You are the one making shit up. I am taking the, albeit misguided effort, to correct you and your misinformation. That is the problem with liberals, they love Dezinformatsia just as much as right-wingers. They just use more high-brow words while doing it.

Trump is very incoherent and contradictory, but his anti-NATO positions are just that he thinks that the US should be isolationist. The liberal opposition is that, lacking a positive position or vision, liberalism needs a new Cold War to define themselves purely in opposition to other nations. Russia and China are not formally aligned, but they are willing to work together and increase trade with each other out of mutual ostracization and opposition to US demonization. Same reason Iran and North Korea are in the same axis of opposition, purely allied out of mutual interest in resisting US opposition, than any other mutual ideology or interest.

The Tariffs are still harmful to China, it is an export economy. Yes the US firms pay it, but it drives up the cost and therefore reduces sales of the products, so it is still harmful to China, even if it is still not how Trump implied it works, with the Chinese government just paying money out of their treasury or whatever. Trump started the banning of TikTok in his first term. Again, he is really incoherent and stupid, and probably backing off due to his supposed support amongst internet media.

Ah yes, cutting social spending and (Bill Clinton actually did do) deregulation means that Bill Clinton “empowered” government. Republicans would never reduce social spending and regulations. Even if it reduced the deficit, and increased the police and military. That is totally different that what Republicans would support.

Donald Trump is very anti-China and Russia post-shock therapy is a far-right neoliberal hell hole. Your worldview is flipped and twisted.

Oh, reversing the federal deficit by cutting social spending, totally progressive and not far-right Reaganism. Totally opposing the Republicans rather than being right-wing and simple enough to buy into the Republican kayfabe about the deficit…

It is a socialist publication, MBFC still has to give it high credibility because it publishes good stuff. NJR probably voted for Hillary in the 2016 general, but was pro-Sanders and obviously, because he is leftist and “tankie” hates Trump. You are entirely delusional for saying that socialists are more likely to side with Trump than liberals. The Democrat messaging, because of their lack of positive case for themselves just relies on equating anything less than unconditional support for the party with helping Trump.

I was literally talking about Bill Clinton and centrist Democrats. Depending on the specific time, literally either the most amount of lawmakers and congressional voters or second most.

The problem is that there is no alternative. The two parties are just this same process at two different speeds and slight amount of decorum. People forget that Jimmy Carter was our first neoliberal president and Clinton cemented this all being bipartisan and passed the things that were seen as too far right for Reagan (NAFTA, the crime bill, was going to SS privatization until Monica Lewinsky distracted from it…). Liberals hate Trump because he is being too crass and clumsy while doing this. Democrats would rather do the same thing more slowly and with more excuses and obfuscation.

The US is already an oligarchy. The difference between “oligarch” and “billionaire” is whether they are from Eastern Europe or Western.

Dude, this is a socialist publication and “tankies” have hated Musk before he explicitly tied himself to Trump and made liberals hate him. What are you talking about? After Clinton, the liberal orthodoxy had been that Reagan had a point with small government and deregulation.

“The Bourgeois are not human animal”. Though calling them vegetables is still too demeaning to the celery and carrot, who never did anything wrong. Maybe they are mineral? Lead and mercury caused a lot of suffering, and I don’t feel bad about insulting them.

This is the only reason I accept to refusing to call cops “pigs”. The humble swine does not deserve such a comparison.

But we are capitalists, chasing profit is the highest morality and human calling. It is killing without direct investor profit that is immoral.

There wouldn’t be any outrage outside of 100s of the wealthy donors. Liberals would completely be more outraged because of norms and civility. The entire point of “drain the swamp” was that most people hate oligarchs, the point of Republicans is to redirect this off into racist and unproductive channels, where nothing ever comes of this hate for corporate and wealthy overlords.

These god-damn violent tankies. Vietnam should have just fined her a much smaller amount than the corrupt practices made them, like how the West handles corrupt oligarchs.

Damn, 55% of Brits are tankies

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar drastically outperformed Harris.

It is not the candidate’s job to appeal to voters. The Democrats should just be owed votes from all non-MAGA, and they should never have to put forward any policies or effort for voters.

She seems to have lost worse than Hillary…

No, at no point did the Centre try to form a coalition with the KPD, but were turned down. In the Weimar system, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, so even if the KPD, SPD, and Centre had enough seats to form a majority (which they didn’t), they couldn’t just form a coalition. This is why Franz Von Papen was appointed by Hindenburg, since he was expected to be able to convince the Centre party and Nazis to form a coalition with the conservatives and monarchists. And why when that failed and there was a failure to form a ruling coalition that Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor to create a Nazi lead coalition.

A vote for third party is a vote for Harris. You have to hold your nose and vote Trump!

But seriously, Libertarians are the largest third party by quite a margin. So third parties actually help Democrats. It is just the Democrats mentality that they are owed votes for not being Republicans, rather than a candidate’s or party’s job to try to appeal to voters that this narrative is pushed forward.

Particularly, there was huge overlap in membership between the Freikorps and the Stürmabteilung. So it is important to note that the Freikorps was a direct precursor to the Nazi brownshirts.

The only part that is wrong is that Nazis did not have an overall majority, it was because of Hindenburg, monarchists, conservatives, and right-wing liberals deciding to side with the Nazis.

No, that still incorrect. First, KPD, SPD and Centre did not have an outright majority together. Second, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, they can’t just form a coalition if they had an outright majority anyway in the Weimar system and at no point did Centre try to form a coalition and was turned down by the KPD. The entire point of Hindenburg appointing Franz Von Papen was that he thought that he could convince both the Nazis and Centre to form a coalition with the conservative and monarchist parties. And the reason later to appoint Hitler as chancellor was to form a Nazi led coalition.