TheOubliette

The first source for this claim: https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1895632/

On June 29, 2023, a briefing on arms supplies to Ukraine was held at the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. The civil society briefers Russia invited included journalists Max Blumenthal (USA) and Chay Bowes (Ireland).

They provided facts about the Kiev regime using Western weapons to deliver strikes at civilian facilities in Donetsk and to send subversive groups into the Belgorod Region. They supplied evidence that billions of US taxpayer dollars have been invested in the corrupt schemes of fuelling a war against Russia in which Ukrainians are being used as a tool. They concluded that the Western elites and defence industries were the only ones to benefit from the escalation of the conflict.

Oh no, not journalists providing information at a public briefing! Don't they know it's time to do baby's first McCarthyism!?

Unfortunately you have a censor-happy mod that doesn't like the basic history here being described but if you'd like to discuss that history I'd be happy to continue on another instance.

GOP gives their base red meat. This is because it is compatible with their donors' interests. This contrasts to Dems, for whom delivering for their base runs counter to their donors' interests.

What is deliverrd by the GOP is marginalization, of course, but this is still a more direct and materiap response than what the Dems do, which is just PR.

It did not contain any misinformation, just basic facts about what was happening in Ukraine in 2014 - Euromaidan, separatist movements, far right consolidation, etc. Things reported on constantly by mainstream Western press for 8 years. There is at least one overzealous mod that is removing my comments, comments that contain no misinformation, and with no requests for clarification or any actual challenge to what I said.

Feel free to ask me this question on a less censorious instance.

Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won?

If it must be fully spelled out, it is that you cannot rope people whose politics is premised on empathy into supporting genocide and you will lose unless you demand better. If you want to fight against the forces of reaction, you cannot triangulate towards them, you have to actually have a semi-principled political program, not one premised on tokenization and "vote for us or the other guy will kill you even more".

Every fucking thing she said was scrutinized [...]

You are saying this in response to people saying they wouldn't tolerate genocide.

That's cool, you got what you want now and Gaza is becoming Israel new beach front.

There have been no policy changes. This is your ghouls running the show, 13 months of unconditional support for genocide. If any part of "the electorate" owns this, it is yours. You did not step up and say, "no more, that is too far".

Though of course the party does not care about you and they are thr ones making these policy decisions with donor input.

I hope you meet a Palestinian that got family killed someday and tell them that you didn't support a genocide supporter.

I already know many Palestinians that have lost family. I organize with some of them, their views are my views on this. You clearly aren't embedded in this community because you assume everyone else is just as detached.

That'll make them feel funny inside.

Palestinians are not your rhetorical toy to play with when you run out of ways to handle your cognitive dissonance for having sold your soul to support someone that lost anyways. Please take some time to do self-criticism now that you have objective proof that you were not being strategic or smart about this, as you clearly gave up on being morally correct.