A crackpot who is connected to the CIA and a known source of misinformation and fake news.
That's an interesting assumption.
You should be thanking Lockheed martin
I sincerely hope that you one day find yourself on the receiving end of what you support.
Wow. I genuinely don't know how you managed to come up with that, it's genuinely impressive.
Try: "Manufacturing weapons of war for profit when you can't guarantee that they won't end up in the wrong hands is unethical and war profiteering corporations should not exist."
Multiple stealth edits lol.
See if you can spot the differences:
there are people around the world who will take stuff like this at face value and hate queer people because they associate us with the US military.
long-standing homophobia in other countries is caused by the US military becoming relatively queer-friendly 10 years ago
Can't read?
"There are people" does not mean "this is the sole source of homophobia," it means, "there are people." It is obviously true that some people believe that, it's just an objective fact about the world. There can still be long-standing homophobia and one of the ways in manifests and gets more people on board is what I mentioned, almost as if it's a complex issue with multiple contributing factors.
Also, the US can be tolerant or intolerant in reality, but that doesn't always conform to people's perceptions.
I understand that you're coming into this with a bone to pick with me, looking for any way to twist my words around. But maybe you, uh, shouldn't do that.
It also led me to discover the cognitohazard of Polcompball Wiki.
I never thought I would see Posadism on a list and think, "Oh finally, a real ideology."
long before it was clear that Trump would be the nominee. Or that he would be assisted by Russia.
How are either of those things relevant to the fact that Clinton elevated Trump? It's possible to elevate someone and for them to still lose, it's also possible for two different people to elevate someone, so neither of those things contradict the claim at all.
It's an important point, because you presented it as a form of evidence that could be used to show when "it's time" for everyone to switch to a third party, and then completely rejected it for that purpose right after. Which leaves us back at square one, which is that there is no means of coordinating a sudden switch or recognizing when such a switch would be viable. And without that, your whole position collapses.
Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass.
This is fundamentally not how things work. It won't just spontaneously happen, just like that, it isn't a trivial issue. Even if every single Democratic voter would prefer the Green Party (for instance), each of them individually would think, "Well, I may want to switch, but nobody else is going to, so it would be a wasted vote." There's no reason this wouldn't continue indefinitely.
This also ignores the fact that certain vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates. Collecting votes doesn't only help in terms of perceived relevancy, but it also directly helps in spreading the message.
I'd also like to point out that we're not at election day and yet you don't seem to be advocating for a third party, instead criticizing me for doing so. If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?
“And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?”
"No, I cannot admit it."
Dostoevsky never met American liberals lol.
An authoritarian state that commits genocide inside it’s own borders
Hold it!
Do you have evidence to support this testimony?
Objection
joined 6 months ago
Trump escalated tensions with both China and Russia, while giving total support to Israel. He bombed Syria, tore up the Iran deal, and attempted coups in Bolivia and Venezuela, while expanding sanctions on Cuba. Biden has merely continued his policies. There is broad bipartisan consensus on military spending and escalation of conflicts, and Trump has no real interest in going against that.
Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth to allow everyone to project whatever they want onto him, whether they're isolationist or the most bloodthirsty of nationalists, and liberals paint everyone who disagrees with their interventionist positions with the same brush, which helps him do it. I wrote a post dissecting his language here. If you actually look at his record and his actions, he's happy enough to go along with what the military-industrial complex wants. Here is a video that goes into more details about specifics.
Dick Cheney is obviously a horrible monster who deserves the worst, and it reflects very poorly on Harris to accept his endorsement, but just because she sucks doesn't mean Trump doesn't.