they’re talking out their ass.

Yes, which is par for the course.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

What is behind the inconsistencies?

Cash payments in return for interviews with North Korean refugees have been standard practice in the field for years.

Initially, the payment was to cover the cost of meals and local transport, which was approximately $30 in the late 1990s when I first began interviewing in China and South Korea. However, the fees had risen to $200 per hour by the time I attempted to interview people from North Korea in May 2014.

A government official from the South Korean ministry of unification told me the range of fees could vary wildly, from $50-500 per hour, depending on the quality of information.

But this practice raises a difficulty: how does the payment change the relation between a researcher and an interviewee, and what effect will it have on the story itself?

deleted by creator

Dog…

My original claim was that in none of these articles is there any evidence of Putin or Xi expressing interesting in extending their lifespan.

It’s a claim you still have yet to disprove, btw.

Claiming that Russia is not technologically advanced is a nonsequiter. Refusing to engage with a nonsequiter is not underhanded. And you’re not humouring anyone by backing down from your attempt to turn this conversation into one about Russia’s technological capabilities. You’re just backpedaling.

Again, please show me where Putin or Xi expressed interest in extending their lives.

Not even remotely related to the part I quoted and laughed at, but I’ll humour you

So how does a claim regarding Russia’s technological capabilities relate to my original comment? The only person being humoured here is you.

The way the healthy skepticism just leaves the liberal mind once a state department hit pieces comes out is laughable. You have been effortlessly oriented. Yall just eat this shit up. “Deduction”… lmao.

Again, maybe one day show me where Putin or Xi expressed interest in extending their lifespan. You won’t.

Just read your article. Nowhere in it did Xi or Putin express fear of mortality or an interest in extending their personal lifespans.

All this is is musings on transhumanism.

[mortality] haunt[s] people—especially aging tyrants who fear that the icy hand of death is upon their shoulder and want far more time to ensure both national and personal glory.

Show me where Xi or Putin expressed fear of mortality. Better yet, show me where Xi or Putin expressed interest in extending their lifespan.

Show me where Putin or Xi expressed interest in living to 150.

leaders of two of the world’s most technologically prominent countries muse on the prospects of transhumanism in front of a crowd of dozens

rabid disapproval from liberals who claim that Putin and Xi got caught on a hot mic wanting to live forever so they can rule eternally or something, idk

Seriously, the reading comprehension is abysmal in this thread. Can someone show me where Putin or Xi said they personally wished to live to 150?

Okay, the courts deputize 300 people to go try and compel the executive to follow the law - then what? They accuse Trump with contempt of court, serve him papers, threaten to seize assets, or even arrest him? All of this has been tried before. How do you see this playing out?

At the heart of the comment you replied to is an implicit claim “a judicial that has nothing other than legal and procedural means is doomed to fail against Trump”. And all you’ve pointed out is that there are various other legal and procedural means they have yet to try. This is the cursed slogan of liberals who’ve watched Trump piss on every legal proceeding over the past 10+ years.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Until the courts have guns, they’re toothless. Trump has subsumed the American legal system.

This blind faith that our “rugged”, “resilient”, and “pragmatic” system will somehow automatically course correct and steer us out of this fascist devolution is pure liberalism. The genie is out of the bottle.

Looks like a pretty posh crib for a disgraced Nazi.

Caterpillar: “We help our customers build a better, more sustainable world”

Caterpillar’s better, more sustainable world:

When we go to unprovable predictions about the future so that the your argument cannot be refuted, the debate ends right there. I don’t play what if.

Thats… called a hypothetical. Hypotheticals allow you to do thought experiments - which are not some conniving, underhanded, or fallacious way of arguing.

If, hypothetically, in 30 years, your choice is between a democrat who wants 10 genocides and a replublican who wants 11, will you still be militantly democrat?

I have no problem voting for whoever is the better candidate of the two- regardless of whether or not they align with my policies ideology

You do realize the error with this utility calculation, right? A few more years of this style of “pragmatic liberal utilitarianism” will have you voting for a Dem who wants 9 genocides over a republican who wants 10. You’ll find yourself voting for 2036 Dem candidate Ted Cruz as he runs against the republicans’ candidate of Mecha Hitler.

This strategy isn’t sustainable, and what you’ve shown is that there is no number of Palestinian children you wouldnt sacrifice to bide time for your crumbling oligarchy. At some point, we have a moral duty to the victims of our imperialism to simply dismantle our genocidal country.

Just tried that in 2016. Debbie Schultz and Hillary decided to quell Bernie fervor, elevated Trump, and secured years of Trump and a fascist devolution. Utterly embarrassing. The Democratic party is not going to stop fascism.

“Conflict”, “everlasting war”, “dumbshit religious conflict”…

Bruh… just say genocide if you aren’t a genocide denier. You dont deny there is a genocide in Palestine, do you? No? Then stop the disingenuous casting of it as a normal, symmetrical war.

Leftists who refused to vote for Kamala did not do so because of “conflict”. Leftists who chose not to vote for Kamala did so because of genocide. Stop whitewashing. Engage honestly with the actual leftist position instead of your strawman.

“A conflict happening on the other side of the planet” is one my new favorite euphemisms for genocide - one that has left 50k children killed or injured.

What I remember was the Democratic establishment being presented with a simple choice between halting fascism and doing genocide, and they went balls deep in genocide. In reality, halting fascism via the Democrats was never in the cards.

People who push this kind of thinking still think warfare is carried out and progresses like it did in the Napoleonic era: two orderly opposed fronts clashing head-to-head in theaters with well-defined boundaries - where the adversary with more guns/people/resources win. Because more guns/people directly equates to military power, right?

These folks would do well to spend even the slightest amount of time learning about fourth generational, guerilla war. The fact that bullets ping off of tank armor does not disprove guerilla war.

Let’s take this meme back a couple hundred years and cast you as a counter revolutonary American at the onset of the revolutonary war.

/*Wants to have muskets to fend off british empire

/*british empire:

Starts to seem silly when you realize even our founding fathers were doing guerilla warfare not long ago.

The democrats had a choice between genocide and curbing fascism. Your savior party chose to starve kids over halt fascism. Why are “tankies” obligated to respect your bizarre utility calculation, but Kamala and the democrats are not?

What is your red line? Assuming in 30 years, when the choice is between a candidate who wants 9 genocides and a candidate who wants 10, will you still be militantly democrat? Is there no point at which you would start to call into question your genocidal, fascist, enslaving government?

So are the Russians weak or strong?