Minichan

Topic: Trump just eliminated Special Education Office in the Department of Education

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 months ago #129,874

They fired just about the entire office. Don't MAGAts have special needs kids, too?

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 50 minutes later[^] [v] #1,395,147

Do you know what happens when a country passes 125% debt-to-GDP ratio?

Default, insolvency, and then mass suffering.

We're beyond the point where this can be saved, it's about pulling blood from the extremities so that the essential organs of the nation have a chance at surviving.

(Edited 9 seconds later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 27 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,148

@previous (B)
There are plenty of solutions that don't involve fucking off poor and needy people.

A blackity black joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,149

You’re telling me the biggest economy in the world doesn’t have enough money, but somehow Nigeria does?

🤔

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,150

I’m just saying, I haven’t heard anyone scared that Nigeria is going to run out of money and collapse in a while. How much money do they have? Not much.

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,152

Retards on suicide watch lol.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,153

@previous (D)
How do you think we train our special forces? Normal education? No. Don’t disrespect our troops again.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 28 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,154

@1,395,148 (A)
How do you not get it? The poor and needy are going to suffer when people stop lending money to pay for these programs.

The answer isn't to keep special Ed going for a few months, and then have basic infrastructure and security fail.

The best answer is to cut off those systems now, and let sped kids deal with these new problems in a safe environment with working lights.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 23 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,155

@previous (B)
No, the solution is to eat the rich on national TV and use their money.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,156

@1,395,154 (B)
You know we could also like… change the rules about how money works.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,157

Money isn’t even real.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,158

@1,395,155 (A)
Even if you could seize all their assets and avoid any productivity loss that wouldn't be enough to fund the system.

There's a reason socialists don't propose budgets.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,159

@1,395,156 (A blackity black)
@1,395,157 (A blackity black)

No, the material world won't just change because you want it to.

The US has more debt than everything it makes in a year, and rates are up. This is the point economists usually point to where insolvency becomes a serious risk.

What's your solution? What magic money trick do you think will produce wealth out of thin air?

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,160

@1,395,158 (B)

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,161

@1,395,159 (B)

(Edited 2 minutes later.)

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,162

Nothing ever happens.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,163

@1,395,158 (B)
Wrong. The world's richest people have trillions among them. Plenty of money to help special needs kids and hungry people. Go lick some more boots, fascist.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,164

@previous (A)

> Wrong. The world's richest people have trillions among them. Plenty of money to help special needs kids and hungry people. Go lick some more boots, fascist.

They actually have more money than some countries do. For example, Elon Musk’s net worth is more than the GDP of Nigeria, and Nigeria has 200 million people.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,165

The world is a bit stupid actually.

(Edited 3 minutes later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,166

@1,395,163 (A)

> Wrong. The world's richest people have trillions among them.

Guess how much the US spends every year.

> Plenty of money to help special needs kids and hungry people.

What about healthcare for the poor, social assistance for the elderly, and so on?

Raiding every dollar of the 1% wouldn't last long, and then you'd be out of money to raid and back in the same situation.

> Go lick some more boots, fascist.

Even if you were correct, which you're not, fascism is an actual ideology. It doesn't mean "someone who underestimates the wealth of the elite".

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,167

@previous (B)
1% of the US has 30% of the nation’s wealth.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,168

The bottom 50% have 2% of the wealth.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,169

@1,395,164 (A blackity black)
And if you take the leftist ideology seriously, we wouldn't just be splitting the money up among priveleged white americans.

Guess how far this all goes when we cut in everyone? Suddenly it doesn't even fund social welfare for a year.

And even if we started by helping the needy in the US, how does that work when the same half believe that anyone, anywhere, is allowed to show up here illegally and use those services just the same as citizens? And when they will show up to protest law enforcement deporting the people?

It just keeps getting diluted, and then all you've done is resentfully destroyed a small group of wealthy people for no material gain to anyone.

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,170

@previous (B)
Tbh, if we evenly distributed wealth around the entire world, we’d all be about as wealthy as Chinese people.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,172

Like if you google the average world GDP per capita, you google China’s GDP per capita, the entire planet could have the same standard of living as China in theory.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 32 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,173

@1,395,166 (B)
If the US government can pay huge amounts or money to corporate welfare, we can afford a tiny bit to help the needy, so fuck off, fascist.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,174

@1,395,169 (B)

(Edited 4 minutes later.)

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,175

Like a rich person is just an individual, individuals are always replaceable.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,176

@1,395,173 (A)
What corporate welfare are you referring to?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,177

@previous (B)
Tax subsidies and bailouts for corporations, and Republican tax loopholes than only corporations and the wealthy can use, like being able to write off private yachts.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 13 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,178

@1,395,176 (B)
Well, Elon Musk gets billions of dollars from the government. SpaceX isn’t actually profitable without a customer and there’s only one customer that’s actually wealthy enough to make it profitable (the government).

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,179

@1,395,174 (A blackity black)
I didn't claim that, but putting words in my mouth is a good way to avoid the point I actually made: confiscating all of that wealth wouldn't actually fix this problem. especially if you're as inclusive as the left wants to be

(Edited 14 seconds later.)

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,180

The problem with the free market is it’s not real.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 44 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,181

@1,395,178 (A blackity black)
All of the money the US government pays to SpaceX wouldnt put a dent in this budget problem.

And the most affordable ISP that meets the needs of a global organization isnt welfare, it's paying for a product.

(Edited 35 seconds later.)

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 20 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,182

@1,395,179 (B)
You know, every country in the world has less money than the United States and there are plenty of countries that offer more socialized services to their citizens than we do. It’s kind of difficult for me to believe you when there’s proof via existence that you’re wrong.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,183

@previous (A blackity black)
Again, try to use specific examples instead of vague assertion.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,185

@1,395,181 (B)
It’s not necessarily wise to defund NASA a government agency, in favor of a corporation that isn’t owned by the government. Now the military depends on Musk and Musk depends on the military.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,186

@1,395,177 (A)
Tax loopholes is irrelevant when the hypothetical is seizing all their assets.

If a 100% wealth tax, without loopholes, wouldnt solve this then why would less than that be the answer?

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,187

@1,395,185 (A blackity black)

> It’s not necessarily wise to defund NASA a government agency, in favor of a corporation that isn’t owned by the government. Now the military depends on Musk and Musk depends on the military.

Irrelevant if the entire spending on SpaceX doesnt come close to solvingthe budget.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,188

@1,395,183 (B)

> Again, try to use specific examples instead of vague assertion.

In Germany, college is free.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,190

@previous (A blackity black)
Who pays for Germany's defense?

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,193

@previous (B)
Serious question: When was the last time America defended Germany from something?

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,194

I’m just saying, if somebody actually attacked Germany, they’d probably increase military spending, but the last country that dropped bombs on Germany is us, that’s why we have bases there.

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,195

Same thing with Japan.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,196

@1,395,193 (A blackity black)
Do you understand why Germany has been discussing, and recently increased their defense spending?

Politicians there are expressing concern about Russia.

The US operates a lot of bases in Germany, and that alone contributes a great deal to their economy.

If the US pulled out they would lose the inflow of money, and need to start spending even more to deter threats.

Germany has a per-person GDP thats 60% of the US. They wouldn't have free college anymore if the US turned off the money. And even now Germany has a lot of travellers who fly to the US for an expensive education rather than get the free option at home.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 46 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,197

@1,395,194 (A blackity black)
Russia was also the last country to drop bombs on Germany, and the politicians there are worried about that repeating not the US attacking.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,198

@1,395,196 (B)

> Do you understand why Germany has been discussing, and recently increased their defense spending?

Oh, so then Germany pays for their own defense.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 43 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,199

@1,395,197 (B)

> Russia was also the last country to drop bombs on Germany, and the politicians there are worried about that repeating not the US attacking.

East Germany wasn’t worried about Russia dropping bombs on East Germany either.

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,200

The point is, in World War Two, Germany tried to become a world power, that ship has sailed, the only question is were they going to be led by an authoritarian or democratic power after the fact. Not sure what that has to do with college tuition though.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,201

@1,395,198 (A blackity black)
No, most is covered by the US, but they contribute some.

(Edited 9 seconds later.)

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,202

@previous (B)
Forget Germany, what about Canada and their free healthcare?

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,203

There are no American military bases inside Canada.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,204

@1,395,200 (A blackity black)
Germany produces less, and can fund social programs thanks to the US.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,205

@1,395,203 (A blackity black)
There doesn't need to be given the geography.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 11 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,206

@1,395,204 (B)
How does Australia have universal healthcare?

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,207

@1,395,205 (B)
Right, so how come Canada can afford free healthcare if we’re not paying for Canada’s defense?

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,209

@1,395,206 (A blackity black)
They don't protect the world's oceans and fund most medical research, and the quality is much lower than in the US.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 23 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,210

@1,395,207 (A blackity black)
We are paying for their defense, they can rely on their neighbor scaring away invaders.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,211

@previous (B)
Have you looked at a map? We’re the only country Canada has to defend against.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,212

.

(Edited 1 minute later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,213

@1,395,211 (A blackity black)
Russia colonized Alaska at one point, and they arent the only country that has discovered ships. English and French settlers didnt just materialize there either.

It's a global world, and the northern passage is strategic.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,214

@previous (B)
Russia sold Alaska because land that far north is practically useless. Russia wouldn’t gain anything from colonizing northern Canada.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,215

And hell Canadians would barely lose anything from it, most of them live close to the US Canada border.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 43 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,216

@1,395,214 (A blackity black)
Are you trying to miss the point? There's many countries that could get to Canada.

The US protects Canada.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 46 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,217

@previous (B)
Do we though? Why would anyone attack Canada if the United States didn’t exist? How many countries actually seriously want to see the downfall of Canada?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,218

@previous (A blackity black)
There's more motivates for war than wanting to see the country fall.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,219

@previous (B)
I don’t really see why anyone would be interested in invading Canada, it’s a huge country that’s relatively underpopulated relative to its size that’s an ocean away from most of the world’s landmass. It seems like a lot of trouble for a small amount of benefit.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,220

@previous (A blackity black)
I gave a reason before: the northern passage.

if you dont understand why that matters look at the events around the panama canal or the suez canal.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,221

@previous (B)
You don’t need to overthrow the Canadian government to sail up there, you could just do it.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,222

@previous (A blackity black)
When it thaws you will need permission.

Do you understand why trying to sail theough without permission would be bad?

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 35 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,223

@previous (B)
Not really, it’s Canada.

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,224

If you think the US can't afford special education, then you need to be in it.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,225

All I’m saying is, if the US didn’t exist, and hypothetically, I was the president of Russia, and I wanted to sail a ship through Canada, I’d offer to pay Canada, if Canada refused, I’d just say, well I have 5,000 nuclear weapons, I’m gonna sail on through and pay you a price I made up and tell you thank you for renting the passage to me.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,226

@1,395,223 (A blackity black)
Exactly!

Except Canada can point to certain wordings in maritime law, and that will be enforced by the most powerul navy in the world.

American taxpayers labor and die, without a gurantee that they will get healthcare, so that entitled Canuks can be snobs on campus without paying for the resources they use.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,227

@1,395,225 (A blackity black)

> All I’m saying is, if the US didn’t exist, and hypothetically, I was the president of Russia, and I wanted to sail a ship through Canada, I’d offer to pay Canada, if Canada refused, I’d just say, well I have 5,000 nuclear weapons, I’m gonna sail on through and pay you a price I made up and tell you thank you for renting the passage to me.

Russia decided they wouldnt do that because of MAD.

Do you know who specifically mutually assures destruction with Russia in MAD?

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,228

@1,395,226 (B)
Right but like I wouldn’t try and overthrow Ottawa or anything because what would be the point in trying to rule over like 40 million people on the other side of the world who don’t like me?

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,229

@1,395,227 (B)
Canada doesn’t have nuclear weapons so in the hypothetical scenario I described that wouldn’t apply.

(Edited 13 seconds later.)

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,230

…although if the US didn’t exist, it would make more sense to sail through that bit instead. That seems more convenient.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,231

@1,395,228 (A blackity black)
They don't need to conquer Ottowa to sail through the sea without paying Canada.

Does Canada need to spend the money to build up a powerful Navy? No, the US pays for the defense of their seas. The passage will be protected at the expense of the American public, and the fees will be collected by spoiled Canadians.

Anonymous B double-posted this 3 months ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,232

@1,395,229 (A blackity black)
Right, in your scenario they could ignore Canada because they couldnt mutually assure their destruction.

In real life, Russia can't do it because the US protects the seas.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,233

I guess the only thing that doesn’t make sense to me about the northern passage argument is why would Russia want to fight a war over a passage it could use to get access to the Pacific Ocean from Europe when Russia already has a land border with China and a Pacific coast?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,234

@previous (A blackity black)
Fuel savings.

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 36 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,235

Like I can see why Europe would want it so they can trade with China if the US closed the Panama Canal, but Europe is friendly with Canada anyway. But I don’t see why Russia would need ships to access China when they can just do that anyway over land.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,236

@1,395,234 (B)

> Fuel savings.

So there’s a benefit to going to war with Canada if it’s more fuel efficient, but there’s also a cost of going to war with a country of 40 million people who have no cultural connection to you on the opposite side of the world. So I’m not sure that, if you’re Russia, a country of 100 million people with a low birth rate and aging population that that’s a good decision to make.

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,237

Especially when Panama is so much smaller. And if the US was out of the picture, it does seem like overthrowing the government in Panama would be much less expensive to pull off.

A blackity black quadruple-posted this 3 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,238

Then Panama is near Cuba, which would also help Russia a lot logistically.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,239

@previous (A blackity black)
Do you know how they all afford those hats in Panama?

A blackity black replied with this 3 months ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,242

Tbh I don’t really buy the argument that without the US countries will just invade each other. What about Africa? Most African countries aren’t allied with the US but nobody is trying to conquer Africa.

(Edited 7 seconds later.)

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,246

@previous (A blackity black)
There is a global order stopping territory changes set up after WW2.

A blackity black joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,247

@previous (B)
Right but like, if the argument is that you need one democracy to be super powerful to stop other countries from taking over the world, how come in Africa where no African countries have nuclear weapons, and quite a few African countries have authoritarian governments, there’s no country in Africa that’s trying to be like Russia and take over all the other African countries?

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 7 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,264

@1,395,147 (B)

> Do you know what happens when a country passes 125% debt-to-GDP ratio?
>
> Default, insolvency, and then mass suffering.
>
> We're beyond the point where this can be saved, it's about pulling blood from the extremities so that the essential organs of the nation have a chance at surviving.

You make a good point but you’re rationalizing the actions of a corrupt and inept oligarchy with your higher intelligence.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,266

@1,395,247 (A blackity black)
That's not my argument, its just how the world works.

You don't see it in Africa because if a country tried they'd be stopped by the current order, which is mostly the US.

A blackity black joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 47 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,272

@previous (B)
I’m going to be honest, I don’t believe you.

A blackity black double-posted this 3 months ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,274

It feels sort of like one dimensional thinking, where everything in the world is simple. America spends money and fights all wars on behalf of everyone and every single country in the world should be thankful they have free healthcare because we’re paying for the defense of all African countries or whatever. I mean, that’s obviously not true. Remember last year when the DRC sentenced three American citizens to death before that whole thing where Rwanda sent troops into the DRC and then Trump took credit for ending the war?

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/13/nx-s1-5111628/3-americans-sentenced-to-death-in-failed-coup-attempt-trial-in-drc

There’s no way that the United States actually took the side of a country that sentenced American citizens to death and defended that country from Rwanda.

https://youtu.be/ICuomweLEL8

(Edited 1 minute later.)

A blackity black triple-posted this 3 months ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,275

…especially when the Democratic Republic of the Congo isn’t exactly a very democratic republic.

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 months ago, 12 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,276

If they sentence Americans to death, they can’t possibly be that afraid of us.

Anonymous B replied with this 3 months ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,395,390

@1,395,274 (A blackity black)
The US isn't going to base its foreign policy on publicly defending mercs who plotted to overthrow the DRC government. If they really did contract them, they will have no reason to confirm it, its easier to write off the casualties.
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.