Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later[^][v]#1,425,354
He asked China for help.
He wants us to believe this hurts China, and he asked China for help… militarily.
Honestly, the fact that China doesn’t just invade Taiwan right now, Xi Jinping isn’t invading out of the goodness of his heart and nothing more, because if I was him, (I support self determination for Taiwan), if I was in his position, man… Taiwan? You’d never see a country disappear from the fact of the Earth so fast.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,355
I hope this continues.
Deleverage the financial markets, push up the price of oil.
The proletariate is already on the edge, if they let standards of living fall anymore there would be riots. The elites will be forced to push up the wage floor and eat the costs.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,358
@previous (C)
Yeah but Iran lets Chinese ships through the strait because China gives Iran intelligence and they have an economic and military alliance. Not long before the war broke out, there was actually a naval exercise with Russian, Chinese, and Iranian warships in South Africa.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 45 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,362
@1,425,359 (C)
I don’t really believe that the Iran war is secretly a strategy against China. Because sure it hurts China, it hurts Japan and South Korea more and those are us allies. They get even more of their oil from the Middle East than China does.
The point is that there were Chinese and Iranian warships participating in naval exercises together, so Iran and China are effectively on the same side. The fact that it was in South Africa isn’t really the point. The point was that was this year.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,367
@previous (C)
Because the US is threatening to destroy Iranian power plants and take Kharg island. They need to threaten us with something to try and deter us from doing that.
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,368
Either they’re bluffing or they made some cost benefit analysis that if they can’t sell their oil to China, it’s worth it to escalate the war. Because what happens in a fight is say I have a gun, and you have a knife, and we get in an argument, then the argument escalates to a fist fight, and so on, the person who wins is the person with greater ability to escalate. So once Iran stops escalating, they lose.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 hours ago, 58 seconds later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,371
@1,425,369 (C)
China would have objections to it, but even if they don’t have oil, China is still a nuclear armed state with 1.4 billion people, an established authoritarian system, established internet censorship, and the Chinese people are unarmed. So even if they have economic pains, I kind of doubt they’ll have a change of government, and I kind of doubt that any of the Chinese leaders will feel any pain.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,375
Although, one advantage China does have is they produce a lot of electric vehicles. So even without oil, life in China would suck, but they’d still have a civilization.
I guess the worst case scenario is China runs low on oil, and starts thinking the way the Japanese did in World War Two. Because Japan had a huge empire, but Japan doesn’t produce any oil. So they conquered other countries to take their oil. But they never had enough oil, so it became a vicious cycle. And that’s not really a great thing. (I don’t think China will do that).
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,378
Then I think it’s also a mistake to not factor India into this. They have more people than China, and they’re not as wealthy as China, but they have nuclear weapons, and they’re mortal enemies with Pakistan which is the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, and India gets their weapons from Russia. So if something happens in Asia, I think India would be a bigger part of that than Japan or South Korea honestly.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 hours ago, 13 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,425,385
@1,425,371 (B)
Who said anything about a change in government? China will suffer economic pain, that's it.
@1,425,372 (B)
The Republicans will be fine, because millions of democratic voters have been deported and the democratic party is still wildly unpopular in the country.
The GOP doesn't need to be very popular, they just need to be more popular than the democraps.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,425,395
@previous (C)
India gets about the same percentage of their oil from the strait as China does, India has a bigger population than China, and they have nuclear weapons.
Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID.
There's really no explanation for it besides voter fraud.
No one is too poor for it, just the opposite, thousands of dollars for government assistance per year are contingent on having one. Getting a job requires it. Driving a car reqiures it. Buying alcohol requires it. Opening a bank account requires it.
Are people really giving up thousands in government assistance for the poor because they wont spend $40? Obviously not.
Everyone knows what's going on, and the democrats can't even make up a good excuse for transparently trying to cheat.
> Then explain why democrats have been pushing so hard to stop voter ID
The United States doesn’t have a national ID. It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not.
> > The United States doesn’t have a national ID. > > All 50 states issue ID, so what's your point? > > > It would make more sense to require ID if it was required for all Americans to have IDs, but surprisingly, it’s actually not. > > That's not true, there are already *national* laws that require ID to get a job, open a bank account, and file for benefits. > > All Americans need an ID to just live a regular life. > > So again, who would be obstructed from voting? No one at all, unless they were illegal. Who do you think you are fooling?
Voter ID laws would be fine. They should address access, and ensure an acceptable state ID card. A “Real ID” equivalent for $5-$10. I don’t understand how the 2.6 million people without ID interact with society.
Confining an ID requirement to drivers license would be bullshit because 30 million people don’t have one.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,425,416
@previous (F)
I guess my opinion on it is voter fraud doesn’t really exist at a level that would change the result of an election, and voter ID would make it harder for some marginalized groups to vote like disabled people, but either way, I don’t think it will have the effect that republicans think it will.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,425,418
Because the thing is, illegal immigrants, removing them from the country would only help republicans if 1. illegal immigrants vote and 2. they vote democrat. Except, a lot of Hispanics voted for Trump (not all of them), but a lot of them did, and there isn’t really evidence that illegal immigrants were voting in high enough numbers that it would have changed the outcome of any election. So even if you deport all the illegal immigrants and you enforce voter ID, I don’t think that will change the outcome.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,425,419
Then something that also matters is republican states like Texas have been using algorithms to draw voting districts that benefit republicans over democrats. But certain states like California have started doing the same and have been gerrymandering to overrepresent democratic voters over republican voters to offset republican states.
> illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law.
There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
Anonymous B double-posted this 23 minutes ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,425,425
I also don’t really agree that the democrats were allowing illegal immigrants to break the law if you actually look up how many deportations there were under Obama.
> > illegals would vote for the party that enables them to break the law. > > There’s no evidence that illegal immigrants voted in large numbers.
Democrats fighting to get rid of voter ID laws at polls is evidence.
Disabled people had trouble getting to polling stations long before this was a political issue, and this really changes nothing about that.
> I’ll also point out that some illegal immigrants are Trump supporters. For example the guy that was running the Trump Burger chain actually got deported.
Then these voter ID laws might stop people voting republican too, good. All fraud should be stopped.
Anonymous B double-posted this 16 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,425,429
You have said before that you’re a racist. So you probably think that illegal immigrants are mostly Hispanic and that Hispanic people aren’t white, but Hispanic people are just people from countries that speak Spanish and were colonized by Spain, which is a white European country. So this whole thing is sort of dumb even from a racist perspective.
Anonymous B quintuple-posted this 8 minutes ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,425,433
When they say the white population is shrinking in the US, they’ll always say "white non-Hispanic” in the graph… because there are also white hispanics.
