Minichan

Topic: So MAGA loves North Korea now?

Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #137,031

Weren't they just complaining about Communism? It's so hard to keep with their self-contradictory mental gymnastics

Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later[^] [v] #1,452,965

Shut the fuck up matt

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,966

@previous (B)
Are you MAGA?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,967

@previous (A)
Shut the fuck up matt

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,968

@previous (B)
So yes, you are MAGA. Can you please explain why Trump is siding with North Korea over South Korea now?

Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,969

@previous (A)
Can you explain why your mom is dead, and your dad is in prison?

Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 54 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,973

@previous (B)
Can you answer the fucking question?

Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,978

@OP

> Weren't they just complaining about Communism? It's so hard to keep with their self-contradictory mental gymnastics

It’s a cult.

Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,979

Trump invited Xi Jinping to his inauguration where he was yapping about the radical left being Marxists. Xi Jinping sent his secretary or something instead.

Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 30 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,985

@previous (E)

> Trump invited Xi Jinping to his inauguration where he was yapping about the radical left being Marxists. Xi Jinping sent his secretary or something instead.

It’s all askew. The right and wealthy have socialized protections for their wealth since the early 2000s. Look at how Arthur Andersen, Enron, and Lehman Brothers weren’t repeated.

And how federal asset forfeiture mysteriously skips white collar criminals.

Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,989

@previous (F)
Part of it I think is because if you own a company you do everything in the name of your company so if "you" get sued you don’t really get sued, your company gets sued and they go after your company’s assets not your assets. It’s actually suspiciously easy to start a company though it’s usually less than $100 and you aren’t required to have any employees or make any profit but only 5% of people ever do it, but people still complain about it, "oh these rich people, their companies aren’t people why do they have legal protection!"

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,992

@previous (G)

> Part of it I think is because if you own a company you do everything in the name of your company so if "you" get sued you don’t really get sued, your company gets sued and they go after your company’s assets not your assets. It’s actually suspiciously easy to start a company though it’s usually less than $100 and you aren’t required to have any employees or make any profit but only 5% of people ever do it, but people still complain about it, "oh these rich people, their companies aren’t people why do they have legal protection!"

That’s common in LLC and select other structures. However, it wouldn’t be hard to extend personal liability if actual crimes are committed - fraud, deceptions, theft. Not run of the mill mistakes and bankruptcies.

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 33 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,452,995

@1,452,968 (A)
I would like to know as well. Like which is it Communism good or communism bad?

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 45 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,006

@previous (I)
Communism doesn’t exist. It’s an aesthetic. It’s just authoritarian governments putting makeup on a pig.

Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,009

@previous (J)

True. I mean I would say it’s a theory that nobody’s willing to try and implement due our extreme greed and hubris. But definitely its a makeup job for totalitarianism.

(Edited 17 seconds later.)

Anonymous J replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,010

@previous (I)
I think most of it can be blamed on Vladimir Lenin for establishing an autocratic government.

Anonymous J double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,011

Although, democracy isn’t a perfect system. Popularity isn’t the best means of finding competent people.

Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,014

@previous (J)

The idea is once you are unpopular you get kicked out

Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,453,045

@previous (K)
Isn’t that sort of an illusion? That doesn’t really mean the next guy is better it just means he’s not the last guy. Will anybody ever read this?
:

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