Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

What does it matter who the DNC selects? Most Democrats would vote for a mannequin with a smiley-faced paper bag over its head if it promised them free gibs...

The key part of that statement, though, is "would". As in "would, if they vote at all". Yes, most registered Democrats would vote for a tumor-ridden rodent before they'd vote for a Republican that actually shared any of their supposed beliefs... probably vice versa too. The issue here is not convincing anyone who to vote for... cross-registration voting happens but it's probably on a scale that can be safely dismissed as irrelevant. Campaigning isn't about convincing people from your party to vote for you, or people from the other party to vote for you, and it's barely even about influencing the undecided. It's about generating enough enthusiasm among the people who are already most likely going to vote straight ticket that they'll actually get up off their asses and go to the polls instead of saying "Meh". The next year isn't going to be about Trump or the DNC convincing undecideds or winning over the other side, it's going to be about convincing their own side that yes it is in fact worth driving to whatever government-affiliated building with shit parking is their voting station, going inside, and tapping the button.

That's what the Democrats have to actually do. They have to generate enough enthusiasm among their already existing base to get them to stop watching Netflix and whining on Twitter long enough to go to the polls and punch a ticket instead of just staying home and making up a fun story about how the stereotypical black lady working at the polls patted you on the ass for voting Democrat. And they have fuckall enthusiasm-generators in their stable.
 
Counterpoint: Hilary in 2016 & Superdelegates.




I'll start out with this, and repeat after me:
The Civil War was not about Slavery. It was about states rights.
The state right that was being disputed was Slavery, but that's not what the war was about.

Lincoln didn't make it about Slavery until around the time of Emancipation Proclamation, when it had become clear they needed something stronger to fight about beyond "Keeping the union together".

The British had started the Anti-slavery squadrons because it aligned with their foreign objectives. The Morality of it was an excuse. Its estimate that 11 million people entered the slave markets of the Americas; only 300,000 entered the North American slave market. The rest went to Plantations in Brazil, Carribean, and Gran Columbia (Columbia, Panama, And Venezuela) - at the time Portuguese and Spanish (and spanish-aligned post independence) colonies (the Spics).

The British Colonies/the US imported so few because, putting it bluntly, they put a breeding program in place to home-grown the population. In Brazil especially, slaves were treated as expendable. The British anti-slavery efforts didn't affect the Confederacy much to at all.

Spain was the last European power to traffic in african slaves, and by disrupting that highly profitable enterprise, Britain was making sure Spain was weakened.

now, on to the Darkies & Dune coons.
At the time, the British were backing regiemes that ran partly or wholly on slavery, but they had moved away from the practice for two reasons:
1) Britain didn't directly benefit from slave labor. They had the Irish to abuse & exploit.
2) It gave them a "moral imperitive" to invade places where slavery existed (literally everywhere but Europe).

So fighting slavery gave the British an excuse to be fucking around in north-west africa. It also gave the a reason to push their sphere of influence in East Africa, and start putting pressure on the Ottomans, the sick man of Europe.
But the British were very tolerant of worker abuse in their empire AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T CALL IT SLAVERY.

If given a strong enough incentive, the British media would have spun it to justify intervention.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it wasn't the foregone conclusion people make it out to be, but that's enough CW sperg for now we can be talking about the DNC fix being in Slow Joe.

All you're doing is parroting new south revisionism. Lincoln didn't make it about slavery until the emancipation proclamation and didn't want to tread upon the issue. You know who beat him to the punch by a good four years? The CSA. They cited the ongoing legal and legislative battle over slavery in every single state's articles of secession. Even if that weren't true, saying that it was about states rights and the right in dispute was slavery is the equivalent of saying that if A=B and B=C then logically, A=C.
 
To be completely serious, if it is a prion disease (Which would most likely be CJD) then Biden is Royally Buttfucked, shit is aggressive, unforgiving and kills in a year.

I would also become convinced God is real and hates the democrats because that would be some of the most unfortunate luck in the entire world. Seriously, that's a literal one out of a million chance. Meaning I'm also gonna assume it's not a prion, though I will start looking at his hands to see if they're starting to shake.
I want Biden to stay in for as long as possible for maximum chaos. Like after the nomination. And after the ballots are printed. The power struggle would be epic. No one, and I mean no one would accept the running mate as the legitimate nominee. Say it's Stacey Abrams. The rest of the party would reject her for not having a mandate to be the presidential nominee, only VP (and already having been rejected in the primary process if it's Kamala). The candidate with the second most delegates, likely Bernie would argue they should get the nomination. The DNC would try to install someone of their choosing who would be rejected for being undemocratically selected. It would be legendary.

The problem is that the DNC may not recognize that fact. They seem to bank on the mainstream media covering for them, and mostly they've been right about that. If they have really learned anything from 2016, they won't push that too hard, but if they can't find a candidate they are confident will beat Trump, they may resort to propping up this one. I hope not.
They do realize it. Which is why the DNC tried to make Kamala happen... and then Tulsi shanked her. Then it was the media's turn to push their candidate, Pocahontas, who is now in freefall. They desperately want someone other than Biden but those damn proles won't do as they're told and flee him.

If Warren loses to Trump, the DNC will have to at least internally admit that America has largely rejected the Woke Left and that will infuriate The Squad and their ilk, and it will no doubt divide the party from within to an even more harsh degree. If Trump manages to win the popular vote alongside the electoral one, then they won't be able to really spin it and any attempt to do so will only infuriate everyone on all sides.
Optimistic. If the far left doesn't accept the failures of Cuba, the USSR, Venezuela, etc for not being 'true socialism', what makes you think they'll accept the failures of Warren who is not a 'true progressive?'

I'm telling you right now if Warren loses the progressive narrative will be voters saw through her but a 'true progressive ' like Bernie would have won. The DNC will have to leave the far left because the far left won't leave the Democratic Party.

This is why I think if Trump and the GOP survives 2020, they will be in good shape for a while. Because the DNC and the far left can't live with each other but they can't live without each other either.
 
All you're doing is parroting new south revisionism. Lincoln didn't make it about slavery until the emancipation proclamation and didn't want to tread upon the issue. You know who beat him to the punch by a good four years? The CSA. They cited the ongoing legal and legislative battle over slavery in every single state's articles of secession. Even if that weren't true, saying that it was about states rights and the right in dispute was slavery is the equivalent of saying that if A=B and B=C then logically, A=C.

Lets imagine that Trump super-criminalizes weed. In response, The Left Coast states, Nevada, Colorado and New York all secede and there's a new civil war.
Weed is what triggers the war, but that's not what caused it.

Slavery was the hot button issue, but a growing divide between the North and South, along with debates about the exact extent of the Federal Government's powers that were never settled, only temporarily patched over with compromises to solve the current issue.
 
If he loses to Trump, they can write that off as him being an old out-of-touch white male establishment guy which can pacify The Squad and your more explicitly left-wing elements of the party's base and since Biden's on his last legs as it is, they can easily dismiss him making a run in 2024 and focus on younger candidates like Buttigieg or give folks like Warren a proper shot.

If Warren loses to Trump, the DNC will have to at least internally admit that America has largely rejected the Woke Left and that will infuriate The Squad and their ilk, and it will no doubt divide the party from within to an even more harsh degree. If Trump manages to win the popular vote alongside the electoral one, then they won't be able to really spin it and any attempt to do so will only infuriate everyone on all sides.

That's not likely what's happening. If anything, it will be the opposite.

Nancy Pelosi's been angling a "give the lunatic left enough rope to hang them from the tallest tree" lynching scenario as part of a tacit acknowledgement that Trump's getting elected, ever since the Cunt Squad started smearing their poo all over the walls and making life hell for her.

They will continue to veer to the lunatic left and that Biden is a fig leaf to moderates to distract them from how fucking far left the Democrats will be going in 2020. All this, so that the lunatic left crashes and takes out the political careers of as many of the Cunt Squad and their fellow travelers as possible in the House/Senate.

This way, Nancy can pull a Clinton after the Mondale debacle of 1988 to move the party center-right and expel the lunatic left/regain normies by way of using 2020 as proof that the DNC has hit rock bottom and (as Labor did in the mid-1980s) start excommunicating the lunatic left like Labor did Militant, an ultra corrupt SJW/Commie wing of the Labor Party that put Labor on the road to ruin and helped Thatcher/Torries rule the roost that decade.

Warren most likely won't run for President again after 2020; it's been heavily rumored that Schumer got her to endorse Hillary in 2016 by promising to make her his heir as head of the Senate Democrats once he steps down/retires. Schumer will probably retire after the 2020 election and Warren will take over running the Democrat side of the Senate.

Biden's the fall guy but he's also the mask the Democrats will present while they go full lunatic left as part of a fait accompli hitting of rock bottom
 
Just a casual reminder, while Pelosi and Schiff are running a clown show in the house and the democratic primaries are the lamest knockoff of survivor yet, the Senate is busying playing Go with our judical branch:
View attachment 1037104


I think it's hilarious while the right side of history is convinced that... whatever they're doing, is finally the silver bullet they've been looking for, the Republicans are gradually taking over the third branch of government, and no one notices because it's not as exciting as the world's most exceptional game of telephone ever.

(Semi-off topic: what's the best website to archive tweets? The ones I tried all had trouble. Maybe it's that I'm a 30 year old boomer who can't do tech, but I think it's the prog-cult preemptively making memory holing easier.)

The judge stuff is why the SJW death kult are still pushing the Democrats to go full Hitler/dictator if they ever get put back into power again, let alone in power with both houses of Congress. IE once they get back in charge, they will dissolve/purge the judiciary of ALL right wing/conservative judges up to and including the Supreme Court.

They know the judiciary is fucked but think that if they can just get back into power and have enough power at that, they can break the law/rules of government and stack the courts and expel all of the Trump appointed judges and any other conservative judges who've been on the left's shit list for ages.
 
Russia actually sent a bunch of ships to randomly go hang out with whatever passed for the union fleet.
So you're saying that republicans have been colluding with Russians from the very beginning?
:thinking:
But I don't think it's just you, the archive sites have all been acting up for a while now.
It would not suprise me if they are the next target. Wait until Trump tweets and archive.li link and all the thinkpieces will flow about these evil stalking hacker sites that archive all your deepest secrets..
Stacey Abrams
Abrams 2020: Fattest Ass Since Taft
Labor did in the mid-1980s) start excommunicating the lunatic left like Labor did Militant, an ultra corrupt SJW/Commie wing of the Labor Party that put Labor
It took a pivot toward neoliberalism and John Major to make UK Labour electable again, pretty much wiping out their working-class roots in the process. The Australian Labor party governed all throughout the eighties, but they were far less extreme.
 
Imagine throwing a presidential election to reinforce your failing ideology.
Another possible option...

They feel confident that 2020 is hopeless against Trump, and are vetting which candidates will improve the odds of house and senate improvements. Basically the Pres and VP candidates as spokesmen for drumming up enthusiasm for those elections.

Think of how little Trump would accomplish with a Democrat house and senate.

My predictions have been off so far, though, but quite a bit. Early on I thought it would be a showdown between Biden and HArris. I think Buttigieg is still somewhat viable, and I kind of wonder if the DNC may actually eventually see the wisdom of supporting Gabbard as the only hope with moderates (unlikely but possible). If so, Trump needs to stop saying positive things about her.
 
Counterpoint: Hilary in 2016 & Superdelegates.




I'll start out with this, and repeat after me:
The Civil War was not about Slavery. It was about states rights.
The state right that was being disputed was Slavery, but that's not what the war was about.

Lincoln didn't make it about Slavery until around the time of Emancipation Proclamation, when it had become clear they needed something stronger to fight about beyond "Keeping the union together".

The British had started the Anti-slavery squadrons because it aligned with their foreign objectives. The Morality of it was an excuse. Its estimate that 11 million people entered the slave markets of the Americas; only 300,000 entered the North American slave market. The rest went to Plantations in Brazil, Carribean, and Gran Columbia (Columbia, Panama, And Venezuela) - at the time Portuguese and Spanish (and spanish-aligned post independence) colonies (the Spics).

The British Colonies/the US imported so few because, putting it bluntly, they put a breeding program in place to home-grown the population. In Brazil especially, slaves were treated as expendable. The British anti-slavery efforts didn't affect the Confederacy much to at all.

Spain was the last European power to traffic in african slaves, and by disrupting that highly profitable enterprise, Britain was making sure Spain was weakened.

now, on to the Darkies & Dune coons.
At the time, the British were backing regiemes that ran partly or wholly on slavery, but they had moved away from the practice for two reasons:
1) Britain didn't directly benefit from slave labor. They had the Irish to abuse & exploit.
2) It gave them a "moral imperitive" to invade places where slavery existed (literally everywhere but Europe).

So fighting slavery gave the British an excuse to be fucking around in north-west africa. It also gave the a reason to push their sphere of influence in East Africa, and start putting pressure on the Ottomans, the sick man of Europe.
But the British were very tolerant of worker abuse in their empire AS LONG AS YOU DIDN'T CALL IT SLAVERY.

If given a strong enough incentive, the British media would have spun it to justify intervention.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it wasn't the foregone conclusion people make it out to be, but that's enough CW sperg for now we can be talking about the DNC fix being in Slow Joe.

The British controlled the Asiento so they basically did most of the slave trading during the eighteenth century. The slave trade was still profitable by the time it was banned in 1807. There was a massive bottom-up campaign to end slavery that was pretty explosive and spurred on by evangelical fury. Its a pretty epic story.

The larger cultural trend was slavery = bad. Just because it took a couple years for Lincoln to say it doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery. Keep in mind, he was being cautious about the middle-states that were half committed to slavery.

Millions joined because they hated slavery, Confederate states explicitly stated in their constitutions that this was about slavery and the Southern States didn't care about state rights -> Look at the Fugitive Slave Act 1850 and other bills to force slavery on the northern states.

Bleeding Kansas and most of the slave compromises do not make sense without this being about slavery.

Imagine throwing a presidential election to reinforce your failing ideology.

Picking another generic neoliberal establishment person is a bad idea too though.. especially considering how creepy he's been.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Jigglyjogglers
The problem is that the DNC may not recognize that fact. They seem to bank on the mainstream media covering for them

The MSM will cover for them.

It just won't be effective.

The old media publicly destroying itself by naked partisanship and not even trying to hide their lies has taken it's toll.

The NYT, WaPo, et al will still run their headline smears and refuse to report on what Hunter Biden did this week, but the Dems still don't get, somehow, that the public has so little trust or interest in what the media reports that it can't effect the numbers.
 
Here’s Max Boot whining about the GOP being Putin apologists.

Former Conservative Manbaby said:
Of all the changes that have occurred in our politics since the rise of Donald Trump, the most gut-wrenching for me personally is to see the Republican Party transformed into the Kremlin’s “useful idiots.” As a young refugee from the Soviet Union growing up in Southern California in the 1980s, I was attracted to the GOP because it was the party of moral clarity — the party willing to stand up to the “evil empire.” How far we have come — in the wrong direction.
Today, we have a Republican president who, while reluctantly acceding to sanctions against Russia, incessantly praises its dictator, Vladimir Putin (“a terrific person”); tries to bring Putin back to the Group of Seven; conceals the details of their meetings; undermines Ukraine, a victim of Russian aggression, by harping on its corruption while ignoring Russia’s own kleptocracy; allows the Russians to take possession of U.S. bases in Syria; and propagates Russian propaganda blaming Ukraine for 2016 election interference. Trump is joined in spreading Russian disinformation by his secretary of state and other supporters, such as Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.), even though the U.S. intelligence community has exposed claims of Ukrainian election interference as a “fictional narrative.”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson, one of the biggest stars on the president’s favorite television network and an informal adviser to the president, goes even further in expressing his admiration for Russia. Last week, he said: “Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia?! And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” Carlson claimed to be joking. But then this week, he said: “We should probably take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine. That’s my view.”


How did we get to the point where a “conservative” TV star openly sides with an anti-American dictatorship over a pro-American democracy? Most, but not all, of the blame lies with Trump. His affinity for Russia is as deep as it is mysterious. Has he been compromised by Russian intelligence? Is he financially dependent on Russian business partners? Or does he simply admire the way that Putin has destroyed Russian democracy? We still don’t know, because special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did not release any findings from the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.
But while Trump’s motives remain murky, his admiration for Russia has been clear from the start. Almost exactly four years ago — on Dec. 18, 2015 — Trump was asked by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about Putin’s habit of killing journalists and invading neighboring countries. Trump defended Putin as “a leader, unlike what we have in this country,” and said, “Our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe.”

Republicans knew this but nominated Trump anyway. Then, during the summer of 2016, came the Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee, a social media blitz, and other actions designed to change the outcome of the U.S. election. Trump made full use of the stolen DNC emails and he invited Russian intelligence to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, too (“Russia, if you’re listening”). He also hired a campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, who had a long history of corrupt dealings with Russian oligarchs, and gutted the language concerning Russia in the Republican platform.


The Republican Party could not have cared less. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to join the Obama administration in condemning Russia’s attack on our election. The GOP thus became complicit in Russian election interference.
In for a kopek, in for a ruble: The Republicans continued defending Trump even after it emerged that he had tried to build a Trump Tower in Moscow while running for president and that members of his campaign’s high command had met with Russian emissaries promising dirt on Clinton. Republicans were not even fazed when Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey in May 2017 to stop the investigation of “this Russia thing,” or when in July 2018 he was utterly supine before Putin in Helsinki.
While Republicans are primarily motivated by Trump toadyism, there is also an element of ideological affinity for Russia. While all Republicans were staunchly opposed to the “godless” Soviet regime, some of them admire Putin’s fascist regime, which combines crony capitalism with ultra-nationalism. Putin has marketed himself to credulous conservatives as a champion of Christianity, traditional values and the white race. As my Post colleague Christian Caryl noted, this propaganda has no basis in fact: To take but two examples, Russia has much stricter gun control laws than the United States and a much higher rate of abortion. But Republican Russophilia is so strong that a Russian agent had no difficulty in infiltrating the National Rifle Association. A high-level NRA delegationvisited Moscow in 2015 and a group of Republican lawmakers visited Moscow on the Fourth of July 2018.


The percentage of Republicans who view Russia as an ally has nearly doubled since Trump took office. The party’s transformation into a Russian lickspittle makes me sick; “GOP” might as well stand for “Gang of Putin.”

That so many Republicans are just fine with it is yet another sign of how a once-grand party has lost its way. By turning into apologists and advocates for a Russian dictator, the Republican Party has become all that it once despised.
 
One time, I was arguing with some idiot on the internet about innocent until proven otherwise applying to the president. So I brought up the high school students in MAGA hats on the stairs of thr Lincoln memorial. He said the entire thing was a lie, and they are still racist. In addition, the guy thinks Trump got help from both Russia and Ukraine because they were both "proven".
Why are people such dumb asses?
 
One time, I was arguing with some idiot on the internet about innocent until proven otherwise applying to the president. So I brought up the high school students in MAGA hats on the stairs of thr Lincoln memorial. He said the entire thing was a lie, and they are still racist. In addition, the guy thinks Trump got help from both Russia and Ukraine because they were both "proven".
Why are people such dumb asses?
These idiots would believe it if the media said that China's social credit system was a nazi conspiracy theory. Even if they'd heard of it and were against it before.
 
Leaders learn the hard way that Trump will be Trump at NATO meeting

At the outset of NATO's 70th anniversary meeting, which was meant to promote the unity of the alliance, no one doubted President Donald Trump's ability to disrupt, and he didn't disappoint, taking his tactics to a new level.

Trump laid into two leaders who theoretically should be among the US's closest allies, dissing French President Emmanuel Macron by calling his comments about NATO experiencing "brain death" "very insulting" and confronting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by demanding he say how much Canada spends on defense and calling him "two-faced."

It was in some ways a masterclass in disregard for the normal rules of diplomacy, which is traditionally conducted through skilled and subtle conversations behind closed doors.

Of course, Trump's bombastic approach is no surprise to Americans, who in near equal measure applaud or are appalled by their leader.

But in Europe, where object lessons in Trumpism are infrequent, this visit has underlined that there is no magic formula or silver bullet to get what you want out of Trump.
Macron has tried it all, from bromance a few years ago to confrontation this week. Germany's Angela Merkel, who was never an over enthusiastic engager with Trump, now does passive like a possum does dead. The result is still the same: Trump does what Trump wants.

At times he has appeared out of his depth, or plain confused. He was the only leader during the handshake greeting ceremony not to understand the cues and try to walk the wrong way offstage.
Tussle with Macron

Maybe that was an easy mistake -- we've all been there -- but he just didn't seem to keep up with the dialogue at times. Strikingly, when he challenged Macron to take ISIS fighters back to France he was told to get serious.

"Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? I could give them to you. You could take every one you want," Trump asked.

"Let's be serious," Macron said before pushing back. "The number one problem are not the foreign fighters. This is the ISIS fighters in the regiment and you have more and more of these fighters due to the situation today."

Trump replied dismissively, "This is why he's a great politician. That was one of the greatest non-answers I've ever heard. And that's OK."

The trouble was Macron had not only answered, but he'd also answered the President back. Either Trump didn't understand or he was bluffing to cover Macron's put-down.

It wasn't Trump's only clash. On Wednesday he called his Canadian neighbor Trudeau "two-faced."
There is an irony in this that may well be lost on the US President, who has clearly shown two distinct sides to his character this week.

Marked change day by day

On day one, the exuberantly confident world leader was ready to take any question, loquacious in the extreme with his generous answers.

Then on day two, he'd morphed into a taciturn politician, delivering tight, terse answers. To paraphrase another leader, Queen Victoria, whose empire was also on the verge of tipping toward decline, Trump was "not amused" by the second day of the meeting.

Any doubt his clipped conversations could have another meaning ended with the cancellation of his planned end-of-meeting news conference.

Maybe he had given too much of himself Tuesday: 52 minutes of reporter Q and As with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, followed by 41 minutes with Macron and then 35 minutes with Trudeau. More than two hours total.

Perhaps Trump was simply tired and wanted to go home, but that is not the impression he leaves behind. He seemed angry and unhappy, and the person he focused that displeasure on was the Canadian Prime Minister.

He was reacting to a few moments of viral video where Trudeau was caught on camera joking with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, France's President Macron and Holland's Prime Minister Mark Rutte, apparently at Trump's expense.

They were inside Buckingham Palace, had just met the Queen but were quite clearly in a rare moment of reverie discussing their experiences with Trump.

Trudeau was explaining the reaction of Trump's team to their President during their meeting, saying, "You just watched his team's jaws drop to the floor" as the President announced the next G7 summit will be held at Camp David, rather than Trump's Florida Doral resort outside Miami.

Trump's character flip is what makes it hard for allies to do meaningful business with him; it's why this meeting was a leaders' meeting, not a summit, as NATO's annual gatherings are usually dubbed,
The title change obviated the need for a communique, and therefore compromise and a meeting of the minds. It was replaced by a joint declaration that was simply a rehash of NATO goals updated with some new numbers reflecting increased defense spending by NATO members.

It was these figures that Stoltenberg had hoped might please, even pacify, Trump. A $130 billion increase in defense spending by the US's NATO allies since 2016, with nine nations now meeting NATO's threshold of a 2% of gross domestic product spend on defense, up from three in 2016.

Yet even with these figures, Trump could not contain himself: $131 billion, he said several times, he just had to amp it up. Then he stepped over the line, claiming it was $130 billion a year, which was not what NATO was saying.

Warping the facts

It was not the only example of his warping facts to fit his agenda.
He said he has once been angry with NATO but as a result of the increased spending and "flexibility" he lavished praise on Stoltenberg.

And then he did what he does, bending the truth again, claiming NATO had become more flexible since he came to office, that It was branching out and becoming more international -- and implied that was a result of his efforts.

The fact is the whole point of NATO is that its members have each other's backs, and the only time all NATO members have ever been called by one member to come to its aid under NATO's Article 5 was to help the US after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001.

So yet again Trump didn't disappoint. In his own unorthodox way he might even have exceeded expectations.

He disrupted, then departed, cementing his reputation as mercurial, leaving his allies united only in their realization that this is as good as it gets with Trump, and NATO's long-term goals and vision are on hold for another year.

 
These idiots would believe it if the media said that China's social credit system was a nazi conspiracy theory. Even if they'd heard of it and were against it before.
Nothing about the left suggests to me they'd be against a social credit system so long as they infest the majority of social sites.

They'd embrace it openly until it turns against them, and they'd learn nothing, as per usual.
 
I always like how these articles play up Macron as a serious world leader. How long have those weekly revolts been going on?
Currently protesters in France are doing a general workers' strike, complete with burning effigies of Macron, bashing pinatas of Macron, calling for him to be guillotined.

effeil towere abandoned.jpg

Surnatural picture of an empty Eiffel Tower : it was closed today because of the #5Dec strike. It represents millions of euro of lose for the government.

#5Dec will kickstart #BlackDecember in France (transport, health, schools, air control, firefighters, lawyers, students, 20+trade unions, #yellowvests) Yesterday #Yellowvests, trade unions, students, healthcare workers, musicians.. took the streets again, and in preparation
 
Last edited:
Back