What is deranged is that since 1946, the United States has killed at least 20,000,000 people. In every corner of the world. In dozens of wars and conquests. Having absolutely no legitimate basis. And treats it's own people hardly better than slaves.
-
-
Replying to @jarurik @ReadOnl04373137 and
That’s less than the Chinese people killed in two years by the Great Leap Forward alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Belisarian @ReadOnl04373137 and
How many South American countries did China invade? How many Middle Eastern ones? How many in Polynesia? How many cold wars and color revolutions? How many gladio terror plots did China do?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @jarurik @Belisarian and
I see that the conversation has shifted from number of people killed, a topic that you picked up, to the number of countries invaded. From where I'm sitting, this seems like excessive cognitive dissonance.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @DonTwatWaffle @Belisarian and
Why do stupid people insist on trying to discuss everything? What happens when you invade a country? When you overthrow its legitimate government? Flood it with weapons. Blockade it with sanctions? What happens, smart guy?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jarurik @Belisarian and
Imo post 1946 US foreign policy, while immoral at times and 95% self-serving, still utilizes a form of military *offense* that is more efficient & moral than any other historical great power. #1 driver of this is Rule of Law as sovereign vs autocratic leader as sovereign.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
You are living in a society in the late stages of a complete collapse of rule of law into pure who/whom and don't even see it or can't acknowledge it.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
It seems much that way to the reactionaries and I see their argument. Read plenty of Moldbug too. I just think at end of the day, in US system the Rule of Law > Leader and that is a system I’d prefer (and I think 70%+ of the world prefers) vs the Chinese alternative
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
Disagree strongly the idea that "rule of law" is even possible ("laws" don't rule - men do) but even the fiction of "rule of law" is dead after a century of
#manipulatingProceduralOutcomes Arguing its virtues is like talking about the benefits of true Communism1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
We just saw it work with Trump. Biggest would-be autocrat potus in 100+ yrs and the institutions held ground. Eg Imagine Trump/Comey ‘Go easy on Flynn’ dinner in China. Would CCP-Comey say ‘no’ to Xi the way Comey did to Trump? Rule of Law allows Comey to feel safe defying Trump.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You're joking right? You're holding up Flynn's treatment as an example of "rule of law"?
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @jarurik and
No I’m pointing out that CCP version of Comey would be terrified to defy Xi. As would every single CCP bureaucrat. Is that incorrect? Is it also incorrect that an FBI director in america has the ability to defy POTUS without fear of direct personal harm?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atlasontilt @jarurik and
Yes, the FBI director and any Cathedral functionary is free to disobey his legal boss as long as his legal boss isn't Cathedral approved. Thinking this is somehow proof of "rule of law" is insane.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.