If you appreciate the work we're doing, please consider supporting the us on Patreon or Means TV. Both come with fantastic perks, and you can get 20% off Mea...
When the constitutional lawyer Barack Obama ran for president, he said that the was against warrentless mass surveillance.
When Snowden revealed the wide use of the PRSIM and Five Eyes agreements to enable mass surveillance of multiple countries without court order, Obama then had Snowden’s passport revoked while he was looking for political asylum, and said:
On June 19, 2013, U.S. president Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that the NSA’s data gathering practices constitute “a circumscribed, narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people”.[21]
Obama didn’t reel in the NSA when it was made public, as a constitutional lawyer because it was trying to stop terrorists. Like how Bush did. Like how Trump did. Like how Biden did. Like how Trump is now.
They don’t care about you. They want you to think they do. But if they did, they’d end the panopticon state. Obama didn’t even close GitMo.
The phrase is “two sides of the same coin”. Meaning exactly what you are saying. That they are both the capitalist party. As opposed to another proverbial coin, that of the socialists, anarchists, Monarchist, etc.
Can’t you guys get neologisms and irony? I KNOW what is the original idiom. HOWEVER, I’m deliberately changing it to mean there isn’t even a simulacrum of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Ah, the eternal marvel of the English language: its breathtaking inability to stray from a pre-written script. No wonder it’s the language of contracts, with every clause so exquisitely, flawlessly delineated. Naturally, people then start behaving as if they’re perpetually executing contracts with one another, forever in hot pursuit of pecuniary advantage. And from that, of course, sprang Common Law, Capitalism, and Imperialism - what a coincidence. It’s just so delightfully easy to build colonies and murder on an industrial scale when the target is nothing more than a number. Precisely because they can’t think beyond greed and individualism, they end up so utterly, pathetically lost the moment they set foot in collectivist countries.
HOWEVER, I’m deliberately changing it to mean there isn’t even a simulacrum of difference between Democrats and Republicans
I will grant you that both parties serve monied interests and share a lot of the same agenda. However, one party has been working for generations to roll back rights for women, POC, LGBTQIA+ to the 1950s.
The US and Israel were trying to push the women’s rights angle with their manufactured protests, then bombed a girls school killing ~150 mostly schoolchildren.
Quick, chat, what did the democrats have to say about the u.s. military or Iran during the last election? Oh, Kamala Harris was literally even more bellicose?? yup those dang Republicans alright
This world you keep imagining where Kamala would have invaded more countries than we have in this past year alone is quite the sight.
Tell me more. How many times will congress fail resolutions to narrow her war powers? Will the DoD get renamed to the Department of War Crimes? Will she fill her cabinet with actual circus clowns instead of the hand picked pool of media sycophants who aren’t experts in their fields? Will she build her ball room on top of her triumph arch? (idk, maybe it has death lasers and satanic pentagrams, that would be cool)
The “but Kamala” card requires entertaining the idea that literally any president other than the one that got voted in would have been able to outpace the malignant narcissism of senile Emperor Nero over here. It’s not an argument in good faith. It’s an argument for the guy who babbled incoherently about how tariffs work and then did exactly what he said he would.
Edit: Tee hee. If there is one thing ML and MAGA still agree on, it’s that the US is on the best trajectory for everyone. Albeit for very different reasons.
Ngl as an ML, I sure hope I get to see the end of the US as a political entity. Trump winning was inevitable, because American capitalism is in freefall from a materialist perspective, and trying to grab as much as it can before it crashes.
I don’t care how polite an American president is, they’re all war criminals that bomb West Asia and South America with 0 impunity.
Kamala harris wanted to “rebuild” the u.s. military into “the world’s deadliest” and said Iran was America’s #1 enemy. What the fuck do you think her intentions are with those statements, you absolute fucking imbecile? Or were you too stupid and ignorant to actually pay attention to the things she said during her 5 minutes of campaigning, so you don’t actually know what the fuck you’re talking about?
Harris had the same foreign policy goals as Trump, the difference between them is that she would have pursued those goals with more competence i.e. she wouldn’t have bombed Iran, she’d have kept up the economic war to cause the country to collapse. She might have bombed Iran by 2028, but the economic war was working. Iran was in really bad shape before the war.
With this in mind, in terms of foreign policy, Trump is the lesser evil. Thanks to Trump, Iran has a path to victory.
Yeah, it’s actually more complicated than just being mask-on vs mask-off. It turns out that only the competents wear their mask, because they’re competent enough to know why they’re wearing a mask. The incompetents think that masks are woke.
This world you keep imagining where Kamala would have invaded more countries than we have in this past year alone is quite the sight.
Where did they say that?
How many times will congress fail resolutions to narrow her war powers?
Probably zero, considering that they didn’t even consider doing it to Obama or Biden. Ya know, the guys who bombed bunches of kids.
Will she fill her cabinet with actual circus clowns instead of the hand picked pool of media sycophants who aren’t experts in their fields?
She would have picked liars, simps, and sycophants, just like Biden, Obama, and Clinton did.
The “but Kamala” card requires entertaining the idea that literally any president other than the one that got voted in would have been able to outpace the malignant narcissism of senile Emperor Nero over here.
No, it just requires looking at her predecessors, and what she said she would do.
It’s not an argument in good faith. It’s an argument for the guy who babbled incoherently about how tariffs work and then did exactly what he said he would.
Wait, so your post full of made-up arguments are in good faith?
I swear by LinkedIn, “disruption,” and the invisible hand of the market that I will fulfill this oath to the best of my metric-driven ability.
I will critique my teachers for their lack of personal branding.
I will inform every patient that their illness is, ultimately, a failure of hustle culture, poor risk management, and not having a diverse investment portfolio.
I will refuse deadly drugs but will absolutely shame you for buying avocado toast instead of a high-deductible health plan.
Whatever house I enter, I will come for the sick — and leave a QR code to my Substack explaining how bootstraps could have prevented all of this.
I will not repeat what I see or hear in private — but I will monetize the general vibe as a case study in “choice architecture.”
If I keep this oath, may I achieve synergistic growth. If not… well, the market will correct you, not me.
Rights violations in Iran was one of their many post-excuses for invading, while doing the literal same things domestically.
Hypocrisy is a requirement in the Republican party. They are not ashamed of it.
There. I fixed it for you.
Broadening the blame away from the worst offender only serves to help the worst offenders get away with it.
Stop it.
Lol what
When the constitutional lawyer Barack Obama ran for president, he said that the was against warrentless mass surveillance.
When Snowden revealed the wide use of the PRSIM and Five Eyes agreements to enable mass surveillance of multiple countries without court order, Obama then had Snowden’s passport revoked while he was looking for political asylum, and said:
Obama didn’t reel in the NSA when it was made public, as a constitutional lawyer because it was trying to stop terrorists. Like how Bush did. Like how Trump did. Like how Biden did. Like how Trump is now.
They don’t care about you. They want you to think they do. But if they did, they’d end the panopticon state. Obama didn’t even close GitMo.
No one is doing that, liberal. Reds and Blues are the same face of the same fucking coin.
deleted by creator
You mean the two faces of the same fucking coin.
Nope, they’re the same fucking party: the Capital’s party, that is.
The phrase is “two sides of the same coin”. Meaning exactly what you are saying. That they are both the capitalist party. As opposed to another proverbial coin, that of the socialists, anarchists, Monarchist, etc.
Can’t you guys get neologisms and irony? I KNOW what is the original idiom. HOWEVER, I’m deliberately changing it to mean there isn’t even a simulacrum of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Ah, the eternal marvel of the English language: its breathtaking inability to stray from a pre-written script. No wonder it’s the language of contracts, with every clause so exquisitely, flawlessly delineated. Naturally, people then start behaving as if they’re perpetually executing contracts with one another, forever in hot pursuit of pecuniary advantage. And from that, of course, sprang Common Law, Capitalism, and Imperialism - what a coincidence. It’s just so delightfully easy to build colonies and murder on an industrial scale when the target is nothing more than a number. Precisely because they can’t think beyond greed and individualism, they end up so utterly, pathetically lost the moment they set foot in collectivist countries.
I will grant you that both parties serve monied interests and share a lot of the same agenda. However, one party has been working for generations to roll back rights for women, POC, LGBTQIA+ to the 1950s.
The US and Israel were trying to push the women’s rights angle with their manufactured protests, then bombed a girls school killing ~150 mostly schoolchildren.
Quick, chat, what did the democrats have to say about the u.s. military or Iran during the last election? Oh, Kamala Harris was literally even more bellicose?? yup those dang Republicans alright
This world you keep imagining where Kamala would have invaded more countries than we have in this past year alone is quite the sight.
Tell me more. How many times will congress fail resolutions to narrow her war powers? Will the DoD get renamed to the Department of War Crimes? Will she fill her cabinet with actual circus clowns instead of the hand picked pool of media sycophants who aren’t experts in their fields? Will she build her ball room on top of her triumph arch? (idk, maybe it has death lasers and satanic pentagrams, that would be cool)
The “but Kamala” card requires entertaining the idea that literally any president other than the one that got voted in would have been able to outpace the malignant narcissism of senile Emperor Nero over here. It’s not an argument in good faith. It’s an argument for the guy who babbled incoherently about how tariffs work and then did exactly what he said he would.
Edit: Tee hee. If there is one thing ML and MAGA still agree on, it’s that the US is on the best trajectory for everyone. Albeit for very different reasons.
Ngl as an ML, I sure hope I get to see the end of the US as a political entity. Trump winning was inevitable, because American capitalism is in freefall from a materialist perspective, and trying to grab as much as it can before it crashes.
I don’t care how polite an American president is, they’re all war criminals that bomb West Asia and South America with 0 impunity.
Death to the US
Kamala harris wanted to “rebuild” the u.s. military into “the world’s deadliest” and said Iran was America’s #1 enemy. What the fuck do you think her intentions are with those statements, you absolute fucking imbecile? Or were you too stupid and ignorant to actually pay attention to the things she said during her 5 minutes of campaigning, so you don’t actually know what the fuck you’re talking about?
Harris had the same foreign policy goals as Trump, the difference between them is that she would have pursued those goals with more competence i.e. she wouldn’t have bombed Iran, she’d have kept up the economic war to cause the country to collapse. She might have bombed Iran by 2028, but the economic war was working. Iran was in really bad shape before the war.
With this in mind, in terms of foreign policy, Trump is the lesser evil. Thanks to Trump, Iran has a path to victory.
Basically either the more honest, and less competent imperialists, vs the dishonest, more competent imperialists.
Yeah, it’s actually more complicated than just being mask-on vs mask-off. It turns out that only the competents wear their mask, because they’re competent enough to know why they’re wearing a mask. The incompetents think that masks are woke.
Literal Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Where did they say that?
Probably zero, considering that they didn’t even consider doing it to Obama or Biden. Ya know, the guys who bombed bunches of kids.
She would have picked liars, simps, and sycophants, just like Biden, Obama, and Clinton did.
No, it just requires looking at her predecessors, and what she said she would do.
Wait, so your post full of made-up arguments are in good faith?
They are bound to the hypocritic oath.