You clearly see this as a game. You know exactly what I said and you are running away from it, just to have some kind of play of semantics like that somehow communicates some greater point. I really have no idea what is the point of this comment of yours.

I don’t think you understand the point of view people critisizing Biden. Democrats are the ones that put Trump in power, just so they can have an easier elections and don’t have to place more popular candidates to run against them. Voting for Biden is simply accepting defeat, that their plan worked and that they can do absolutely anything and you will support them because they will also support a worse candidate on the other side at the same time. It is not looking at the big picture, long term. In the future they can get someone like Trump to be a Democrat candidate and support someone even worse on the Republican side and you will have to vote for them under exactly the same situation. Democrats have a candidate that literarlly funds a genocide and we would think that once that line is crossed people would simply say that is enough, but apparently even Hitler would be elected in US elections as long as he places someone worse as prime candidate of another party.

Google owns Youtube (and gmail, most popular mail provider). You should think more deeply about what ads are and what are governments motivations. It is both the same thing. Google and META want power, they want money, because money is a voting power for allocation of resources in the society. Chinese governments want power, so they can have more money and more voting power for allocations of their resources.

The nationality of people in these governments doesn’t matter at all to them. Chinese government doesn’t care about regular Chinese citizens no more then US government does about their own. They simply care for their own power/money. And that is their interests.

Google and META work with the governments, they have actual NSA offices and follow any orders from the government, just like TikTok does. The problem here has nothing to do with what country it is in, it is simply that one set of rich folks are bothered that they can’t control something other rich folks are controlling. People, in both cases, suffer and have no power whatsoever in the process.

Yes, but is very relevant now.

It is relevant now again. Since their tactic worked, people are supporting Biden now simply because Trump is on the other side, ignoring the fact that he is there exactly for this purpose, to make horrible candidates a better alternative.

Organization can’t be better then it’s members that are controlling it.

Well if you claim that you are attacked by “Terrorism” and you declare war on it, you can make any invasion a defensive action. That is my point, in theory it is defensive, but they can twist it any way they want to make it offensive. Also if you go around the World claiming you are there to stop a genocide (ironically while funding a genocide yourself) just so you can send your army there, than you have no reason for CIA not to just finance some genocidal maniacs on one side to justify you going in there to “save” them (like Israel funded Hamas, and HIlary funded Trump). This is not even legally clean, just ignoring the laws when they don’t suit your interests.

So what are your views on liberals that support Biden regardless of his funding of genocide in Palestine? To me it seems exactly like this mind set of “we can’t fix this, lets just not let their problem spill over to us”.

This is also the liberal mind set.

Banning TikTok and not banning Meta and Google is a stupid idea that will just give more power to the fewer people with less competition. They are all bad of course and they should all be banned, but giving one bad group all the power is worse then letting two bad groups compete for power.

To be honest, this is not just conservatives.

When you debate grammar it shows you have no good arguments. I don’t always spell things correctly, because I am more focused on making sense, then appearance. If you understand what I mean, that is good enough for me. I understand that Russia and NATO are both problems and I understand that NATO is obviously far more powerful and bigger. I also understand what NATO claims to be, but I also see their presence in places where legally shouldn’t be. Take Kosovo for example, by the UN it is not recognized as independent, legally it is part of Serbia and Serbia does not support NATO troops there. Legally speaking, that is an invasion. Practically NATO countries invade many Middle Eastern countries as well, they wear NATO hats when they speak of peace, but often (but not always) remove that hat when they invade other countries. You can either accept that both NATO and countries that invade Middle East are the same countries run by the same people with same interests and same goals, making it the same thing. Or you can pretend that only what is legally defined as separate is important, but then accept that legally NATO also sometimes invades countries and were never invaded themselves, making them more offensive then defensive. You can’t have it both ways.

Defense alliance that invades countries in middle east.

If only thing you can say to someone who is proving you wrong that they must be paid by some boogieman, you are insane. Just because I critize the government doesn’t mean I support other governments. This is some cold war type of red scare. During cold war if you speak about worker rights you are branded a communist soviet spy. Now you say that NATO is resposible for wars that they admit to, you are all of a sudden a russian bot.

I never said NATO is not effective defensive strategy for the government, just that it is effective offensive strategy as well. However this only applies to the government, not the people. Troops are sent to die in these offensive wars, while otherwise they would be safe at home. Don’t spin this as an opposite claim that all non-NATO countries end up in a war. Some of the countries now in NATO where invaded by NATO first and then forced to join. That is like saying surrendering is safer then being nutral, bacause they can’t attack you if you are already surrendered.

But they also influence NATO organizations through various requirements of joining the NATO so that in the practice, they are involved. NATO as an organization has participated in mmultiple invasitions around the World, it is on the Wikipedia page. All of their military involvements where in non-NATO countries. Nobody ever attacked a NATO country, they never did a defensive war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations

In is defensive only on paper. In reality it is NATO weapons that supply wars in Middle East. Joining NATO isn’t just mutual defense, you need to sign a lot of other requirements that inevitably gets you under strong influance of US military and finances. Check out military intervantions of NATO, they are all offensive, no one ever attacked a NATO country, they are too strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Military_operations None of these counties they invaded where part of NATO, Iraq, Afganistan, Kosovo, Bosina, Libya.

Laws don’t matter when you have the military power. Laws only apply to the weak. Powerful countires (and people) don’t protect them selves with laws, since they have the military. When Assange and Manning published US war crimes, militry officials didnt go to jails, but they, whistlblowers and journalists did. Don’t fall for the laws for a second, they don’t apply to them.

I think this haterred towards Putin blinded most of us to let governments increase their authorariansim. Like in US after 9/11. Of course Putin is dangerous, but he can’t even win a war in a small country right next to his. Lost more troops then Ukraine. Meanwhile NATO expansion across the World and US influance is truely scary and unprecedented. Most of the wars in World are started by NATO counties and here we don’t hear about is as much.

All the invasions of Iran, Afganistan, Vietnam, Syria, etc where unjustfied invasions just like Ukraine and in case of Palestine, far worse. Yet, media successfully is pointing our focus on a single war in Ukraine where Russia has made no advencments and is clearly inferior military power. It reminds me of 9/11, when fear from a small group of terrorist gave the government power to spy on all of its citizens, run torture camp in Guantanamo and remove citizens rights one by one.

NATO is defensive only on paper. Almost all of the wars in the World right now started with invasion of NATO countries in middle east and african countries still unofficaly under collonial rule of western european countries.

This is classic case of fearmongering. Russia can’t even win a war in Ukraine, despite local support of some of the Crimean citizens and proximity to their nations. They can’t get to Sweeden by the end of this century, Meanwhile, NATO is the biggest war allience this World has ever seen and it is scary how centralized the power in the World has become and US oil companies running the whole show.