I would expect that to be the case in France. Other European countries have a wider selection to choose from.

Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, f

That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?

Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.

I read all that and I must admit I am still not quite sure what part of all that is markdown, and why any of it is markdown.

I get that this sentence must be the key concept: ““Markdown” is the name of a particular standard way of formatting text so that programs can reliably interpret parts of that text as representing the writers desire for their text to be displayed a particular way.” But it reads like a tautology without really explaining either statement.

It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.

Because it is not always France?

How is this magic technology going to be freely implemented eveywhere and especially in the poorest parts of the world? You description of the mechanisms of invention and investing does not sound at all like how these things actually works in the world we are living in.

Some parts of the globe is going to run out of water, some areas of the globe are about to get way too much of it. You know, climate change and all that.

Since the IIII usage is common in the Middle Ages and even into the Early Modern Period, when nobody believed in Jupiter, that is obviously just something somebody made up.

It’s very valuable as a technology in terms of trackability and transparency, and establishing ownership.

That has yet to be proven. Other technology already exists which does this, and that is currently being used as that by most of the world.

Noone has claimed that.

Yeah, Americans love to fantasise about their beloved 2nd amendment (regardless of political persuasion), but they have never ever used it for what they (falsely) claim it was intended for.

You are arguing from ignorance. The terms republic and democracy and so on have rather solid definitions in political science. Republic is not a very informative descriptor of the poltical system of a country, it just means that the role of head of state in’t heritable, ie. that it isn’t a monarchy. The actual political system of a republic can be basically anything except a monarchy.

A republic just means that a country doesn’t have a heritable head of state. All of those listed countries are in actual fact republics. It says next to nothing about the actual political system of a country besides the role of the head of state. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics. Many democracies are republics as well, but as you can see it is the dictatorship/democracy part which describes the important part of those countries political systems, not republic.

Many Americans are confused about this, because they have been indoctrinated into thinking that republic is the main descriptor of their system. Mainly because it was an important descriptor back in the 18th century, when most countries were monarchies, but much less so in later times when most existing countries are republics.

There are lots of republics where the president does serve as a literal figurehead without any consequential powers, so a republic does not necessarily turn up with a Trump. In fact the US is rather unique in how it has combined republic with absolute monarchy in the office of the president, probably very much a sign of how antiquated the constitution is.

Because he is part of the ruling class. US law doesn’t apply to them and never has.

Because they voted for hatred, they just didn’t vote for that hatred to target themselves. This is not people realising they were wrong, this is just a “he isn’t hurting the right people” moment by an asshole.

They know they can do that sort of shit because they hold the power. They can blatantly and unconvincingly lie, their followers will regurgitate those lies, but neither of them really believe them. They are just posturing and having fun with words, just like fascists always have done.

Never believe that [fascists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The [fascists] have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Removed by mod

Yes, you are indeed a real spectacle.