Tbf China claiming Taiwan is pretty bad.
Imagine if US claimed Hawaii is theirs.It’s more akin to the US claiming the ex confederate southern states (which it does), and other countries being “strategically ambiguous” and selling the Confederate remnants weapons and promoting their independence while officially recognizing the US/Washington
China is still bad too
Russia is still bad too
Who good?
No good. Only interests.
Eu is doing okay tho trending downward, India is trending upward but not there yet. Uruguay doing okay. Brazil doing okay. Vietnam is trending up. Thailand is good. Australia is doing okay but trending downward. I’m not saying they’re good just okay, but Better than China and US.
Imagine if China went crazy and started claiming territory. Oh wait Tibet, South China Sea, Taiwan…
- Tibet has been part of China for several centuries.
- So weird that China would claim territory off its own southern coast in a sea named after it.
- Taiwan is already part of China, as even the Taiwanese will tell you.
The tanks are rumbling nicely this morning.
Weird that you did not address South China Sea…
The number of USA bases in that area maybe has something to do with that. Maybe they want to monitor the area for safety reasons but what do I know.
- Tibetans were invaded by force, displaced, hate China and want their country back.
- The South China Sea is south of China, not part of China. Many other nations draw important food and income from the area and China is kicking them out to starve. Please do a google search at least before spreading assumptions.
- Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China, so I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.
So why the love for China anyway? What’s your background here?
Tibetans were invaded by force, displaced, hate China and want their country back.
Tibetans were not displaced. They’re still there. What got displaced was a feudal theocratic dynasty. Of course they want their country back: they miss ruling over desperate, illiterate feudal serfs.
Many other nations draw important food and income from the area and China is kicking them out to starve.
Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.
Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China
And yet only a dozen UN member states recognize it as an independent state.
I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.
Pretty much all of them? It’s even in the ROC’s constitution. Both the ROC and the PRC claim all of China, including the island of Formosa.
What’s your background here?
My background is anti-imperialism.
Several countries have overlapping claims, but for some reason Westerners are only interested in China’s claims, because Western media has one specific narrative it wants to tell. Maybe Westerners should mind their own business and let countries on the other side of the world sort out their own disputes.
You’re forgetting to tell the commenter previously, these islands were previously occupied by France and Japan,
one colonizer kicked out of Asia and the other being the loser of world war II.
venezuela.
shit, the entirety of south america.
And middle east and some chunks of Africa and few strategic locations in far east and…
B-b-b-b-b-but China might, possibly, at some point in the future, try to reclaim Taiwan! Both sides! Two things true at once! Me speculating about something possibly happening is the exact same as the thing actually happening!
Speculation? China has set a deadline for this to happen! And they’ve already taken territory of several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.
several other countries by force, including all of Tibet.
Tibet has historically been part of China for a long time, which is probably why Taiwan claims it along with the rest of China (in fact, Taiwan’s claims go further and include Mongolia). Tibet broke away along with a bunch of other warlord states in the chaos following the fall of the Qing dynasty, and was never internationally recognized as an independent country. Its people were freed from the tyrannical, slave owning theocracy and rejoined the country, which led to the doubling of their average life expectancy (along with the rest of China). China’s claim to Tibet is about as valid as the US claim to the Confederate States.
All of that happened over 70 years ago under Mao, before the country shifted focus with major reforms in the 80s. Though to be fair to you, there aren’t exactly a lot of recent wars involving China for you to choose from, are there? Not your fault you have to go back 70 years.
So Russia has a right to control Ukrain too by that logic?? What year exactly should we all revert world borders back to and why?
Hmm? I think you’ve got that backwards. Ukraine is the one trying to reclaim lost territory that’s currently under Russia’s control, is it not? What year exactly should we revert world borders back to and why?
I wonder if you can see the problem with the naive solution of trying to “lock in” whatever the present borders are. If a country seizes territory, even without any justification, that territory is now part of the present borders, and therefore would be “locked in” by that standard, suggesting that anyone who tried to take it back is the aggressor (until they succeed in reclaiming it).
I think that what you’re asking is a very complicated and valid question, even if you didn’t mean it in earnest. The question of what makes a country legitimate is quite complicated. I would argue that the “north star” of legitimacy is what outcome is best for the people. In the case of Taiwan, I think the best outcome is to maintain the status quo of de facto independence without rocking the boat with things like formal independence. It’s not worth starting world war 3 over a formality.
But when you have a “country” like the Confederacy or Tibet, which keeps people in bondage under horrible conditions, then obviously the best outcome is for them to be defeated and taken over by someone else. Slavery and serfdom are automatically delegitimizing.
There’s also another reason why reunifying Tibet was justified, which is explained very succinctly by the 1944 US War Department film, “Why We Fight: The Battle For China:” (around 8:20)
But how could Japan, only 1/20th the size of China, and with only 1/6th it’s population, think of conquering China, much less the world?
Modern China, in spite of its age old history, was like the broken pieces of jigsaw puzzle, each piece controlled by a different ruler, each with his own private army. In modern terms, China was a country, but not yet a nation.
The part of China’s history where it was broken up into these warlord states was part of what they call, “The Century of Humiliation,” when Chinese people were subject to imperialism and aggression from many different countries, worst of all being Imperial Japan. Because the country was so fractured, it was difficult to mount an organized, collective defense. This was understood by basically everyone, by the US, by the communists, and by the nationalists. That’s why the communists and nationalists were willing to form a unified front against the warlord states despite their major ideological differences, because it was obvious to everyone at that time that a unified China - a “One China Policy” - was important and necessary. Even today, both the PRC and ROC formally agree on the idea of a One China Policy, and the US has (in the past at least) as well.
But again, today, I personally believe in maintaining the status quo, where Taiwan is de facto independent. There’s significant precedent that this can maintain peace and keep everyone relatively satisfied. The same precedent did not exist in Tibet or in any of the other warlord states. Furthermore, Taiwan has significantly better human rights and conditions in general than Tibet where you’d die a serf at age 30. The whole “Free Tibet” thing is pure propaganda, only followed by people who are completely ignorant of the actual facts of what life was like there before, and of the history in general.
Hasn’t China stated that they intend to reclaim Taiwan? Don’t they claim Taiwan as part of their country right now?
Yes, as they have since the war, just as Taiwan claims China. Your point?
Peace with Taiwan has been maintained for nearly a hundred years, with a mutual understanding that nobody would try to force the issue too hard (look up “strategic ambiguity”). In recent years, the US has been recklessly deviating from that understanding and now people treat the status quo as “Chinese aggression,” because of propaganda.
Taiwan isn’t claiming the mainland anymore since the 90s
Source? It’s in their constitution.
There is no “claim” to be made and there is no “reclaim” to be had against such a claim.
Taiwan is and always has been recognized as part of the country of China. That’s why the losing army in the civil war went there - because it was part of the country they were a party of.
China has stated for 70 years that the island province of Taiwan will be integrated into the rest of the governance of the country. For 50 years it has explicitly stated it will be integrated peacefully, because the CPC recognizes that doing it forcefully would actually be contradictory and create a constant guerilla warfare situation as well as invite the world’s militaries to intervene. The CPC has no intention of forcing Taiwan to integrate except if Taiwan works with foreign governments to establish a substantial and real threat to the security of the mainland.
If China waits long enough, the Western economies will collapse and Taiwan will very quickly and easily realize that the West just can’t support them anymore and when they look to see who they depend on for nearly everything, and who their relatives are and who their dominant trading partner and who can protect them militarily, it’s going to be an easy process of integrating the provincial government of Taiwan into the government of the mainland - especially since the CPC is committed to One Country Two System meaning the provincial government of Taiwan can continue operating with the same structure and same politicians and same processes as it has now.
Is that integration supposed to be a good thing?
China seeks to reclaim Taiwan as part of China for the same reason Taiwan seeks to reclaim the mainland as part of China.
Yeah these guys are dreaming that China won’t invade Taiwan.
China is not the good guys now… America is just fuckin worse
If you believe in good guys and bad guys as an adult I’ve got a fuckin Harry Potter wand to sell you
Not every country in the world is as corrupt as the the US.
You let your politicians trade shares, what else do you all expect to happen?
No capitalist country can have a good democracy, some have just way better PR than others. Hell, the crackdown on pro Palestinian protests in western liberal democracies proves that.
You should try basing your beliefs on facts and evidence sometime.
China was just talking recently about how Taiwan is there’s…
What world do you live in where China won’t invade Taiwan eventually…
They’ve been “just recently” talking about how Taiwan is theirs for the past 70 years and haven’t done shit.
I live in a world where basic pattern recognition exists.
There should be an Australian guy who is still just hating on China in the 2nd panel anyway.
Chinas military stays in and around china as far as i know…
But the us is everywhere interfering in everyones business
Sorry but no. Tibet, South China Sea, they’ve even got patrols to intimidate Australia
they’ve even got patrols to intimidate Australia
Good, lmao.
Yes comrades, that is 100% correct. Assuming you also accept chinas definition of where its territory ends.
Yes let’s support le Taiwan independence!! (But don’t look up what territory the ROC has in their constitution btw)
Yes Bud, that’s hella correct. Assuming you accept the Canadian definition of where its territory ends. Glad you don’t accept the FLQ’s tankie claims that Montreal is a “Quebec” city.
Personally, I’m just waiting for the aggressive, expansionist country of Switzerland to end it’s occupation of Zurich.
I do know China meddles in Africa a lot. I think because they are interested in resources, maybe mining or oil?
I read in the past that a lot of the Sudanese groups that pillage and fight with a lot of South Sudan are funded and given firearms or something by China or Chinese groups. I think this was more prominent around 15 years ago when South Sudan was trying to be independently recognized.
Side note: I also remember reading that George Clooney used to fund some kind of satellite thing that helped South Sudanese track movements of North Sudanese so they could preemptively avoid attack.
China definitely meddles. But yeah, probably nowhere near the degree the US does.
Gyude Moore: “China in Africa: An African Perspective” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5uzxV8ub9k
Are you comparing economic collaboration with installing military bases?
China has exactly one foreign military base. It’s in South Africa. They are very happy with it and there’s no contention.
By contrast, US military bases in Japan are notorious for raping, kidnapping, and other abuses of locals.
No. China does not also “meddle” in the rest world.
China has mutual development projects in Africa, the reason is because in the long run mutual development benefits everyone.
These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?
Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, genuinely helping poor countries develop is a pretty good way to gain soft power.
No one here, and I do mean no one, is saying that China isn’t gaining anything from doing that. But that doesn’t mean it’s bad for the other party or hides some nefarious secret purpose either. Diplomacy isn’t a zero sum gain where if China gain from a deal therefore the other party has to lose to compensate, that’s not how international relations work.
Because China isn’t imperialist, it isn’t dominated by finance capital and isn’t super-exploiting the global south. Imperialism isn’t a policy preference, it’s what happens when capitalism reaches its domestic limits. China doesn’t have the same economic forces that push the US Empire into imperialism.
China does gain international credibility from these mutual cooperation projects, sure, but since they are mutually beneficial that isn’t a bad thing. Further, Trump still exerts soft power, it wasn’t because it was “woke” but because it’s expensive and imperialism is declining. The US Empire is pivoting towards hard power now that US soft power is dying.
While it does have benefits, the overarching Chinese plan is to own everything, and have countries on the debt hook.
USA is the world bully by might, China does it by strategy
I love unsourced conspiracy theories
“My source is that I’m incredibly racist.”
This isn’t true though, as I elaborate on over here. China doesn’t seek to own everything, nor does it debt trap. In fact, it frequently forgives billions in debt. China’s goal in Africa is mutual, win-win development, as long term cooperation benefits everyone more greatly than western imperialism does.
The US, Canada, Europe, etc, in being dominated by finance capital and the profit motive, are ecomomically compelled into the strategy of keeping the global south underdeveloped so as to super-exploit them for cheap labor and resources. The PRC is socialist, though, and the finance industry is dominated by the state, meaning long-term planning and mutual development is not only possible, but economically compelled.
There’s lots of other links that discount your denial of their plans and how they leverage. USA is like 5 year plan, 10 year plan. China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
China has 100 year plan and 1000 year plan.
More evidence free assertions
I’m honestly most baffled by the idea that the USA has 5 or 10 year plans.
China does have long-term planning, I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the idea that China is predatory towards the global south. These narratives are largely pushed by the west in order to scare the global south away from pivoting to China, whose mutual cooperation programs are proven to result in dramatic and rapid development.
I just don’t want to confuse capitalism vs socialism, with Global Domination strategy of USA or China.
They are “socialist” but they aren’t doing it out of the idea of greater good of all humankind, they are a dictatorship (currently) and this is self interest so they can be a global logistic player and their port building also includes military access. This is a longterm goal to be the only superpower.
No. Its not. Go read about their lease agreements. Theyre doing the same thing just through financial means.
“go read this thing I haven’t read, I assume it supports my argument”
Me telling people to read Capital
Join comrade @[email protected] 2026 Capital reading group! They just started, you can absolutely catch up!
You have the perseverance of a saint
I have read, and China is absolutely not doing “the same thing just through financial means.” Financial domination secured with millitant means is the western method. China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:
There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.
It’s clear at this point: participation in BRI results in sustained and rapid development and mutual cooperation, and working with the west results in sustained impoverishment. It appears that you believe any cooperation between more developed and less developed countries is inherently imperialist, and impossible to be mutually beneficial. I’d like to see proof.
As a side-note, this is also why I hate the “go read” argument in online discourse. Reading very well can be the answer, but the other user isn’t going to do it unless they have a compelling reason to take your advice. This goes for Marxists that tell other users to read as well.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Ek6HZ5nD4&t=670
The only thing clear is if yoy do business with them they will take control of whatever it is they build. And acti g like they wont use it for military means when needed is a childs mentality.
Linking a bunch of people fearmongering about China’s increasing presense in Africa doesn’t actually mean this is to take away sovereignty from African countries. China gains from this mutual cooperation, but so do African countries, and unlike the west China doesn’t force trade at the barrel of a gun. That’s part of why it’s mutally beneficial, and results in development in Africa, vs underdevelopment and western enrichment.
All this really proves is that you have a deeply chauvanistic view of China, assuming that every country is as evil as the west. The simple reason why China isn’t economically compelled to imperialize is because it isn’t dominated by finance capital, and thus prioritizes long-term results. It’s simply better for everyone for there to be mutual cooperation, but western countries are dominated by the profit motive and finance capital, which compels them to take short term gains via looting the global south.
I suggest you read the articles I have already linked, they help debunk the fearmongering from your gish-gallop.
Your articles keep talking about “increasing Chinese millitary domination” despite a whopping 3 millitary bases overseas. China has a defensive millitary and benefits from stability and development in the global south, while NATO has hundreds of bases and installs compradors, coups, forces austerity, and more.
Construction projects =/= military occupation, try harder
I think it is more that Americans are so used to extractive austerity and warfunding/fighting that we’ve completely forgot that economies can build civil society.
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/china-port-development-africa/
I dont have to try. Theyre selling everything to the chinese already. Acting like china wont use these for military opperations when needed is just stupid
Chinese firms are present in over a third of all African port developments, some of which COULD be used for expanded Chinese naval presence on the continent.
wooooow it could be used jesus christ we need to stop that.
Your car could in theory be used to run over 100s of pedestrian and commit manslaughter! THAT MAKES YOU A TERRORIST!!!
This does absolutely nothing to support your dumbass claims, try again
It does if youre literate. Thats a tall ask on here though.
China gains as much as $13 in trade revenues for every $1 invested in ports. A firm holding an operating lease or concession agreement reaps not only the financial benefits of all trade passing through that port but can also control access
Chinese firms hold operating concessions in 10 African ports. Despite the risks over loss of control, the trend on the continent is toward privatizing
Ports in which Chinese firms have equity arrangements provide similar leverage over port operations. Notably, under China’s technical standards for “military civil fusion” (junmin ronghe; 军民融合), many Chinese state owned commercial shipping and civilian air cargo capabilities meet military specifications for defense logistics purposes.
I do know China meddles in Africa a lot
Oh you know that? That’s something you know? How exactly do you know that? Did it come to you in a dream?
Can we just have like a couple of years of everyone just getting on with their own shit
China is very vocal about taiwan being theirs.
Both the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) claim sovereignty over all of China. Neither considers the island of Taiwan to be distinct from China, the question is over which government has legitimate sovereignty over all of China, and the overwhelming consensus globally is that it’s the PRC. Taiwan’s government is made up of the ones that lost the Chinese Civil War and fled to the island, slaughtered resistance, and have been protected by the west.
Legitimately asking, not trying to make a point; how long ago was that?
1949 was when the KMT retreated to Taiwan and declared martial law.
Oof, okay.
Yep, it coincides with the founding of the PRC in 1949, because that was when the CPC won the civil war against the KMT. Here’s a good background.
It is theirs. If you support Taiwanese separatism then you should be consistent and support all separatist movements. There’s plenty in Europe you should support them.
Do you have a reasonable explanation of why it should be the US’s and not theirs?
Can’t it just be Taiwan’s?
Taiwan exists only because the US intervened to stop the fascists it supported in the civil war from being wiped out, so it’s necessarily a US protectorate/puppet.
And to circle back again to your question, no it couldn’t be; they killed the people who were there before they moved in.
Taiwan claims the mainland is theirs, the mainland claims Taiwan is theirs, because both claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, and Taiwan is a part of China.
Probably because it clearly is
It’s possible for two things to be true at once.
Hell, I think 3 or 4 things can be true at once. I just remembered that bunnies have two ears. That is another thing that can be true, so 4 or 5.
- Or neither
- Or one
- Or the other
- Next time make an actual point instead of blurting out thought-terminating clichés
It’s possible for you to not talk solely in rote, word for word, recitation of thought terminating cliches, and yet you don’t.
I would love for you to actually make a claim rather than this meaningless bullshit.
True.
- European nations gleefully join with USAmerica-led invasions against other countries and talk about Freedom n Democracy
- But they think it’s against Freedom n Democracy when USAmerica just mentioned an invasion directed against them
Both true
The World isn’t the West. China is an enemy of choice for the West due to racism, otherwise it poses no threat.
China is a threat to Africa, trying to buy land for military bases from African countries. China is constantly trying to expand and dominate its culture. If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
You clearly don’t know. I suggest you read about France’s parasitic relationship to Central and Western Africa that continues to this day, it even controls the issuance of the currency for eight West African nations and six Central African nations. Nothing China does even in your imagined worst case scenario comes close. And that’s just France.
No sources for that claim of course, as usual.
To my knowledge the only military base China has in Africa is the one in Djibouti, and literally every country who can afford to have a base there has a base there.
If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Indeed, you don’t have a clue what it is. Try looking up “unequal exchange”, or better yet reading a book on the subject. Lenin’s Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism and Fanon’s How Europe underdeveloped Africa are good reads on the subject.
Walter Rodney wrote How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Frantz Fanon’s most famous work is The Wretched of the Earth, which is also a banger. Here’s Lenin’s Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism and the Prolewiki page on unequal exchange, for reference.
It must be so nice being an anti-communist. You can just make up whatever unsourced bullshit you like and expect people to believe it
I am pro communism. China is not communist, it is authoritarian and state-capitalist.
I wonder what the alternative to authoritarian is and why it involves getting overrun by bears
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
Care to explain what this is?
No one is claiming China achieved communism, we just believe its policies reflect an attempt at building it. It’s also silly to slander a socialist state as “authoritarian” if you have read the bare minimum of Engels. If you’re earnest on supporting communism I encourage you to look into the compatible left and seek non western perspectives more broadly.
And yet you accept anti-communist slander as true without question.
Have you ever, even just once, asked yourself where those accusations come from? Who made them? Who propagated them? Why they did?
The PRC has a socialist market economy. The working classes control the state, and the large firms, key industries, finance sector, are all dominated by public ownership. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy. State capitalism as a term more fits the Republic of Korea, where the state is controlled by capitalists and private ownership dominates the economy, but with heavy state influence.
Where are you getting your ideas about communism from that leads you to believe that China isn’t building towards communism? Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners is a great place to start with learning about China’s socialist system.
If that isn’t the definition of imperialism, I don’t know what is.
Yeah, its clear you have no clue what that is. Trade and development are not imperialism.
China is not trying to expand nor dominate its culture. China has mutual development projects with African countries, it isn’t dramatically expanding its millitary presence. The US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases, China has 3. This is just the typical western projection of its own sins onto China.
I thought they only had one, in South Africa. Where are the other 2?
I only knew of the anti-piracy base on the coast of Djibouti.
Wikipedia lists 3, but it’s Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. It might be fewer, but rhetorically it’s easier to just say 3 so nobody can come in with Wikipedia to say I lied.
It’s obvious bullshit:
have been characterized by some as a base for the People’s Liberation Army Navy
“by some” who? .Citation needed, while there are 4 citations for Cambodia govt saying it’s under Cambodian control. I would expect something like posession and usage of naval base would be easy to prove, especially in the age of satellites and cellphones, but alas.
The Chinese and Tajik governments deny the existence of one base, while the other was under construction as of 2024. China funds but does not directly own the bases. According to reports they are intended to support joint operations in response to the security situation in Afghanistan.[17][18][19]
If we say that “joint operations” are the same as direct ownership then by the same logic applied to USA would skyrocket their number of bases to something like every single military base in every NATO country.
I agree, it’s almost certainly bullshit.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
The reason this cliché is utterly unconvincing to me is because it’s incomplete. Nobody seems to be able to genuinely prove how both statements are true, whenever hypocricy is pointed out. It isn’t at all grand and revealing to say that 2 things can be true, what matters is investigating the truth of the 2 things.
It’s possible for your entire hand to fit in your ass
Oh yeah? PROVE IT
I can’t, I have large hands and a small ass
thx you filled my liberal bingo card for this week :)
‘Liberal’ really just does mean anyone you disagree with, huh?
No, I usually use this term to describe people who e.g. use cookie cutter sentences which just empower the powers that oppress us and which stay in the frame of the general western (especially EU-centric) propaganda doctrine.
Wow, another word for word recitation from the book of tedious shitlib cliches.
Are you actually capable of forming a sentence of your own? Or just repeating the ones you’ve had programmed into you?
Covfefe, authoritarian, Ruthkanda forever, if Kamala had won we’d be having brunch
You suck at this
