![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/f17ad521-c66e-45b4-976b-eed9c8fbf5ed.png)
Yeah, it’s been years since he shaved
Yeah, it’s been years since he shaved
Shades of that 80s CIA document describing the Soviet diet as about the same caloric intake, but maybe a bit healthier than the U.S. equivalent
In the same breath, libs will thank the Secret Service for immediately killing the shooter and also say “violence is never an acceptable response.”
That’s probably the most succinct way to state the contradiction. You’re OK with taking out an active shooter, but not with taking out someone who (as libs love to tell you) is about to hurt or kill people all over the world?
in some units the average age of infantrymen reaches 45 years
The average
This is also a less cliché way of asking, essentially, “so why aren’t you on the next flight over there to volunteer?”
Intent is a key element of genocide. Just like if you kill someone by negligence it’s not murder, if you kill a lot of your own people by mismanaging a war it’s not genocide.
At this rate Ukraine is genociding it’s own population
We should not throw this term around casually.
Direct escalation would make things more unpredictable.
This is the U.S. strategy – to provoke Russia into a response that will turn more than Europe against it.
I don’t particularly believe that Russia is anything but the first western state to evolve from capitalism to an authoritarian kleptocracy.
The U.S.?
This has to help, though you wonder how much. Plenty of libs were radicalized under Trump, but plenty more went back to brunch when Biden won.
The propaganda excuse for American atrocities is that they were isolated incidents, bad apples, unrepresentative of who we are. Even whole eras get whitewashed this way. Trump is so much more buffoonish than any president in living memory that he plays right into that.
Both bad takes.
Setting aside the whole issue of how it looks for leftists to say they support Trump, for any reason, the State Department wouldn’t even let Trump pull troops out of Syria, so of course they aren’t going to let him do anything that would seriously damage NATO. Congress has already passed a law to keep presidents from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO, and you could just as well argue that the war in Ukraine is placing more stress on the organization than any pissy comments Trump made about who’s paying what.
With the DPRK, Trump did nothing of material significance. He could wake up tomorrow and go back to calling Kim “Rocket Man.” Like with NATO, he’d face intense institutional opposition to any serious change, and he doesn’t care enough to try and fight that.
Then there’s the whole issue of Trump being widely viewed as an aberration, which means NATO countries will take his yammering less seriously and U.S. decisionmakers will be less likely to view his actions as precedent.
You know the person you’re talking to (1) opposed this and (2) had zero control over it, right?