- 32
- 30
Ordinarily when I pick out a rightoid, they don't try to make a serious argument against me.
But @Governor is easily provoked, much like the boomer he is voting for as he whines about how he doesn't feel like he has a home in politics.
Politics isn't about having a home. Politics is about making decisions about how our government operates, and Trump is inimical to the continued further operation of our government because he's old.
He is old.
And he has to leave the race.
@Governor made a response at length, which you may view here
You may also consider voting in the Reader Poll that @flago is organizing, here;
Now then.
REBUTTAL
There are many reasons to support Trump. You may support Trump because:
It doesn't matter how reasonable you think your reasons are if they result in an incoherent conclusion. Support for Trump is incoherent. Your reasons are therefore invalid no matter how reasonable they seem to you. Let's examine them.
You don't like the government in power.
Whether or not you like the government having power, the government has power, and it's time for you to man up and accept it and stop whining about it. Our government has power. It has power which extends through its foreign connections, including to Israel and Ukraine.
Trump was dismissive of this power because it requires using the most important part of your brain, and Trump doesn't have a brain in the way most people consider 'a brain' because he's crippled by the flaw which all dictators share. In Trump the effect is especially pronounced because of his advanced age.
You see, there are a lot of ignorant people out there who believe that a strong authoritarian figure is what's needed to bring order in a state.
The truth is that a strong authoritarian figure is disorder in a state.
The Human Race has been working to deal with this problem of authoritarian dictators for thousands and thousands of years. Centering your society on the whim of a single individual is one of the curses out of old Africa.
The best solution to this problem is to rotate them in and out of power every four years. Forcing them to defend their incumbency to a challenger keeps the population focused on them.
If you believe otherwise, you are simply ignorant and I will blast your ignorant butt until you accept it.
The Democrats follow the Enterprise model of executive leadership, which is essentially the strength of Neoliberal Ideology. The Next Generation featured the neoliberal mode of advanced decision-making in real world situations involving having beautiful gunboats and some sense of moral responsibility for your environs.
Picard, the ideal man, sits his executive council down and listens to all of their input, and then makes a decision which is respected. He provides reasoning where expected.
He makes very little of his own decisions: instead of a single point of failure, there are many powers which may be empowered, as it were, by the executive voice.
Trump was not intelligent enough to make use of such a system. Biden is.
Biden has been occupied overseas for the entirety of his presidency. Foreign diplomacy. The moves of our military which are attributable to Biden have been superb. Mostly Biden didn't make those plans. If that makes him a puppet, he is at least a calm one in the face of staggering decisions with unfathomable consequences.
Biden can serve out his term and hand power over to the next committee. And it will be a committee, the question is whether or not that committee is listened to or disregarded and treated with contempt. Biden's power is in his Cabinet. Trump's Cabinet tells us he is unfit for office. Listen to them.
@Governor's reasons continue.
You're not a fan of how the government levers of the economy are being pulled.
It is probably true that Trump is the most responsible for inflation. Whether he had a choice is another matter but I think it was a mistake, because PRINTING MONEY IS A MISTAKE EVERY BAD EMPEROR MAKES AND IS PART OF WHAT MADE THEM BAD EMPERORS.
In any case, we're talking about 2024-2028. Trump is too old to be President. That's the only actual conclusion which matters.
You like Trump's personality over Klammy Kamala.
If you like Trump's personality then you are part of his cult of personality.
And you need to shoot yourself in the head, or at least take three shots of gin. Remember, in my OP I told you: look at @Governor's bio.
I am disparately impacted with brain damage given the current state of politics.
This damage is self-inflicted by the unacknowledged cognitive failure of supporting Trump for president. At least the old boomers who are still in the cult of personality are stuck in a mass hypnosis death spiral.
You don't want war with Russia.
Trump is too old to be involved in international politics.
But: Trump is Neville Chamberlain here. Appeasement is stupid. You can't appease authoritarian dictators.
Russia is our geopolitical adversary. Trump's behavior towards Putin was always incoherent.
- You favor a less interventionist foreign policy.
You should not believe that Trump will be interventionist. The US does not want war, the US does not want to be involved in wars. We have obligations to our allies which we can and should keep because THEY ARE OUR ALLIES??? THEY ARE WHAT IS KEEPING THE WHOLE PAX AMERICAN TOGETHER???
It's like you don't even understand the plan here. The plan for our foreign policy is HAVE ALL THE ALLIES.
To have them, you have to help them.
Trump is a disgraced former president who is too old to run. But his base isn't less interventionist: his base is religiously pro-Israel. There is no argument against supporting Ukraine that does not also apply to supporting Israel. If you believe that Trump will get us out of WW3 you are deluding yourself. Our foreign policy attachment to Israel may get us into WW3! Trump is an old person who should not be anywhere near the presidency right now.
You wish the government was more responsive with the border crisis.
There is absolutely no reason to deploy the military to enforce border security. The legislation around the border which was cancelled by Trump (which Republicans are now blaming him for) would have been the best responsiveness to the border crisis. Trump did a really terrible thing in causing that legislation to fail in order to run on the border.
For the people who are voting in the debate: I already made this point once. I make it again so you understand that he's not really contesting my argument, he's just repeating his talking points as if they matter in the face of: Trump is too old, get him the frick out of the race.
You want the government to respond to the opioid epidemic.
Recently Trump made it clear he's not entirely clear on what fentanyl is.
You believe taxes are too high.
Trump is too old to be president.
You support Israel over various terrorist movements.
So does the Democratic Machine.
You think that international trade in its present iteration is a bad deal for American workers.
Trump is too old to be president.
You dislike being lied to about the economy.
The Democrats are just that stupid that they believe the economy is doing well. I'm serious.
You dislike the trend of racialization of the economy, schools and government while in an economic downturn, or in general.
This just sounds like you're racist dude!
You felt that the country could use policies found in Agenda 24 or Project 2024 to the nation's benefit.
This is trolling because you haven't read Project 2024. If you want a theocracy and are willing to vote for an old man who is too old to be president to get it then I'm glad theocracies are inherently incompetent structures, which is why they should not be anywhere near our government.
You think abortion is a state issue.
I have no particular objection to the use of the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe V. Wade. I am in favor of abortion legalized at the federal level. My problem with you isn't your position on when life begins, but the fact that Trump is too old to be president.
I actually watched Biden in the first debate, and felt that drop in my stomach when Biden visibly had a stroke or something when responding to Trump.
But Biden executed on his obligation to drop out of the race and hand the presidency over whereas Trump is not capable of understanding that he has that obligation. Trump is obligated to step out, and the fact that he did not follow Biden out is the most darning indictment of how he is unfit for office, except, perhaps, for the indictment of his criminal actions on and around January 6th. Trump is on trial for serious crimes.
People who are voting as to who won the debate, please do take note.
People are alienated, gaslit into believing that Biden is healthy and in control.
Biden makes regular statements and appearances. He is old but he is making public statements and listening to his council and doing what they say and that's good enough for me right now. If that troubles you, allow me to refocus you once again on the real issue: Trump is too old to be President in 2024.
(Also, most progressive presidency in history-- just ask Biden- I mean Kamala!) with open borders,
Our borders are not open.
arbitrary arrests happening for people in attempt to stop criminals,
Sounds stupid. Point me to a news source.
criminal procedure initiated against the leading political opposition
The Republicans attempted to use criminal procedure against the Bidens. It came out that they were reliant on a KGB source which had poisoned the Republican's well. Our geopolitical adversary has successfully fed the Republican party talking points.
These criminal procedures fell apart: Biden was never impeached.
The criminal procedures enacted against Trump for attempting to overthrow the government on January 6th are functioning system attacking an appropriate target. You have to accept this because Jack Smith's briefing on those events is coming out in the next 10 days.
general program mismanagement in FEMA, CDC, HUD, DAG, FTC, FEC, etc.
Trump is too old to be president.
Biden supporters don't bat an eye when the Kamala merch is rolled out, with no voting, the next day.
That transition felt rapid but nimble.
Twitter accounts overnight go from spreading pro-Biden propaganda to pro-Harris sloganeering.
Yeah, because people changed their minds once events had gone down. You can change your mind. You can abandon your boomer for Vance.
Progressives don't bat an eye, they just take the next step.
Because Progress Marches On.
"Trump is a felon!" people will scream,
Trump is a felon, stop whining about it.
demanding justice for George Floyd just four years earlier
Just because Floyd was a criminal doesn't mean he deserved to die.
and trashing the SCOTUS for abortion rulings.
The SCOTUS is a factor in the election of people who we want to rule over us yes, and this is as it should be.
(Remember Biden's court packing plan that actually may have not been his plan after all?)
lmao YOU SOUND LIKE TRUMP LMAO YOU ARE PSIONICALLY LASHED TO THE DYING BOOMER
What the frick does this mean? People have been talking about packing the supreme court for decades brah! This sentence implies like five different stupid things:
that Biden came up with a plan to do a legal thing, legally, through existing legal means, and you want to blame Biden for the execution of this 'nefarious' plan to treat the power politics of the supreme court seriously while still acting within the intent and constraint of the law as written;
That when you found out Biden hadn't come up with this plan, you thought it was somehow 'nefarious' if some unknown conspiracy put this plan in Biden's hands as if he's just a puppet receiving advice lmao when we talk about it and then Biden decided to try and do it in some legislative act to come.
that it matters who came up with the plan, only that you stack as many scare tactics in as possible lmao
This is a train wreck.
Anyhow, I don't think I've demonstrated a serious mental illness for saying that I'm angry I feel politically homeless,
I'm not saying you have a serious mental illness for feeling angry about feeling politically homeless.
I'm saying you have a serious mental illness because you engage in mental gymnastics to support a sad and dying old man who is too old to be president again. This is what online politics did to you.
or that I want my brother to have medicine.
You don't have a brother. And anyway Biden got involved in negotiating drug prices directly. The Democrats passed the ACA which was huge step. The Rs tried to repeal it but couldn't. The Rs don't care about your imaginary brother's medicine.
I think saying you have brain damage from the 24/7 spin cycle in the news when you have to read it is you know, normal?
What?
I think you're problem with me more stems from the fact that I don't fit your demographic you can dismiss offhandedly.
No, my problem with you is that you think you're being reasonable, but you're being delusional.
(Gay, democrat, not-fascist, generally a reasonable person with a family and moral compass...) and you struggle,
I don't think I'm struggling here lmao.
like most progressives, that somewhere, someone doesn't agree with you and is sincere.
Your sincerity is not at issue here. This is a distraction: you are deflecting.
I'm not veiling my statements behind 10 levels of irony.
I think that much is clear in fact.
I'm very transparent about what I want, how I want it to happen, and what my boundaries are.
I'm glad for you.
But maybe you should reflect on why that unsettles you.
It doesn't unsettle me: you are easily baited.
Maybe focus on the why does it make you angry, as opposed to why it is I think this way.
Why doesn't matter, because the only thing which matters is the conclusion: Trump is too old.
You and I are different people. We will think differently, have different priorities, look at paintings on the wall differently even though we see the same image.
I'm trying to tell you that there's an old man in the exhibit, and yes, "is the old man the exhibit? 
" is funny, but this isn't merely a difference in opinion, it's a difference in facts: your facts are badly decayed due to the fascism schism in our politics. Snap out of it.
It's ok to agree to disagree, I'm not going to reply ad nauseum or make you feel like an idiot for asserting I don't have a brother.
But you're not even disagreeing. I don't think you read my position, much less understood it. For the people who are voting in the debate, take note.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad, but you did say you'd rather be anti-Trump than let my brother have affordable healthcare, and that's pretty stupid. !sophistry rate my response.
This is a weak sophistry, because it does not rest on any manner of correct point, only a fabricated notion. Sophistry is resting my entire point on whether or not your brother is real.
I'll give you a quick front-matter tl:dr, I'm rigging a bet by responding to this, and work pays me to browse rDrama.
That's right, I'm being paid to write hot takes no one should read!
Long post ahead, ye be warned. 
So @Impassionata typically writes schizo posts with political themes, and doesn't really seem to get concepts critical to understanding the modern political world. Things like nuance, multifaceted issues with multiple root causes, fellow traveler-like paradigms for political movements, etc typically escape the grasp of most liberal/socialists/partisans. There's more than one reason to vote for or against someone, especially in a flawed democratic republic like the USA. (I wouldn't be shocked if Impassionata was a euro-cel.)
Politics isn't about having a home. Politics is about making decisions about how our government operates, and Trump is inimical to the continued further operation of our government because he's old. He is old. And he has to leave the race.
So already we're out of the gate with a cool assertion that old people shouldn't hold political office. This is a really good indicator that the OP is either too young to vote, or missed the last election and wants to blame someone for bad outcomes that happen in political environments. Far be it from voters to choose who their candidate should be, like with a primary. That's too complicated for voters says @Impassionata old people should just be banned from office except when they're running on my ticket. Pelosi, Bernie and Biden? They aight, but opposition candidate old man, who won the primary with millions of votes? Shouldn't be on the ballot.
This is the theme of @Impassionata's screed that for whatever reason old people suck. I personally like old people, I think old people are healthy for democracy because they have assets, consider their families, and typically don't rank abortion as their number one issue unless they're divorced and in their mid sixties white women. (IE: Evil) So out of the gate, we have an issue with old people in democratic politics, but really no follow through as to why. Let's take a closer look.
It doesn't matter how reasonable you think your reasons are if they result in an incoherent conclusion. Support for Trump is incoherent. Your reasons are therefore invalid no matter how reasonable they seem to you. Let's examine them.
So again, leftist tendency to eat the horse before you take your cart to market. Sad! If everyone knew the outcome of each and every decision they would make, there would be no need to make irrational decisions, everyone would be a rational actor and philosophers could all kills themselves. Unfortunately, far from leading to philosopher genocide, we have a still living @Impassionata ranting about people making bad choices. Student loans for art degrees are a bad choice, but somehow I think personal responsibility will be dodged for
@Impassionata here.
People in a free society are you know, free, to make whatever choices they want within certain guidelines. But for whatever reason, voting for a New York real estate billionaire is against what is permissible because he advocates for 90's era Democrat policies, which I'm told are racist, xenophobic and chuddy for current year + 8.
Then we get some weighty analysis from @Impassionata here:
Whether or not you like the government having power, the government has power, and it's time for you to man up and accept it and stop whining about it. Our government has power. It has power which extends through its foreign connections, including to Israel and Ukraine.
No one denied that the government has power, I said I didn't like the current government (Biden Admin/Harris Admin) in power. I acknowledge that the government will use violence against me if I don't pay taxes to give to Israel and Ukraine. I freely acknowledge that although the government, in various administrations have shown a total lack of interest in doing things like disaster preparation, sealing the border from migrant caravans, ensuring the drug crisis is addressed, trying to limits money in politics, limiting the racialization of institutions or enforcing SCOTUS orders on said issues. This is to name a few hot button issues, enjoined with a flailing economy and general lack of trust in our political leadership. But confusing Israel's power to tax American workers, or Ukraine's power to drain our coffers is stupid, because none of these things materially help Americans of any variety except rich people who buy bonds for deficit spending at higher yields, or you know, people who own weapons companies. @Impassionata frames this as a moral failure on my part, where since I'm not happy to get out my checkbook and launch us into a nuclear confrontation with a foreign power a globe away, that's indicative of serious moral decay. You know, especially after progressives were against the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, I expected them to be peaceniks, but now nuclear weapons are good, and so are shredding men, women and children of both Ukraine and Russia.
No one really likes to think about the implosion of Russia from a consequentialist viewpoint. So let's just remind everyone, Russia 100+ million people, and Syria which was 22+ million people. So if we're just glossing over this, if Russia collapse tomorrow, we could reasonable expect a Syria-like influx of refugees from the deterioration of Russia's state cohesiveness to the tune of 5x the size of Syria. That would be bad. But no one in the State department cares, because you'll just be branded a traitor, suspicious or sympathetic to Putin instead of being considered on the merit of this risk.
Moving on.
Trump is too old to be involved in international politics. But: Trump is Neville Chamberlain here. Appeasement is stupid. You can't appease authoritarian dictators. Russia is our geopolitical adversary. Trump's behavior towards Putin was always incoherent. You favor a less interventionist foreign policy. You should not believe that Trump will be interventionist. The US does not want war, the US does not want to be involved in wars. We have obligations to our allies which we can and should keep because THEY ARE OUR ALLIES??? THEY ARE WHAT IS KEEPING THE WHOLE PAX AMERICAN TOGETHER??? It's like you don't even understand the plan here. The plan for our foreign policy is HAVE ALL THE ALLIES. To have them, you have to help them.
Like all things, there's a time and place for it. For example, ignoring the nuance of the Euromaidan movement's overthrowing the government and just saying that Ukraine freed themselves from Russia's puppeteering, you really have to examine what our links were to Ukraine. I'll rip-off Wikipedia right here:
So just to summarize, treaties need to be ratified by the Senate, otherwise they're not legal, or binding. Clinton and Bush specifically didn't think this would pass the Senate, hence Memorandum instead of treaty obligation. In a normal country with checks and balances, this would of course be widely known, accepted and practices. But we don't live in a country that respects norms, democratic or international. We live in America in it's most corrupt iteration. There's no reason to be in Ukraine other than to threaten Russia. You can be for or against that, but pretending that Ukraine was some long-time ally is histrionic. Ukraine is a corrupt shithole with unironically unelected head of state. Putin has won more lections than Zelensky, and probably just as many fair ones. Moving on.
There is absolutely no reason to deploy the military to enforce border security. The legislation around the border which was cancelled by Trump (which Republicans are now blaming him for) would have been the best responsiveness to the border crisis. Trump did a really terrible thing in causing that legislation to fail in order to run on the border.
Trump torpedoed an amnesty bill played off as border security, that was poison pilled. I'm glad he did. Somehow Kamala got ahold of that crisis without those laws, or maybe not? No one knows what's true anymore unless you live on the border or are a victim of a crime committed by a marauding migrant. Moving on.
The Republicans attempted to use criminal procedure against the Bidens.
@Impassionata doesn't know that an investigation by the House is not criminal procedure. It's ok to investigate people who take bribes. That behavior should be normalized. If it were, Biden, most politicians would be in jail. Something I very much support given our level of corruption.
Because Progress Marches On. "Trump is a felon!" people will scream, Trump is a felon, stop whining about it.
I like this glib response, because it's pretty crass. Rather that addressing prosecutorial malfeasance, generally the fraudulent prosecution of Trump that various other DA's backed away from, it's just a wholesale dismissal that Trump could be innocent of what(?) he's being accused of. I'm not even sure what the crime is, I have two degrees in political science, I regularly interpret law, I actually don't understand how he's being convicted other than for political purposes. But maybe a certain grocery clerk can enlighten me.
You don't have a brother.
Things take a turn for the worse when @Impassionata starts saying I don't have a brother. Not sure what this is about. The rest of the post is generally nonsense, has no redeeming value. Apparently I'm some kind of nazi for voting for Trump, who in my opinion is pretty milquetoast on a variety of issues but has the occasional follow through, versus Kamala, who has never won a presidential primary but failed upward thanks to Biden dying on stage three months ago. Thanks Obama.
Anyhow, it's been fun, time for lunch! May be a part two somewhere in me, only if I get a raise though.
@Impassionata if there's anything else you want me to address, let me know.
!russians !chuds !nooticers !sophistry !metashit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I stand with
@Impassionata, because she would protect me, as her ally, and you wouldn't. You would hand me over to the Russians.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
impassionista fighting Jessabelle Devancie to protect the !nonchuds sisters:
!familyman epique
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The uploader has not made this video available in your country :(
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
NEW familyman just dropped
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Protect yourself playa
Your ancestors are ashamed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Is this how wingcucks flirt?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Wrong.
Wrong. I want every person over 65 out.
Voting for Trump is wrong because he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
You idiot.
No, your reasons, the reasons you think matter, don't matter if they lead you to the conclusion that you should vote for someone who doesn't respect our elections, who insists on living in a boomer fantasy tantrum world. Stop holding us hostage to your boomer's narratives.
This is stupid. You're an idiot.
This just makes you a willful idiot.
Disappointing, to be honest.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Who voted for Kamala?
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Please tell me why that link matters to you because I just see a dangerous old man getting handled. There's nothing illegal or morally wrong about making sure that the loser in an election and his sycophantic followers know he lost.
The delegates at the DNC voted for Kamala. This is how parties have always worked. It makes you mad, which is funny, but your anger is impotent and stupid.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!followers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
BIPOC
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Impassionata is right that you can't have a democracy where one side refuses to accept when they lose. All the rest is static.
In most countries they'd put you down for that but Burgertown thinks it can't happen here so they won't acknowledge that it almost did. (not the yahoos in the capitol, but the paper coup)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Did she try to install herself as President? Or did she just whine a little bit 4 years later?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So that's a 'no', then?
Hey look, unlike rightards, libs can admit and deplore hypocrisy - even from people on their team.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Key wording. Don't attack the source, attack the substance.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's 'Murica. Anyone can say any shit they want to, right? Basically these two dudes were mad and tried to get other people to join them in overturning a legitimate election:
If you're honest, I think you'll admit that two guys running their mouths that came to nothing is not much like Trump's efforts in 2020:
But you're right, Baca and Chiafalo also tried in their own feeble little way to subvert the will of the electorate and maybe the law should be changed to make a stunt like that clearly illegal.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think people should be allowed to do what they want, even if it's distasteful. If that means gaming an archaic system to elect their candidate in a theoretical legal exercise, then I agree with you. Baca and Chiafalo did something akin to Trump, where Trump used a legal theory to attempt to keep the presidency. If Trump shot someone, I would expect him to be removed from office. If Trump sued in court to litigate an election in extraordinary circumstances, that is well within his rights to do so.
If you want to make what Trump did illegal, then pass a law. Make it illegal to litigate elections. But don't come to a conclusion and work backwards, that's asinine. Throw everyone in jail after the law is passed, or status quo.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think Trump's court cases (all of which he lost decisively) were well within bounds: they were more obnoxious but no more illegal than what Gore did in 2000.
But pressuring local officials to dig up extra votes or demanding your VP overturn the results is clearly autogolpe territory and criminal conduct.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Reddit is when more than four letters.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a bit more nuanced than that
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Impy doesn't even make schizoposts, he just says shit like "Rethuglicans Nazis are going literally genocide AOC and LGBTQBRAAAAPPPP!!!", which is just the result of the kind of dementia you get from being a metareddit neolib.
Honestly you two make a good match OP.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Not sure it's worth putting this much effort into stuntin' on a guy whose idea of political debate is to just call his opponents idiots when they criticize his arguments.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If that's all I did, people wouldn't read me. But I expose the boomer lies for the farce that they are, and that's why you have to make this attempt to portray my arguments as illegitimate.
The people I call idiots are truly idiots.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
When impassionata writes rambling political posts it is endearing. When rightoids earnestly respond in kind it is cringe. Don't @ me, I don't make the rules, that's just how it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No I think this is how Imp should be dealt with. Letting blogposters rant without pushback actually empowers them but making them sneed forces them to be more like proper forum posters.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Unnecessary and uncalled for ping
two more strikes and you're getting blocked + megadownmarseyd buddy, don't test your luck
Snapshots:
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties.[2][53] According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine."[52] In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms.[53] The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum.[54] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[55] Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment":
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
you live on the border or are a victim of a crime committed by a marauding migrant.:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Can you two just make out already and get it over with
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Unironically anyone who has not been in the labor force or full time education in the last 2 years or who is older than 70 should be barred from holding political office or voting.
The idea suffrage should be universal is fricking r-slurred, it would be much better to just go full technocracy but at least getting the olds and gibs out of it would slightly improve it.
The idea of people without a future having a useful opinion on the future is only held by idiots.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I agree on gibs but disagree on old. Old people have a future. Grandkids. Sons and daughters. They care, intensely about what happens, and often make more informed decisions than neets and gibs.
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The olds have the most gibs.
If they gave a shit about their grandchildren they wouldn't keep electing religious lunatics who think science is a conspiracy against Americans.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I feel like you don't know what social security is. Like, are you against the idea of social security, or are you against old people?
Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
you're still a bad person
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context