Is that supposed to cover for this?
How could Bill Gates be so stupid?
- Thread starter wicked
- Start date
Cover for what? The MAGA right wing conspiracy theory that Bill Gates and the WEF want to depopulate the planet.
He's pro-vaxx anti meat and made his money in the tech sector. He's part of the left for sure.
Elon is pro choice, eats meat and made his money in other areas. And Elon has voted democrat in the past.
As far as I know, the only billionaire who might be left is Taylor Swift.
But then again, it might be just because she pays her team really well.
Most of silicon valley votes Democrat. And she's not the only celebrity who is a billionaire.
Its a nice sentiment, but you're backing something that does not exist. This whole sordid affair has shown us that the elites don't play by your "rules based order".
Agreed, but after we eat the rich we can go back to rules based governance.
(but not in an Epstein, literal, way)
You misread.
I said that I don't believe everyone on this site actually wants pedophiles in jail.
I stand by that.
So you agreed with me, but decided I should be attacked anyway?
Frank seems to believe that admitting the reality that the rules-based order has limits means you are against it.
Presumably he hated Carney's speech at Davos.
Your comment was unclear about whether it was about silentkisser's comment about me or about the board.
But I do agree, it appears some may support or not be bothered about pedos.
Which you would think would be as bad as the board as those pushing for bbfs.
Yes, you're still on record as having been willing to support genocide through Biden and Harris' campaigns.
That's still a big tick mark against claims you are for rules based order.
Maybe don't be so willing to attack half-cocked all the time.
If they aren't pushing for it as a service, I don't think the mods care.
Ah yes, I forget that my support for not having Trump in power meant I was against the rule-based order.
Here we go again.
I'm sure that you loved Carney's speech and the idea that principles should be applied 'pragmatically', as it backs your argument that backing Harris and Biden's aid of genocide was 'pragmatic'. But you can also read that speech with its support of UN based support of the middle sized states as being support for human rights. Though where Carney stands on Israel is still unclear, you can also see how that's playing right now in Australia with Herzog's visit. There it looks not very pragmatic to back a state that the country has recognized as being genocidal, as it is here.
Canada has always been willing to support american hegemony, as a form of pragmatic principles but now we also see the limit to that support. Where Carney and Canada are not supporting american policy any longer. america is becoming isolated as is Israel, with both countries facing global backlash. You know you see it the states with the growing discussions about the toxicity of AIPAC funded candidates. In this case it looks like Carney's speech may actually be against some of the world order you've been implicitly backing here.
Like others in this forum you once agreed with him and now you're realizing how far his nonsense has gone.
I will try to remain fully cocked at all times.
However, my reading of that reply was not unreasonable.
So far.
Your choice to overlook supporting genocide was very much against rules based order and is part of the reason trump is in power.
It wasn't even pragmatic since you gave up principles and trump still won.
I am not sure why you are intertwining Canadian interests with Palestinian interests.
Carney was clearly speaking about Canada and its bilateral relations with the US.
Palestine isn't his concern.
I would infact expect Carney, much like any other western leader, to be pro-Israel.
You cannot expect leaders of nations to make decisions, with Palestine as a primary or even a priority agenda item, even if they agree that what Israel has done there is reprehensible.
Try to explain anything to Franky and this is the reply you'll get. MAGA right wing Trumper DoFo nazi pedo who supports genocide. Copy and Paste.
That reply was part of a longer conversation with valcazar, feel free to join in but don't tell me what we have been talking about.
Carney was talking about 'principled and pragmatic' and it if in with the longer conversation. My argument with valcazar was from the election where valcazar argued that dems owed their vote to Biden and Harris and that even though Biden was aid and paying for the genocide in Gaza, valcazar argued it was 'pragmatic' to vote for genocide to keep trump out of power. My argument is that genocide is a moral red line.
But given how much trouble trump is as its being revealed that Epstein was Mossad and were blackmailing trump, and Bill Gates suffered the same fate, its not unreasonable to bring up Palestine. Its just looking like the big moral question of this century so far.
Why would any western leader be pro Israel while they are committing genocide?
Why should any voter put up with supporting that?
Its worse than supporting ICE.
