When we do it, it's only a "pseudo-occupation"

When Nazi Germany occupied France, was it only a "pseudo-occupation" because the Panzers then "protected" the occupied territory from the British? What a ridiculous line of logic.

Then I can't imagine what kind of worries reading Jonathan Swift would give you.

Huh didnt you beginn the whole comment by telling you “have bunch of cats”?

Woosh.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I meant? I'm not asking for evidence that Trump isn't pro-genocide, I'm asking for evidence of posts claiming that Trump isn't pro-genocide.

What "context" am I missing here exactly, or what "conclusion" have I come to that I couldn't have come to unless I was trying to start shit? Seems like my interpretation is extremely straightforward, the person claimed that there are posters saying that Trump isn't pro-genocide, despite the conspicuous absence of any such comments in this thread, or linked to in their comment. So, they made it up, and are lying.

There are other monarchies in the world today that do hold political power. That doesn't mean that they're governing over a feudal system. The noble system I described is one of the defining characteristics of feudalism.

Does North Korea have the noble class I described? Do you have any evidence that such a class exists?

It's the candidate's responsibility to win over the voters.

That doesn't give people license to lie about him.

Which was probably the intent from the start.

I don’t keep links for things I don’t need.

This website has a search function. Searching "Khmer Rouge Justified" returns precisely 5 comments, none of which were claiming it was justified or responding to someone claiming it was justified. "Khmer Rouge Wall" likewise turned up nothing of note. Liar.

Almost everybody has seen MLs call it justified, it takes only one case.

Great! Anyone is welcome to chime in and provide evidence. Where is it? Liar.

accusing others of lying in the same comment you are asking for proof in,

That... that's not at all contradictory lmao. Liar.

I think everybody reading this has a measure of you.

Given your comments about how drowning puppies is justified, which everyone's definitely seen but which I have precisely zero evidence of, I think you're the one everyone has a measure of.

How could you say that?

Puppies? Really? Wow.

Ofc, I won't provide evidence, because as you're a puppy murderer, I don't respect you and won't play by your terms. Liar.

Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.

If they both believe the same thing on one topic, then you can cancel that topic out and only look at the other policies

This isn't a math equation, it's a negotiation between human beings. You're saying that opposition to genocide is off the table because neither politician is offering it. But what happens if a sufficiently high number of voters say that genocide is off the table? In the short term, yes, it may mean a worse candidate wins. But if your goal is to stop genocide then it's necessary to create that impasse and maintain it until the other side caves. The fact is that we have something they apparently want, and there's no reason to hand over our votes if they open with the complete non-starter of supporting genocide.

There's nothing remotely ridiculous about saying that an apartheid ethnostate does not have a right to exist.