Strawmen all you got Linky? You so basic.

I agree. You aren’t rebutting anything I said.

Israel has needed a reckoning since basically day one. America has danced around the fact and played defensive older brother for three quarters of a century. All for a “foothold” in the region.

And as a long term senator, vice president, and president. Biden is more culpable than many in Congress. But it still is a Congress problem. The executive branch oversees diplomacy, defense, and execution of law under federal authority. Congress writes the laws, approves aid, and cuts the check. Biden can speed it up, and slow it down. He’s done both and is crucified regularly from both ends for doing so. All in an effort I’d call overly diplomatic and undeserved on netanyahu’s part.

I got no problem with people expressing disappointment and worse with Biden. I’m not a Democrat. I have no love of the party. I’m not a liberal either. I’m too fringy for most progressives. Fuck the Democrats. But I know, for a fact. January 20th 2025 there’s still gonna be a Republican or a Democrat in the whitehouse. And god help us if its a Republican. And by us I mean the world not just Americans. Because things WILL be worse.

I’m all for primarying every single Democrat in upcoming midterm elections etc with Pro Palestinian candidates for the next 20 years. But if we could stop being useful tools for actual fascists. Practicing self harm. Long enough to not hand the actual fascists control of another branch of government. That’d be great. K’ thanks bye

Enabling genocide is bad. Calling enabling, genocide, is also bad. Be better.

The situation in Palestine has been fucked for decades. It’s great to see people finally starting to care. But it’s also extremely on brand to see people letting perfect be the enemy of the best we have. In an effort to get the worst possible elected. If you spent half this amount of time railing against the actual fascist people might accidentally think you were American or Genuine. Be better.

Which narrative? They have multiple to cover every outcome.

The point of it is to be abused.

Way to prove your disingenuousness. I never argued for the status quo. But I understand that when you don’t actually have a response to an argument. At least for disingenuous people. You just make stuff up as you just did. I get that you irrationally hate nato. And you can keep irrationally hating nato. Because you will not ever succeed or convince people of your position when you keep making up stufg like this.

All I said was that there are other Bad actors out there. And leaving ourself defenseless and without allies is a bad idea. I’m all for fixing nato. But you are for Banning hammers because someone was killed by one once. Your for throwing babies out with bath water. Because it was dirty. Mutual defense packs are fine and have a place still today. I would like to see the imperialist nature of it done away with. But no one with any sense would trust anything you have to say. Good day.

That’s literally always been the point of crypto. These headlines are sort of the equivalent of well duh or no s*** sherlock. I’ve always been rather bemused by the main stream credibility crypto was given due to the grifter hype around it. It was always a bananas concept ripe for abuse.

Strictly speaking I don’t disagree.

I am not necessarily a fan of west. But my guess is that he’s a victim of his pride and unwittingly / uncritically supporting the worst element around unintentionally.

But they’re absolutely is a third option. Compromat.

Neither Putin or Flynn are tankies. Not even remotely. Putin is realistically fascist. And Flynn is a fascist cheerleader. If my choice was between supporting them or tankies. I would support tankies every single day. And I really don’t like tankies or other similar authoritarian types. But they are slightly better than fascists like Putin

No it’s not. By abolishing the mutual defense pact of all those different nations it will simply Empower a different group of people. Who are just as bad actors as NATO has traditionally been. And any claim to the contrary is pants on head crazy.

Are you seriously insisting that Russia who is currently invading ukraine. And China who is poisoning the reefs and fishing spots around their neighbors in order to hurt them while also saber rattling at Taiwan would see the dissolution of NATO and say okay we’ll be good people now? Is that seriously what you’re implying? I’m not saying they’re worse than NATO had traditionally been. They’re pretty on par. But let’s not act delusionally here.

The fact that they didn’t take the time to really try to smear him doesn’t mean he’s hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don’t directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn’t get out.

Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don’t have to be true. Often they aren’t. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.

Only on the accelerationist left. No one is saying NATO is great. That’s not an argument that can be made. But it’s insane to genuinely believe the world would be better or much different in its absence.

NATO for all it’s sins is a tool. That could be just as easily leveraged for good. That is if we stop self sabotaging. Instead showing some solidarity and working towards coalitions that could actually stand and represent the Common Man against the wealthy.

She runs for president and nothing else.

He only has to live long enough to get it done.

I’m not advocating for violence. But I’ll put it this way. If I ended up on a jury for a murder trial for someone who killed one of the justices that decided for this. I would dedicate my life to nullifying that jury so hard. Not advocating. Just saying.

Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over “obamacare”. No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?

Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They’d have smeared him worse than Clinton.

If we’re having elections in 28 and she isn’t a candidate. Something is wrong.

Yes they aren’t Libertarians that’s what started this whole debate here. They are economic liberals. Libertarians believe in public ownership of Natural Resources etc. Economic liberals on the other hand pretending to be Libertarians reject that and many other basic parts of libertarianism. But are absolutely in line and all for the part of the “Libertarian Party”.

Pragmatically I’m anarco-communist/Libertarian. Dejacque Libertarian. Not the nutty Rothbard/Friedman Ayn Rand worshiping economic liberals. There have to be people in charge. You, strictly speaking can’t have “no rulers”. In capitalist systems especially. Someone always accumulates wealth and power. Using that to rule. Rothbard economic liberals enable those types. The only way to deter them is with the aggression principle. Under threat of death or dissolution that they must stay small, and accountable to the people they serve. Preferability enforced under the authority of groups of community councils. Or similar smaller granular governing groups that are as voluntary as possible.

There is NO functional mechanism under Rothbard economic liberalism to fight capitalist theft and collusion. Individuals can’t effectively vote with their dollar. Not when it comes to necessities. Likewise Rothbard economic liberals have NO functional mechanisms to protect freedoms. Nor can Rothbard economic liberals accurately identity freedoms. If you have ACCESS to a freedom others do not. That’s a privilege. Often made possible via the exploitation of other weaker groups. Not a freedom. For something to be a freedom, it has to be something everyone has easy access to. Not a remote possibly of access to.

Marxist Leninist call themselves Communists. They aren’t. Rothbard economic liberals call themselves Libertarians. They aren’t. To the credit of Rothbard economic liberals they pay lipservice to the problem of Republican social interference and oppression. To their damnation they refused we didn’t actually do anything about it. Or help impacted and oppressed groups. Often choosing to vote policy-wise with Republicans and their regressive policies over Progressive and even Democrats trying to give people real freedom. I may not agree with dresses and Democrats if they are generally capitalist. But at least they aren’t Rothbard economic liberals.