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.

If that’s so, then why would most of those “Libertarians” vote for Republicans over Democrats who better align with those goals? Every time I’ve ever asked a Libertarian when there wasn’t a Libertarian candidate running who they were going to vote for. Or read about such a situation. It’s always been the republican.

Liberals larping as libertarians say so much contradictory bullshit. Take so many actions against their own stated goals. They say they want those things. Yet they won’t take the very basic goals to achieve them against the actual people responsible for it. Wealthy business owners. They want wealthy business owners to be their rulers. The problem with government isn’t that it exists. It’s that it’s been captured by wealthy business owners. Why do we have so much military around the world? To protect the interest of wealthy business owners. Why do we have so many tariffs in place? To protect the interest of wealthy business owners. Why do we have so many restrictions on immigration in place? To protect the work Supply and low wage Workforce for wealthy business owners. Why do we have so many drugs made illegal. Because it suits the wealthy and powerful.

And yet these so-called Libertarians would do nothing against those people. The man that coined the phrase Libertarian and defined what Libertarianism is showed what needs to be done. And these so called Libertarians rejected Libertarianism and it’s creator.

In my state if a Democrat doesn’t run for a seat. Chances are a Republican is running uncontested. I leave large parts of the state ballot blank because Republicans run uncontested ON EVERY BALLOT. Even presidential years. And while I rarely vote FOR anyone. I always vote AGAINST Republicans. Well them and Rand loving economic liberals pretending to be libertarians. Which is basically the same thing.

It wouldn’t even have to be something that radical. The fact is the problems with Israel and Palestine have more to do with Congress than they do with biden. If they decided to not run Biden they would most likely choose a congressman in a safe seat. Likely from a blue state. With large Jewish population and AIPAC funding. And now we’re right back where we started. Well right back where we started at best. The candidate could be even more pro-israel than Biden is. And the party will end up weaker, with actual decent Democrats struggling even harder to accomplish something. As the unified fascist front votes for whoever they are given as candidate.

If Biden’s age were actually an issue. They would be hitting Trump almost exactly as hard on his age. They are not. If Biden’s stance on Palestine were the problem they would be hitting Trump harder on Palestine they are not. The truth is while presidents or individuals. They are ultimately the sum of their administration.

While Biden was one of my least favorite Democrats in 2020. He’s far outpaced my expectations for him. And the fact that a number in his administration have resigned in protest. Gives me hope and confidence enough to go forward. Because I know there are others still there who feel the same.