3 ms·

So your answer to discourse getting out of hand in the past is to take an approach that starts it out of hand, seems counterproductive no? Although now that yo

So your answer to discourse getting out of hand in the past is to take an approach that starts it out of hand, seems counterproductive no? Although now that you're presenting those takes with some more surface area, the rationale doesn't feel all there. After all, for how massive the UN is and its mandate, I don't think the UNRWA or ill equipped peacekeeping forces avoiding entering a full blown engagement justifies the extraordinary claim they're actually a terrorist organization. And the voter fraud rationale is similarly light: most of what you mentioned was covered in numerous lawsuits, and the vast majority were lost or dismissed. The remaining few don't account for any significant gap in the election process. Is there a case that would have materially affected the outcome of the election that wasn't dismissed or lost?

anon291 2y ago
> After all, for how massive the UN is and its mandate, I don't think the UNRWA or ill equipped peacekeeping forces avoiding entering a full blown engagement justifies the extraordinary claim they're actually a terrorist organization. They're either a terrorist organization or useless. Either way, the need to be disbanded and investigated. They should not be able to hide in the USA under the guise of diplomatic immunity. They are not a state. > Is there a case that would have materially affected the outcome of the election that wasn't dismissed or lost? No but that never happened with Kennedy/Nixon either. American history is weird. No court is going to touch an election. Why would they. It's national suicide.