NationStates

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
I literally had to read this a few times before I understood what was being fully said here. Now it appears Rosenstein will meet Trump on Thursday. I wonder how that will go.

Enough time for every republican running for office or trying to confirm a Supreme Court Justice to call and scream “are you out of your goddamn mind?”

Proctopeo wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
Seriously? Are you surprised that someone thinks it's silly to say that the US government (the one that is allied with Saudi Arabia and led by a man with a fetish for dictators) not being in a human rights organisation removes it's legitimacy? If anything a republican led America being out of the organisation makes everybody else better off.

yes, better off with more countries just known for their spectacular human rights, like China and Qatar, definitely...
The thing is: America has power. Many different kinds of power. Without American power present at all, the UNHRC is more or less castrated, and delegated to being an embarrassment due to the remaining membership being, you know, largely abysmal in terms of rights. C'mon, the UN, even with extensive US funding (compared to everyone else's contributions) isn't capable of much more than flailing its dick around at countries, and sometimes sending peacekeeping forces if it's especially seedy, but only sometimes.

Petrasylvania wrote:It's laughable to boot that a country routinely separating children from families, even ones that play by imposed rules for seeking asylum- especially to profit private prisons- would be sneering that a human rights committee is filled with abusive countries.

As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?

Tobleste wrote:
I could even understand that by some people justified Trumps decision by saying that the group is nonsense because Saudi Arabia is in it which makes sense until you remember Trump basically dancing with Saudi leaders.

laughs in realpolitik

Valrifell wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:You can still quit your job if you feel oppressed because corporations will never be the same in condition.
And lazy people deserve to be unhappy.

If you prefer unregulated capitalism, that corporations will reduce working conditions over time in an unspoken oligopoly (stuff like that happens right now) where shitty and oppressive working conditions are non-negotiable wherever you go.

Nobody deserves to be unhappy, though. A bit of a cruel and humanless position to take.

Tobleste wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:
yes, better off with more countries just known for their spectacular human rights, like China and Qatar, definitely...
The thing is: America has power. Many different kinds of power. Without American power present at all, the UNHRC is more or less castrated, and delegated to being an embarrassment due to the remaining membership being, you know, largely abysmal in terms of rights. C'mon, the UN, even with extensive US funding (compared to everyone else's contributions) isn't capable of much more than flailing its dick around at countries, and sometimes sending peacekeeping forces if it's especially seedy, but only sometimes.


As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?


laughs in realpolitik

So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

It's not just a circular argument, it's perfectly spherical.

Tobleste wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:
yes, better off with more countries just known for their spectacular human rights, like China and Qatar, definitely...
The thing is: America has power. Many different kinds of power. Without American power present at all, the UNHRC is more or less castrated, and delegated to being an embarrassment due to the remaining membership being, you know, largely abysmal in terms of rights. C'mon, the UN, even with extensive US funding (compared to everyone else's contributions) isn't capable of much more than flailing its dick around at countries, and sometimes sending peacekeeping forces if it's especially seedy, but only sometimes.


As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?


laughs in realpolitik

So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

Tobleste wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:
yes, better off with more countries just known for their spectacular human rights, like China and Qatar, definitely...
The thing is: America has power. Many different kinds of power. Without American power present at all, the UNHRC is more or less castrated, and delegated to being an embarrassment due to the remaining membership being, you know, largely abysmal in terms of rights. C'mon, the UN, even with extensive US funding (compared to everyone else's contributions) isn't capable of much more than flailing its dick around at countries, and sometimes sending peacekeeping forces if it's especially seedy, but only sometimes.


As we know, having some stains on your record discredits any and all criticisms of other countries who are substantially worse in every regard and makes you literally equivalent to them. Of course.
This does mean, however, that almost no part of the world can criticize anyone else, except for maybe, I don't know, San Marino? And the rest of the irrelevant tiny European countries ('cept the Vatican)?


laughs in realpolitik

So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

Proctopeo wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

TIL that the UNHRC is the entire United Nations and not just one particularly stupid wing of it

Petrasylvania wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:TIL that the UNHRC is the entire United Nations and not just one particularly stupid wing of it

Like you have any respect for the rest of the UN outside the Security Council.

Proctopeo wrote:

Tobleste wrote:
So your argument is America should have left because the UN is useless and now that America has left, the UN is useless? Sound.

TIL that the UNHRC is the entire United Nations and not just one particularly stupid wing of it

Proctopeo wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Like you have any respect for the rest of the UN outside the Security Council.

>implying I even respect the Security Council

Tobleste wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:TIL that the UNHRC is the entire United Nations and not just one particularly stupid wing of it

I obviously should have been clearer to avoid confusion:

So your argument is America should have left because the UNHRC is useless and now that America has left, the UNHRC is useless? Sound.

Senkaku wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:>implying I even respect the Security Council

Were you the one complaining about how liberals want to dump the Electoral College just because it didn't work for them this time around or was that someone else

Because the irony here is pretty fuckin' rich if it was you lol

Proctopeo wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Were you the one complaining about how liberals want to dump the Electoral College just because it didn't work for them this time around or was that someone else

Because the irony here is pretty fuckin' rich if it was you lol

No, that was someone else.
Although I fail to see where the irony would be in that if I was said person.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:No, that was someone else.
Although I fail to see where the irony would be in that if I was said person.

Of course you fail to see the irony in defending the electoral college while calling for the UNHRC to be scrapped because it's not working the way you want it to.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Of course you fail to see the irony in defending the electoral college while calling for the UNHRC to be scrapped because it's not working the way you want it to.

The UNHRC doesn't work period.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Some newspapers have stated Rosenstein being fired or resigning could be good for the Mueller probe, but admitted it was a super risky gamble that could instead end it.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:Of course you fail to see the irony in defending the electoral college while calling for the UNHRC to be scrapped because it's not working the way you want it to.

The UNHRC doesn't work period.

If anything the ones calling for the abolition of the electoral college are the hypocrites, since they often defend the organization of the UN.

Petrasylvania wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:The UNHRC doesn't work period.

A lot of people argue the Electoral College doesn't work either.

function: fulfill the purpose or task of (a specified thing)

Petrasylvania wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:The UNHRC doesn't work period.

A lot of people argue the Electoral College doesn't work either.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:A lot of people argue the Electoral College doesn't work either.

That same lot of people are wrong.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Wait, the Mueller thing is still happening?

Yeah, muh boi.

At this point it seems obvious to me Trump has done something impeachable, his actions seem to be subtle obstruction of justice if not blatant-which I think it is blatant fyi.

Mueller is really trying to gather all the evidence though. Very respectable.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:That same lot of people are wrong.

Yeah it works great that’s why our president won because of math in spite of being hated by most of the country and the average vote is useless

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:Is it really him trying to do anything or is he just mad though? It's all a very confusing mess.

Also, I saw this article somewhere about why calling Trump childish is an insult to children.

Calling Trump Trump is an insult to anyone else named Trump, imo.

Proctopeo wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yeah it works great that’s why our president won because of math in spite of being hated by most of the country and the average vote is useless

most people hated Clinton too, tho

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:most people hated Clinton too, tho

Yeah and he got impeached

Proctopeo wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yeah and he got impeached

no, the other one, the one people like even less