Message from @Goblin_Slayer_Floki
Discord ID: 525934319529623564
lol harry is getting a bad deal of meghan
i think charles prince of wales might die sooner than elizabeth
I dunno what Harry was thinking, marrying that THOT
he could have had any woman on the planet
https://youtu.be/X5kIL85dOnk you know something is strange when even the amazing atheist is going wtf is going on this week of American politics
gunna shut it down!!
had me lOl
Who's watching the senate vote on the funding of the border wall right now?
not me
@ConceptHut but do tell
just wait for the twitter fallout as it will be one regardless the result
Essentially, they've voted to agree to having "A talk"
did end up in tie so we need to wait for round two
lame
it not a surprise really
<:what:382980756139409409>
It's very concerning how split conservatives are on the issue of the military pull-out from Syria and Afghanistan. A lot of in-fighting is going on right now and as a ***RADICAL CENTRIST*** I'm trying very hard to appreciate both sides. TBH from what I've seen, the 'leave' side is making more shaky arguments. Foremost is the point that Trump promised this. In the debate over whether it's a good idea to pull out, this argument really has no value. Whether or not Trump said he would do it has no bearing on whether it's a positive action. Second is the point that America should come first and because American military presence in Syria is not in America's interest, therefore it is in America's best interest not to be there. I don't find this argument convincing. It always seems to be very superficially and often very emotionally assumed that presence in Syria is not actually in America's strategic interest. This assumption is put forward by people with generally little or no knowledge in military defense or strategy. On the other hand, Mattis - probably *the* most eminent voice on the subject - provided highly rational reasons *for* a presence in Syria and Afghanistan. For example, it is certainly in America's interest to maintain her strategic relationships with her allies. Opposing this fundamental notion is genuine radical nationalism, since even a moderate nationalist is able to agree that relationships with other nations, especially long-standing military partners, still matter.
I also find the side in favor of the pull-out to be very uncharitable in response to this point since, as far as I know, the belief that Trump should put other countries first is not being put forward by anyone, yet supporting our allies is characterized as such. It's also uncharitable to characterize the 'stay' side as being hawkish and desirous of conflict. If you actually look at what the 'stay' side believes, they almost invariably believe in pulling out only more gradually and strategically for the purpose of preventing future conflict. For essentially the same reason, the 'stay' side argues the importance of maintaining pressure on her strategic opposition i.e. Russia, China, & Iran. The 'leave' side seems to show very little concern for this point, usually reverting to the aforementioned position of radical nationalism. Then there is the inevitable slaughter of Kurds. Again, the leave side only responds to this with radical nationalism, which is frankly a brutal attitude.
There won't be a Kurdish problem if there are no more Kurds left.
delet kurd @MountainMan
Is paris on fire?
I say we build a wall
Don't just read the headline
😂
@Fitzydog time to invest in pmc
Looks like it's time to send out my resume!
I want to give the FFL a run for their money
*The two Chinese characters that make up Huawei’s name literally mean, “To Serve China.”*
I just listened to (most of) the transcript of Matt Christiansen's call with Patreon's trust and safety team