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.

History, procedure, common sense, and logic all said that was what was going to happen. They didn’t cancel the primaries. They never started the primaries. A lot of states started holding primaries assuming the incumbent wasn’t running again. But that was never the case. Biden never said that he was only going to run the one time and not again. People in his orbit discussed that he might do that. But that was nothing that he said or that they ever committed to.

You and I are welcome to believe this what he should have done. But historically if an incumbent decides to run for another Term. No party ever Has primaried them. We can criticize Biden on not telegraphing that well enough. That’s fair. We can absolutely criticized Biden on things like that. But policy-wise and as far as his administration goes. He’s been fairly popular and consequential. Despite the one really big issue which seems to be all people want to talk about ignoring the fascist in the room.

If all debates for like that one. I would not miss a single debate. He cut through the b******* and got straight to the answers or not answers as the case may be. Which is what a debate moderator should do. A debate moderator is not intended to be a personified a cue card. The Talking Heads at CNN failed even harder than I ever thought they could with their moderation.

From the founding of the ideology through at least the first 100 years it kind of did. I think the basic fact that the man who coined the phrase and founded the ideology. Fought against the kind of people who pretend to be libertarian today. He literally participated in the French revolution. And we have economic liberals today making up thought terminating cliches and tripe like the non-aggression principle to protect wealthy thieves. Calling themselves right wing Libertarians it’s a joke.

Absolutely. Though to be fair most people who call themselves Libertarians aren’t regardless.