ycombinary

Yeah.

It's demoralising.

The argument is that all things you are claiming are reasons why the US took action are a (naive) fantasy. They are a convenient excuse, at most.

Trump is happy lining up behind far more monstrous characters.

It will be about his pocket, and then about what affects polling.

Plus, Trump himself stated on Howard Stern's Show that his line was 12 year olds.

You can find this on YouTube and Stern has spoken about it.

Social media and tech companies are effectively helping external actors (and malicious internal actors) to break western democracy.

You have to be pretty naive at this point to believe any of these points are actually real reasons behind this action, esp. 1 or 2.

Because it benefits the people in power. Probably in numerous ways.

Cool story bro.

Now do the rest of US interventions under less autocratic and more ethical leaders.

Maybe, but from observing US politics from afar for a decade, 50% would be screaming for Trumps blood to lock in the win.

Ah yes, beloved man of the people, Saddam Hussein.

There's psychology, but 99% of it is for the American public.

The rest is for Trumps bank account.

Also, Trump stated himself on the Howard Stern show that he wouldn't sleep with 12 year olds.

Not 18 year olds, 12 year olds.

You can argue historical standards, but he's absolutely a paedophile based on his OWN freely offered statements.

Thanks Vlad.

It would be conspiracy if Trump didn't always say the quiet part out loud (40 seconds in)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=153GkS75mwM

There is a path to no more democracy, and being at war makes that path a lot easier.

I'm not American, my 'war powers act' statement wasn't pointing at specific legislation, it was a hand wave to the past.

It rhymes.

War powers act.

No more democracy.

I'm so bored.

Trump is a sex offender. He's also a convicted criminal. He is also completely devoid of ethics or morality.

But because of the car crash that is American politics, you have to address all of this through the theatre of the set of documents associated with the world's most infamous paedophile (who also appears to be his best mate).

It's exhausting.

You know the president said that the Epstein files were a democrat hoax, right?

I feel like at this stage the US administration could contend that the moon is in fact made of cheese and news agencies would respond by running news stories about the implications of this on future possible lunar missions.

Venezuela will never invade the US now, fr.

And everyone is now giving proper consideration to that important fact and forgetting those pesky domestic issues.

Is everyone sufficiently distracted yet?

Having lived roughly 50 years on the planet, I recognise this as both a view I used to hold and as pretty naive.

'Prisoners still can’t vote' - you don't appear to be able to read.

People have been arrested for peacefully holding signs, but they haven't just permanently disappeared.

I'm bored. The grey has shades, only children see in black and white.

Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) ECHR 681 is a European Court of Human Rights case, where the court ruled that a blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The court did not state that all prisoners should be given voting rights. Rather, it held that if the franchise was to be removed, then the measure needed to be compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol, thus putting the onus upon the UK to justify its departure from the principle of universal suffrage.

There are numerous examples of citizens winning court cases against the government.

Take the just the uk, three examples:

Anti‑protest regulations (Liberty v Home Secretary)

Air pollution litigation (ClientEarth v UK Government)

Rwanda asylum plan (AAA & Others v Secretary of State

Windrush - Members of the Windrush have repeatedly challenged the Home Office over wrongful detention, removal, and denial of rights, leading to government admissions of unlawfulness and an official apology in 2018.

Your claim is false. The world is not the same the world over, civil liberties are better in some places than in others.

You make a lot of assumptions.

Like that I'm American, or not Chinese. Or that you giving your 50 cents isn't transparent.

Feel free to learn.

https://www.nzz.ch/english/why-george-orwells-1984-is-so-pop...

China has been disappearing people for dissent for decades. Whether Trump is the start of a similar regime, I guess we'll have to wait and see...

You can't trust any numbers coming out of China.

China is an authoritarian regime. The US is a kleptocracy flirting with autocracy.

Neither place the rights of their citizens in much regard, though money definitely helps in both places.

The possible outcomes for individuals in China though are Orwellian.

European governments regularly lose cases brought by individuals in both domestic and European courts; below are some well-known examples across different countries and legal issues.

E.g.

Broniowski v. Poland (ECtHR, 2004)

Doğan and Others v. Turkey (ECtHR, 2004)

Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2) (ECtHR, 2005)

Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3) (ECtHR, 2012)

KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland (ECtHR, 2024)

These judgments show that individuals and civil society groups can hold European states accountable for violations involving property, voting, asylum, climate, and broader rule‑of‑law issues.

They often lead to legislative change, financial compensation, or policy reversal, and many are used as precedent by lawyers and activists in new cases across Europe.

It's essentially a statement about the view of gov security, not about the view of an individual.

The US is not a serious country anymore.