probablyaCat

What a crock of shit. Practically every historian says it was caused by soviet policy. The only debate that occurs if whether it was due to stupidity or intentional genocide.

1

2

3

4

I could keep going. Gonna tell me how the Holocaust was a lie too?

Ok let’s do some links
Holodomor

Chinese famine

Gulag

Homelessness in Russia

Continued

Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.

I’m sure there were extra houses after all those people that starved to death.

Yeah those soviets sure got rid of the homeless problem. Can’t be homeless when you were intentionally starved to death.

I mean you apparently can’t read one full tweet from a Russian asset, so why don’t we just hold off on that educated claim. Wouldn’t want you to get in trouble for false advertising.

I really have to stop arguing political theory with little kids. It’s bad for my blood pressure.

But just one more thing, how does anarchy protect minority groups from mob rule? How do you keep a smooth talking fascist from implementing a populist fascist movement? What does protection even mean in the context of anarchy? Or did you just watch batman too much and decided the joker was really cool?

You’re correct. I conflated that time period. Obama pushed for and got sanctions against Russia. Then Trump said it was ok that Russia annexed crimea, undermined the sanctions, and removed talk of Ukraine sovereignty from the party platform.

My bad.

She literally said they only invaded because they had a gun to their head and the response was relatively moderate. You said she is talking about western foreign policy. I built no straw man. You both just said that shit. No one pointed shit at Russia. Russia didn’t like the new government in Ukraine. Took over crimea. Trump was in office so the response was meh. So then Putin went for round 2. And she said it was in response to being threatened. And was a moderate response.

Why don’t you take your tankie ass to Ukraine and see the moderate response first hand.

Removed by mod

Oh. Oh. Thanks for clearing that up. The west made Russia invade Ukraine. They had to do it. Because of the west. Fucking idiot. Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Yeah see how that turns out if the republicans win next election. They facilitate fascism by being the only alternative to actual fascist politicians. They certainly aren’t perfect, but seriously how do you think it plays out if enough morons like you vote for Putin apologist Stein? What do you think the end result will be?

Are you fucking stupid or just full on tankie? What she said is the equivalent to when someone starts a statement with “I’m not racist but…”

She says it was a mild response? A response to what? What forced Russia to invade? Did Ukraine start pointing nukes at Russia? Fuck no. That was Russian apologist propaganda.

There is a fucking chasm wider than the grand canyon between being left on the political spectrum and being a stalin apologist. And pretending that third parties in the US elections format don’t act as spoilers and that is a liberal myth is either (a) just being really fucking stupid or (b) some tankie bullshit made by a person living in lala land.

See, I’m complex enough to acknowledge that the democrats kind of suck overall, having multiple parties would be better, but also accepting that given how the current system functions things can absolutely be worse if Trump wins again. Let us not forget that last time Stein implicitly supported Trump saying she like he won’t be able to get anything done but Hillary is efficient and will likely make things worse. Stein is fully capable of pulling just enough votes that Trump could win. And last time that ended Roe v Wade. This time, say buh bye to assistance for Ukraine. He wanted to fuck up NATO before. I’m sure that’d be real high priority now.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. This is not how I’d like the world to be. But there is no magic wand and you can’t just pretend things are totally different and think that has an effect.

Someone peaking out a door at soldiers with a small black object? Well I dunno. Why would soldiers ever shoot in such a situation…

Yeah because why let facts get in the way of your alternative reality, tankie. I’m a very lefty guy and not a fan of the Dems. But splitting votes is real and a real strategy. Say something when she doesn’t focus only on battleground states and her funding is all grass roots.

Should’ve stayed with Larry.

No it won’t. They would lie while watching a video showing it is a lie. And later they would lie that any of it ever took place.

And his true believers would accept it all.

So are you arguing that both the governments of Israel and Palestine in no way represent the people they govern?

But these groups and people weren’t the same people as the ones that walked across the land bridge. The cultures had long since diverged and were different. Wars had been fought. Whole groups died or merged. And if you go back a little further, they are all closely related. I don’t think the point is that the slaughtering and pillaging was OK. It is that you cannot have a good faith argument on fixing current problems by trying to focus only on arbitrary time periods to claim certain privileges. I am very much in favor of doing more to make the lives of the native americans better, but I also will not make the argument that descendants of Europeans or Africans have no claim to the land there either. Because to do so is not in good faith and just ignores reality. Any time period you pick to decide who has a claim to a place is arbitrary. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future (but we are limited by the confines of the present).