reason why the Hague Invasion Act passed with bipartisan support.

2

u/Ass4ssinX 6h ago

It didn't pass because of regular people's concerns. It passed because the ruling class don't want to actually be held accountable.

u/FrozenIceman 1h ago

That will be fun... amend US Constitution to waive US Jury trial rights for US citizens and abdicate to foreign judge council.

u/SpiderSlitScrotums 1h ago

So are all extradition treaties unconstitutional, or would it just be this one? Should Andrew Tate and anyone the US extradites be released?

u/FrozenIceman 1h ago

Depends on if a US Judge approves the extradition, or if the US person is swooped up and sent to the Hague while they are outside the US.

u/SpiderSlitScrotums 42m ago edited 37m ago

If the US joined the ICC, there would certainly be a judge determining that constitutional and due process protections were provided, just like any extradition. Habeas corpus is still in the Constitution I believe, notwithstanding this administration’s objections.

And complaining about being swooped up is grand, considering the US history of extraordinary renditions and invasions to arrest leaders. In any case, a US citizen abroad could still be swooped up by foreign governments by simple INTERPOL warrants. It happens all the time. The only difference here is that war crimes, not other types of crimes are considered.

u/FrozenIceman 31m ago
  1. The reason that the US didn't sign onto the ICC is that its process suspends, in most cases, habeas corpus unless the Citizen own nation turns them over (super rare for the ICC to hear those cases rather than a country that is extradited to).
  2. And yes, what the US does to invade a country and wisk away people for trial is bad.
  3. ICC does not do Jury Trials

14

u/Shiftnclick 17h ago

Hell no. Surrendering American sovereignty over it's own citizens (even the piece of shit ones) is not gonna fly with most people in this country.

33

u/agasizzi 17h ago

Whatever happened to “if you’re not a criminal, you don’t have to worry about it”

2

u/kamacks 14h ago

An authoritarian phrase I’m assuming you disagree with (correct me if I’m wrong)

→ More replies (4)

-1

u/Shiftnclick 17h ago

Beats me but glad that’s gone sounds atrocious. I’m more innocent until proven guilty determined by a jury of your peers.

15

u/SimoneLevi 14h ago

So who tries the international war criminals? Were you also against the Nuremberg trials? Or you only support American exceptionalism?

1

u/Imbiss 16h ago

“if you’re not a criminal, you don’t have to worry about it” line of thinking most certainly is not gone.

3

u/nybbleth 11h ago edited 10h ago

Which is both moral failure on the part of the American people, and a really problematic level of stubborness that ensures those real pieces of shit will never face the justice they deserve.

If Americans want to live in a fair and just world, they're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the world is bigger than America and that there's going to have to be times when non-American courts have authority to level punishments against Americans. You're already forced to accept this reality when an American goes to another country and murders someone there or otherwise breaks the law of another country.

The only difference here is that the ICC deals specifically with such truly heinous crimes that they are almost universally considered crimes against humanity, while simultaneously these crimes are committed; by and large by members of government or those operating in the direct employ of governments and under their direction...

...which means that there is a far smaller chance that these people will ever face justice for their crimes if said justice is solely dependent on the courts run by these same governments. No US President or general is ever likely to face prosecution for warcrimes in a US court of law.

Particularly not if these crimes did not even take place on US soil; which by the way, would have to be the case for the ICC to ever even get involved in the first place... since otherwise it would just be up to American courts to prosecute crimes that happened in America... ergo, there is no loss of sovereignty there whatsoever.

Even in the extremely unlikely event that America did prosecute its own warcriminals, it would never look like an impartial process to the rest of the world. If Netanyahu or Putin were to be tried for warcrimes in Israeli or Russian courts tomorrow, who would genuinely believe that those trials would be fair?

And so, if it's true that most americans will not accept an international court having jurisdiction over such crimes when committed by Americans no matter what... what that's really saying is that Americans are perfectly okay with not living in a fair and just world. That they're perfectly fine with warcrimes being committed by their own countries. And that America absolutely should be treated like the pariah it is fast becoming.

3

u/NotTooShahby 13h ago

Some things don’t deserve sovereignty, people join this association as a promise to act in expected ways (not shoot your own citizens). While it feels unfair that Iran can shoot its own citizens and not have to worry about arrest or even gets supported when the US attacks it, they didn’t make that “promise” and so already have to put up with the punishment of being isolated from the wealthy world.

1

u/Delta-9- 15h ago edited 15h ago

If you can withdraw from the treaty and no one will stop you, you have not surrendered sovereignty, you've merely agreed to a consistent set of rules.

The US being part of the ICC would be no more surrendering sovereignty than it would be submissiveness for you to agree with your friends to play Monopoly by the official rules.

Downvote if that triggered your nationalistic insecurity.

-2

u/Shiftnclick 13h ago

I kinda like the whole representative government that nominally is accountable to the people it rules over which includes the courts thank you very much.

5

u/Delta-9- 13h ago

I guess you also kinda like missing the point, so I'll repeat it:

If the only consequences of leaving the ICC was that the US got some dirty looks from France or whoever, we never ceded sovereignty in the first place.

Whoever told you we "surrendered sovereignty" sold you a fucking bridge.

-1

u/DogBarf00 9h ago

If the only consequences of leaving the ICC was that the US got some dirty looks from France or whoever, we never ceded sovereignty in the first place.

Whoever told you “the US joined the ICC” sold you a fucking bridge. How do you leave an organization that you never joined?

2

u/Delta-9- 4h ago

The US was originally party to the treaty that created it, then left right before invading Iraq.

But even were that not the case, my point stands. Every current member of the ICC has not "surrendered sovereignty" just because they (currently) agree to a set of international laws and the organization that enforces them. It would be no different for the US: we lose nothing except a reputation for only paying lip service to international cooperation.

1

u/DogBarf00 3h ago edited 3h ago

The US never ratified the treaty, thus it never joined. It talked about joining then decided against it.

The ICC is fundamentally is incompatible with the rights outlined in the US Constitution. Basic things like double jeopardy, right to a jury, presumption of innocence would all would need to be given up. Then there are rights in the constitution that are questionable under the ICC, like reasonable bail and a speedy trial. I think due process is important. Why do you think due process is worth giving up to join the ICC?

u/Delta-9- 4m ago

Why do you think the ICC doesn't have due process?

The ICC is intended to complement, not replace, national judicial systems; it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals.

...

The Rome Statute provides that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,  and establishes certain rights of the accused and persons during investigations. These include the right to be fully informed of the charges against them; the right to have a lawyer appointed, free of charge; the right to a speedy trial; and the right to examine the witnesses against them.

Iow, the ICC can only even get involved if the national courts aren't prosecuting someone—double jeopardy isn't even possible. The same basic framework of rights of the accused is present. Sounds like due process to me.

-30

u/1celo12 17h ago

U realize it's an American institution right?

38

u/Shiftnclick 17h ago edited 17h ago

The International Criminal Court is an American Institution? You mean the court that we are not a member of and established by a treaty that we explicitly didn't ratify? A court that America doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of in any way? Hell of an American Institution.

10

u/cire1184 17h ago

The bots are confused today

-4

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[deleted]

9

u/Shiftnclick 17h ago

Sure sure but that's completely different than calling it "an American institution" lol

→ More replies (1)

2

u/nybbleth 11h ago

which literally invented the concept of international law for crimes against humanity

It literally didn't. The concept first appeared in the second Hague convention of 1899. And the first time such a charge was ever levelled was in 1915, against the Ottoman Empire by the Entente powers; specifically in regards to the Armenian Genocide.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/cGilday 17h ago

What do you think the I in ICC stands for? If it’s an “American institution” then why would the US have to join it? And to top it off, where is it seated?

I look forward to you not answering any of that because you’re a malfunctioned bot or just said something really really dumb

5

u/makumbaria 17h ago

No, it is not, Mr. bot.

2

u/animal_jrge 7h ago

It's really funny reading this. You guys still don't get that the party serves the billionaires and special interests? 

The democrat party joining the ICC is as likely as a unicorn flying up from heaven and shitting out a utopia for us.

You have no federal representation, and you never will. There's only worse vs less worse. Even someone like Sanders would continue imperialism. Sure, a more lite version, but would still never go against billionaire interests like joining the ICC.

2

u/Independent-Bug-9352 6h ago

Even someone like Sanders would continue imperialism.

hahahah get the FUCK outta here....

I don't say this often, but boy does this sound like a classic ruzzian bot hellbent on trying to stop people form voting Democrat this November.

6-day-old hidden comment history, y'all. Connect the dots.

0

u/animal_jrge 6h ago

None of that can be inferred from what I said.

Point to a conclusion which you've made, which is stated or implied by what I said.

-1

u/tophmcmasterson 17h ago

Possibly the dumbest take I’ve seen that would have zero impact on the problems Americans are actually facing.

“Virtue signal harder” is not what most people are wanting from their next democratic candidate.

10

u/fusiformgyrus 17h ago

Not fighting Israel’s stupid ass wars would in fact improve my life as an American greatly and very tangibly, today.

1

u/ChronoLink99 11h ago

Ice Cube's Circus?

1

u/Ass4ssinX 6h ago

The ICC isn't for the imperial core.

1

u/hudson27 3h ago

Usually I don't notice people's profile names.. yours was hard to ignore though

1

u/Valuable-Meet5727 2h ago

Well DSA democrats should, but you will never see that from establishment dems. Establishment dems are just diet MAGA at this point with how aggressively they fight and mud sling leftists THAT ARE IN THEIR PARTY.

1

u/ForboJack 1h ago

I doubt they will ever do it. Almost every US president ever belongs at The Hauge.

-5

u/nullkomodo 17h ago

Nope. Why sign onto the ICC when it will be used against you? That’s dumb.

20

u/jonfitt 17h ago

I guarantee it won’t be used against me. I’ve never committed a genocide or crime against humanity.

Why are you so worried? Sounds like a guilty conscience.

17

u/Tequila_Sunset7 17h ago

Why agree to live in a society when its laws will bind you.

-9

u/username_tooken 16h ago

America has its own society, and for the most part it works quite well. I don't reckon most Americans much care to have their business pried into by a foreign court.

13

u/Tequila_Sunset7 16h ago

Perhaps it would be best for America, then, to stop meddling with foreign countries?

-7

u/username_tooken 16h ago

I'm afraid that our society works so well in part only because of our hegemony over the rest of the world's affairs. Forgive me for giving off the notion that the liberty of being unbothered was ever a two-way street.

4

u/mrbrannon 15h ago

I miss when this country used to just shoot fascists.

1

u/username_tooken 14h ago

And when on earth did we ever do that? My recollection of history is America trying very, very hard to ensure all the best, smartest fascists in fact didn't get shot, and instead invited them to become hard-working, freedom-loving Americans.

1

u/Ass4ssinX 6h ago

This is, unfortunately, true. America backs fascism wherever it helps them.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Sm20030 16h ago

Right. They are going to run on "would you rather have Republicans?" again.

1

u/_sensei 13h ago

Lol… if they did that every president would be taken to court for war crimes

-4

u/GifRX7Plz 17h ago

Even the democrats aren't dumb enough to willingly surrender US sovereignty to a supranational "court" chaired by non-peer elected judges with zero accountability to US Citizens. The ICC would be weaponized immediately by countries with an agenda against the US.

The Constitution is the strongest institutional document in history and the reason for America's success. Surrendering any rights it affords to US citizens to a foreign institution is an abomination when the US law is perfectly capable of processing war crime. Any effort by the ICC to arrest US citizens should be met warships parked outside their door if they attempt to subvert the Constitution.

-1

u/zip117 17h ago

I doubt the people making these comments are even American. It’s literally in our Declaration of Independence. Just a few examples:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

5

u/guamisc 16h ago edited 7h ago

We have an entire political party that loves to commit the very first 3 offenses in the Declaration of Independence against our own citizens.

Let's not pretend you care about what it says.

Edit: and #6, #7, #8, #9, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #21, #23, #24, #25 - conservatives do love committing crimes and offenses

-21

u/Raoul_Duke9 17h ago

The lefts political instincts are always wrong and as someone that wants Dems to win but isnt all that left - it sucks to see.

12

u/superbozo 17h ago

The issue is republicans have gone off the absolute fucking deep end, and the democrats seem like the lesser evil. However, take away the republicans entirely, and the democrats would still run this country into the fucking ground.

We're fucked, man. It's really sad to see this level of corruption in our govt. There's such a small amount of politicians who genuinely want to do the right thing, and an ungodly amount of politicians who would kick a puppy in the face if it meant lining their pockets with more money.

0

u/the_last_0ne 17h ago

Go look at the history of voting and proposed legislation for democrats versus republicans.

I wont deny that there are plenty of shitty democrats but it is not nearly as dire as republicans would have you believe.

It is so much harder to build things than to destroy them. Republicans get into office on hate and fear, which is easy to stoke in a largely uneducated population. Then when dems get into office because people realize life sucks with republican policies, they have to ask to raise taxes just to right what republicans fucked up, let alone making any meaningful progress.

Republicans capitalize on this with, again, fear and hate (your tax dollars are going to illegal immigrants and welfare queens! Why do dems want you to pay for a bridge 1000 miles away from you! If we decrease the military budget we will get invaded!). And so the cycle goes.

If we had laws holding politicians accountable for blatant lies we might be able to get somewhere. Personally I feel we should do this and not even require proof of knowing its a lie: if you are an elected politician its your job to understand shit you preach about. If you say something demonstrably false you should have harsh repercussions. You have a whole team of aides to verify claims.

→ More replies (1)

-29

u/RespectedPath 17h ago

Im a Democrat and I do not want that. The ICC is just Europes last vestigage of Colonialism. Its basically just used to bully former colonies and weaker global south nations. We are fully capable to prosecuting war criminals in house.

31

u/SpiderSlitScrotums 17h ago

>We are fully capable to prosecuting war criminals in house.

No, we are not.

18

u/memberflex 17h ago

You’re barely capable of not doing crime internationally

15

u/Buntschatten 17h ago

We are fully capable to prosecuting war criminals in house.

Hahahhahahaha. Lol. Lmao, even.

13

u/gerbal100 17h ago

Perhaps a better world should be possible.

9

u/awkisopen 17h ago

Here's a crazy idea. Hear me out. What if war crimes had consequences?

10

u/elconquistador1985 17h ago edited 17h ago

We are fully capable to prosecuting war criminals in house.

Right, because everyone who was recommended for courts martial in the Peers report on the My Lai massacre spent their days in military prison, right?

No? You mean of the all of the officers recommended for courts martial literally only one high ranking officer actually truly faced a court material and that piece of shit was fucking acquitted? And the guy who was convicted only did 3 years of the life sentence he was given?

The United States is not capable of prosecuting war criminals in house. The United States military isn't even fucking capable of prosecuting members of the military who rape other members of the military. What do you mean "fully capable"?

8

u/baumpop 17h ago

thats weird because theyre trying duterte for crimes against humanity in november and civil rights is a pretty strong democratic policy platform.

1

u/serendipitousevent 17h ago

If that's the case why hasn't it happened and why hasn't the AU established an alternative?

0

u/DrJupeman 9h ago

There are so many reasons this is a bad idea if you prefer the US to be the world’s police. If you are okay with isolationism, it might work. Otherwise, the U.S. is so intertwined in the fabric of the world overtly and covertly that to sign up for ICC would let the world run amok. That and the ICC is a joke. Enforcing things requires force. What force do they have?

-1

u/AutisticNipples 15h ago

unpopular president, cost of living crisis, ai fears, war in iran

somehow i don't think ratifying the Rome Statute is gonna move the needle for voters. is there a single person out there that cares about the ICC that wasn't already gonna vote democrat anyway?

And to be clear, I agree that we should be part of the ICC, i just think democrats should be running on affordability, healthcare, etc. and not arcane international applesauce

0

u/makumbaria 17h ago

US will never do that. Why Dems never changed this in the past?

0

u/Saucermote 16h ago

The commercials of abandoning our soldiers almost write themselves. Even if I agree with you.

0

u/i_am_a_real_boy__ 14h ago

No, they really don't.

0

u/GoneinaSecondeded 8h ago

Let's start with affordable housing, universal healthcare, and decent wages then work from there.

u/OwariNoKami 56m ago

Ya it would be awesome if the United States handed its sovereignty over to a coalition of countries weaker than it. I see no ways that could end badly.

→ More replies (5)