When you’re above the law, does it matter?

Hmm, is upvoting this a vote for river dumping?

(I for one would miss all the interesting things you post.)

I didn’t, but it also doesn’t mention water

Someone please edit the Wikipedia page for magnets to add the fact that water cancels them out.

Drain the swamp?

I was coming here with the exact same quote with a:

Yeah, I believe people can change.

There are things people learn early in their life from what they are exposed to (e.g. their parents’ beliefs) that take time and experience to erase.

You’re equating something Biden argued in 1977 to what republicans are doing right now.

It seems a little weird to me. How is it even relevant to the meme?

You have to go back to 1977?

Archive: https://archive.is/iWXqF

Yeah, or maybe this?

https://media.tenor.com/iXWRFGidWj0AAAAM/first-order-stormtroopers.gif

or something

😍

import inspect, builtins

def HelloWorld(funcname):
    caller = inspect.currentframe().f_code.co_name
    getattr(builtins, funcname)(caller)

HelloWorld("print")

You don’t seem to understand to anything else…

You’re reaching so hard to defend JD Vance I wonder what orifice you use to please him every morning.

Again, unconditional surrender by the military, which was no longer willing to defend its country, is not diplomacy. It is a military act. Unconditional surrender is the result of failed diplomacy, it is failure to negotiate an end to a conflict. It’s not an “agreement,” it is a one-sided act of capitulation.

This isn’t nitpicking, you’re making a huge reach to call it diplomacy. If you can show me any published book, dictionary or document that says that unconditional surrender is an act of diplomacy, I’ll stand corrected. But I’m pretty sure you’ll have a very hard time finding such a thing.

Diplomacy is by definition the management of relations between countries, by representatives of the countries, not between a country and another country’s military. Germany was not under military rule, so the military wasn’t making a decision for the country, and it was not a diplomatic act.

I mean, it’s in the first sentence of what you posted [emphasis mine]

The German Instrument of Surrender[a] was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe.

The signatories on the German side were

• Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg
• Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel
• General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff

Notice they’re all military, not government representatives. These signatories represent the German High Command (military), not Germany itself, it says so on the first line of the terms.

Now, read the full instruments of surrender here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Definitive_German_Instrument_of_Surrender_(8_May_1945)

The terms are all about orders to the military and how they will perform the act of surrendering. It is a purely military document. There’s nothing about the country, nothing about the government, nothing diplomatic about it. There is nothing in the terms that say what the Allies will do.

You don’t have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state.

As I hope you can see now, they weren’t performing actions on behalf of the state. They were performing on behalf of the military, and that’s a huge difference.

Imagine if the US military signed terms of surrender, or even gave away equipment to another country, on its own, without Congress or the President issuing an order. That wouldn’t be considered diplomacy, it would be a military act, and if you can’t see the difference, then I guess we’re done here.

And ad hominem attacks are used to distract from the weakness of your own argument, which is what you continue to do.

Okay check yourself with ad hominem attacks, asshole.

Germany’s surrender was a military act, not a diplomatic one. It was signed by generals, not diplomats or politicians. Germany’s surrender was not a negotiated agreement as they were denied any legitimacy to negotiate.

One major agreement of an unconditional surrender is that the troops that disarm won’t be slaughtered by the other side when they do.

Holy nitpick Batman. Or strawman? The terms of surrender were unconditional. That their troops wouldn’t be slaughtered is implicit and was protected under international law. That’s not a negotiation.

How could she possibly know that? The podcast she listened to said raw milk is better for you.

Oh ho! I 󠁤󠁯󠁮󠀧󠁴 see what you did there!