It’s easy to provide a good place to live when you’ve got tons of wealth. Just because the US treats some people well to score political points, doesn’t mean it’s a better place to live overall. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, you can see how the US acts when there’s no competition. Wealth inequality soars, civil rights get rolled back, social services get cut, and the cost of living goes crazy, including the cost of schooling that was supposed to put us ahead. It’s why the US screams endlessly about how dangerous China is, because they don’t want competition that would require them to provide some benefits for their peasants so they can continue thinking the US is “the greatest country in the world”.

The US was actively trying to get whatever talent they could out of the USSR. It’s called brain drain, and it’s an effective way to prevent rival countries from growing.

There is no assumption, genius.

Then you go on to describe everything in terms of the election system we have in place specifically set up to trap you within these two seemingly (but not actually) different choices. If the system is specifically set up this way, then what makes you think the people who control the system will let us make any meaningful change? It’s clear they have overarching goals and they manage to make progress towards these goals regardless of which party gets in.

You mean like how both parties support the genocide of Palestinians? You mean like how the Iran war enjoys bipartisan support even if they sometimes hold meaningless votes to show opposition that doesn’t translate to meaningful action against it (and they only hold those votes when they know it won’t do anything)? Maybe you get fooled by the political theater, but not everyone is as impressed by the rattle shaking.

It wasn’t the voting that made the change, “but go off”.

The least bad option, if you assume we only have two options, also supports genocide. Maybe the stupid one is the one who plays along with this stupid game. You’re not going to break out of the game by playing within its rules, especially when the rules change any time a potential exploit is found. Slow torture with breaks is still torture.

I’ve got news for you: if you support genocide then you’re already a fascist.

The trolley problem is used to pretend harm reduction works, but if you extend the image, you’ll find all the ones tied on the bottom rail will be moved to the top rail, just spaced out so that one side can pretend they’re slightly better, even though they’ll end up killing the same people anyway. If you think it’s acceptable to let “the good guys” carry out a genocide, then you’ll find anything acceptable. Keep sacrificing one group after the other as you justify your harm reduction scheme.

“First they came for[…]” I’ll let you figure out the rest.

How is that not a violation of the first amendment?

Well I found it funny at least.

lumbar support? more like gaybar support, right?!

Based? Based on what?

Based on having the same opinion as me.

Shitty Arabia is the US’s number one simp. Those stupid fuckers don’t understand that their turn comes after Iran. Go back to blowing your oil money on dumb shit like THE LINE that you’ve been duped into investing with flashy presentations by western consultants that you simp so hard for, clown prince moron bin shitsack.

Pants smooth things out.

True, sometimes the most abusive businesses are small.

No, I don’t think a genocidal ethnostate that protects rapists has the right to exist.

It goes to India who then sells it to the EU.

They did it to cut off China who was getting oil from Venezuela.

But it’s messier.

What we really need is money out of politics and for AIPAC to register as the foreign lobby that it is.