yogthos

That's because your argument is a straw man that ignores context and history. Now run along and do your trolling elsewhere.

I've literally refuted your argument by demonstrating that NATO expansion has been happening since the fall of USSR and that plenty of prominent people in the west have warned that it would culminate in a war. Nobody is moving any goal posts on you here. You're the one who can't refute basic facts of the situation, and having no integrity, you try to deflect from that. It's both pathetic and transparent. Good job outing yourself as a troll. Bye.

The fact that she's at the highest levels of Biden admin is itself an endorsement of the policies of the administration she's part of. She absolutely can be judged on that basis. On top of that, everything she has said publicly clearly indicates that she's all in on the genocide. She even repeated debunked October 7th rape claims at the debate. There is no question of where she stands. It's the height of intellectual dishonesty to continue pretending otherwise.

seems like that's a scenario that's most likely to happen in burgerland actually

Subjugating the working class majority is literally the whole point of establishing a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

about time

Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.

Sure, yet there's no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there's a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.

And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.

Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.

However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.

Nope, I don't think that at all. That's just a straw man you're building here.

You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It's interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.

What are you even talking about. This all started back in the 90s, and has been going on since. In fact, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.

Anybody who pretends that this all started in 2014 is deeply intellectually dishonest.

happening as we speak, but I guess some people have infinite capacity for ignoring the real world

Revolt forecasted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJwHZVl5Buk

That's a pretty absurd rationalization. The whole point of claiming to care about facts is that you hold yourself to a higher standard instead of just going on feels. Meanwhile, the article makes it clear that it's not just one oopsie, but a systemic pattern of lying on the part of Harris campaign.

Unit Cost: $56.5 million (includes four aircraft with sensors, ground control station and Predator Primary satellite link) (fiscal 2011 dollars)

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/