qaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-24 days agoTariffslemmy.worldimagemessage-square84fedilinkarrow-up1442arrow-down18file-text
arrow-up1434arrow-down1imageTariffslemmy.worldqaz@lemmy.worldM to NonCredibleDiplomacy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-24 days agomessage-square84fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareMothmanDelorian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·4 days agoWhich we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have. You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
minus-squarepiccolo@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 days agoBecause the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over. Why is that so hard to understand?
Which we don’t do either unless there is demonstrable proof that the election was fraudulent and we don’t have.
You keep making the authoritarian/dictatorial choice that doesn’t align with the rule of law. Why?
Because the “rule of law” failed and allowed authoritarian to take over.
Why is that so hard to understand?