@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

I'm pretty sure the moderators of the big normie subs are mostly CIA.

I think it's fairly realistic to assume that many (maybe most?) of the civilian dead in Bucha who were shown on Western media were killed by Ukrainian units who reentered the town in retribution.

It's not merely that she's relatively young, it's that she's much younger than the two presidents who'll have preceded her.

What issues can be her Perestroika, her Glasnost, her liquor ban?

You can also name about a dozen potential issues, can't you? The college debt bubble, the NIMBY vs. YIMBY struggle, the opioid crisis, economic stagnation, the housing bubble, Medicare, women's rights etc.

blessed with good weather, natural resources

That's a bit of a stretch.

In the literal sense of the word, they aren't trans. But that doesn't really matter. In a practical sense, in the context of the culture war, they are.

Doubt if I’d buy that piece of land in [Small Town, Southern US State] for fear of the ancestor’s spirits, Native and African slaves wandering around looking for descendants in 2024 to be released from their bondage and inequities thrashed upon them for wealth by its oppressors.

I strongly suspect she's otherwise a loud member of the "trust the science" tribe.

I'm sure that's what she tried doing before Mother Nature snuffed her out.

Plenty of married couples rent?

I'm sure they do, generally as long as they're still childless. Once they're not, I'm not sure most people see that as a viable option.

No, you aren't crazy.

The most plausible explanation is that Hillary's campaign staffers in 2016, most of whom were probably single and childless cat ladies already caught up in the cycle of online feminist radicalization for years, convinced themselves that "Berniebros" (who actually never existed anywhere but the imagination of Hillary's propagandists and were simply a mirage), "Nazi" 4chan trolls and toxic male Trump supporters represent a worthy political target somehow, and thus convinced Hillary that it'd be a good idea to radicalize her own base by rallying against the "basket of deplorables". I imagine it wasn't her own idea actually, and most of this was simply about her staffers wanting to feel good about themselves.

Can you elaborate please?

Color me shocked that nobody selected a peasant Anarchist who was easily duped by Bolshevik salami tactics to be the symbol of united Ukrainian nationhood. Instead they had to chose the cringe nerd for the sole but very obvious reason because they knew they could always portray him to the normies as a victim of Nazi repression, because "he was in a concentration camp". (In reality, he was under the equivalent of house arrest under comfortable conditions, because he had qualms about one aspect of the proposed National Socialist European New Order, namely that it didn't include an autonomous Ukrainian state.)

Europe is, and always had been, land of free market and LGBTQ+ rights

sure...lol. We'll see how much of a good political sell this will turn out to be. I suggest you don't hold your breath.

In order to preserve a newly found national myth that is "pretty dumb"?

Yes, any city dedicating a statue to its founder and leaving it to stand is a completely self-evident course of events. There's no need to back that up.

There are two different types of political extremism, I think. A Republican wave would make the leftists desperate and more extreme outside power structures (to the extent that they even exist outside those). The opposite would make them arrogant and more extreme within them. The only things that would deescalate their extremism in the long run would be federal student debt cancellation, the nationalization of healthcare, a federal minimum wage and so on.

They are making an effort to prevent the D scenario. That's a big difference.

From their point of view, the issue isn't that the Soviet were bad per se, but that they also invaded their land. I think it's fair to say that the real sentiment is "Soviets should have never invaded us!". In other words, "If only we had a different past".

The occupation was obviously forcible, but the arrival of Russian immigrants was, as far as I know, not, and can only be viewed as the indirect consequence of the former. Other than that, yes, there are differences, but that's not the point. On one hand, treating ethnic diversity as a moral good unto itself, and mass immigration as the laudatory facilitator of it, and ethnic homogeneity as inherently dangerous when practiced by White Western Goyim, while at the same time upholding Baltic and Ukrainian Nationalist narratives about the Soviet crime of mass immigration in order to dissolve the inherently precious heritage that was local ethnic homogeneity, is completely dishonest and laughable.

Technically that part is true, yes.

It’s also true though that the existing Russian political system collapsed in a rather bloodless manner in 1917 and also 1991.

That's not exactly a stable social consensus though, is it?

How exactly does affirmative action make black women fatter? I'm not sure it's about food prices.

Is there a racial explanation for this difference?

Is there a racial explanation for this?

It also probably doesn't help that Russia is really fucking cold.

Rhetoric is one thing, actions are another. Altogether I find it a bit of a stretch to say that Chinese foreign policy was markedly aggressive during Mao, either compared to that of the USSR or the Qing Dynasty for that matter.