I see no reason to think that the UN has prevented any major wars.  There has been near-constant war since the end of WWII.  The fact that the US and the USSR didn't wipe each other off the map has no connection to the UN that I am aware of.  The reason that didn't happen is because there was (and still is) no possible way to "win" that war.  And, there's really no money to be made in fighting it.  

I'm talking about a war over Europe and the free world. There has been constant proxy war, but notice that no wars have taken place in Europe or between Western democracies. That's not all the EU's doing, as this also applies to non-European and non-EU European democracies. Just a few scattered civil wars is all we've seen in the West. And no one has invaded Europe or Western democracies either, which is also partly due to NATO, which is also being weakened by the current administration. Also, the UN has played a huge role in preventing nuclear proliferation, save for a few rogue countries like Iran or North Korea. More nukes in more countries would not make us safer. No one, not even Trump, thinks that. I mean, he's suggested it at times, but he contradicts himself often enough you have to just go by his actions, and he seems to think more countries with nukes is a bad thing. We've almost caused nuclear flareups multiple times simply by accident or miscommunication. Imagine a world where 100+ governments, most of them even more ineffective and sometimes even more corrupt than our bumbling monstrosity, all have nukes. It would be like a room flooded with gasoline and the walls are dynamite and everyone has guns pointed at each other. With two people pointing guns its risky enough, with 100+ people it's all the more terrifying. Aside from that though, imagine the UN collapses tomorrow. Russia would have little incentive not to invade. They already did invade Ukraine, and they'd engage in a full out assault without the UN putting pressure on them and NATO being questioned by the USA. China wouldn't have much reason not to take a crack at it to see what they can grab. They already did so with Tibet. Today's world is rampant with neoimperialism, but a world without the UN or NATO would be rampant with old school imperialism, which is much uglier.

And while I'd agree that there's no way to win a nuclear war, some Russian elites disagree, and believe a quick enough and powerful enough strike with advanced enough tech, which Russia is getting very far ahead of us on, would be enough to leave the enemy defenseless. Once Putin is gone, one of those elites could take over. But that's another can of worms altogether.

I literally said that I do not agree with the move.  You quoted that part, in fact.

Also, what's with the "Beloved Leader" gimmick?  Trying to start a meme or something?  Imitating Rush Limbaugh?  It's kind of funny how silly adults become over politics.  Reminds me of the people who thought they were clever for saying "Obama bin Laden".

And that proves my point above. Jumping at a technicality to prove him false.

I saw some article recently that bosted a headline like "Trump lies 95% of the time" or some shit.

Clearly using the technique you just did to prove any of this statements as lies. Or like someone says a double negative without noticing. Bullshit like that.

And I never suggested otherwise.  I added to your thoughts, I did not refute them.

The UN is an utter joke. 3rd world nations with horrible human rights records having a voice on the international stage... christ. As someone pointed out, if the fucking Congo can be part of the council, then it truely is a sham. Anyway, I swear I thought it was the security council they were pulling of, but whatever.

/s is for sarcasm. but I'm serious about Haley being a crazy betch. <- intentionally spelled wrong. 

At least the US is leading the world by getting human rights abusers out of the UN human rights council.

Now we just have to wait for the trickle down effect to set in.

Tim Pool actually made a video about this very subject the other day. A fact checker for the New Yorker defamed wounded marine veteran by calling him a Nazi because she didn't bother doing any research on the various different iron crosses that militaries from around the world used. Tim is usually very professional in his videos, though this particular incident pissed him off to the point where he flat out said this reporter needs to be fired and called the New Yorker a garbage publication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_oV77XH0Lw

I'm not saying that the article about Trump is outright false, but as you pointed out, it is never good to take a fact checker at their word because they can be biased just like anyone else.

They followed the same law. Their actions in enforcing that law is what differed. Also, I never said it was Obama's policy. I am fully aware that the law that Trump is currently enforcing was passed back in the 1990s.