• 0 Posts
  • 78 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2024

help-circle


  • All of the things and much worse then that happens under both Democrats and Republicans and Hilary is no better. After all, if she knew Trump was that bad, why would she risk all of that and support him in her pied piper strategy if she actually cares about any of these people? The examples you listed are the smallest arguments you could make, since any of that is easily overshadowed by an actual genocide both sides fund. Since when should people have empathy towards CIA agents that coup governments, traffic drugs, kill people and destroy democracies for benefit of some oil companies. And since when should we have empathy for murder cops? And how would you be sure that less people would have died of Covid with Hilary, she has same interests as Trump did in that situation. And Democrats where happy with not letting separated kids be reunited, they just pretend like they always do.

    And all of these are so small compared to most important issues like wealth inequilty, gencoide, housing crisis, etc. Where their rich people policies are almost identical. Don’t be fooled by their propaganda.








  • Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.





  • When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.