Hates - no. But giving off the impression of being weird is not that hard. I’m certain quite a few people would believe something like this about me purely due to being a sunlight-avoiding wimp bad with words (in verbal conversations).

So due process is a good thing. For each Andrew Tate there are a few dozens at least of people whom “the society” would eagerly accuse simply because of being asocial and weird. Like that folk psychology with red flags, manipulations and other shit. People practicing it can wound an autist. But I seriously doubt those would help them avoid a serial maniac.

Are any of his clients now in jail?

You’ve skipped half or more of what I wrote. Especially about not putting in jail people who committed war crimes in Iraq and about supporting people like Putin against everyone else in the ex-USSR in the 90-s.

I’m not talking about nation building under American control, but killing a million of a country’s population warrants reparations, international courts, official apologies (real ones) …

Currently weakening the Russian military in Ukraine. Do you want to broaden the war?

In 2008, not currently.

It doesn’t seem to be a lot of thought in this particular “US bad” narrative. There are real criticisms to be made of US foreign policy but you’re missing them all by a longshot. Maybe consider that the US isn’t some nation of supermen that is capable of solving all of the world’s problems but it just doesn’t want to. It’s more accurate to say the US isn’t actually capable of solving many of the problems in the world, and tends to make a lot of messes by misunderstanding other countries and it’s own capabilities.

Yes, if you replace what I said with weird imagined things.

It doesn’t take to be a nation of supermen to stop arming Turkey, Israel, Azerbaijan, put sanctions on them and forget they are of the same species.

And it seems to actually be close to “some nation of supermen” when supporting the bad guys. There’s definitely some beef to US’s capabilities when it wants to fuck something up and arm cannibals.

It’s not that hard to not act. The problem with the US is that it does bad things, not that it doesn’t do good things. But if it just can’t play hegemon differently, then it could at least try to clean up sometimes.

I would say election interference still mostly works in the “all the world trying to somehow affect US” way as opposed to “US interfering with some country’s elections”.

Simply because affecting the power balance in the metropoly is much more rewarding.

Russia is a scarecrow.

First, it’s not new and even USSR during fscking Cold War would fund and influence the so-called progressive youth (not what’s called progressive now) and parts of the Democratic Party. I guess that Biden guy stopped being a Soviet asset long before being elected president, but he definitely was at some point.

Second, Russian meddling is not even comparable to Israeli, Turkish, Saudi meddling. The problem is that they seem to agree with each other and often cooperate these years.

Third, it’s not even a big deal, we know that politics involve such meddling. They wouldn’t think the same about the USA if it would show some responsibility. Restore Iraq after fscking it up. Investigate war crimes and give some justice to their victims after that invasion. Protect Georgia against Russia. I guess the Marshall plan was for white Europeans only (it’s funny BTW, people in ex-USSR in 1991 apparently expected that something like that will be attempted, but USA worked to cement the ex-Soviet elites and to help them neuter actual grassroots movements instead), but at least fixing things that wouldn’t be broken without USA seemed logical.

If it’s acceptable, then a wildcard ban of undetected protocols and the “bad” ones from among the detected is possible. China-style.

That is, everything is possible.

Also, it’s a misconception that a decentralized service cannot be banned. In fact it’s not hard at all

Yes, if banning protocols is acceptable for you.

Removed by mod

The whole of USA is something 300+mln people, now do Christianity, then do Islam, then do Hinduism, then do Communism, and then do Fascism.

There was an unaccounted fanbase, yes.

What catalyzed it was them not being welcome anywhere they could blow off steam.

So maybe, again, mocking them is not the way, but on the contrary, almost a repetition of that.

I’m not going to read this bullshit attentively because the problem is Israel and theft remains theft after many generations.

The state of Israel is built upon “restoring ethnic makeup” of something not 100, but 2000 years ago. If they don’t like this logic, they should abolish it first and surrender.

Palestinians don’t have a problem with hatred. It’s clueless people like me who misunderstood how disgusting Israel is who thought before that they have a problem with hatred.

Germans managed to realize that it was their hatred that was the root cause of the destruction of their country.

And Israelis will too. Same ideology, same end result. They might think they are smarter.

There are few morals in geopolitics and there are no friends, only interests.

It’s funny how everyone was so excited about this rule in those years before 1939. Then for a short time some people experimentally realized that maybe some morals would be fine.

No, no politician ever believed that, but I’m confident that the reason we are only going into similar shit now is that before that there was a kind of common irrational memory, popular pressure for some morals to be followed.

The population of the western countries (except Germany, which till 80s was, eh, what it was) was rather interested in morals, anti-fascist and anti-colonial, and also (including even Germany) wanted peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

There’s another rule - people so excited about backstabbing and intrigue can’t honestly face their enemies, which means they can’t honestly face themselves which is harder. They are weak. They are good at collectively making it appear that they are strong, but earlier or later the truth becomes clearly visible.

Everything changes, morals (not those about sexual life and religion and even honesty, but those about strength and dignity and friendship) don’t, since not even Marcus Aurelius, but since Gilgamesh epic. That’s because they are an evolutionary advantage. Nothing that isn’t can perpetuate itself into future, and many generations have changed since then, but we still have those notions.

You all are missing the fact that the problem existing makes you vote for those who promise to solve it. The problem being solved stops that.

No anti-monopoly action promised again.

“Build a fuckload of subsidized homes” and “lower prices” (that’s what she says, just in smarter words, cause building a lot with budget means will actually increase inflation in all of economy).

If I were American, I’d think I’m being disrespected with such non-sophisticated promises.

“See, if it’s not me, it’s that delusional anti-vaxxer fascist over the street, nobody else needs you and I love you.” - Something like that.

I mean, yeah, if that’s your only other choice.

Why would Democrats pass ranked choice when they don’t have competition under existing system?

Has anyone ever yielded power voluntarily?

OK, sometimes very illuminated and virtuous souls do that. Just in case, these are not on the ballot.

What’s failing? Polls tell us otherwise.

And by the way, maybe they are competent. Maybe they are just fine with Dems winning the election.

Trump’s output is just sewage, which makes it less harmful than something which is interpreted and repeated by rather intelligent people.

Let’s please remember that the Republican party was responsible for a pole of actually valid ideologies (something like “RFK minus mental impairment”), the worst effect they have is that those ideologies are not represented by anyone practically electable. What they replace them with is the second worst effect.

Mockery by its essence may very easily spill at those ideas.

Discourse in politics should be respectful. Even if it’s not that now. That’s not touching upon the possibility of degrading into a single-party system, seeing how GOP is sinking.

This can be shortened to:

Democrats have learned to talk like arguing traders on a ME bazaar, with that “munnat” tone, but haven’t yet learned to actually bargain like people do in such situations.

The issue is, I’m not sure this is correct. You are presenting Democrats as acting in your interest, just dumb.

I seriously doubt there are people dumber than you and me anywhere close to their leadership. But assuming that they are acting in your interest is unsubstantiated.

Also I hope this

is the day Democrats never lose again.

doesn’t mean you want a single-party system.

Soviet newspaper quotes of the kind “our single-party democracy is showing itself to be more efficient than their useless oscillations between Democrats and Republicans” are supposed to be a joke.

Mockery is a bad thing except maybe against actual totalitarian dictators (but then maybe their danger should be shown honestly, not mocked). Mocking people overrides rational arguments.

Also they mock whole nations when those are under threat. A lot of Nazi propaganda was mockery. A lot of Azeri propaganda is mockery of Armenians (when it’s Azeri-bought Russian and Ukrainian media, direct Azeri propaganda is more about threats and gloating than mockery).

A two-edged sword. In a situation where Trump can’t win an election, maybe they shouldn’t use such poisonous means.

It is inflation. And “greed” is accounted for in the definition of a market. Oligopolies are not.

Well, he’s right in the sense of those emotions on stage being fake.

Fake joy is a recognizable cultural trait of Americans elsewhere actually.

And there was hate.

Now, of course, there is joy in life, but usually not connected to political events.