#surrendertherepublic | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Click for general distraction.
My point is a completely different one. I compare what is known from the emails, in the hard way, provable at a court in a civilized country, with UDHR art. 19.
Maybe if you showed some comprehension of what you criticize, your appeal to one-world governance wouldn't seem so strange. Nonetheless, if you actually had some comprehension of what you criticize, you would at least be able to acknowledge the facts in their proper context.
The thing about
Iceaura's question↑ is that it's relevant, so naturally you don't want to answer. And this one is pretty straightforward, Schmelzer. Your argument circumstantially requiring that societies have no right to elect their own leaders—that they must let hostile other nations participate, as well—seems utterly ridiculous, even farcical trolling, until one remembers your
separatist advocacy↗, which, even in its own context, is one of those things that can evoke the question of whether or not the advocate actually believes his own words.
Please remember, Schmelzer, other people are often trying to discuss factors a little more realistic and a little less individually particular than your self-contradictory utopiate fantasies.
The simple fact is that people from other nations are prohibited from participating in our elections, which in turn you seem to regard as some manner of human rights violation, such that you would invoke for support of your argument a document your own political theses find illegitimate: You denounce worldwide governance, but appeal to it. You advocate separatism that will dissolve nations, so neither, by your political theses, are the signatories to the UNDHR legitimate.
And part of the problem is that your argumentative structure generally starts with anti-Americanism, and seeks to construct rhetoric to abide that hunger regardless of truth, accuracy, or even basic consistency. Furthermore, you do, in fact, keep coming back to undermine yourself, like your
explanation↑ why it doesn't matter if you accurately identify what you're criticizing; and when you rely on some notion of the merits of
critique from ignorance, people might notice.
And you did it again: That your "point is a completely different one" is a meaningless response. You have claimed that aiding and abetting crime—in this case, theft, at the very least—"is fine". And while this would seem problematic on its face, that particular sense of conflict—advocacy of crime—evaporates amid your generally antisocial political theses.
In the end, this general weakness is what makes your three-part retort at
#340↑ exemplary:
Which makes this morally evil, so that art.19 is no longer applicable? Helping your father is, indeed, evil, this shows fascist "family values" ideology, not?
It's actually
illegal under our statutes, and you have yet to explain how reserving a nation's elections to the people of that nation is a human rights violation. Maybe the real question isn't whether or not you believe what you say, but whether or not you're capable of justifying what you say. So, yeah, we get it, you argue that reserving a nation's elections to that nation's people is a violation of internationally-agreed human rights; now, are you capable of explaining
why?
Naming the hope to receive some information "dealing" makes this morally evil, so that art.19 is no longer applicable? Oh, I see, Russian. That's evil.
While not all foreign governments are Russian, the Russian government
is foreign to the United States. Trying to make this about your identity obsessions doesn't really help your argument.
And something useful for damaging Holy Hillary - that's already evil without any doubt. Here the very hope is already criminal and should be punished.
You would probably make more sense if your arguments actually attended facts, but even taking that bit as sarcasm or cynicism, it still relies on your advocacy of crime.
You advocate crime, Schmelzer, so think about your anti-American, Russian propagandist routine: Yeah, advocating crime is what it takes to be you and achieve the work you have set yourself about.
One could, I suppose, have worse goals, but that starts to sound like a bad joke.
But, really, one need not advocate crime in order to criticize the United States, Schmelzer.
Nor does one need to play make-believe.
