Of course.  There was 60+ court cases, all but one said it was fine.  The one found 400 votes  were found fraudulent in favor of trump.  Everyone involved, like barr and head of security, said it was legitimate. 

There is zero evidence there were issues.  

Trump is a whiney and dangerous baby.  Hence I'm voting against him.  He is a huge danger.  

This question is the easiest and fastest way to determine if someone belongs to the far-right.

I want military problems created by imperialists to be solved by military means because there is no other way, we didn't stop Nazi Germany with friendly words. Explain to me how exactly the UN will stop Russia from slaughtering Ukraine? How will the UN stop Russia from further invading Georgia? How will the UN stop Russia from invading Moldova? Russia is already a permanent member of the UN, in the "Security Council" and can veto any condemnation of their actions, it just shows what a joke the UN is and despite Russia having all of that, it didn't stop them.

NATO isn't the reason why this issue cropped up, it's because Russia is led by an imperialistic who wants to expand his empire and nothing more, NATO actually protects countries from Russia. Burning the house down would be America leaving NATO and letting Russia steamroll over Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands and realising they can take whatever they want from this moment forward because nobody is going to stand up to them, saying "naughty Russia" isn't going to do a thing.

China doesn't have a small military and the core reason of China expanding is for its own self-interests as well, including the desire to take Taiwan, not to mention all the other ethnic cleansings that happen in China or their conflicts with India. Without America's support, China WILL take Taiwan by force as they've routinely expressed the desire to do so.

Even if China ends up with a bigger military than America and I question the "inevitably" of that because it's not like America will stop expanding, it's also a vague statement to make, are you talking about troop numbers? That would be irrelevant to the type of war which China would employ on Taiwan/America, as long as America keeps up in air force and navy then China should theoretically see the reward (Taiwan) not worth the cost. Not to mention that modern China has almost zero actual war experience.

I agree that the USA wouldn't win a cold war against China but neither would China, if America/Europe/China sanctioned each other then it would cripple every single country, including China. It'd be a no win scenario. China needs America/Europe just as much as we need them and why are we pretending that China doesn't also currently have domestic issues at this moment and a lot of their vague threats/military baiting is precisely to distract away from those issues.

Russia's word means nothing, they also promised not to attack Ukraine and to defend them in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Russia has been ruining countries for dozens of years but we've always looked the other way in exchange for "peace" and their leadership hasn't changed much from the times of Russia siding with Nazi Germany in WW2 because Russia was never forced to change, they were always just biding their time. Russia has been fucking with countries for years now even before Ukraine.

• Soviet–Afghan War (1979-1989)
• South Ossetia war (1991–1992)
• War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)
• Transnistria War (1992)
• First Chechen War (1994-1996)
• Second Chechen War (1999)
• Russo-Georgian War (2008)
• Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-)

Let us also mention Russia helping Assad in the same way America helps Netanyahu or Wagner (a Russian military unit) exploiting African countries. Most of these have nothing to do with America's military and everything to do with Russia wants to expand its empire through military means.

Once upon a time I thought we could have peace, that we could remove nukes and be all "kumbaya" with each other but Russia has shown that isn't possible and military disarmament only works if EVERYONE does it and not EVERYONE will do it. Unfortunately they'll always be evil people in the world who do evil things and with your suggestion, nobody would be able to stop those evil people doing evil things. There is nobody to blame for the Ukraine invasion other than Russia themselves.

The world wasn't at peace after the Cold War...There were still dozens of conflicts going on, including ones created by Russia. Saudi Arabia is another example of how much of a joke the UN is, Saudi Arabia being appointed chair of UN’s gender equality. Also China and India hate each other so them working together is unlikely.

Who else coincidentally demands no support to Ukraine and the disbandment of NATO? Putin, I wonder why the man with a history of invading countries would want the one thing that acts as a deterrence to him to not exist anymore...Even Putin's own allies in Russia's equivalent of NATO (CSTO) are breaking relations with Russia (Armenia).

Nothing in your post explained to me how UN will convince Russia to stop slaughtering Ukrainians. Your soft solutions will result in more land grabs, more wars and more deaths. NATO is designed primarily to defend against Russian aggression which it does time and time again. Look, like I said, I would be all in favour of NATO expanding beyond Europe/America but NATO is no threat to Africa, South America or Asia unless they attack first because NATO is purely a defensive organisation. Article 5 has only ever been used once and that was by America after 9/11.

I'm pretty sure Africa, South America and Asia don't really care much about NATO by large, South America is bordering on a war between Venezuela and Guyana, Africa isn't united at all and is in a lot of conflicts which Russia takes parts in and half the countries in Asia hate China for good reason and have defence pacts with America because they are afraid of China. I'm actually genuinely confused a little because at the end of the post it seems like you're basically asking for UN to become NATO, Lol...How can UN enforce their decisions without a military force?

Basically everyone whose lives aren't plagued by conspiracy theories.

Like I also said, he's a massive hypocrite to suggest disbanding NATO instead of leaving NATO. He's upset about America's foreign involvements but he wants to take away the choice from NATO countries to remain in NATO? The Baltics are in NATO because they're terrified of Russia and for good reason, we just had more countries join NATO because they're scared of Russia's aggression, what a fuck you to those countries. Congratulations on serving up Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to Russia on a silver platter.

Ukraine wasn't in NATO. Ukraine wasn't anywhere close to joining NATO. The reason Russia invaded Ukraine had NOTHING to do with NATO but NATO has everything to do with preventing Russia from invading further into Europe. NATO outside of its own countries takes a cowardly approach so you can't even say that Russia is afraid of NATO when it comes to Ukraine. Ukraine never would have been able to join NATO as long as Russia illegally occupied Crimea and Donbas.

Fact: Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for Russia's protection, see where that peace loving approach got them?

Moldova will be next if Russia succeeds in Ukraine because it's following the exact same path as Ukraine in that Russia generates a conflict in the country then later takes it over officially, a lot of humans are simply flawed and it's not anymore complicated than an evil bastard doing evil things, Putin wants to restore Russia's empire before his death, he wants to set himself in the history books, he has routinely said that Ukraine as a country doesn't exist, it has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with Putin feeling like Ukraine is owed to Russia.

Christ I'm in UK, Russia isn't a threat to me but I at least recognise how the Baltic states feel and other countries closer to Russia, a lot of countries near Russia despise them for very good reason and WANT to be in NATO...This talk which acts like these countries can't think for themselves is quite frankly rude and condescending to them. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, etc. Aren't controlled by big bad America, they WANT to be in NATO and have their own agency to choose so and do so because of Russia's aggression.

All us sitting in a circle in the UN building holding hands isn't going to stop wars.

One Final Addition.

Every single person who says "invest in peace-making" can never give an actual plan on how they're going to create peace either. It always amounts to basically "let Russia keep what they've stolen, demilitarise Ukraine, block them from ever joining NATO" Funnily enough, all things that would benefit Russia, then Russia would rebuild their forces and go again.

Russia has said repeatedly that their goals haven't changed, they still want Odessa, Kharkhiv, Sumy and Kyiv at a minimum. We should have backed Ukraine this strongly from 2014 when Russia illegally took Crimea, the West's pathetic response to that amounted to little and Russia realised they could do it again so built up their forces to take more of Ukraine and that's where were at today.

Zelenskky actually told Macron to negotiate with Putin on his behalf, to try to get peace, he asked USA to do the same, we tried as best we could to achieve peace but all of Russia's conditions are bullshit that don't guarantee Ukraine's protection and after how many atrocities Russia has caused upon Ukraine, how can you possibly tell them at this stage to give up and let Russia keep what it stole?

America also has a promise to protect Ukraine, do documented agreements mean nothing now?

According to Cornel West, America's agreements don't mean a damn thing.

This dude is as stupid as Corbyn on foreign policy and I say that as a former bigtime fan of Corbyn. Voting for Cornel West absolutely is not the only moral choice, Cornel West will have blood on his hands if it were up to him and he stopped assisting Ukraine, every single Ukrainian that dies because they lack ammunition for their soldiers, they lack ammunition for their air defences to protect their civilians, will be blood on Cornel West's hands.

Once again, you can't claim moral superiority just because you're able to look the other way as atrocities are committed. Neville Chamberlain MFs...Appeasement doesn't work against evil, how many times does this lesson have to be taught? Appeasement and cowardice is what emboldens fascists like Putin and results in more deaths than putting a stop to them from the very beginning.

I have no issue in saying that Cornel West is somehow even more dangerous than Trump when it comes to foreign policy and that's quite the achievement, though I do believe Trump wants to leave NATO as well but at least he tries to hide it, Lol. Trump has outright stated he wouldn't protect NATO countries attacked by Russia though and has said he wouldn't send another penny to Ukraine.

The far left often share the same foreign policy views as the far right though...

That's the thing: we empower the UN to be able to do that. And yes, this also involves a stronger military force commanded by the UN. This is very much a difference to the NATO, as the NATO only represents a certain club of countries, the ones stemming from western and central european culture (and yes, the dominating cultures in the US and Canada are rooted in europe). This is not a good peacekeeping force for the world.

And yes, the UN currently is not able to take this responsibility, but we should strongly work towards it, as the current way of doing thing is making things worse. We need a peacekeeping force that is controlled internationally and not by the interest of a few likeminded and allied countries.

Have you paid the slightest bit of attention to the UN Security Council which is truly international? It shows why your idea is never going to work, no matter how much you'd try to work towards it.

The prerequisite for peacekeeping is that everyone can agree on the basic principles of freedom and human rights. By nature, this will gravitate strongly towards democratic countries; in other words, a certain club of countries from West and Central Europe, plus the USA and Canada; or in other words, even fewer countries than are currently members of NATO. Once you bring in countries that are run by dictators, you can be certain that things will get blocked or obstructed all the time, as NATO has already learned with the likes of Hungary and Turkey.

I admit that I only skimmed partly over your posts before, but on second look I understand how there can even be a point of contention here. It's because you don't know what you are talking about. Just to address a couple of your terrible errors:

1. NATO is an institution for defense.

2. Disarmament agreements of the past targeted numbers that still left enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire Earth dozens of times over. Future ones aren't going to change that either.

Eh, that sounds like NATO but instead as a worldwide organisation, why not instead push to make NATO an organisation open to countries outside of North America + Europe? I would not be opposed to that as a NATO member but it also isn't really needed for some countries, take for example, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. Countries which already have defence pacts with powerful countries.

There is zero chance that you're going to get every single country in UN in a collective security agreement though, the only way to enforce such a thing would be by the threat of force, like NATO's statement that "an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us" but you aren't going to get countries currently at war in attempted land grabs to join a defensive collective security agreement and honour it, Lol. Some countries simply want to invade other countries and there's too much animosity between some.

But NATO was never meant to be a peacekeeping force for the world nor did it pretend to be one, NATO isn't even a peacekeeping force in a traditional sense, as in they aren't going round to other countries keeping the peace, NATO is purely a defensive organisation and one which is focused on Europe to keep Russian aggression at bay. NATO is also not controlled by any one individual, all 32 member countries have a say and it requires every single member to vote in favour of another country joining.

But UN would also run into the same problems as NATO in that countries voted against Ukraine joining because they were scared about the conflicts Russia were causing in the country and they didn't want to have to defend Ukraine against Russia. The UN would not only have to somehow convince every country to join this security agreement but also I absolutely guarantee that countries would start demanding a say in if a country joins and if it worked the same as NATO where every country got a vote then you can kiss goodbye half the world being able to join it, Lol.

Half the world hates each other, China ain't going to let Taiwan join, Russia ain't going to let Ukraine or Georgia join, North Korea won't let South Korea join, India won't want China to join, Venezuela wouldn't want Guyana to join, nobody would want Afghanistan to join, etc...Even NATO has its issues with countries working together, like Rol said, Hungary and Turkey are prime examples of that, now Slovakia, they make things even more difficult to help Ukraine and if anything it could be argued that Hungary needs to be kicked out of NATO but there's no mechanism for that.

At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure this isn't what Cornel West wants anyway, this whole suggestion just turns NATO into a worldwide organisation but that wouldn't remove military organisations like he wants? It wouldn't cut military spending, if anything it might increase military spending now that it has dozens more countries in need of protection and a few countries having to be the protectors. What do you do about local conflicts too? What do you do when a dictator takes over his country and starts killing his civilians? How does the security pact work then?

I can't see any security agreement between UN being stronger than the one currently enforced by NATO.

And NONE of this helps Ukraine NOW. Cornel West's suggestion of America leaving NATO and refusing to send a single penny more to Ukraine WILL result in Ukraine LOSING. Ukraine can not win with Europe's support alone, Europe simply isn't ready for that. So the only question is are you willing to sacrifice a country of tens of millions in the dream scenario that one day we may have peace between all countries? Cornel isn't saying what he wants to happen in 200 years from now, he is saying what he wants to do as president.

Which would equal the defeat of Ukraine and massacre of millions.

Multiple lawsuits, analyses including ones funded by Republican interests, multiple Republicans themselves have defended the 2020 election. 

I will take their word over man-babies who are upset when things don't go their way. 

On a positive note Trump won a golf award at his own golf course. Congrats to trump for awarding himself.

Rule number 1, never take anyones word. Republicans and Democrats are the same party they only appear to be two different parties. If you want to discuss it further then we can. Although I'm suprised so many gamers are aware of whats really happening.