Look through my comment history. I want my fat check. Who is paying me for my hot takes and arguments?

Also, an ad hominem in response to a request for evidence and refutation of your argument’s central point? That’s not convincing anyone.

That said, the real tragedy is how any family and friends surviving her have to watch her death get instantly politicized.

Yes, this is the problem with pretending there is any chance of a conspiracy being here. This is anger that should be directed at the healthcare system.

The problem is simple. We’ll never actually know.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s not on me to prove a negative. The evidence we do have suggests she died from an underlying medical condition. That’s what we know, right now. If you want to support a different theory find some evidence to support it.

And, for all your very eloquent arguments, the fuckwits at the top are kinda, well, fucking idiots, so no, the fact she isn’t a very logical target does not provide a convincing argument against foul play.

It does though. By your argument’s reasoning, they cannot be so dumb to have chosen her as a target and so smart to have covered it up. If they were smart enough cover it up they would never have picked her in the first place and would definitely have gone for these federal judges. But since SCOTUS is stacked and they think they can ignore the courts they don’t seem to feel the need.

In fact, the painted turd pretending to run the show clearly has a revenge fetish.

It’s not clear that she had anything to do with any of Trump’s cases. Her wiki page lists these four:

Prosecution of an MS-13 leader for multiple murders.[6]

Indictments against Russian nationals for operating illicit cryptocurrency exchanges.[7]

Historic war crimes charges against Russian soldiers for actions in Ukraine.[8]

Israeli retaliation leak: Conviction of a former CIA analyst for leaking classified information.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Aber

This administration isn’t capable of covering up a murder this convincingly and she isn’t even the kind of person Trump would want revenge against. She did nothing against him personally, which is his primary concern. edit: typo

I know. That’s my entire argument. She voluntarily stepped down in January, there is no conspiracy here.

TLDR The point of killing people at this stage is to remove obstacles to the fascist administration. A person who resigned on inauguration day isn’t an obstacle.

I do not get where the users commenting about conspiracies and upvoting them are coming from with this line of reasoning. US doctors are notoriously bad at diagnosing women’s health problems as they are trained on almost exclusively male patients.

It’s not a conspiracy. We are overpaying for the worst healthcare system in developed countries. The healthcare system is killing us.

Not to mention this month’s bombing operation in Yemen was leaked to the Atlantic via the chief editor being invited to the Signal group. This administration doesn’t have the wherewithal to target people who resigned voluntarily or the ability to keep it secret in real time.

https://archive.is/2025.03.24-164629/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/

This person resigned. That’s what the fascists want. They want everyone who disagrees with them to exit the government so they can replace them with loyalists. Her resignation is not some bold act of resistance, it was more of the same, complying in advance.

If a person stays in their position, openly defies the administration, appeals illegal attempts to have her removed, and then is killed that’s when we all need to be pointing out a potential conspiracy.

This person got out of the way for fascists and then died because she was receiving substandard care for a known health condition because Republicans have been allowed to privatize everything at our expense for decades.

She did great work as an US attorney. But she didn’t provide any resistance to the incoming administration. The bulk of meaningful resistance from inside the government has been from federal judges. These federal judges are the only ones would even merit this kind of treatment. They are the ones whose court orders are slowing down this administration.

The Trump administration has already ignored one judge’s order to turn around planes to El Salvador. The Trump administration is trying to appeal to the Supreme Court to get these court orders overturned. If that doesn’t work they will likely ignore them.

In fact, the Trump administration wants to remove universal injunction all together, so the courts will lose a crucial check on the executive branch.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-step-in-on-birthright-citizenship/

Harris characterized the district courts’ orders in the three birthright citizenship cases as “part of a broader trend.” Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, she complained, “district courts have repeatedly issued orders that superintend the internal operations of the Executive Branch by prohibiting the formulation of new policies.” But “[y]ears of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere. The sooner universal injunctions are ‘eliminated root and branch,’” she concluded, “the better.”

These federal judges are the people this administration would want killed because they are actively resisting the fascists in an impactful way. And they probably won’t bother to kill any judges in the short term. If the Supreme Court doesn’t make this problem go away the fascists will ignore the courts. edit: typos

Netanyahu’s goals are to deny Palestinian statehood and form a greater Israel. He does not care about the hostages.

Iran also sold drones to Russia and have been a longer ally than Israel. But I guess that doesn’t really matter to dictatorships. Russia doesn’t really need Iran anymore now that they have Israel and the US.

Yeah, but I would think the Iranian leadership would rather have the US at their beck and call than as an enemy trying to wipe them off the face of the Earth no?

edit: It probably wasn’t up to Iran. Russia could be backstabbing them for the shiny new toy that is a fascist Israel.

“The Trump administration and the White House were consulted by the Israelis on their attacks on Gaza tonight and as President Trump has made clear to Hamas, the Houthis, Iran - all those who seek to terrorise not just Israel but the United States of America will see a price to pay,” Leavitt said.

“All hell will break loose and all of the terrorists in the Middle East - the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian-backed terror proxies and Iran themselves - should take President Trump very seriously when he says he is not afraid to stand for law-abiding people.”

I figured Trump would want to make peace with Iran since they’re also a Russian ally. At some point I guess you have to choose and we’re already too in deep with Israel to be neutral. So Trump will be supporting the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians and war to form a greater Israel against Iran and its proxies. That’s awful, for a bit there I thought we might have accidentally allied with everyone in the Middle East. edit: added quotes

Fascists want us to comply in advance. Democrats, the opposition party, complied in advance. It is well understood that fascists move one step at a time so that they can execute their plans without serious opposition from the people.

So it does matter what Schumer does, because the fascists wanted to move unopposed and he, as minority leader, let them get away with it. My point is that Schumer’s fake concern that the fascists will have more leeway with a shutdown is bunk. The fascists goal was to get congressional approval and they got it for free.

Nothing to do with this comment thread it’s just something that annoys me.

This isn’t about leftist moral purity. Chuck Schumer sided with the fascists on the only recourse we had to meaningfully resist them for the next six months. He betrayed us for billionaires. He add the ability to get results. Instead, he threw away the country for nothing. Billionaires are not our friends. They would happily see us off to the death camps if they could make more money that way. Which is what they are doing right now. We need to have a greater sense of self-preservation than working with someone who is effectively a Republican.

What’s the more likely scenario

His donors told him to not shut down the government to save their stock value. He doesn’t agree with Republicans. Billionaires have a class interest to increase the value of the shares they own. All the politicians who serve billionaires instead of working class voters are going to vote the same way. Because no matter which billionaires politicians serve the billionaires share the same interest. It’s the simplest explanation.

Voters are not dumb

It’s not an intelligence test. Voters aren’t paying attention because they don’t have time because they live pay check to pay check. Mike Johnson, the House majority leader, still blamed Democrats for almost shutting the government down even though he was the one who put the House on recess to put pressure on the Senate.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/14/aoc-chuck-schumer-gop-funding-bill

But House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his members home to their districts after Republicans advanced the spending bill on Tuesday, effectively forcing Senate Democrats to accept the measure as passed or risk a shutdown. In a statement on Friday, Johnson applauded his caucus for sticking together and accused Democrats of nearly triggering a shutdown “simply because they seem to hate President Trump more than they love America”.

This is messaging. That’s the sort of thing that’s gets on Fox or CNN aired totally uncritically and if that’s all a person hears between now and the midterms that’s going to be a deciding factor in how they vote. edit: typos

The fascists will do what they want either way. They only use laws when it is convenient for them to do so.

What the fascists wanted was to be legitimized by bipartisan support of their bill. They wanted the Democrats to consent in advance. To take the next small step willingly.

Chuck Schumer has handed the country over to the fascists in exchange for nothing because he serves the same billionaires.

There wasn’t a sudden realization from Schumer that flipped his opposition on Wednesday to his support on Thursday. That was his obvious cover to try to hide the billionaires he serves. Don’t fall for it.

Whoever controls the messaging can blame the other party for the shutdown. Democrats don’t bother to even have a narrative let alone control one. They fight in a strictly performative way. So no matter what happens Republicans can always blame Democrats and without an alternative view point pushed people who aren’t politically engaged are more likely to believe Republicans.

The ten Democrat Senators who voted for the CR do not care about winning. They care about raising their donors’ stock portfolios.

Genocide denial is still genocide denial even if your argument uses victims of one genocide to deny that genocide happened to other groups of people.

Try telling that to the face of someone whose whole family died in the death marches.

My argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is bad, and that there is no meaningful difference between the two.

Your argument is genocide is bad, ethnic cleansing is frowned but somehow less bad, and that there is a meaning distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide that your argument does not articulate.

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the inaugural prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, has classified the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as a second Armenian genocide, and opined that the inaction of the international community encouraged Azerbaijan to act with impunity.[34][35]

The number of deaths has nothing to do with it. The intent is the same, the only difference between the two genocides is that they were less successful at killing people in the second one. The only people that are helped by defending a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide, that does not exist, are the people who want to commit genocide.

I think the vast majority of Democrats in House and Senate will bend the knee or just stay silent before facing persecution.

Since Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats have been ineffective so far, but they haven’t been silent. We’ll find out soon.

And everybody voting the furthest left viable is a flimsy strategy for fighting fascism.

It was the only useful, viable strategy we had.

Many people already do that all the time, but you can’t make sure that everybody does.

We can count on people to act in their own self-interest. People can organize online to spread true information. The issue was that people fell for propaganda that convinced them to act against their own interests without them realizing it.

Also, with this there never was a chance to move the party any further left. Every election there was this myth that you have to vote moderate to change the party, but it never happened. Why should it? Moderates can say that the voters have shown they want moderate positions when they win. And when they lose for some reason they go, “Well, if you need them the most the progressives will stab you in the back. Let’s cut them out”. This is what I mean there are no consequences for Democrats, at least for the leadership that’s moderate and neoliberal. They will never move.

My argument is that voting for neoliberal Democrats will only incrementally shift the party to the left. In order to make the Democrats meaningfully change from a leaning right of center organization to at least a leaning left of center organization they must be co-opted by a progressive or socialist candidate with a populist narrative. This populist narrative would ideally be a progressive and socialist agenda. Like Bernie tried to do twice. In order for someone like Bernie to do this we needed more time before a fascist takeover.

We know this strategy can work because Trump did it to the Republican party. He used a populist narrative of white christian nationalism. However, we are now out of time and relying on the idea that fascist incompetence will give us another chance.

There is no fulcrum on the political spectrum that can force Democrats to change. And if what your argument wants is a reason for Democrats to change that is not consequences but incentives. To be clear, in a democracy the only consequence for losing elections is to lose out on political power. There is no mechanism besides voting to make Democrats agree with one group of constituents. Democrats look at who voted and then chase those votes.

As long as money is in politics the incentives will always be for the Democrats to incrementally change at best. At a pace that is far to slow to fix wealth inequality or climate change. Political power has to be seized when it is up for grabs during primaries in order to see more systemic change. But in order to do that there needed to be future elections which is no longer guaranteed.

Your argument’s defense of a nonexistent boundary between genocide and ethnic cleansing boils down to genocide denial. There is no agreed upon definition of ethnic cleansing. There is no way to peacefully forcefully relocate a group of people. An attempt to forcefully relocate a group of people is motivated by the desire to destroy that group in whole or in part.

The quote from the wiki article points out everything I have now written down in this comment. It’s written as a series of rhetorical questions with clear answers. Your argument’s effort to misrepresent the wiki page’s descriptive analysis of ethnic cleansing as an official definition is an attempt to police a none existent boundary. You argument left out the last part of that section.

Multiple genocide scholars have criticized distinguishing between ethnic cleansing and genocide, with Martin Shaw arguing that forced deportation necessarily results in the destruction of a group and this must be foreseen by the perpetrators.

A call for ethnic cleansing is a call for genocide. There is no way to engage in peaceful forceful deportation or population transfer. There is no meaningful difference between getting rid of a group by forcefully removing them and destroying them.

The Armenian genocide involved death marches, into the desert without food or water. What’s the meaningful difference between sending people to die in the desert and destroying them? There isn’t one.

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/armenian-genocide

Oh, lol. XD
🫶🇨🇦

I found this quote useful so I’m going to put it here as well as it seems incredibly relevant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

“How could ‘forced deportation’ ever be achieved without extreme coercion, indeed violence? How, indeed, could deportation not be forced? How could people not resist? How could it not involve the destruction of a community, of the way of life that a group has enjoyed over a period of time? How could those who deported a group not intend this destruction? In what significant way is the forcible removal of a population from their homeland different from the destruction’ of a group? If the boundary between ‘cleansing’ and genocide is unreal, why police it?”

You’ve got to put a /s on that. People in this comment section unironically believe that.

The last election is where democracy died.

There are other countries with their own elections facing the threat of a fascist takeover. Canada has one on October 20, 2025 that could be called earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Canadian_federal_election

I don’t think that legitimate elections are happening in 4 years. They’re gutting everything and installing their flunkies just as they said they would in p2025.

I think that it is likely we will not get fair and free elections if any elections at all in 2026 and 2028. It’s still possible that we do. We thankfully cannot rule out fascist incompetence in general, but we can’t count on it either for specific things. Regardless if we do have elections or not, having a movement that can win elections in theory is still useful for resisting and defeating fascism.

It’s important that we make it clear that there is no way to do an ethnic cleansing without genocide. I’ve updated my comment.