tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Dec 5, 2017 8:23:41 GMT
Well I live in Canada, so I’m a centrist here. Maybe center-left. On the American spectrum, I’d be a progressive. Also, there’s a difference between social democracy and socialism. There’s even a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism (which is more to the left). Bernie for an example, is a social democrat, not a democratic socialist when you go issue by issue. There's no fucking difference between socialism and democratic socialism because the idea of socialism is that everyone has a say. So to put 'democratic' in front of it is completely superfluous. So by your definition Sanders wouldn't even be a democratic socialist even if he says so. I think he really is a socialist but won't admit to all his beliefs because he knows they won't go down well in the US. Someone like Jeremy Corbyn would never stand a chance in the US. Bernie is by all means a classical social democrat, comparable to for instance Willy Brandt. I don't really know why he uses the term democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is more like Cuba, he wants to be more like Denmark which is a liberal social democracy. Their main lines of conflict go between social democracy and classical liberalism. This leads to them both having better social programms and being a more buisness friendly country than the US (see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index). Democratic Socialism is in fact only one out of 9 major parties in Denmark and it has never been part of government. Most Americans (including Sanders) need courses on Europe.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Dec 5, 2017 13:01:10 GMT
There's no fucking difference between socialism and democratic socialism because the idea of socialism is that everyone has a say. So to put 'democratic' in front of it is completely superfluous. So by your definition Sanders wouldn't even be a democratic socialist even if he says so. I think he really is a socialist but won't admit to all his beliefs because he knows they won't go down well in the US. Someone like Jeremy Corbyn would never stand a chance in the US. Bernie is by all means a classical social democrat, comparable to for instance Willy Brandt. I don't really know why he uses the term democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is more like Cuba, he wants to be more like Denmark which is a liberal social democracy. Their main lines of conflict go between social democracy and classical liberalism. This leads to them both having better social programms and being a more buisness friendly country than the US (see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index). Democratic Socialism is in fact only one out of 9 major parties in Denmark and it has never been part of government. Most Americans (including Sanders) need courses on Europe. I agree (except for the Cuba being democratic) with everything you said. I'm just saying that Sanders doesn't share all his political beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 12, 2019 4:17:05 GMT
drumpf is finished
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 1,791
|
Post by dazed on Jan 12, 2019 7:31:35 GMT
Niiiice. Tulsi > Warren I’d probably pick her over anyone else other than Bernie. Ojeda is good too, but I don’t think he has a chance.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 12, 2019 20:36:29 GMT
fuckk
ok edit:
-really bad track record on lgbt rights -super conservative voting record -was a fucking troop lmao -believes in the russia shit -has some good points like being pretty big on environmentalism
i get if some people here are to the point of where they feel they need to vote for the opposition by any means necessary but we aren't to that point yet. let this person's chances die in the primaries and if yall somehow fuck that one up again then do your thing in the big one.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 1,791
|
Post by dazed on Jan 14, 2019 22:44:01 GMT
fuckk ok edit: -really bad track record on lgbt rights -super conservative voting record -was a fucking troop lmao -believes in the russia shit -has some good points like being pretty big on environmentalism i get if some people here are to the point of where they feel they need to vote for the opposition by any means necessary but we aren't to that point yet. let this person's chances die in the primaries and if yall somehow fuck that one up again then do your thing in the big one. I wouldn't equate Tulsi with the other establishment types though. She's much better than the other establishment candidates such as Beta, Harris, and Booker. I'd go as far as to say she's the best other than Bernie. She was for medicare for all before it became popular. For legalization of marijuana Wants paper ballots (unlike other candidates that cry about Russia, yet provide no solution for interference). Not saying Russia interfered btw, but paper ballots are an obvious good thing. Wants to get out of Afghanistan Wants to raise the minimum wage Supported PAYGO Wants to raise taxes on the rich Has a pro gay voting record (I know she was against the idea of gay rights back then, so I can still see people having issues about her on this subject). Supported Bernie in the primaries unlike almost every other democrat in office Went out of her way to try and end the U.S support of Saudi Arabia and the war on Yemen Now I know there's criticisms of her, such as supporting Hindu nationalists, and rightfully so. It will be impossible to find a perfect candidate though. Not even Bernie (who I love) is perfect, such as his stance on drone strikes and the Israel vs Palestine issue. So although there will most likely be a better choice than her (assuming Bernie runs), I think she'd be acceptable enough for progressives/social democrats to get behind and happily support. She would have a good chance at getting past Trump too in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 14, 2019 23:23:59 GMT
fuckk ok edit: -really bad track record on lgbt rights -super conservative voting record -was a fucking troop lmao -believes in the russia shit -has some good points like being pretty big on environmentalism i get if some people here are to the point of where they feel they need to vote for the opposition by any means necessary but we aren't to that point yet. let this person's chances die in the primaries and if yall somehow fuck that one up again then do your thing in the big one. I wouldn't equate Tulsi with the other establishment types though. She's much better than the other establishment candidates such as Beta, Harris, and Booker. I'd go as far as to say she's the best other than Bernie. She was for medicare for all before it became popular. For legalization of marijuana Wants paper ballots (unlike other candidates that cry about Russia, yet provide no solution for interference). Not saying Russia interfered btw, but paper ballots are an obvious good thing. Wants to get out of Afghanistan Wants to raise the minimum wage Supported PAYGO Wants to raise taxes on the rich Has a pro gay voting record (I know she was against the idea of gay rights back then, so I can still see people having issues about her on this subject). Supported Bernie in the primaries unlike almost every other democrat in office Went out of her way to try and end the U.S support of Saudi Arabia and the war on YemenNow I know there's criticisms of her, such as supporting Hindu nationalists, and rightfully so. It will be impossible to find a perfect candidate though. Not even Bernie (who I love) is perfect, such as his stance on drone strikes and the Israel vs Palestine issue. So although there will most likely be a better choice than her (assuming Bernie runs), I think she'd be acceptable enough for progressives/social democrats to get behind and happily support. She would have a good chance at getting past Trump too in my opinion. This is actually really good
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 15, 2019 4:09:14 GMT
fuckk ok edit: -really bad track record on lgbt rights -super conservative voting record -was a fucking troop lmao -believes in the russia shit -has some good points like being pretty big on environmentalism i get if some people here are to the point of where they feel they need to vote for the opposition by any means necessary but we aren't to that point yet. let this person's chances die in the primaries and if yall somehow fuck that one up again then do your thing in the big one. I wouldn't equate Tulsi with the other establishment types though. She's much better than the other establishment candidates such as Beta, Harris, and Booker. I'd go as far as to say she's the best other than Bernie. She was for medicare for all before it became popular. For legalization of marijuana Wants paper ballots (unlike other candidates that cry about Russia, yet provide no solution for interference). Not saying Russia interfered btw, but paper ballots are an obvious good thing. Wants to get out of Afghanistan Wants to raise the minimum wage Supported PAYGO Wants to raise taxes on the rich Has a pro gay voting record (I know she was against the idea of gay rights back then, so I can still see people having issues about her on this subject). Supported Bernie in the primaries unlike almost every other democrat in office Went out of her way to try and end the U.S support of Saudi Arabia and the war on Yemen Now I know there's criticisms of her, such as supporting Hindu nationalists, and rightfully so. It will be impossible to find a perfect candidate though. Not even Bernie (who I love) is perfect, such as his stance on drone strikes and the Israel vs Palestine issue. So although there will most likely be a better choice than her (assuming Bernie runs), I think she'd be acceptable enough for progressives/social democrats to get behind and happily support. She would have a good chance at getting past Trump too in my opinion. i support most of those things (particularly the SA stuff) but i think that most establishment dems have things i can sort of go with, there's just too many things holding them back for me to want to support them outside of like, against a common opposition. i probably like her more than like half of the other frontrunners (fucking joe biden lmao) but tepidity should be a p big thing right now particularly with climate change as precarious of an issue as it is also isn't bernie pretty good on palestinian rights? he condemns israel more than any other politician i know of
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 15, 2019 15:14:51 GMT
Niiiice. Tulsi > Warren I’d probably pick her over anyone else other than Bernie. Ojeda is good too, but I don’t think he has a chance. I'd like you so much more if you got rid off this Bernie obsession. He's hopeless and looks like a goblin.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 15, 2019 15:16:17 GMT
I wouldn't equate Tulsi with the other establishment types though. She's much better than the other establishment candidates such as Beta, Harris, and Booker. I'd go as far as to say she's the best other than Bernie. She was for medicare for all before it became popular. For legalization of marijuana Wants paper ballots (unlike other candidates that cry about Russia, yet provide no solution for interference). Not saying Russia interfered btw, but paper ballots are an obvious good thing. Wants to get out of Afghanistan Wants to raise the minimum wage Supported PAYGO Wants to raise taxes on the rich Has a pro gay voting record (I know she was against the idea of gay rights back then, so I can still see people having issues about her on this subject). Supported Bernie in the primaries unlike almost every other democrat in office Went out of her way to try and end the U.S support of Saudi Arabia and the war on YemenNow I know there's criticisms of her, such as supporting Hindu nationalists, and rightfully so. It will be impossible to find a perfect candidate though. Not even Bernie (who I love) is perfect, such as his stance on drone strikes and the Israel vs Palestine issue. So although there will most likely be a better choice than her (assuming Bernie runs), I think she'd be acceptable enough for progressives/social democrats to get behind and happily support. She would have a good chance at getting past Trump too in my opinion. This is actually really good But sucks up to Assad and Syria?
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 15, 2019 15:19:31 GMT
-was a fucking troop lmao How's that a bad thing? That just makes me wanna fuck her more.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 1,791
|
Post by dazed on Jan 15, 2019 15:30:23 GMT
I wouldn't equate Tulsi with the other establishment types though. She's much better than the other establishment candidates such as Beta, Harris, and Booker. I'd go as far as to say she's the best other than Bernie. She was for medicare for all before it became popular. For legalization of marijuana Wants paper ballots (unlike other candidates that cry about Russia, yet provide no solution for interference). Not saying Russia interfered btw, but paper ballots are an obvious good thing. Wants to get out of Afghanistan Wants to raise the minimum wage Supported PAYGO Wants to raise taxes on the rich Has a pro gay voting record (I know she was against the idea of gay rights back then, so I can still see people having issues about her on this subject). Supported Bernie in the primaries unlike almost every other democrat in office Went out of her way to try and end the U.S support of Saudi Arabia and the war on Yemen Now I know there's criticisms of her, such as supporting Hindu nationalists, and rightfully so. It will be impossible to find a perfect candidate though. Not even Bernie (who I love) is perfect, such as his stance on drone strikes and the Israel vs Palestine issue. So although there will most likely be a better choice than her (assuming Bernie runs), I think she'd be acceptable enough for progressives/social democrats to get behind and happily support. She would have a good chance at getting past Trump too in my opinion. i support most of those things (particularly the SA stuff) but i think that most establishment dems have things i can sort of go with, there's just too many things holding them back for me to want to support them outside of like, against a common opposition. i probably like her more than like half of the other frontrunners (fucking joe biden lmao) but tepidity should be a p big thing right now particularly with climate change as precarious of an issue as it is also isn't bernie pretty good on palestinian rights? he condemns israel more than any other politician i know of He’s probably the best politician in America on the Israel vs Palestine issue, but he’s still not all that great on it. From what I know at least.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 15, 2019 17:44:46 GMT
-was a fucking troop lmao How's that a bad thing? That just makes me wanna fuck her more. i can respect people who were pressured into that lifestyle and are aware of how destructive it was but if you're still supportive of the regime i think that's kind of indefensible otherwise
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 15, 2019 17:45:40 GMT
i support most of those things (particularly the SA stuff) but i think that most establishment dems have things i can sort of go with, there's just too many things holding them back for me to want to support them outside of like, against a common opposition. i probably like her more than like half of the other frontrunners (fucking joe biden lmao) but tepidity should be a p big thing right now particularly with climate change as precarious of an issue as it is also isn't bernie pretty good on palestinian rights? he condemns israel more than any other politician i know of He’s probably the best politician in America on the Israel vs Palestine issue, but he’s still not all that great on it. From what I know at least. that's fair enough then yeah
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 15, 2019 18:28:18 GMT
She appears to be anti lbgtq and the senator isn't endorsing her. She's done.
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 1,791
|
Post by dazed on Jan 15, 2019 20:39:19 GMT
She appears to be anti lbgtq and the senator isn't endorsing her. She's done. I wouldn’t say she’s anti lgbtq. She has a very pro gay rights voting record, even though she was against gay rights back then. Almost every politician in America was though (which still doesn’t excuse it). Obama and Clinton for example spoke out against gays. While saying that, I can understand people having an issue about it. It’s not a surprise that media is making this a huge issue either, all the while prompting up someone like Kamala Harris, who has immense downfalls that they won’t talk about. Why? Because she’s apart of the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Jan 15, 2019 21:15:59 GMT
This is actually really good But sucks up to Assad and Syria? I never said she was perfect, or even good for that matter, but the cutting off support for Saudi Arabia stance is great and I have to give credit where it's due.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 15, 2019 23:18:55 GMT
How's that a bad thing? That just makes me wanna fuck her more. i can respect people who were pressured into that lifestyle and are aware of how destructive it was but if you're still supportive of the regime i think that's kind of indefensible otherwise Regimes are permanent you moron. Also how do you expect to protect your country without soldiers? You should show more respect to the people who guard you while you sleep easy and bitch about them on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 15, 2019 23:21:32 GMT
But sucks up to Assad and Syria? I never said she was perfect, or even good for that matter, but the cutting off support for Saudi Arabia stance is great and I have to give credit where it's due. Why is that great? America needs allies in that region now more than ever and if you tell them to fuck off then they'll become friends with Russia or China. It's a no-win situation.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 15, 2019 23:40:08 GMT
i can respect people who were pressured into that lifestyle and are aware of how destructive it was but if you're still supportive of the regime i think that's kind of indefensible otherwise Regimes are permanent you moron. Also how do you expect to protect your country without soldiers? You should show more respect to the people who guard you while you sleep easy and bitch about them on the internet. they haven't directly protected me in my entire lifetime. i expect soldiers to be there for protection and not for dying in useless wars or raping innocents, and the countless coverups that happen due to an insistence on not changing that status quo. regimes can dissolve and change; this is how we transferred out of rampant colonialism to apartheid to post-apartheid. the us military state is a horrible existence in the world and supporting it is shitty.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 15, 2019 23:56:15 GMT
I never said she was perfect, or even good for that matter, but the cutting off support for Saudi Arabia stance is great and I have to give credit where it's due. Why is that great? America needs allies in that region now more than ever and if you tell them to fuck off then they'll become friends with Russia or China. It's a no-win situation. because directly funding genocides is sometimes seen as a "bad thing"
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 16, 2019 0:01:14 GMT
Regimes are permanent you moron. Also how do you expect to protect your country without soldiers? You should show more respect to the people who guard you while you sleep easy and bitch about them on the internet. they haven't directly protected me in my entire lifetime. i expect soldiers to be there for protection and not for dying in useless wars or raping innocents, and the countless coverups that happen due to an insistence on not changing that status quo. regimes can dissolve and change; this is how we transferred out of rampant colonialism to apartheid to post-apartheid. the us military state is a horrible existence in the world and supporting it is shitty. Without the US army, Europe would've fallen to the Kaiser or the Third Reich. Without the US army,the Bosnians probably would've been exterminated by Milosevic's thugs. Without the US army, the Confederacy would've claimed the right to keep their slaves and joined the Mexican brigades of slavers. Without the US army, every Israeli would be open to extermination from people who think they're cockroaches. Without the US army, most of the world would've fallen to Soviet or Chinese style communism (although I imagine you'd like that). Without the US army, Islamic fascists would be able to conquer more and more land. Now I'm not an obscurantist, I know they can be a pack of cunts at times but clearly you have no idea the repercussions of not having the US army around.
Also they have protected you. A defenseless America would be ripe for the picking. And regimes are permanent unless toppled or the next generation comes along. That's why there are elections.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 16, 2019 0:13:10 GMT
they haven't directly protected me in my entire lifetime. i expect soldiers to be there for protection and not for dying in useless wars or raping innocents, and the countless coverups that happen due to an insistence on not changing that status quo. regimes can dissolve and change; this is how we transferred out of rampant colonialism to apartheid to post-apartheid. the us military state is a horrible existence in the world and supporting it is shitty. Without the US army, Europe would've fallen to the Kaiser or the Third Reich. Without the US army,the Bosnians probably would've been exterminated by Milosevic's thugs. Without the US army, the Confederacy would've claimed the right to keep their slaves and joined the Mexican brigades of slavers. Without the US army, every Israeli would be open to extermination from people who think they're cockroaches. Without the US army, most of the world would've fallen to Soviet or Chinese style communism (although I imagine you'd like that). Without the US army, Islamic fascists would be able to conquer more and more land. Now I'm not an obscurantist, I know they can be a pack of cunts at times but clearly you have no idea the repercussions of not having the US army around.
Also they have protected you. A defenseless America would be ripe for the picking. And regimes are permanent unless toppled or the next generation comes along. That's why there are elections.
i mentioned "in my lifetime" for a pretty good reason, although some of these are pretty indefensible. the US supporting israel with billions of taxpayer dollars per year so that they can run a fascist state is not something that i am okay with. that communism thing flat out isn't true and it's funny bc i see a lot of cold war era propaganda still being spouted today but i rarely see that one anymore. the CIA (with the help of the military, of course) overthrew many democratically elected presidents in latin america during the cold war and replaced them with fascists who then ran the countries into the ground with untold numbers of human rights violations - i suppose this is what you mean by stopping the world from falling to soviet style communism, maybe it was spending billions of dollars on unnecessary nuclear weapons while there were countless domestic issues that could have benefited from additional infrastructure. these are real world effects of having such a gigantic military state that has no problem with interfering with the rest of the world at whim; the notion of "maybe this is indefensible" is the moderate position. the military in its current position is an indefensible state and the systems that allowed it to commit the atrocities that it did in the past are largely still in place today. if there was major reform and spending cutbacks along with large cultural shifts in how the military is seen, i might be more keen on it.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Jan 16, 2019 0:23:59 GMT
Without the US army, Europe would've fallen to the Kaiser or the Third Reich. Without the US army,the Bosnians probably would've been exterminated by Milosevic's thugs. Without the US army, the Confederacy would've claimed the right to keep their slaves and joined the Mexican brigades of slavers. Without the US army, every Israeli would be open to extermination from people who think they're cockroaches. Without the US army, most of the world would've fallen to Soviet or Chinese style communism (although I imagine you'd like that). Without the US army, Islamic fascists would be able to conquer more and more land. Now I'm not an obscurantist, I know they can be a pack of cunts at times but clearly you have no idea the repercussions of not having the US army around.
Also they have protected you. A defenseless America would be ripe for the picking. And regimes are permanent unless toppled or the next generation comes along. That's why there are elections.
i mentioned "in my lifetime" for a pretty good reason, although some of these are pretty indefensible. the US supporting israel with billions of taxpayer dollars per year so that they can run a fascist state is not something that i am okay with. that communism thing flat out isn't true and it's funny bc i see a lot of cold war era propaganda still being spouted today but i rarely see that one anymore. the CIA (with the help of the military, of course) overthrew many democratically elected presidents in latin america during the cold war and replaced them with fascists who then ran the countries into the ground with untold numbers of human rights violations - i suppose this is what you mean by stopping the world from falling to soviet style communism, maybe it was spending billions of dollars on unnecessary nuclear weapons while there were countless domestic issues that could have benefited from additional infrastructure. these are real world effects of having such a gigantic military state that has no problem with interfering with the rest of the world at whim; the notion of "maybe this is indefensible" is the moderate position. the military in its current position is an indefensible state and the systems that allowed it to commit the atrocities that it did in the past are largely still in place today. if there was major reform and spending cutbacks along with large cultural shifts in how the military is seen, i might be more keen on it. You, like most socialists, clearly have no idea what fascism means. Israel is the only country in the region that protects the rights of gays, allows free speech and religion, proper elections.
What are talking about the communist thing wasn't true. Since its inception, the Soviet Union knew it wouldn't survive if it didn't expand. Trotsky and Stalin both knew that. Why bother with East Germany if it didn't have ambitions of expansion?
As for the CIA, I largely agree. These are the people who installed Saddam Hussein and bragged about it. Another mess the US army had to clean up and should have.
As for the size of the military, the deal with NATO is clear that they have to spend the amount they're spending. Unless you want to renege on the deal?
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Jan 16, 2019 0:30:49 GMT
i mentioned "in my lifetime" for a pretty good reason, although some of these are pretty indefensible. the US supporting israel with billions of taxpayer dollars per year so that they can run a fascist state is not something that i am okay with. that communism thing flat out isn't true and it's funny bc i see a lot of cold war era propaganda still being spouted today but i rarely see that one anymore. the CIA (with the help of the military, of course) overthrew many democratically elected presidents in latin america during the cold war and replaced them with fascists who then ran the countries into the ground with untold numbers of human rights violations - i suppose this is what you mean by stopping the world from falling to soviet style communism, maybe it was spending billions of dollars on unnecessary nuclear weapons while there were countless domestic issues that could have benefited from additional infrastructure. these are real world effects of having such a gigantic military state that has no problem with interfering with the rest of the world at whim; the notion of "maybe this is indefensible" is the moderate position. the military in its current position is an indefensible state and the systems that allowed it to commit the atrocities that it did in the past are largely still in place today. if there was major reform and spending cutbacks along with large cultural shifts in how the military is seen, i might be more keen on it. You, like most socialists, clearly have no idea what fascism means. Israel is the only country in the region that protects the rights of gays, allows free speech and religion, proper elections.
What are talking about the communist thing wasn't true. Since its inception, the Soviet Union knew it wouldn't survive if it didn't expand. Trotsky and Stalin both knew that. Why bother with East Germany if it didn't have ambitions of expansion?
As for the CIA, I largely agree. These are the people who installed Saddam Hussein and bragged about it. Another mess the US army had to clean up and should have.
As for the size of the military, the deal with NATO is clear that they have to spend the amount they're spending. Unless you want to renege on the deal?
you can look through the massive amounts of open discrimination that goes on in the country, as well as the state of the palestinians who are oppressed by global superpowers (who would rightfully love to retaliate against the people who are making their living conditions among the worst in the world). no idea where you got the idea that they allow free speech and religion (though free speech is a meme anyways; it isn't a positive thing to have) or that they're the only ones who have "proper elections" in that region. it is true that stalin, lenin, and trotsky wanted to liberate the rest of the world in different ways (though i don't think that was actually stalin's goal considering that was his main point of contention with trotsky) but the notion that we had to spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons and install fascist regimes in developing countries in order to save the world from communism is obviously a goofy remnant from those days. this isn't even mentioning things like, oh i don't know, the fucking vietnam war or the human rights atrocities in indonesia or any of the other examples of the cold war being bad that you could come up with. sure im down
|
|