Icarus27k

I think Biden would be in trouble if a serious Democrat (not RFK Jr; I mean c'mon) challenged him and made the case: Under Biden's watch, women have lost the right to abortion and affirmative action has been eliminated. Biden has done nothing serious in response. If Biden is reelected, marriage equality will end.

Pasty, bald guy in a tie with a Telegram account: "America meddles in the affairs of other countries via NGO front groups." Subway sandwich artist: "Toasted or not toasted, sir?"

Which Angel is this?

(In all seriousness, Iraq is a much better country than Russia and we fought an eight year long war there.)

Russia is so great, 1 million Russians have fled the country in the past year, there is no longer a regular, standing Russian army, and an armed rebellion almost lead to tanks attacking Moscow like two weeks ago.

Lol. That's my favorite episode.

That's the news.

Well that's good to know.

Prigozhin, master of disguise.

I do get the impression that in the U.S., officials want the war to quiet down after the Ukrainian counteroffensive culminates. It's an unspoken desire, but I think it's there. I see it in this article about the CIA Director's recent secret meeting with Zelensky. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/30/cia-director-burns-ukraine-counteroffensive/ The info in this article was leaked by the U.S. government for reason. The U.S. doesn't share Ukraine's goal of "evicting all Russians soon". Maybe in the distant future, the U.S. can agree to that, but I don't believe we think it's possible in the near term. Instead, there is probably a desire to see, if not negotiations or a ceasefire, at least the fighting slow down to a minimum tempo. Perhaps similar to the fighting that occurred in the Donbass from 2014 to 2022.

I like that your memes have a very unique flavor.

Western media, at least in the U.S., are mostly independent, corporate owned entities. They don't speak for the state. Russian media is an example of actual state-controlled media. You may say that Western media doesn't have differing opinions, but they do. They just don't have such drastically differing opinions that are to your liking. The definition of a "dictator" is pretty objective, not a subjective thing that anyone can successfully label a non-dictator with. Does a leader never want to give up power, make democracy impossible, and rule by fear of literal arrest or harm? That's a dictator. That's Putin. Is one side of a war "winning"? This is not so objective. The loser always gets to decide when the war is over, as military expert Michael Kofman says. This implies that in the loser's mind, the war is never lost until they admit it. Until then, they can always say they have won or are winning. This touches on the topic of differing definitions of "winning" from the war parties. Both sides will not have the same definition. So, is Russia winning? Maybe according to their definition of "win", and it doesn't mean that much because everyone is a winner until someone admits they lost.

Eh?

A threat from China is exaggerated, in my opinion. China is really risk adverse. I doubt they would pull a "Russia invaded Ukraine"-like plan.

It's call the Putin Reacharound.

A few days ago, Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the Ukrainian counteroffensive is making slow progress every day. Meaning "500 meters, 1,000 meters, 2,000 meters a day". He also said that he expects it to go on "six, eight, ten weeks". Assuming it began in the second week of June, that would mean it's already half over on Millet's shortest timeframe.

Yikes. This looks like the closest to Twitter's death we've gotten yet.

I wasn't joking about the incompetence of federal prison guards, based on what I know about them from someone who actually is one. They get in trouble regularly for being lax.

It's not acceptable, but hypocritical. But I've long since given up on expecting consistency and decency from the center-right to right-wing.