deleted by creator

(The USA is an) imperfect system (striving for equality)

(China, Russia, North Korea, are) formal(ly) (unequal) (…) corrupt system(s).

Could you explain to me why among these, only the USA one meets your par?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Russia
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Socialist_Constitution_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea_(2016)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America

You can use AI to summarise them. Or talk about individual articles. Really any sort of justification for why anyone could read these and think the USA one is the best one, never mind in a league of it’s own, is extremely fascinating.

Do you have even one bit of anecdotal evidence that he has fixed or improved anything? Or maybe a plan where there would be a dip and then a projected growth and we’re in the dip-phase per his proposed timeline?

Pretty sure this is called using human shields. Random hotel guests are now unknowingly sleeping in military command centres.

In case it’s too small to see, the third country that voted against is Israel.

And this only accounts for 0% of their launching capability! Imagine how many missiles they’d be launching if the Epsteineers hadn’t destroyed 100% of their military.

Probably someone tipped them off that the kids are writing “IOF”

Who cares about the other guy? Every USA politics guy is the same guy. This lady included. People seeing through the pink washing is a mild victory and worth mild celebration.

Hell I’d imagine the war would be over pretty darn fast if the ukranians wanted it. White flags, surrender, get captured to protect themselves if their government is making them fight by intimidation.

Your comment is pretty reasonable if you do a quick fact check with the resources that Google or DDG gives you. But you should be careful to separate “Ukraine” with the specific people within Ukraine who live in the Donbas. Some quick factors to consider with your polling article. And I don’t blame you for not knowing to pay attention to this if you haven’t followed this conflict closely.

The poll is from before the civil war. The people in the Donbas were happy with their autonomy (They had some autonomy from the rest of Ukraine) and national status in 2014 and prior, because the sources of grievances weren’t yet fully established. After this they had to endure shelling and terror attacks from openly Nazi militias with de facto support from the new government. That changes your mind.

In your link, you can see that among the ethnic Russians (the majority of those living in the Donbass), and those in the east, support for joining the Russian Federation, and other types of pro-Russia sentiments are higher. Again, this was before the coup and suppression. 31% wishing to merge with another country with no incentive is in my opinion very significant. Can you imagine how this poll would look in your country asked about your neighbour?

But even after years of shelling, the people of the Donbass didn’t want to become Russian citizens, they wanted their own state, and that’s what the breakaway republics fought for.

Now after even more years of fighting, it’s obvious that isn’t an option, and so the question they have to weigh is if they want to be governed by Ukraine or Russia. Ukraine has stood by, and even aided the worst people terrorising them. Ukraine has spread extremely strong anti-Russian (not the state, but the ethnicity and language and culture and traditions and history) rhetoric and laws, and anti-Soviet rhetoric and laws. Meanwhile Russia has, from the view of many everyday people currently living in the occupied territories, treated them fairly, protected them and died for them. Russia listened to them diplomatically when they accused the Ukrainian government of genocide, and promised to recognise the breakaway republics as sovereign nations. The fact that this is in Russia’s benefit, or if they made promises they knew they wouldn’t have to keep isn’t that important.

Hell I’d imagine the war would be over pretty darn fast if the ukranians wanted it. White flags, surrender, get captured to protect themselves if their government is making them fight by intimidation.

All of this to say, the soldiers fighting aren’t from the cities they’re fighting over.

Pigs aren’t sacred animals. You’re allowed to mention them. You aren’t supposed to eat them, but that rule is less strict than for example, you shouldn’t throw away good food because you fancy something else. The reason we hear so much about pork being forbidden in the west is because among cultural muslims, not eating pork is a very easy rule to follow while being somewhat visible.

They can’t really. A similar crime would only hurt civilian populations, and it would have to be the populations of a closer country since they can’t hit the USA.

> Irish Star

* Looks inside *

Reach USA, 14 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, 10005

You’re quoting an article written by the people who started this was, which they wrote to drum up support for this war. And the event it’s about is a military attack organised by these same nations.

What is a better outcome in your mind? If this base wasn’t bombed, it would continue attacking Iran, so the total amount of bombing would increase. Should they ask them to stop through diplomacy? USA cancelled a scheduled negotiation to launch the attack. But you still think they would be willing to stop the attack with nothing in return? Would USA pay reparations for the people they already killed? Should Iran have offered something to appease the attacker? Even if they had stopped for free, that would’ve been in essence paying with the lives of those the USA murdered. Do you think that would be a good outcome?

This is written as if you’re trying to imply the other party is offering to dismantle ICE.

Surely it’s better than a constitution that promises to be bad, like the USA one? https://youtu.be/2gaZLNvutcE

Just the fact that USA is comfortable attacking them means they don’t have nukes.

🤝

male only spaces could be a clutch until men get better at talking with women.

You’re not really making a good case for the inclusion of women in those sessions.

non-judgmental, but by women and men alike.

But it’s understood that the men in these spaces are already non-judgemental, or they wouldn’t work. But your comment makes it very clear who you put the blame on. As long as men right now are able to feel safe among other men and not in mixed groups, men’s groups should be encouraged.

Yes, the support group teaching masking is teaching a toxic culture, but if it’s necessary, it’s also teaching survival. It’s okay for any individual man or group of men to want to keep their head down and not be the driver of societal change.

That first link is dead.