for your dunking pleasure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/162q1f6/zelenskyy_announces_rich_september_ukraine_will/jy04q01/?context=10000
for your dunking pleasure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/162q1f6/zelenskyy_announces_rich_september_ukraine_will/jy04q01/?context=10000
https://web.archive.org/web/20230426221600/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/opinion/our-new-baby.html
There was a lot of this type of discourse at the time. Libs have no memory.
Damn what kind of bloodthirsty cabbies was he talking to back then
deleted by creator
He's probably a lib.
Apparently he let one of those "Vax gave my child autism" films play at his film festival. He also owns a lot of restaurants and real-estate. He's a capitalist pig.
Rhetoric aside though, since Iraq isn't sending 2 Senators to Congress, I would have gone with the route of
"No, we just installed a friendlier government with a constitution we wrote, totally different"
Lots of parts of the American empire don't get to send senators, like Puerto Rico and DC. Iraq is brown enough that even if we had annexed it officially we'd have done so in a nonvoting kind of way
They do actually send Senators, but they don't vote. I think that it would be harder in the present day (maybe less so now with the number of reactionary judges, but American judicial precedent had been trending since the 60s to be more democratic and free for people until the 90s) to pull off another American Samoa.
I say this because there are Trump-appointee judges reviving long-defunct legal precedents to support their ideological crusade to reshape America from some semblance of a liberal democracy into a fascist dictatorship – citing decisions upholding the Japanese Exclusion Act to uphold laws like Florida's that ban Chinese people from buying property.
That absolutely does not count. Nonvoting Senators are not Senators.
It's still factually different from not sending Senators at all, which is all I'm saying.
No it is not
It is? In one situation, a Senator is sent. The other, one is not. Therefore, factually different.
Things being immoral or wrong ≠ things being untrue
A "Senator" that does not vote is not a Senator, therefore no Senator has been sent.
That's...not how it works? IDK what else to say in such a steadfast denial of reality.
Sending some person they call a senator to congress doesn't make that person an actual "senator" as the word is used and understood. Nobody here misunderstands what you're trying to say, it's just that trying to argue that they are still technically senators is fucking stupid.
Why do NTs never say what they mean? Oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy is fucking stupid to me.
PR does not send senators, not even non-voting ones. they have a single nonvoting rep in the house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_commissioner_of_Puerto_Rico
edited, I guess DC does send non-voting senators
Right, I think I said Senators because I thought it was the same as DC. Not that a non-voting representative or senator matters either way – but the fact that you pointed it out should demonstrate that I wasn't unreasonable for pointing out the initial difference in the US not actually annexing Iraq (although I fully believe that ~90 years earlier, the US probably would have pulled a Philippines, but I think that the UN, especially as more former colonies joined, caused superpowers to engage in more proxy wars over outright wars over who owns the dirt).
A more honest and direct rhetorical shortcut would be "we're turning Iraq into another Japan". US written constitution, controlled friendly government, military occupation. The works.
Wow, factually accurate rhetoric that still effectively conveys why something is wrong? Nothing like proving someone doesn't need to rely on oversimplistic hyperbole to make a point.
See also McCain's "100 years in Iraq" comment in the 2008 election. Had things gone differently we would have happily made it our British Raj.
He said that in two thousand fucking eight McCain just loved killing foreigners so much