Objection

Objection , 1 month ago to Memes in For anyone asking: Yes, I am paid by the Chinese government 🤣

Even if that's true, isn't it better for countries in the global South to have multiple options instead of being forced to accept whatever conditions are imposed on them by the IMF?

Objection , 1 month ago to Memes in For anyone asking: Yes, I am paid by the Chinese government 🤣

Are you a Maoist?

Objection , 1 month ago to Memes in Lift like China, bro 🇨🇳💪

So you're a Maoist?

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

Weird that I wouldn't make sense to you considering I just did the exact same thing you did.

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. What do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You’re making my case for me.

Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it’s still there because he won and could win again. You’re making this too easy.

It is, in fact, very easy to have a conversation when you're only having it with yourself.

If you agreed with everything I said, do you think that would make you more correct or less correct? That's right, more correct. Therefore I'm right. You're making my case for me, this is too easy, blah blah blah.

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

Sure, there could be some specific cases where they're correct. But if you can't say anything about elections unless it's generalizable to all circumstances, then you can't say anything about elections at all. I'm speaking generally.

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

In what way?

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

Why on earth would you bring up Clinton to support your argument? She did exactly what you described and somehow managed to lose what should've been an extremely easy election. Biden managed to win by a very narrow margin in another extremely easy matchup. Not included in your data set are any candidates who ran more to the left, such as Obama (though he governed far to the right of how he ran).

There's so many more disengaged voters than swing voters that it doesn't matter if swing voters are worth more. Besides, swing voters don't just vote according to a rational policy calculus of centrism. A lot of it is vibes or superficial nonsense.

The dems are not going to magically move left, against their donors interests and the interests they've repeatedly demonstrated they hold, just because they win. Especially if that win comes through unconditional support from the left. They are not your friends, and they don't share your interests. They're careerists pursuing their own advancement.

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

You win elections from the center.

That's absolute nonsense. The number of people who are politically engaged swing voters is very marginal. Meanwhile, a full third of the country doesn't vote. You win elections through turnout, and you get turnout by supporting popular policies that actually benefit people.

Alternatively, you can win elections through money, if you can convince the rich that you'll govern in their interests, against the interests of the poor.

The democrats, broadly speaking, prefer to win through the latter method because they get more money that way, but that doesn't make it the most effective method. They just have a loud enough signal to convince people it's the only method.

Objection , 1 month ago to 196 in Sad, but rule

Why on earth would they move left if there's no risk of losing? They want to enact right wing policies because that's what their donors pay them to do.

Objection , 1 month ago to Political Memes in Why Would He Help Putin?

Theoretically, sure it's falsifiable. Practically speaking, not really. Intelligence communities, not just of the US but also of any country, objectively have more capability to hide the truth than an average citizen has to expose it, especially when they have decades to have covered it up.

If I write a word on a piece of paper and then burn the paper, then I would have a belief about what was written on it, but that belief would not be practically falsifiable because no evidence exists to prove what was on it. Science cannot reconstruct everything that has ever happened everywhere.

The reason falsifiability is a standard in science is because science is concerned with making accurate predictions about the future. My broader theory is that the intelligence community was acting and continues to act according to it's own agenda, wielding significant power that isn't adequately checked by the civilian government. That's definitely falsifiable. I predict that first off, no president will act against the interests in a significant, meaningful way, and if they did, they would die, and high ranking members of the intelligence community would be placed on the investigative committee and find themselves innocent. If that didn't play out that way, it wouldn't definitively prove that that didn't happen with Kennedy because circumstances could have changed, but it would make it much less plausible (strict falsifiability isn't really how science generally operates, theories just become less likely until they're not worth considering).

Objection , 1 month ago to Political Memes in Why Would He Help Putin?

It's impossible to prove because the CIA has the means to cover it's tracks, but there are circumstantial reasons to think that's what happened. At the most basic level:

• CIA directer and founder Allen Dulles, who's job involved assassinating world leaders around the world, had a major dispute with Kennedy not long before the assassination, which led to Dulles getting fired.
• Despite the conflict of interests, Dulles was on the investigative committee into Kennedy's assassination.
• Said investigation involved all kinds of "mistakes," including breaches in the chain of custody of key evidence (the bullet).

The intelligence community had both means and motive to commit the assassination, and the ability to cover their tracks. That's not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, but it is enough to establish a reasonable possibility, especially considering the absence of serious, compelling evidence.

Objection , 1 month ago to Political Memes in Is This A Game?

He’s not getting shot at lol of course he’s more Impartial.

Drone operators aren't getting shot at. Drone operator supervisors definitely aren't getting shot at.

US politicians would commit career suicide if they suggested no drone use, because it would mean soldiers get shot.

If the option you want picked is neither drones or boots, how do you suggest the USA divest themselves from wars in foreign countries? If the first black president came out as a pacifist they would have to level every single grassy knoll in the country.

Well, if we agree that the US government is inherently militaristic and that elected officials are powerless against the intelligence community who would murder them if they stepped out of line, then maybe we're more on the same page than I thought. Though it sounds like you're saying Obama was just a figurehead so I still wouldn't say he "took personal responsibility."

It should be noted, however, that there are other options between, "Giving the executive unlimited unconstrained authority to kill anyone they want" and "Not doing any drone strikes ever." I believe it is possible for war criminals to be held accountable for murdering civilians. I believe it is possible to have a system in which one person doesn't have supreme authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Objection , 1 month ago to Political Memes in Is This A Game?

Those are some crazy leaps of reasoning. The president isn't inherently "divorced" from anything and boots on the ground are not always the sole alternative as there's also the option of doing neither.

I guess I'm just curious if you think the executives of other countries should also have the power to kill indiscriminately with no consequences or oversight. Would you be applying the same line of reasoning if we were talking about, say, Putin?

Objection , 1 month ago to Political Memes in Is This A Game?

That's not an improvement.