Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were funded by the US AND China until the late 80’s

Don’t get me wrong, fuck Israel, but it is incorrect to say that Pol Pot wasn’t funded by the west.

As someone not affiliated with Deltachat, but who runs a chatmail server, it is dirt cheap, can run on almost anything, and simple to set up.

Although, I do have 20 years of operations experience, so that last bit may just may be me.

Yes

EDIT: ah, sorry, missed the straight qualifier.

Yes.

If they were a good person with interests similar t to mine and compatible … I don’t know, trauma responses and I was attracted to them.

I tend to be attracted to femininity, but with exceptions. I also am bi, too, though, and old enough that that identity matters to me.

Sorry, I will move the goal posts a little. There was no fair primary.

Read the Ballot Access Denial subsection of the controversies section on your link.

The aspect of game theory people who espouse it as their rational for voting blue no matter who only applies to games that occur only once.

What strategy wins in the long term over multiple plays is exactly opposite what they espouse and is closer, though not entirely, the strategy espoused by the people they argue against.

We have elections on a repeated basis.

What primaries? No one voted for Harris in any 2024 primaries.

Hell, then DNC told States that allowed other candidates in the primary ballots that they wouldn’t be counted.

There was no fucking primary. Funny how the ignorant that like to write about game theory like to point to the non-existent primaries as the only appropriate time to try to push the party to the left.

Don’t use the words game theory and harm reduction. You clearly don’t know anything about either.

You are literally ignoring all of game theory based around games with repeated plays. Why? Because it shows the opposite strategy then what you are promoting works better.

When people point out that your vaunted game theory proves you wrong, that is when the phrase harm reduction comes out so you don’t have to argue against people correctly pointing out that your strategy fails in the long term.

It’s not clever, nor is it subtle.

I’m thinking Trump murdered the one man responsible for the IRGC not acquiring nuclear weapons.

You know, the Ayatollah with the fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons.

It was not. Iran’s military wanted to stay close so that if the religious fatwa the ayatollah pronounced against acquiring nuclear weapons, they’re have one quickly.

Yes, Trump murdered the one man responsible for preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons, and control went to his son who just saw every direct member of his family murdered in front of him.

I thought it was chips for free until my late twenties.