true

It is *lunacy* for the ostensibly liberal opposition party to say we shouldn't limit any individual's wealth and power after watching a cadre of fascist billionaires systematically destroy this country. That's probably the single most important thing we *must* do!

it does not get better than this

(not that many forms of Zionism-in-Theory have been historically defensible, either, but it's a morally gray vs. morally black situation)

see, most people don't give a shit about Zionism-in-Theory anymore though, it's actually pretty reasonably viewed as a distraction from Zionism-in-Practice nowadays

me too man. i also would like to put in less money and recieve more money. when you put it like that it sounds so simple

that is genuinely so far off the mark I'm actually a little impressed. it's like someone asked you to describe a square and you painted a vivid word picture of the concept of time.

In true communism, every shares the same save file. Nobody beats the game unless everybody beats the game, comrade.

well, that's not fair. he didn't come up with the name, the KMT and the original RoC both precede their loss of the Civil War. they just kept using the same Republic of China name because they were pretending it was the exiled continuation of the same legitimate government.

I never pretended to care what their logo is lol, I just care about accuracy

The only part that the Pan-Green coalition has to "agree with" is that Taiwan is part of One China; it doesn't have to assert the legitimacy of either side in particular. That phrasing has its origins in the laughable KMT idea that they were the legitimate government of all of China, though.

Texas would probably make more sense for an analogy, or even California. I don't think Alabama was ever independent

I thought it was what the government "agrees with"? Rather than what their official policy was. And like, they'll agree with contradictory things, depending on the context

i mean it was named by the KMT military dictator who turned it into the base for his insane "government-in-exile," kinda doubt the DPP is especially fond of the name but I haven't asked

because they're the coalitional leaders of the current "Taiwanese government," and they espouse a different position than the "founders" of modern "Taiwan" did or their party still does domestically. but for foreign relations they stick to the 1-China-2-Systems line everyone agreed to before the 90s