uh... correct me if i'm wrong but weren't all of the bombings and regime change operations in the middle east recently backed by the UN?

lol are people so naive that they think you can cause the collapse of several countries and not destroy the social structure and families of those regions?

its just odd to see the UN being held up as some bastion of respect for human life like if the last 2 decades or so have not happened... or does human life and family only matter when the issue is framed in a particular way to push a certain agenda?

one of the policies of the UN btw is depopulation... let that sink in for a minute about what that means for families

...And by leaving the council, Beloved Leader surrendered political influence to the Congo.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Um, no. I never said it was Obama's policy. I just said his administration took similar actions at some point in the past. 

The US' terrible immigration policy, and disgusting treatment of immigrants should end immediately. Also, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke, and the US shouldn't give it credibility by serving on it. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive, and I stand by both of them.

Indeed, they aren't mutually exclusive. Though you must admit the timing is suspicious. That said, if you believe the UN Human Rights Council is a joke, what do you think is the solution for getting global collective action on human rights to happen? No institution in the world has the influence that the UN has, with every nation on earth buying into it, even collapsing ones like Venezuela and Syria, and thus no institution has the ability to put pressure on literally any nation the way the UN does. Sure it isn't perfect, and needs drastic reform, and won't see that reform until Russia and China democratize, but checking out of the system entirely can only hurt things by removing a leader from it that, even if by sheer size alone, still garners respect in the UN. Checking out of the UN Human Rights Council because you think it's corrupt would be like not voting in US elections because US politics is corrupt. Of course it is corrupt, but it's not so far gone that progress can't be made anymore. Suggesting that we give up voting is suggesting that democracy is dead in the US, and suggesting we give up in the UN is suggesting that global diplomacy is dead. In the case of the former, revolution would be the only option left. In the case of the latter, World War III would be the only option left. I don't care how unlikely it may seem to you that change is possible, I'd rather metaphorically "go down fighting" for democracy and diplomacy than literally go down fighting in a war, particularly the nuclear holocaust that would result from WWIII. I'll believe in the UN until the day it collapses and we all descend into global chaos or another diplomatic alternative miraculously appears and gains equivalent credibility and influence.

Ignore fact checkers when it comes to Trump. Not that the facts are wrong, but they tend to fact check a sort of tangent to what he says, and thus the 'lie' is not related at all to his meaning or what he said at all.

I recal reading some fact checkers after some Trump/Clinton debates and it was hilarious how they managed to spin everything Trump said into a lie and everything Clinton said into the truth. They both lied equally, we are not idiots. 

I suggest dissolving the UN altogether, and replacing it with nothing.  The UN, in many respects, simply props up terrible governments all over the place, and lends credibility to others.  There certainly have been some good things to come out of the UN.  Possibly the most important is just getting adversarial governments in the same room with each other.  But, I see the history of the organization as one of corruption, propping up of scumbag dictators, and lending of credibility to oppressive regimes much more so than being a force for good.  It also wastes a shitload of money putting the blue helmet guys in war zones without any authorization to do anything while there.  So, its a net-negative in my book.  

As for the US leaving the HR council right now, I'm sure it is motivated by politics, rather than principle.  Nevertheless, I support the result of that stunt.  

True. While obvoius of all news that bad news spreads more than good news, I'm not surprised by me hearing more bad things about what the UN does than what good it does. What surprises me though is at time the bad I hear is just so bad that has me thinking "wasn't the UN created to stop these very things and yet it's doing them"

To me, you can't argue with the unprecedented era of peace between major world powers. Yes, there's corruption and propping up of dictators (some of which we ourselves put into place, I might add) but before the UN, there were regular wars between major powers, and afterwards, only proxy wars at worst. I'll take that over WWIII. Replacing it with nothing would guarantee WWIII. There needs to be some formal diplomacy organization that creates global rules, or at least norms, that prevent WWIII. I see no other alternative to human extinction from the inevitable nukes that would launch.

False.  You did not say "similar".  You said "same". I even quoted you making that claim if you wish to review it for yourself.  

Politifact rates that claim as "False".