Moonbox

It's less about preferring a more authoritarian state, and more about lacking the legal and democratic institutions that could safeguard against it. Hitler "won" an election in 1933, supported by a massive campaign of violence, repression and intimidation, along with the jailing of political enemies. Prussia alone had 50,000 SS or militia members 'monitoring' the polls. There are always going to be people who are dumb and cynical enough to support/enable dictatorship. If that dictatorship can deliver results, they may even end up with wide popular support...but only until the music stops. It's when things aren't going great that folks start to rethink their choices, and by then it's too late. Regardless, Iran already attempted secular democracy back in the early 50's...until US and British intelligence organized/facilitated a coup to restore the Shah.

I believe him. You're just too dumb, and too uneducated to think outside your lazy, tribal heuristics. Every that disagrees with your clueless bullshitting is a Trudeau-loving lefty. It doesn't matter how many times you agree with the criticism for Trudeau, or even that you agree he's the worst PM Canada's ever had. In Canfux clownworld, you're still a Justin-lover if you're not on board with his Poilievre-fluffing. 🤡🤡

Of course you were. You were the example I was following. Maybe you realize now how irritating and pointless it is. Maybe not. That's up to you! 🫡

Big difference between protesting in Iran, and protesting in the USA. The former killed over 500 and blinded hundreds more. The latter had...what...25 people die? How many were killed by police? But sure, people love living in repressive dictatorships where they can go to jail for not dressing properly. North Koreans love Supreme Leader as well. Leader is wise. Leader is benevolent.

What you wrote was mealy-mouthed. I said it appears you deny Trump's culpability in the riot, and asked you to clarify. It was a simple question, with an affirmative or negative answer. Your response was more dissembling and word-games: What am I to make of this? He had not-nothing to do with it, apparently, but he did not incite a riot in any illegal sense of the word? 🙄 When you follow that up with a bunch of gratuitous projection and goofy whataboutism (whatabout BLM? whatabout Al Gore? whatabout, Hilary, Nancy Pelosi etc...), and in the same post accuse me of bias, I abandoned any notion that you were debating seriously and/or in good faith.

You are dumber than a stump. Period. The pictures were meant to remind you (more likely inform you in the first place, lol) of the large scale protests after Mahsa Amini's death in prison...for not dressing the way Supreme Leader likes. In the ensuing demonstrations, hundreds were killed by Iranian security forces and ~20,000 imprisoned. According to you, however, they seem to like their religious leaders. 🙄

I asked you to clarify, and this is the best you're willing to do? He had "something" to do with it? He did not incite in "any illegal sense of the word"? If this sort of marble-mouthed nothing-speak is the debating standard you're going to stick to, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post.

Whoops. That was the first picture I came up with. Is this better?

NO YOU? No, you dissembled and played semantic word games, you're doing it again here, and I'm not the only one pointing it out. 🙄

No, it doesn't. Your various arguments collapse in on themselves as soon as you can't hide behind your strictly literal semantics. Here's another example: Everything you've said on this thread appears to deny Trump's culpability for the riot. If that's not the case, here's your opportunity to clarify. Otherwise, this is yet another example of deflection via petty semantics. Since he instigated it in the first place, then it's absurd to assume that his feeble and transparent token of de-escalation was sincere or intended to have any effect. When Trump was told Mike Pence had been evacuated, he apparently said, "So what?" and instead of asking the mob to calm down, he went on another tirade about how Pence lacked courage. This was 15 minutes before the heroic Gandhi-esqued tweet you keep talking about. As I've said (and you keep ignoring), his staff, his party members and even his family members begged him for hours to tell the rioters to stop and go home, and he refused. 4:17, January 6th. His concession to Biden was an acknowledgement that he wasn't going to be allowed to stay president. He's never given up on his lies about the election being stolen, has claimed he'll pardon most of the rioters convicted, and even claimed that they're patriots. So...yeah...he totally condemned them. He did not try to stop it, as I've explained above. Any suggestion otherwise is a joke, along with your BLM whataboutism.

Yes, they definitely love the Ayatollah. Supreme Religious leader provides for and loves all of his people, and makes sure they have every comfort they deserve. 🤣

No, they're not. Masterfully is not the same thing as successfully. One is a matter of skill, the other is a matter of outcome. You can masterfully defend yourself from 10 attackers and still get your ass beaten. That's the point that Perspektiv is making. He's not contradicting himself, though I agree his conclusion is wrong and based on a long list of faulty assumptions and fallacies.

Highlighting how obnoxiously pedantic you are? Yep! 🫡 You say this as if they weren't already doing it, and didn't start 8 years ago. The only difference is that the legal system operates on objective reasoning and provable fact, and Donald's shameless and compulsive lying faceplant in that arena.

Because the Iranian general population already hates Hamas and doesn't support them. Defunding Hamas/Hezbollah/Houthis has been part of the protest movement from 2022 onward. The Iranians go without proper water/electricity because their theocratic dictatorship prioritizes destabilizing the region over looking after its citizens.

That's not what he said. He praised their resilience, grit and character. I don't disagree with any of your points, but you should choose your words more carefully. 😐

What does it matter? The point was clear, so I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with this sort of pedantic word-mongering. It would be best if you chose your lines of reasoning better. This one's a loser.

The only exaggeration here is the comically elevated importance you place on an insincere, perfunctory tweet made by that fat orange baboon long after chaos and violence erupted. It's the equivalent of whispering, "Guys, please stay calm" after a bar brawl you've instigated erupts, while you fade into the background watching it unfold, bottles smashing everywhere. I'm saying he spent two months riling up his retards, who he collected on January 6th and then sent off to the Capitol shouting "Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!" He then tried to join them, even attempting to grab the steering wheel of his car away from his Secret Service detail when they refused to let him. Rather than condemn the Jan 6 rioters, he praised and lauded them after the fact. In what clownworld do you figure he had nothing to do with the riot, or that he was trying to stop it?

Michael Yeadon hasn't worked for Pfizer for 13 years, never worked with vaccines and was an asthma and allergy researcher. 🤣 What a dumb f**king OP.

You're holding the government to account by not even knowing what you're holding them to account for? It's like you're auditioning to be Pierre Poilievre's fluffer or something. 🤣

I'm throwing your buffoonish nitpicking back in your face. It is pathetic. If you figure your winning argument is that Trump didn't literally say nothing, then sure, I'll concede that brilliant point to you. 🤣 A casual tweet saying "be peaceful" somehow balances out the fact that Trump whipped the mob up in the first place, threw gas on the fire with further deranged rhetoric as it unfolded, and sat around watching it on TV for hours while law enforcement, republican colleagues and even his family begged him to put a stop to it. Maybe in alternate reality that makes sense...

So you don't actually want to debate anything meaningful here. You just want to be a petty word-monger, and (according to those standards) you've proven yourself a liar anyways. 🙄

As we all know, Great Leader has uncovered and mastered mystical esoteric knowledge, which has allowed the his hilariously poor glorious and heroic industrial base to out produce Europe and North America.

You're wrong because Jagger cried foul about treason, and you said he didn't. Yet another clueless quick-take by our resident know-nothing. 🤡

Not really. The only reason it ever could is if the info ops convinces enough western mooks towards your arguments. For Russia to maintain this war, they have to turn theirs into a war economy, spending well over 10% of their GDP on it but probably a lot more (since Russian numbers are as accurate as their history). Meanwhile, an economic bloc that dwarfs Russia (like truly dwarfs it) can donate their obsolete/surplus equipment (which is still miles better than Russian garbage) and help dismantle one of their biggest geopolitic military threats for pennies on the dollar. No, the only way a war of attrition favors Russia is if Putin convinces enough donkeys to believe it.