And on the other side, Donald Trump owns a social network, and yet no shit storm.
How the fuck did ethics become so asymmetric?
And on the other side, Donald Trump owns a social network, and yet no shit storm.
How the fuck did ethics become so asymmetric?
Hmm… Putin has a lot of loyalists, but he’s losing popularity especially with Ukraine gaining territory inside Russia… I wonder, if he were arrested out of the country, would one of the other oligarchs step up and grab power?
I’m sure you’re right.
How do we use our understanding of that, and the way that they operate, to avoid a full scale war?
The only problem I see is that it’s escalatory. If Ukraine starts using Western-supplied weapons for offensive operations, this situation goes from supplying war material for defense (under-the-table proxy war) to full-on overt proxy war. Russia will spin this as “NATO is using Ukraine to attack us” (though they’re probably doing that already).
I can’t see how this won’t lead to a wider conflict.
This assumes that
There’s a process to read.
The steps in the process are complete and thorough.
Those are bad assumptions.
And extremists are just extremists at the end of the day.
Deciding that you’re too good for centrists is the same thing as deciding that you never want to accomplish anything politically. You’re all talk and no practice.
China is probing the US’s willingness to get involved in another conflict.
“Stupid and petty” is how international bullies operate. Pointless violence is how immature people express their “strength”.
I know there have been maritime issues between China and others within the last few years or so
All of the maritime issues have been caused by China attempting to claim the entire South China Sea as their private property, in defiance of international agreements about national coastal waters. All of those issues were provoked by China trying to exert control over coastal waters that are rightfully the property of other nations, such as Malaysia, Singapore, and the Philippines. China is a bad neighbor.
Well my comment was a response to the comment above, not to the article, and in the context of “Kamala’s Thoughts” it is relevant.
ravhall’s point is good, that if a Democrat tried to share their ideology this way the response would be overwhelmingly negative. But on the other hand, we have “Truth Social” which might as well be labeled “Trump’s Thoughts” because he uses it as his personal soapbox. Political candidates owning social media companies should be illegal.