No? Of course talking about politics is political. Try to quote the part you’re addressing.

Democrats no longer cover their ears at the sounds of protesters.
AIPAC money is a black mark.
People like you have to pretend to care.

Source? Studies typically show the other case to be true

I didn’t know you could block yourself

I think you’re wrong cuz this meme talks directly about politics. The original commenter said there was a community for that and this is not the place.

That has nothing at all to do with whether or not art is political.

While you can say anything is political, talking about the politics of your country is obviously more political than talking about a dog

Huh, odd, I almost feel like I touched on that?

It’s more overtly political

Neat! I did!

This community probably is for stuff less political

Which again is not related to whether or not art is political.

“I’m not hitting you!”
“But you are”
'“nuh uh, I just said I wasn’t and what I say is all that matters”

You have the mentality of a cartoon bully

Oh, so you just don’t understand what words mean.

Actual renewables or “biofuels”?

I’m not ignoring it, however I would have been able to ignore the destruction of women’s reproductive rights, the mass scale trampling of due process for deportations,

So you are ignoring it. Funny to mention a bunch of things that occurred under democrat leadership by the way, was that on purpose? Anyway, read the link, since you are so set on discussing, so we can actually have a discussion of substance.

Sure, buddy, we can pretend that.

Brilliant rebuttal by the way, and very impressed you managed to read all those linked texts that fast. Perhaps you would gain something if you dont just look at the scribbly symbols but try to sound them out so at understand what words they make up. It will take you a bit longer, but it will also make you able to actually understand why people disagree with you and then adress it.

I assume thats what you want, since you’re trying to argue about that very topic, and I must assume you struggled to read the text since the only other conclusion to make is that you did read it and you don’t actually have any arguments that haven’t been shot down by the text, but you’re too fucked in the head to admit that, so instead you retreat to your little den, like a hermit crab living in a soda can.

If he is unwilling to land, when ordered? Yes. He is guilty of committing war crimes, they are supposed to do something about that.

But what about the rules based international order?

Youre right, it would have been much better if your team got to do it, because then you could just ignore it. Now you have to pretend to care, im so sorry.

You’ve been given it once already.
That you manage to get this far into the comment section and not engage with any of the many comments of substance is an indictment of you, not the userbase here.

Y’all americans should never have been given independence, you’re clearly unfit to govern yourselves.

Europe is a bunch of US vassal states continually shooting themselves in the foot and growing further reliant on the US because they’re freaking out about Russia wanting NATO to uphold its treaties.
The British Commonwealth is full of decrepit racists that can’t even keep themselves from starving or their countries from burning.
So whereever you come from youre not doing better.

No, he wrote it was dumb. The way discussion functions is that you adress the arguments the other makes.

“Well what about my anecdote? Checkmate tankies”

Wow, what a nightmare! Im sure the people are much happier when they got to experience a higher loss of QoL and life expectancy than what happened under Operation Barbarossa.
Oh, I guess not

Im sure everybody else is very happy to hear they dont have to interact with you.

Read. The. Link. Or fuck off.

“Aristrocracy” as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.

In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. “Democracy” means rulership of the people and yet no modern “democracy” has all people show up and all vote on everything.

A “monarchy” is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.

That actual aristocracies don’t fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what “aristrocracy” as a form of governance is.

Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren’t directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.

An aristrocracy is not just “a small ruling class holding all the power”. If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.

but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power.

Jesus Christ you keep doing this. Do you not see how rude it is to talk like you do on something you clearly dont understand?

If that were the definition, then every representative type of government would be an aristrocracy. It would make the definition completely redundant, because it would just describe “representative government” which we already have a descriptor for. Fuck you people. Thicker than bricks and the ego of a 40’s physicist.

Banned lol. Your parents hate you by the way