For me, it kept a lot of the worst of the idiots away from places like reddit.

As soon as xitter got bad, lots of them left. You see, those kinds of weaponsied, unhigned right wingers are so repulsive to be around, they can’t even stand each other. More so, they dont even want to have a conversation or an exchange of ideas. They literally just want to rant at people, parroting the lines they read somewhere else at anyone they think disagrees with them.

If everyone agrees with you, you have no one to rant at.

I see a fair amount of online adverts that use them. Usually the kind you might get orbiting an article of some kind, just using AI images as their hook.

Nope, come on man are you kidding me (?) and disagree again.

I agree that maybe you can’t but that doesn’t make it true or not. The last Conservative government of great Britain showed themselves to be utterly corrupted by greed and capitalism. They didn’t even have to pretend not to rip the entire country off during the covid pandemic.

Even then, its not “more” or less than the US. My point is just that capitalism corrupts all governments, to one extent or another, because its incompatible with democracy.

If there is a top, in terms of money or having things etc., then it isn’t communism.

Please name which country in Europe has a government thats hasn’t been bought and paid off.

Of course, no one can. Unfortunately, that’s because capitalism is incompatible with actual democracy. Theres isn’t a country in the world whos democratic process and systems of governance hasn’t been utterly corrupted by capitalism and all that it brings with it.

If there’s a top that someone could rise to, it isn’t communism.

I don’t think I explained it very well.

They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.

It’ll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they’ll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.

Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.

You don’t need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. However, I think the reason it’s not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.

What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what’s going on?

To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.

100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.

As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country’s resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.

When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.

Well of course, if anywhere wed be sending them to Rwanda right guys? You like sending people you don’t like there isn’t it?

Its funny that people dying of starvation, in the USSR, is seen as a crime of communism but the exact same people will refuse to accept, by their own “logic”, that would make the rest of ALL the starvation in the world a crime of capitalism.

How do you even start to deconstruct that kind of indoctrination?

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

Yeah but, if it was remotely enjoyable, then you might make 2 or maybe even 3% less profit for the lazy, workshy scroungers who own the company.

We can’t have that now can we?

Because “better overall” is a silly concept to use here, and is bring deliberately done to “both sides” the debate.

For driving really fast: petrol

For not killing our planets ability to sustain himan life: electric

Its not that hard

I get the feeling, I really do. However, I can’t think of many things that would radicalise someone more than losing all their money or being buried under a pile of debt. Being these sorts of types, they’ll only go one way. On reflection, I’m sure you recognise the very specific and historically recognisable tinder box.

I mean, it still might not be immoral. They can all get fucked. Just, maybe not in that specific way is all im saying.

And you can just re-drclare your baseless nonsense too.

No, weaponised ignorance and a burden of proof falacy is not a cogent rebuttal and pretending it wouldn’t work either side of the boarder is desperate, at best.

I already did. You just didn’t like it and, again, declared it wouldn’t work without a hint of evidence or even any argumentation.

I don’t need a magic bullet to disprove “nothing will help.” Youre just failing to realise how poor a declaration it was.

Also, I never needed to prove you wrong in the first place. You never proved yourself right. You just declared it to be thus and such.

Yes, yes we are talking about Mexico. Any hit to the cartels profits, be it in America or Mexico, is going to help battle the cartels, even if you don’t want to beleive it and even if you declare it not to be true.

You see, they actually sell drugs in Mexico too. Itll also bring down the price of drugs in the US, as the market will be flooded. Its really not hard. You just don’t like it and that’s not the same thing as it not helping.

Of course I’m aware.

Wait, are you trying to tell me you think it wouldn’t translate into helping, if they did it on the other side of the boarder too? I have to check because that’s pretty wild.