robinnn [he/him]

LMAO LMAO LMAO

To call Zelenskyy “President Putin” at that critical moment was offensive and totally unacceptable.

I think it was funnier

Holy brainrot

You’re right, and by God… I’m worried. We need someone who can get in that seat and do the duties of the president. Imagine Biden’s not in his right state of mind and weapons shipments to Nazis in Ukraine need to be approved, or a railroad workers’ strike needs to be put down, or Israel needs more bombs to drop on Palestinian villages. Who is going to pull through? Who’s going to get up and say, “put those migrants in concentration camps and close the border, escalate tensions with China even if we sabotage renewable energy transition, and tonight I’ll make a speech where I lie through my teeth without stuttering or losing my train of thought”?

Well, this may be controversial, but, in my opinion the torch needs to be handed down to the next generation of CIA directors’ children, Star Trek: The Next Generation. These youngsters might just have both the patriotism and cognitive abilities to keep the child killing machine well-oiled. Slava Amerkani!

If we’re stuck in a two-party system and people consistently vote for democrats despite not being democrats themselves simply because they think it’s the “lesser evil” of effectively two options, why should these people’s opinion about which democratic candidate is available not matter?

A right wing nationalist movement of the past that supported a monarchy

You have no clue what you’re talking about. The monarchy was already leading, and the movement was aimed at combating the brutal imperialist exploitation of China, so was objectively progressive. Nationalism can be both a good (progressive) and bad (regressive) thing depending on the situation (development of the nation, relationship with other countries, etc.). Using right-wing in this sense is strange, because we could argue numerous historically progressive movements were “right wing” by today’s standards, it means nothing.

A corporate-controlled genocidal fascist who’s incapable of speaking is the ideal leader under liberalism. Saying mean things destroys democracyTM.

Can you actually explain the difference between the options and reconcile the fact that Hillary and the DNC purposefully elevated Trump behind the scenes (entire “lesser evil” rationale is a farce)? Thx!

It’s like I’m talking to a character in Disco Elysium who has two preprogrammed responses and maybe a third if I forget to wear a shirt. Completely off in your own world huffing nasal spray.

I’m arguing the U.S. is no less psychopathic and countries need protection from Western imperialism.

The US was the one that initiated it regardless, and I think China and Russia’s support for UN sanctions on Iran was incorrect.

?

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran and the U.S. helped him. Would you actually want a country like that to have nukes?

And the sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table in the first place was very difficult to forge, so that won’t be duplicated ever again.

Oh that’s awful it was so difficult to forge your apparatus for terrorizing the Iranian people.

All of your politicians represent the capitalist imperialist class. Remember the US overthrew Iran’s democracy and propped up a monarch in the 1950s and have continued to violate Iran’s sovereignty since. If they weren’t armed they would be a Western slave state like Libya.

Maybe don’t mindlessly say it requires cognitive dissonance to consider NATO (an organization that bombed Libya and supported anti-black rebels leading to an open-air slave market in the country, and armed/collaborated with Nazis and ethno-nationalists to sabotage left-wing movements in West Germany, Greece, Turkey, Italy, etc. (Operation Gladio)) an evil empire (and for slavery/against peace to use your 1984 comparison).

And yet, still the largest source of methane emission.

They also have the largest population. Per-capita they are not the largest source. It’s ridiculous to evaluate countries’ outputs without regard for the size of their populations.

As a product they can sell. Let’s not pretend like this has some altruistic motivation.

That’s true, and yet they also chose to massively subsidize their solar industry in order to meet climate goals.

Where is “the bad shit that China has done?” You still haven’t said anything about this.

The UN can’t enforce anything unless it’s against a US enemy state.

Yes they did.