robinn_IV [he/him]

Yeah, you’re right, sorry. They’re acting like legalizing pot is done purely to feed addiction and that “empathetic rehabilitation” of those addicted is an alternative to legalization/will make legalization unnecessary, so I still disagree with their original comment, but I shouldn’t have so flippantly dismissed the concept of addiction.

Whoop-dee-frickin-doo.

Holy shit shut up

empathetic rehabilitation.

From what? Pot addiction? Lmao?

“The Department of State fully recognizes that it may be necessary at some stage for the United States to take military action if [Taiwan] is to be denied to the communists… Such intervention should be publicly based not on obvious American strategic interests but on principles which are likely to have support in the international community, mainly the principle of self-determination of the [Taiwanese] people” — “Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State to President Truman”

Not only do the majority of Taiwanese people not want independence from China [*], but less than a dozen UN countries even recognize Taiwan as a legitimate separate country from China, and none the legitimate ruler of China (ROC over PRC) as they would like–Taiwan’s airline is China Airlines, Taiwan’s banking is China Trust, Taiwan’s oil is China Petroleum, Taiwan’s communications are China Telecom; Taiwan speaks Chinese and has the same dialect as across the strait, Taiwan’s streets are named after mainland cities (unlike Hong Kong), the “local cuisine” is Chinese cuisine (and Taiwan competes in the Olympics as “Chinese Taipei”).

In 1971, the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2758) revoked recognition of Chiang Kai-shek’s ROC due to the KMT not being in governance (decreeing to “expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy”) and recognized Taiwan as Chinese (not “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” to quote the session). The United Nations officially states that they “[consider] ‘Taiwan’ as a province of China with no separate status”, that “authorities in ‘Taipei’ are not considered to… enjoy any form of government status”, and that they “[consider] ‘Taiwan’ for all purposes to be an integral part of the People’s Republic of China.”

In 1972, the U.S. officially stated, “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.” They STILL do not officially recognize Taiwan as separate from China.

[*] “臺灣民眾統獨立場趨勢分佈”, conducted by Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, an explicitly anti-CPC source, in 2022, showed the following results with regards to the perspective of Taiwanese citizens on independence and reunification: (Status Quo as Autonomous Part of China and Complete Unification Compiled [part of PRC] : 63.4%) (General Support for Independence Including Status Quo Moving Towards Independence [not part of PRC]: 30.3%) (Non-Response: 6.3%)

Even if you believe that Taiwan is “foreign” to the PRC, it is objectively not “clearly foreign.”

The most pathetic, cowardly excuse for a “leftist politician.”

Please note, I’ve not made any statement on whether you’re wrong or right in your targeting. That’s a separate discussion.

LMAO

You’d rather be yelling at people not loving your dear dictators than actually trying to do anything good for the world.

You were the one who scolded them for being “edgy”; so weird how you immediately switch things up when anyone could simply scroll up and see what really happened. And Stalin, the famous dictator who attempted to resign four separate times and who the CIA admitted was not in total control of the USSR.

Examine your logic of “Government X is bad, therefore it’s good when bad things happen to its civilians.”

Read up on the inherent violence of settler-colonialism; settlers cannot be equated with civilians

I’d suggest this way of thinking is flawed in both situations.

Western values on display once again.

This is a ridiculous accusation… ISIS has claimed responsibility

Not the contradiction you think it is

Um, wow, okay, Putler is genociding Ukrainians simply because he’s evil, and you don’t have the heart to donate a couple of dollars to Raytheon? Civilized people with blond hair and blue eyes are being killed, this isn’t like those righteous Western holy wars across the Middle East. Have some decency and fill out your ballot for Biden then enlist to fight alongside the Ukrainian armed forces as they wear Slavic runes and type beautiful inspiring poetry about Putin being Voldemort and Ukrainians being Han Solo… unless you want Russian imperialism to spread across all of Europe and then the world? Yeah, didn’t think so tankie.

Please just understand a little bit about things before you talk about them.

https://www.removepaywall.com/

“Am I allowed to talk? Is it my turn to talk yet? I can say whatever I want, it’s called free speech ” type reply

This is some 1984 shit.

So embarrassing.

Fuck the CCP.

*CPC, maybe you should learn the name of something before hating it, much less any other information

Don’t say “so to speak” in a forum comment, you’re not Eugen Dühring. How do these definitions not fit reality? In Liberalism, Losurdo (referenced above by commiewithoutorgans) goes through history and explains what liberalism actually is, i.e. herrenvolk liberty. The currently recognized originators of liberalism were supporters of slavery, and now liberals are supporters of imperialism.

Liberals are not allies in reforms, both because reforms will never be enough, liberals as supporters of the status quo eventually becoming enemies regardless, but also because even in these “reforms” they are cowardly. US liberals can’t even stop an active genocide being perpetrated by their government, and a vast majority of those liberals in government actively support it.

Liberals oppose democracy for enemy nations (and under the guise of “promoting democracy” depose the elected/popular leaders of these nations), they oppose real democracy (rule of the majority) in any nation, they absolutely oppose real equality by upholding the privileges of landlords and capitalists, and they oppose guaranteed standards of living. Newsom, the liberal (recognized by the majority as such!) governor of California, has been in favor of the state’s use of violence to clear homeless encampments; every “liberal” US president has kept migrants in concentration camps at the border despite immigration being largely a result of US imperialism as well as refusing to provide guaranteed housing to the unhoused population. If you think they are not liberals, then you are “a small subsection of society, a bubble so to speak.” Is it fair to say that it’s the people that wear this label who’ve rewritten words and history to paint themselves as simply “supporters of liberty”?

And I am absolutely not opposed to the abolition of term limits. Talk about opposition to democracy, term limits are a check on democracy itself, telling the population they cannot vote for someone again. Term limits for the US presidency were introduced after the repeated elections of the overwhelmingly popular FDR.

Lastly, liberals are supporters of capitalism; half of the dictionary definitions available include “support for a free market” as a fundamental aspect of liberalism.

Liberalism has always been right wing, and Orwell is the lowest garbage anyone can reference in political analysis. You didn’t even do it correctly, assuming that “newspeak” just means a new euphemistic way of referring to something, and this is the way it’s commonly used by people who didn’t actually read 1984 (not to say that they should), but really it’s a language based around contractions, abbreviations, and simplifications meant to make communication more efficient, and also (somehow) make people lose the ability to think independently.

Ex-U.S.-backed militia chief appointed as commander of other U.S.-backed militia

Are you suggesting BOTH SIDES might have terminal flaws contributing directly to the downfall of the American society?

If this were true I’d vote twice for both of them.

You didn’t read a single reference on their Wikipedia page, just the fact that they’re there is enough for you. Regardless, I fail to see any evidence of “misleading coverage,” and “sympathetic coverage” is a non-issue except for the fact that these are “authoritarian regimes.” What this means is unknown, since the main examples cited (Syria, China, and Venezuela) each have a much lower amt. of prisoners per-capita and in totality (significant because of China’s population) than the U.S., and China has a significantly lower amt. of police per-capita.

All the terrorists surely will experience much worse. You will be shot, of course, while editing your dipshit hitlerite nonsense yet not bothering to capitalize “I.”