It’s very telling that _every single one of you _ have jumped in with a whataboutism as if that’s remotely a valid argument. It’s not even on topic. That’s the childish response. At no point had I mentioned communism at all, but that’s what your minds jump to. You can’t even admit that: tyrant bad. Being a tyrant communist doesn’t make the tyranny part not exist.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
It’s very telling that _every single one of you _ have jumped in with a whataboutism as if that’s remotely a valid argument. It’s not even on topic. That’s the childish response. At no point had I mentioned communism at all, but that’s what your minds jump to. You can’t even admit that: tyrant bad. Being a tyrant communist doesn’t make the tyranny part not exist.
So will you admit that Lincoln was evil?
He wasn’t a tyrant. He was elected, several times.
CIA COMMENTS ON THE CHANGE IN SOVIET LEADERSHIP
Oh. Honey…So was Hitler.
Hitler famously lost the election. But was given the position of chancellor.
You might call him a “compromise candidate”. A product of “bipartisanship”, if you will.
Why do you keep showing us your ass, you confidently incorrect boor?
Western shitlibs: the perfectly obnoxious combination of smugly confident and incorrect