Youtube comments of pplr1 (@pplr1).

  1. 81
  2. 76
  3. 53
  4. 51
  5. 43
  6. 33
  7. 30
  8. 28
  9. 27
  10. 27
  11. 26
  12. 21
  13. 21
  14. 21
  15. 20
  16. 19
  17. 18
  18. 17
  19. 17
  20. 16
  21. 16
  22. 16
  23. 15
  24. 14
  25. 14
  26. 14
  27. 14
  28. 13
  29. 13
  30. 13
  31. 13
  32. 12
  33. 12
  34. 12
  35. 12
  36. 12
  37. 12
  38. 12
  39. 12
  40. 11
  41. 11
  42. 11
  43. 11
  44. 11
  45. 10
  46. 10
  47. 10
  48. 10
  49. 10
  50. 9
  51. 9
  52. 9
  53. 9
  54. 9
  55. 9
  56. 9
  57. 9
  58. 9
  59. 9
  60. 9
  61. 9
  62. 8
  63. 8
  64. 8
  65. 8
  66. 8
  67. 8
  68. 8
  69. 8
  70. 8
  71. 8
  72. 8
  73. 8
  74. 8
  75. 7
  76. 7
  77. 7
  78. 7
  79. 7
  80. 7
  81. 7
  82. 7
  83. 7
  84. 7
  85. 7
  86. 7
  87. 7
  88. 7
  89. 7
  90. 7
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 6
  102. 6
  103. 6
  104. 6
  105. 6
  106. 6
  107. 6
  108. 6
  109. 6
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 5
  146. 5
  147. 5
  148. 5
  149. 5
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. Mike Edwards You raised some interesting points that perhaps we should get into but you didn't answer the question I asked at the end of my last comment to you. Was the increasing in lowest legal wages something that was in the works in the UK before and independent from Brexit? Thus would that be a benefit of Brexit or actually not? Now you said Putin is a Nationalist but I'll disagree, I would argue he is an imperialist. Also if someone was a nationalist for his own nation then he ought to expect other people to be nationalists for theirs and potentially respect that. Yet Putin has shown the opposite when it comes to nations neighboring Russia-instead he proclaimed it is up to him on if they are allowed to exist as nations (which Ukraine currently dealing with but other nations would have to be concerned about as well). So if Putin is a nationalist he is a profound hypocrite, though more likely I argue he is an imperialist. And not just an imperialist but a kleptocratic one with autocratic tendencies. I suspect Putin merely uses nationalists so to make their nations weaker. How? Nations can be stronger as part of an alliance. Nazi Germany probably would have defeated Britain had it not been for the alliance between the USA, Britain, and Russia. Rupert Murdoch in also an odd person to call a nationalist since his media conglomerate spans multiple nations and the impact of his efforts on one issue-Global Warming-are causing ongoing problems for his home nation of Australia. Yes I've heard of the TPP (as it is called when I've heard it discussed). I haven't heard as much discussion of including anti-pollution rules and protections for workers in trade agreements as there should be. Pollution doesn't respect national borders. A person I spoke to who visited South Korea found out many South Koreans had masks before the covid pandemic simply because pollution would sometimes blow in from China and the air quality would take a noteworthy drop. Undermining workers can be done by either importing underpaid workers or by moving industries to where labor has less rights and lower minimum wage laws. To balance against both methods of undercutting labor set minimum standards in each nation. Many rightwing parties are generally not offering higher wages. They offer to cut immigration but have also undercut efforts to raise wages at home. Speaking of wages in other nations kleptocracies are relatively bad (on purpose?) at providing wages for labor. Many Russians live in poverty. The Russia uppercrust has billionaires but the wealth of Russia's society or economy is not shared. Additionally its political system is less free than other nations such as Biden's USA. Though are is plenty of corruption and rigged elections in the USA I'd argue the USA still has more integrity and that Biden was honestly elected-or at least more honestly than Putin was. I disagreed with the idea Putin was a nationalist earlier. I'll ask if Putin actually supports a different kind of globalism than Biden does. Biden's globalism has nations form agreements with each other and continue to exist. Putin's globalism is Imperialistic and he (and possibly other Imperialists he allies with) would get to decide if other nations exist if he gets his way. Protections for workers may be continue to be left to only the national level or expanded to international agreements. But if they were expanded I suspect they would be more likely to in Biden's due to the more open political system. Correct me if I'm wrong but Putin's Russia has not been that good for its people.
    4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 4
  192. 4
  193. 4
  194. 4
  195. 4
  196. 4
  197. 4
  198. 4
  199. 4
  200. 4
  201. 4
  202. 4
  203. 4
  204. 4
  205. 4
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. Decent points Connor. Season 8 was character breaking done in a nonsense way to try to excuse emotional scenes that had little logic to them-and potentially ignore the moral decay of those Starks that remained (untrustworthy Sansafinger and possible scheming mass murderer Bran). Serb, I think I've seen you before but in case I didn't on some of your points. Third point) season 7 shows there is clear indigenous support-Dorn, Yara Greyjoy's faction, and The Reach support Daenerys before she even arrives in Westeros. The North may be independent but at the start of season 7 Sansa points out to Jon that Cersei is their mortal enemy and will try to kill them sooner or later. 4) Crazy women (including queens) and dragons burning towns are long running tropes. Plus the whole women getting to powerful and needing to be killed by their man is arguably a trope. 5) I call bs. If Dany were a man that wouldn't make her fight against slavery any less of a positive thing. Ditto for expanding rights for common people (turning Meereen into a democracy was a major expansion of rights). 6) There were actual pacifists in Game of Thrones. They were killed when the Hound wasn't there. Bran arguably is not a pacifist. He is someone with magic powers that used those powers to arrange the mass murder of innocents in order to get 2 people with a better claim to the crown out of his way. 7) What strings? Daenerys in season 7 offered to help Jon for free against the Night King because she saw just how dangerous he and his undead were. Jon gave up his crown for her for free after this because he saw she was worthy. Sansafinger (or Cersei light) rather stupidly betrays Jon and Dany because she is petty. No Dany means Jon and this army of the North are outnumbered by Cersei's army and both Jon and Sansafinger are likely to end up dead-making Sansafinger rather stupid when it comes to diplomacy and strategy. 8) I think you made a mistake with your numbering there. But more important is that a problem with Jon stabbing Dany is both their characters have to be really messed with to make that scene happen-plus a number of logic flaws have to be crammed into the plot.
    3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242.  @LordofFullmetal  This is an old post but since nobody responded I will. You forgot details of the scene. None of the slave masters crucified wanted to end slavery. This issue was about if the slave masters should crucify children. Some thought that went step too far but that minority was overruled. Daenerys didn't know there was such a minority (nobody told her until after all the crucifying was done) so she mistaken assumed they agreed on it. When Hizdar wanted his father back and pointed this out to her she relented and let him and the rest of the slave master's families have their bodies back when she had intended to leave the slave masters hanging as they had left children hanging (as far as she knew). Essos probably thanked her for killing the Khals. She tended to put the Dothraki on good behavior while the Khals embraced slaving, raping, and pillaging. Thus Daenerys made Essos a safer place to live. She spoke with Jon about joining her or not. The army you refer to in season 7 had Randyll Tarly as its commander and had just come from Lady Olenna's castle where they killed her and took 0 prisoners (meaning they killed and looted all the soldiers defending Lady Olenna). Daenerys showed them more mercy than they showed Lady Olenna and gave every one of them a chance to live. Randyll Tarly refused. He then refused when Tyrion suggested he join the Night's Watch. Randyll was on a mission to get himself killed. Also in today's day and age that join or die thing would be way out of place. But in Westeros is was tradition. It is what Bobby B (the king in much of season 1) during his rise to power and he was not proclaimed to be mad or a tyrant.
    3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. The Man I believe a majority of the Trump related court filings ended up being dismissed. For example one of the swing states that comes to mind is Wisconsin where Trump's effort to steal the election by suing to get tens of thousands of ballots tossed failed. In particular the state reserve Appeals court Judge ruled that state laws had not been broken. A majority of the Supreme court for that particular state (Wisconsin) upheld the Appeals court ruling that the ballots at hand were valid. The Trump campaign had wanted 4 groups of ballots thrown out in 2 Counties. (1) All mail in ballots, (2) all mail in ballots by individuals who were listed as indefinitely confined, (3) all ballots in Dane County that the individual voters had brought to Election officials in "Democracy in the Park" events where people turned in mail in ballots directly to Elections staff rather than mailing them in, and (4) all ballots from voters that early voted. The primary Counties the Trump campaign wanted to steal the election in were Dane and Milwaukee Counties by having US Citizens' ballots from those 2 counties not count in the election. An Appeals Court Judge made the initial ruling because the Trump campaign's effort to steal the election was done in the form of 2 separate filings at the County level in Dane and Milwaukee Counties and these 2 separate cases were combined into 1 for the sake of efficiency and speed and it may have been a summary ruling (I'm not sure). Below is link to a newspaper article on that particular court case. The article also mentioned when the SCOTUS decided not to hear Texas's attempt to steal the election in favor of Trump but that is a separate case and filing where the pro-stealing the election for Trump lawyers including Texas's likely corrupt and partisan state AG did not have their case heard in court. In the Wisconsin State Courts the Trump related legal team did get their time in court where Trump's lawyers could provide whatever evidence they felt would assist them and argue for stealing the election in favor of Trump. The Judge there ruled against depriving tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands depending on which of the 4 groups someone wants to reference) of US Citizens their votes as a method by which Trump could steal the election and thus effectively ruled against Trump stealing the 2020 Presidential election in that state. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/11/wisconsin-judge-hears-trump-election-case/3887419001/
    3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. I have to call bs on a lot of things in this video. I watched the whole thing and it deserves a thumbs down by the end. I noted some reasons and about when they pop up in the video. The video seems to be confused by saying both do __ when “inverse” is the opposite. It starts recognizing their differences and then tries to pretend they are the same. Problem is that is not true. Daenerys freed many slaves, how many did Cersei? 4:40-recognizes Daenerys freed people while Cersei oppressed. Also recognized that Daenerys chained her dragons out of concern for others while Cersei let Joffery run rampant. 5:45 be like Daenerys try to reshape the world in a better way and “help those who have even less” 5:58 Cersei “hurts others for the hell of it” and chooses not to help others. 7:31-45 Cersei hates and fears the people 8:40 Cersei threatens to burn cities 9:35 video said “This is fire and blood music”, yet it ignores when Daenerys said the blood of her enemies “not the innocent”. 10:00 video blames Daenerys for her dead baby by being too trusting, there is a big difference between too trusting and Cersei choosing to kill her son’s wife (resulting in the son’s suicide). 10:10 video misrepresent’s Cersei’s letter upfront demand (and threatening?) and Daenerys more friendly letter-written by Tyrion (who wants help ending Cersei’s tyranny.) The video claims after the friendly letter Daenerys demands Jon bend the knee when he gets there and thus is supposedly more dishonest. Yet Daenerys-when Jon refuses to bend the knee-said he is a guest. Oh, and Tyrion-not Daenerys-wrote the letter, he tends to be nicer than Cersei. Actually they both tend to be nicer than Cersei. 10:24 video wrongly claims Cersei wants less from Jon than Daenerys by supposedly only asking for neutrality. Yet this is a blatant lie. We learn afterwards that Cersei had made a plan beforehand with Euron to have Euron pretend he was fleeing when he was really getting mercenaries for Cersei. She never planned to help and the whole eventual agreement to send Lannister forces was an act and big lie. If anything Cersei was trying to cost Daenerys a possible ally since it was unlikely Jon would ever ally with her. 10:50 the video shows Cersei saying she doesn’t care about checking her worst impulses or making the world a better place. It actually has gone back to recognizing Cersei. 10:55 claims Daenerys’s attempts at compromise don’t go well so she goes fire and blood. Very misleading because Daenerys tried compromises and used fire and blood when those compromises were betrayed. Daenerys is not responsible for when others betray or try to attack her-they are. The video tries to say she is. 11:50 self-centered world vision ignores that Daenerys built what she had but also tried to do it in a way that didn’t harm, even helped, the powerless. Remember season 4 when Daenerys had places to sleep and eat made for former slaves and planned to make them safe the minute she heard there was a problem. Very different than Cersei who would not care. 12:09 Cersei talks about caring about her family yet she tried to have Tyrion killed-he is part of her family. This video is ignoring things here. Selective editing? 12:29 The video looses its point when complaining about “medieval logic”. That is how society operated at the time. Neither Cersei nor Daenerys made that happen. And if complaining about them then complain about every member of a every noble family in the show. It is called a “social norm”. 12:51 Daenerys’s supposed complex resulted in her telling someone she cared about not to give up but to try finding a cure-and he did. Thus she told him to save his life when he had already given up. Not a bad thing. 13:01 Daenerys supposedly didn’t compromise?? She did that with Jon Snow in season 7 through most of the time he was her guest!! She did that in Meereen as well. This video is just wrong here-possibly dishonest. 13:19 “Daenerys is ruthless like Cersei”. No. She is ruthless with her enemies, but not the innocent. If Cersei had dragons she would’ve let them eat innocent people across the countryside. Daenerys did not. Big false equivalence. 13:20 She was talking to a guy, Varys, who had tried to undermine his prior leaders and thus didn’t trust him. When he told her just beforehand he would not give blind loyalty she accepted it. Requiring him to say directly if he thought she was failing the people to her face and how (shows she is willing to take criticism). This is both compromising and taking other people’s concerns into account. The opposite of what the video claimed earlier. 13:33 video said they look like each other Cersei in black (or dark cloths) and with crown, Daenerys in light tan and no crown. Someone can see the video is wrong or lying here. Oh, and it is right before Cersei killed Missandei-who never hurt or enslaved anyone. 13:36 Video said “Shared rage” when look on Daenerys’s face may be concern for Missandei. The video is wrong here. 13:50 Video claimed Daenerys didn’t choose between her “selfish ambition” and her “liberator identity”. Yet the main reason she stayed in Meereen so long (where video shows her) is to protect the people she freed rather than leave to grab her birth kingdom and let the slavers regain control. She delayed her ambitions-that is making a choice. The video is lying here and similar can be said about the white walker army which she goes to fight and puts her war for the throne on hold to do. 14:10 Cersei is shown using civilians as human shields. Daenerys didn’t ever do this. These are very different queens and the video is being deceptive. 14:31 Daenerys saying “I will not let those I have freed slide back into chains.” Anyone see Cersei saying or trying to do that? Nope. Different people. 15:44 We get the answer of D and D breaking Daenerys’s character to do a pre-selected plot point. This was not showing Daenerys but what D and D wanted her to do without providing good reasons for it. 15:50 If Daenerys chose “violence” then why not go directly to the red keep and burn Cersei like she would an enemy? D and D chose to make Daenerys let Cersei almost get away in order to attack civilians. This is out of character for Daenerys in 2 big ways-her protection of the innocent and her fire for her enemies. This goes against 2 not just 1 aspect of Daenerys’s character. 16:05 If Daenerys was punishing her enemies then why almost let Cersei get away? Cersei didn’t care about civilians so why burn them at all? 16:52 If belonging to that blood line means you flip out and kill everyone if your friends aren’t around should we expect that to happen with Jon Snow? If the answer is no then just maybe we shouldn’t accept the character breaking relating to Daenerys from D and D either. 17:02 repeating D and D’s weak excuses is not character development. Showing the death of someone she warned earlier that chose to pull a sword and threaten to kill her and her unborn child is not proving Daenerys is evil. This is a huge double standard. Just consider anyone in the whole series who would want someone that just threatened to murder them and their children dead-lets start with the Stark family. If they aren’t evil tyrants in the making than neither is Daenerys. 17:25 If Daenerys’s friends and advisors are killed or go distant that isn’t usually Daenerys’s choice. Which means she had no choice and this was supposedly inevitable. So the video isn’t being straight with viewers on if this was going to happen or not. 17:40. Video said “We always have a choice”, not if D and D choose to break characters and patterns of action to hit their preferred plot points. Lets let Daenerys character as it was during seasons 1-7 (season 8 was written to give excuses for this to happen, its been acknowledged that D and D had this event in mind and were trying to jump to it) make the decision on what happens with King’s Landing.. oh look no mass burning of civilians. 18:00 She doesn’t become the “mad queen” because of her genes. Wasn’t the video just referring to her bloodline a couple of minutes earlier?? This is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. 18:10 Correction.. She could’ve still been the ruler she wanted to be if D and D didn’t mess with her character in Season 8. Also if she decided to attack Kings Landing in season 7 then that would be choosing violence but a lot of her friends would still be alive after Cersei was dead, so the civilian population would probably be quite safe. I guess the real message is violence is only ok if your friends are around. Or maybe, just maybe, the video here is just trying to make excuses at this point.
    3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. This episode leaves me less than impressed with the usually good Majority Report. Taiwan is not simply a province of China's. When "China" 1st joined the UN the seat was given to Taiwan and mainland China was seen as a province of the government in Taiwan. Now the sane thing to do would've simply been to recognize there are 2 separate governments from a civil war that never had a decisive end with 1 side surrendering. During all the negotiations about recognizing mainland China that included switching the UN seat to to it the US said it will support peaceful reunification of China. If China invades Taiwan that is not peaceful reunification. Those weapons would be so Taiwan could defend itself against an invasion from China. Taiwan is not attacking China nor threatening to do so. Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO because they are geographically near Russia and Russia's current ruler has decided to start waging imperialistic wars. That is not US policy causing threats but Putin's aggression. The professor also failed to mention that Norway has long been a part of NATO and is already in the Arctic. Finland simply has a longer border region with Russia. The professor also failed to mention that China has been grabbing islands in the South China Sea based on claims the International Tribunals have ruled are not valid and compete with claims of about half a dozen other nations. This is China being aggressive locally-at least the professor acknowledged China was trying to bully other nations. 1 thing I and the professor agree on is that North Korea is ruled by a "dynasty". Whoever thought feudal monarchy would be the form of leadership selection practiced by a supposedly communist state.
    3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. Lets see what Propaganda U has for us today.. Free Speech.. we have it with some limitations-for example no yelling "fire" when there is no fire in a crowded people (that risks getting people trampled to death for no reason). We even have "Hate Speech" as free speech. People can yell racist slogans on the sidewalk if they want. But if they join an internet forum and it is against the rules for that forum they can get booted off no government involvement required. Now it is funny the guy doing interviews mentioned the FBI "colluding". If a Fact Checker is looking for the best available info on an issue and asks a governmental organization that may know then that is not "collusion". It is trying to things properly and get info. Not if some people are planning to commit a crime online or actively using the internet to do so then that is not free speech-it is committing a crime. This particular Propaganda U guy mentioned deplatforming a President. Would that be Trump? If so that finally happened in January of 2021. After Trump had arguably incited a riot-which is an actual crime. Now not only did that happen after Trump had arguably committed a crime but he had benefited from double standards that twitter had engaged in. Trump's comments were often seen as violations of twitter's rules that most users had to operate by at the time. So other people risked getting booted off if while he did not. That makes Trump the opposite of a victim. Going back to Hate speech. Like on an internet forum there may or may not be toleration for it where you work. Some workplaces may not have a workplace policy (rule) about bigoted comments. Some may. For people who work at the latter that means the government won't stop or fine people for making a bigoted remarks, but their boss may fire them for it. Speaking of workplaces.. I don't see a lot of conservatives getting defensive over people getting fired from their jobs for talking about making a union. Interesting that some conservatives seem more interested in protecting people's ability to make bigoted comments than if they are about workers talking about if they are getting paid well or not and if they are treated well or not and what they may or may not do to address that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen many rightwing politicians make that a concern of theirs. One last thing. I call Prager U by the phrase Propaganda U because often enough its videos aren't educational but encouraging a certain political leaning on political issues. That is political propaganda. We have free speech in this country so political propaganda is perfectly legal. But I question if it should be tax-exempt. When people say "non-profit" I think of a charity organization that tries to help people in some fashion. That is not what Propaganda U does. It isn't an actual University so it cannot even honestly claim its goal is to educate people and prepare them for the future. Now I'm sure some working for it would be happy to mislabel their political propaganda as education, but slapping the wrong label on something does not make it that thing. Should a political PR group be treated with the same treatment as a group that helps homeless people or people suffering from some kind of illness? My feeling is no. Right now the laws let them get away with it but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed. It certainly does not mean political groups have the same moral standing as organizations that actually do something worthwhile.
    2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425.  @jasonleslie203  Thank you for acknowledging Cersei was a problem. Also fantasy has been based on reality for a long time. The question is did this fantasy story break from its own internal logic and characters. The answer to that is yes. One example is that Varys should've known Cersei was still a serious problem. You are correct that Daenerys would've had to fight the Night King eventually. However it is still a positive mark for her morality that she would risk her live to try to save Jon Snow and the people on the mission with him (to grab an undead). It is another positive mark that she kept her word and did fight the undead-unlike Cersei who showed that trying to leave it to other people to fix problems was an option. I didn't criticize Jon Snow for trying to rally people against a common threat that some of them don't even recognize exists. That is a positive mark for his character. Daenerys decides to help him in that effort before he bent the knee to her thus before he was someone she had an official responsibility to protect-once he bent the knee and was her vassal she had a responsibility to help and protect him just as he had a responsibility to follow her orders at that time. But she decided to help him fight the Night King before he bent the knee. And even before that she was willing to do her part in arranging a truce talk with Cersei so he could try to convince everyone to unite against the undead threat. So Daenerys is being very helpful. That can be acknowledged without taking away from Jon being the chief whistleblower on the issue.
    2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462.  @destinal_in_reality  So you acknowledge you were abusing Nordhaus's words then? Back in the 1st Bush administration a panel that included several scientists and a couple of economists. The scientists all said Global Warming was problem that should be addressed and the economists argued that even if agriculture in the developed world lost a third of its production (harvest) that economically other areas would make up for it financially, ignoring that without food people aren't that well off and that if losing a third of agriculture in the developed world was a problem it would bring famine to parts of the developing world. Someone does not have to say the all of humanity will die to still know that Global Warming not only has killed people already but has the potential to kill many more as years come. The notion of putting profit over human lives is not lost to me but that doesn't mean it is something I or many other people would eagerly sign on for. And yes, people with money in a bank account somewhere can still die. Though people without sizable bank accounts may tend to die faster or more often. Even if there was economic growth there is no guarantee it would feed everyone. Considering part of capitalism (despite its promotion of efficiency) is rationing by wealth what food did exist may be more limited to the vulnerable than normal. There is also no guarantee that the profits of any economic growth would be spread around anyway (though this is less important than if people are starving).
    2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500.  @mercster  Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I've had other things going on to pay attention to. Anyway I've been paying attention to a number of things over the years including being lucky enough to speak with an older Russian guy some years ago. One of the things he told me, though I didn't understand it as well at the time, is that Putin is bringing "the fear" back. My somewhat loose understanding of that is that the Soviet Union operated partly on fear. This relates to that the primary goal of the KGB wasn't to spy on other nations (like the CIA does in the USA and spy agencies do in other nations) but to keep the internal population spied on and suppressed. More to this specific interview I believe Oliver Stone repeated some claims made by Russia that have already been debunked. I'll have to rewatch it to double check which ones in specific but it struck me that he was basically trying to downplay Russian atrocities in this war by blaming Ukraine and saying Ukraine did it without referring to much in the way of specific events (likely because they didn't exist). And one of the few times he did refer to a specific event I believe it was a person who was arrested and exchanged to Russia after the current war began. That is not a sign Ukraine was doing terrible things that stirred up this war. It reminds me of how North Korea claims the US started the Korean war in spite of the fact that early on the North Korean army made rapid advances into South Korea and it was only after US and UN reinforcements came in that North Korean forces pulled back from South Korea. Rather odd that a supposedly "defensive" war starts with North Korea's military pushing as far as it could go into South Korea. Now I don't speak Russian so it is possible every translator that is quoting Putin or Russian internal propaganda is lying and I'm not catching it but so far we've seen Putin claim that Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist at the start of this war (indicating he planned on wiping it out), a Russian MP saying the idea of Ukraine being an independent nation is "alien", and one of the internal propagandists declaring they would simply "take" what they felt like.
    2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. I don't have time to go through the whole video today but I'm 5 minutes in and already see a problem.  TIK seems to have confused getting rid of unions with privatizing industries. The Nazis didn't just consolidate unions into the DAF but killed former union leaders, banned unions as a whole, and didn't require the DAF to let workers pick who ran the DAF nor choose what its goals are. Unions generally get to vote in their own heads (at least in the Local I've seen). Hitler murdering labor leaders and replacing them with his henchmen is not the same thing having labor unions for workers. The DAF was an organization for Hitler and the Nazis, not for workers. Unions are bodies of workers, elected by workers, that are supposed to have the goals of workers in mind. TIK followed up with complaints by factory owners that they weren't free anymore and while it is quite possible they ran into problems with the Nazis and their henchmen deciding things that is probably still a step above union leaders that were killed or sent to concentration camps. People whom TIK did not mention. Why bring up factory owners when the focus of that point is on workers and unions? Is TIK confusing nationalizing an industry which means the ownership of a business becomes that of the government even though people who work for a government organization (its employees) aren't owners and sometimes form unions to protect their own interests and concerns? I don't know if TIK's intention is to confuses viewers or to use a red hearing to distract them-TIKs intent could be distraction and thus be dishonest or it could not be and thus be totally honest that is intent and I do not know his at this time. But, regardless of intention, he certainly did not address the issue. Regardless of if organizations are privately owned or run by the government the employees sometimes form unions to look after their interests and concerns. It is how workers protect themselves and ensure good or at least fair treatment of themselves by an organization. So even if Hitler outright seized control over a business-thus giving owners even more reason to complain-that doesn't cover or explain how employees and the organizations that represent them were banned. I don't know if TIK was trying to do a bait and switch on purpose, if he confused himself, or if what he read confused him over the issue at hand. But I can say there was an issue raised within the 1st 5 minutes of the video and he failed to address it even though this video is presented as him addressing the criticisms of a video made about one of his earlier videos. I haven't yet seen his earlier video nor a video critical of it. From the audio it sounds like a couple of young guys-likely either college or high school level-so I honestly expect them to miss more things or get it more wrong simply because they are younger and perhaps not as well studied. I can see TIK is an older (but not old) man so I would expect him to be more detailed simply because of age and the expected maturity often related to it. In perhaps a way that is arguably similar is my understanding that China also bans labor unions. It has its own Chinese Communist Party controlled organization that is supposedly filling their place but unlike unions as practiced where I come from the leaders in that organization are not elected and the goals for the organization are not put forwards by the workers. So workers in China don't have unions and perhaps China's government is similar to the Nazis in a way that many people don't realize. Political henchmen being put in charge are not proof of nor a counter claim to either Socialism or Capitalism. But they are evidence that the concerns of workers may not be the goals of the organization thus the organization is not a real workers' union. PS My apologies for a long comment-sometimes I get repetitive or long winded in a comment, but I am highlighting something that I noticed.
    2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579.  @terellchapman8737  Ghost. Ghost is loyal and if he sees a problem (like an undead trying to kill someone) he attempts to fix it. Now no Ghost shouldn't be king but the people you mentioned like Gendry are not qualified to rule but showed they would at least try to do it well which puts them in a much better place than Bran who showed he either didn't care people who just tried to save everyone in Westeros would die and did nothing. Like he didn't try to do anything about the thousands that would die in Kings Landing. Or, maybe even worse, Bran planned this as his actions only contributed and never went to preventing the mass murder in King's Landing. That means Bran either doesn't care about people's lives or is a mass murderer himself. Either way Bran doesn't have the best story but is disqualified. Now if you want to ask who should rule it depends. Remove the King's Landing massacre which is both illogical and out of character and there is a goos case for Daenerys. Jon and Tyrion both have experience despite their failures and would arguably be better peacetime rulers than leaders during a war (season 8 Tyrion doesn't seem to be a good general, but maybe he is better when one isn't needed.) Arya for the same reason as Gendry. No experience but would at least try. I would try earlier Sansa but season 8 did so much damage to her character by making her an oath breaker (among Starks!!) and took away her ability to do rational diplomacy even when with a willing ally and when it is in her family's interest that I'm not sure I'd go with season 8 Sansa (to be renamed Sansafinger?)
    2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. I have to call bs on a lot of things in this video. I watched the whole thing and it deserves a thumbs down by the end. I noted some reasons and about when they pop up in the video. The video seems to be confused by saying both do __ when “inverse” is the opposite. It starts recognizing their differences and then tries to pretend they are the same. Problem is that is not true. Daenerys freed many slaves, how many did Cersei? 4:40-recognizes Daenerys freed people while Cersei oppressed. Also recognized that Daenerys chained her dragons out of concern for others while Cersei let Joffery run rampant. 5:45 be like Daenerys try to reshape the world in a better way and “help those who have even less” 5:58 Cersei “hurts others for the hell of it” and chooses not to help others. 7:31-45 Cersei hates and fears the people 8:40 Cersei threatens to burn cities 9:35 video said “This is fire and blood music”, yet it ignores when Daenerys said the blood of her enemies “not the innocent”. 10:00 video blames Daenerys for her dead baby by being too trusting, there is a big difference between too trusting and Cersei choosing to kill her son’s wife (resulting in the son’s suicide). 10:10 video misrepresent’s Cersei’s letter upfront demand (and threatening?) and Daenerys more friendly letter-written by Tyrion (who wants help ending Cersei’s tyranny.) The video claims after the friendly letter Daenerys demands Jon bend the knee when he gets there and thus is supposedly more dishonest. Yet Daenerys-when Jon refuses to bend the knee-said he is a guest. Oh, and Tyrion-not Daenerys-wrote the letter, he tends to be nicer than Cersei. Actually they both tend to be nicer than Cersei. 10:24 video wrongly claims Cersei wants less from Jon than Daenerys by supposedly only asking for neutrality. Yet this is a blatant lie. We learn afterwards that Cersei had made a plan beforehand with Euron to have Euron pretend he was fleeing when he was really getting mercenaries for Cersei. She never planned to help and the whole eventual agreement to send Lannister forces was an act and big lie. If anything Cersei was trying to cost Daenerys a possible ally since it was unlikely Jon would ever ally with her. 10:50 the video shows Cersei saying she doesn’t care about checking her worst impulses or making the world a better place. It actually has gone back to recognizing Cersei. 10:55 claims Daenerys’s attempts at compromise don’t go well so she goes fire and blood. Very misleading because Daenerys tried compromises and used fire and blood when those compromises were betrayed. Daenerys is not responsible for when others betray or try to attack her-they are. The video tries to say she is. 11:50 self-centered world vision ignores that Daenerys built what she had but also tried to do it in a way that didn’t harm, even helped, the powerless. Remember season 4 when Daenerys had places to sleep and eat made for former slaves and planned to make them safe the minute she heard there was a problem. Very different than Cersei who would not care. 12:09 Cersei talks about caring about her family yet she tried to have Tyrion killed-he is part of her family. This video is ignoring things here. Selective editing? 12:29 The video looses its point when complaining about “medieval logic”. That is how society operated at the time. Neither Cersei nor Daenerys made that happen. And if complaining about them then complain about every member of a every noble family in the show. It is called a “social norm”. 12:51 Daenerys’s supposed complex resulted in her telling someone she cared about not to give up but to try finding a cure-and he did. Thus she told him to save his life when he had already given up. Not a bad thing. 13:01 Daenerys supposedly didn’t compromise?? She did that with Jon Snow in season 7 through most of the time he was her guest!! She did that in Meereen as well. This video is just wrong here-possibly dishonest. 13:19 “Daenerys is ruthless like Cersei”. No. She is ruthless with her enemies, but not the innocent. If Cersei had dragons she would’ve let them eat innocent people across the countryside. Daenerys did not. Big false equivalence. 13:20 She was talking to a guy, Varys, who had tried to undermine his prior leaders and thus didn’t trust him. When he told her just beforehand he would not give blind loyalty she accepted it. Requiring him to say directly if he thought she was failing the people to her face and how (shows she is willing to take criticism). This is both compromising and taking other people’s concerns into account. The opposite of what the video claimed earlier. 13:33 video said they look like each other Cersei in black (or dark cloths) and with crown, Daenerys in light tan and no crown. Someone can see the video is wrong or lying here. Oh, and it is right before Cersei killed Missandei-who never hurt or enslaved anyone. 13:36 Video said “Shared rage” when look on Daenerys’s face may be concern for Missandei. The video is wrong here. 13:50 Video claimed Daenerys didn’t choose between her “selfish ambition” and her “liberator identity”. Yet the main reason she stayed in Meereen so long (where video shows her) is to protect the people she freed rather than leave to grab her birth kingdom and let the slavers regain control. She delayed her ambitions-that is making a choice. The video is lying here and similar can be said about the white walker army which she goes to fight and puts her war for the throne on hold to do. 14:10 Cersei is shown using civilians as human shields. Daenerys didn’t ever do this. These are very different queens and the video is being deceptive. 14:31 Daenerys saying “I will not let those I have freed slide back into chains.” Anyone see Cersei saying or trying to do that? Nope. Different people. 15:44 We get the answer of D and D breaking Daenerys’s character to do a pre-selected plot point. This was not showing Daenerys but what D and D wanted her to do without providing good reasons for it. 15:50 If Daenerys chose “violence” then why not go directly to the red keep and burn Cersei like she would an enemy? D and D chose to make Daenerys let Cersei almost get away in order to attack civilians. This is out of character for Daenerys in 2 big ways-her protection of the innocent and her fire for her enemies. This goes against 2 not just 1 aspect of Daenerys’s character. 16:05 If Daenerys was punishing her enemies then why almost let Cersei get away? Cersei didn’t care about civilians so why burn them at all? 16:52 If belonging to that blood line means you flip out and kill everyone if your friends aren’t around should we expect that to happen with Jon Snow? If the answer is no then just maybe we shouldn’t accept the character breaking relating to Daenerys from D and D either. 17:02 repeating D and D’s weak excuses is not character development. Showing the death of someone she warned earlier that chose to pull a sword and threaten to kill her and her unborn child is not proving Daenerys is evil. This is a huge double standard. Just consider anyone in the whole series who would want someone that just threatened to murder them and their children dead-lets start with the Stark family. If they aren’t evil tyrants in the making than neither is Daenerys. 17:25 If Daenerys’s friends and advisors are killed or go distant that isn’t usually Daenerys’s choice. Which means she had no choice and this was supposedly inevitable. So the video isn’t being straight with viewers on if this was going to happen or not. 17:40. Video said “We always have a choice”, not if D and D choose to break characters and patterns of action to hit their preferred plot points. Lets let Daenerys character as it was during seasons 1-7 (season 8 was written to give excuses for this to happen, its been acknowledged that D and D had this event in mind and were trying to jump to it) make the decision on what happens with King’s Landing.. oh look no mass burning of civilians. 18:00 She doesn’t become the “mad queen” because of her genes. Wasn’t the video just referring to her bloodline a couple of minutes earlier?? This is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. 18:10 Correction.. She could’ve still been the ruler she wanted to be if D and D didn’t mess with her character in Season 8. Also if she decided to attack Kings Landing in season 7 then that would be choosing violence but a lot of her friends would still be alive after Cersei was dead, so the civilian population would probably be quite safe. I guess the real message is violence is only ok if your friends are around. Or maybe, just maybe, the video here is just trying to make excuses at this point.
    2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608. 2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644.  @XMooseManX  Funny thing. I didn't hate Trump, at least not before he tried to steal the 2020 election for President. I often found him entertaining but figured the good of the country was more important than my amusement so I voted for Biden. Now there are specific problems I do have with Trump like his embrace of corruption (he never made a point of fighting money in politics once he was in office and even ripped up the already relatively weak ethics policy for his administration so people that worked for him could go directly into the lobbyist business (thus keeping the revolving door between lobbyists and government spinning). He was also fine with rigged elections-such as when he complained that a court tore up the gerrymandered map that citizens of Pennsylvania had been stuck with. Wasn't a fan of what he did with the EPA either-where in seemed to seek out the most corrupt people he could find to put in charge of it (with that goal in mind Pruitt was actually a great pick). Him lying about Global Warming to the point of trying to bs people in California as Global Warming is hitting them while he is visiting California wasn't a good thing either. Though in this situation one of the California state officials made the mistake-saying he wanted to "convince" Trump Global Warming is a problem. Trump knows Global Warming is a problem and he just lies about it frequently-see "playing down" covid early on for a bit of the model or the method he tries to deal with problems he cannot or does not want to deal with handling. Ok.. I guess if I step back and think about it there are reasons I could have for not liking Trump when I think about his impact on the USA. That said I still found him amusing and the reasons I gave do go into putting the country above my own amusement.
    2
  645.  @XMooseManX  "and you think bidens not doing those same things?" Even if he is then still not nearly as badly. "Do you really believe the democrats and Joe biden are any less corrupt than trump" Yes. "party intentionally suppressing that black population and keeping them suckling the welfare teet with no means of weaning meanwhile setting up a justice system that wouldn't allow for poor people to receive true justice?" Which part do I pick at first? This idea that it is Democrats who supposedly are suppressing the black population when it is the GOPers that are to this day trying to prevent black people from voting or the point that you don't mention where it wasn't welfare that hurt black families but a combination of de-unionization and moving factories abroad or at least where unions were weaker? The latter is something else many a Republicans have been for (Trump's willingness to engage is tariffs is something I don't criticize him for, though I can think of an additional tariff he could have done and didn't.. additionally most Republicans have been against tariffs and even some of Trumps backers still are.) And yes unions have been important because when they actually are arguing for all workers to receive a decent wage that means all workers. "The democrats are the party of false promises and pandering for votes." Better to pander for votes than steal or deny them to legitimate citizens. Also I'll lay false promises on Trump-after all covid was supposedly going to disappear by summer according to him, summer in 2020. "We talk about trump being a fascist but biden signed 50 something executive orders and sent troop into syria undermining all the good trump did within his first two weeks and americans ate it up like he was the principle spanking the bully." Because Biden has been. How many of those executive orders were simply undoing what he thought Trump was screwing up with his own executive orders? Also Biden didn't try to steal the 2020 election, Trump did. That matters when discussing who is more likely to be fascist. "Your getting f-d either way. I personally would rather not pander to the leftist lie." Seems like you are pandering to rightwing lies. Plus more often, maybe not always but more often, the truth seems to be with those you labelled "leftist".
    2
  646. 2
  647. ​ @bertpowers7064  They may not be any pure good guys but there are likely some guys that are ok, some guys there are horrible, and some in between. In this situation Putin decided to invade Ukraine again. So he is an invader. What are his reasons. Near the beginning of the war he made a speech where he claimed there is no Ukraine which is technically, legally, and historically wrong. Not a good reason for a war. He claimed Ukraine is run by Nazis oppressing Russians. Also very wrong. Even worse once his army took territory it went on a looting, torturing, and killing spree. Now I know some of that happens in most wars but in Ukraine it seems to be widespread and somewhat systematic. The latter means it was ordered from above. So if there is such as good guys and bad guys it is easy to say the Ukrainians are being good guys since they are defending and their nation was attacked for no good reason. I sympathize with at least some Russian soldiers because they were lied to when they were sent into Ukraine (they were told it was training and practice) and then forced (drafted). On the other hands many have been carrying out atrocities willfully. Some have been acting like they have a sense of morality such as when some aren't happy that their comrades raped and killed a Ukrainian teenager for 1 harsh example. But some have been brutal. The brutal aspect doesn't seem to be discouraged from above. And some of is under orders such as firing on civilian areas. For the broadest justice the best thing(s) would probably be for Putin to loose and for drafted Russians to surrender the 1st chance they get.
    2
  648. 2
  649. I like Medhi. I feel he is correct on each of these points. I have to vote for Harris. She is better for people worldwide and in Gaza. A shame, but fewer people dying really means more survivors. Whoever refused to let the Democratic Representative form Georgia speak at the DNC is either petty or an idiot-maybe classic Hillary back yourself into a corner when you actually need to leave it. I suspect it was someone Harris inherited from the Biden campaign or older DNC.  In this short clip Medhi answered questions I've had for a long time about legal justifications to limit arms shipments to Israel. And he correctly pointed out someone in the campaign should have recognized it was not just Biden's age potential voters for him had a problem with but the policy towards Israel and Gaza. Its been months so this a reminder. Oddly some of the protestors over Gaza have done themselves harm as well. I only have direct personal knowledge of some events but where I was the initial disruptive protests by people focused on Gaza started either November or December of 2023. Since Hamas's attack-which got Israel international sympathy in October (which Netanyahu turned around dramatically to the point Israel is headed to pariah status) that was rapid politically. Yes people were dying then.   But it is 1 thing to say people are dying and this needs to stop to educate others who aren't paying attention to what is going on in other nations compared and say no conversation is allowed to happen. That is what I mean by disruptive-the initial protests I saw in person not only didn't allow for conversations to happen (including deaths from events outside Gaza such as in parts of Africa) but wouldn't agree to allow for a discussion of Gaza itself. That may have intended to raise awareness but I wonder if it built bad blood politically (at least locally within a swing state-I have no idea what the group of people within the national campaign felt). No hurt feelings doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing. But we may ended up in a situation neither side wanted because those who were the most abrasive or obtuse set the tone and held control over it for whatever reason over time. Is that a symptom of people being too willing to sit in their own silos? My increasing respect goes to Uncommitted who I believe are saying not to vote Trump nor a third party but to vote. I don't know if there is a more grudging way to say vote for Harris. It probably comes from the painful and mature knowledge that without her in the White House even more people are going to die.
    2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656.  @mvp019  1. "By your logic, a guy could molest a neighbor's kid because the kid's father is already doing it." This is one of the most ridiculous and outlandish comments I've seen online today. It isn't just wrong but took such large jump into being devoid of logic I'm not sure how to address it at the moment. 2. "We don't do ANYTHING for human rights; it is all for corporate and elitist greed and control" Even to someone willing to be cynical about the real reasons some things are done that seems wrong and colored my by your dislikes that actual events. What corporations were helped by pointing out human rights violations in China (where a lot of US corporations make money) or even North Korea (were few if any do but North Korea is already seen as an enemy of the US so there is no money to be made by adding those points). 3. "We are using Ukraine like a cheap prostitute, all the while claiming to care about them" And how many people give cheap prostitutes both weapons and money so they aren't subjugated? Even making the additional point that the "cheap prostitute" will determine how and what terms a war is settled over? 4. "There were food issues in Syria, but without the CIA and their NGO cutouts, that never gets off the ground - we murdered by proxy and directly many thousands, not because we care about the Syrians, but because Assad signed the "wrong" pipeline deal." This strikes me as typical its outsiders any local dictator or even politician that did something that stirred up a crowd of protesters lie to try to dodge blame for his own actions. Pretty sure the crowds of Syrian protesters weren't out there over a pipeline deal. 5. "We whine about interference in our elections while interfering in damn near everyone else's elections. Look at the BS in Haiti right now." Is Haiti holding an election right now that the US is interfering with? 6. "We are the world's biggest terrorists. Full stop. It is a disgrace - but you just keep hiding behind that flag and pretending it's OK." Funny, I was and am willing to say the US has done a long list of terrible things. Yet it seems pointing out that other nations with other leaders have done terrible things as well makes me a supposed apologist rather than closer to a realist..
    2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. 2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. hangyao479 Your comment includes multiple falsehoods. For example: "it was only when the 2014 maidan coup happened when ultranationalists took over kiev and imposed anti russian policies". There was not a "coup". A corrupt soon to be former President broke campaign promises he ran on and then used security forces on Ukrainians protesting against him. This resulted in a backlash that ended up with him fleeing the nation. Depending on which Ukrainian source I look to it was either a revolution by the people (most Ukrainians and not just "ultranationalists") or the corrupt former President abandoned his post-the latter is what the Ukrainian Parliament ruled. Either way Ukraine has had a couple of elections for President since then and observers have ruled the elections were done honestly. Thus that corrupt former President does not represent the will of the Ukrainian people and has not for several years. Additionally if he wanted to argue he was still President for the remainder of the term he was elected to then he could have filed a case with the Ukrainian court system at the time. That topic could have been discussed alongside his corruption. "which alienated the people of eastern ukraine, donbas, as well as the people in crimea. when the resentments escalated into seccessionism and civil war" You left out that Russia was encouraging rebels to try to seize parts of Eastern Ukraine and-at the very least-heavily supplying them. It was even a Russian anti-aircraft missile likely launched by a Russian missile crew that was responsible for shooting down a civilian jetliner-Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to be specific. "people in crimea didnt want the UAF to start shelling them next like how the UAF were shelling the people in dobas. this led to the referendum for crimea to go back to russia" This is also a falsehood. Unmarked Russian troops seized Crimea and only several months after the occupation was in place did Putin admit they were Russian troops. The so called "referendum" was marred by Moscow determining what options would and would not be on the ballot and what the official results were. Yes, Moscow lied about both the voter turnout and what the vote tallies were. Russia's unwillingness to hold honest referendums are part of why what it referred to as referendums in parts of eastern Ukraine (more recently) that it occupies are not considered trustworthy.
    1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. This video seems to be a bunch of self contradicting excuses. No having a small council is not the same as an elected parliament or even headed that way. Also Bran doesn't care about people. Either the guy was so unconcerned about the lives of people that he willingly let thousands of innocents die so he could be king or he planned and pushed for it-making Bran a mass murderer (and Bran pushed Jon's linage but not Jon supporting this. I'm off to sign the petition-waited to see if there were any excuses strong enough to get me not to. There are not. Also I may return to point out how this video contradicts itself as it tries to excuse the nonsense we saw. Yes it acknowledged how unhappy people got but goes nowhere into how the characters were broken. Yes the symbolism of the throne burning is betrayed by picking a king later in the episode. The idea Sansa is good is undone by her unjustified and aggressive (strike first rather than only if it is justified) push against someone who is helping. Sansa becomes more Littlefinger than Stark and we don't see an indiction this will be beneficial in the long term. Accepting of realpolitic without a desire to improve society or government leads to stagnation rather than improving society. Also Sansa is an oathbreaker to her own family for no good reason other than her own pettiness. That is not a good sign. Other than the excuse making in this video we don't see an idea magic is bad or even being pushed back. Bran the mass murderer used magic in order to make his unlikely climb to power possible. And the idea he doesn't have wants strikes as a lie because if he really didn't then he wouldn't good looking back through former centuries just to find a better wheelchair design than what Tyrion gave him. The evidence Bran has wants is right in front of Tyrion as Bran claims he doesn't. Perhaps he was using his knowledge possible futures to manipulate Tyrion into thinking even more of Varys's lasts discussions with Tyrion-thus playing on Tyrion's emotions. And yes Bran looked for ways to use emotional connections when manipulating people-it was Bran who pushed Sam to tell Jon of his linage because Jon is supposedly more likely to believe Sam than Bran himself. Also this was right when Sam would be more unhappy with Dany than any other time. So Bran was both taking advantage of Jon's trust of Sam and Sams own emotions. Do you know what this isn't? It isn't Bran being neutral or letting things pass. If Bran didn't push Sam to tell Jon right before the battle so to complicate things for Dany right when she could use a shoulder to lean on as she was grieving for Jorah then Varys doesn't find out just yet and uncharacteristically risk his own life to undercut her before the war with Cersei is even over. Heck if things didn't get so complicated between Jon and Dany just then maybe Dany would've taken the King's Road with Jon meaning one of her dragons and Missandei would still be alive. A Dany who still has friends to talk to may not feel alone and paranoid. May not go nuts. Which means there may be no King's Landing massacre.. So Bran schemed to get Varys and Missandei killed as well as thousands of innocent people. Not an uplifting ending after all (once one scratches the surface). I do give your video credit for noticing that anyone who isn't white suddenly became a badguy in episode six. So not only did season 8 insult women but people of different ethnic backgrounds than simply white. Anyway off to the petition for one more signature.
    1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. @MattAngiono "you mean Ukra1ne.... am I right?" I mean Ukraine but you are badly wrong in other ways. For example: "there's ALWAYS more than one side", "without understanding the history", & "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" I listened to multiple things people on both sides have said. Thing is the Putin leaning side tends to be laden with lies, false equivalencies, and nonsense. Putin trying to "de-nazify" a nation with a Jew as its elected President? Really?? Notice I said "elected" that happened with Zelenskyy. In comparison the question with Putin is not if he is going to rig the upcoming election in Russia but how badly. But back to Ukraine and a Putin leaning argument. I was the opposite of impressed when J. Mearsheimer tried to argue that Putin sees Ukrainians being able to elect their President as US meddling. Let that sink in.. honest elections = US meddling and a problem Putin wants to address and put an end to. A different way of thinking about it is it sounds like Putin wants to oppress Ukrainians, pick their leaders for them, and then scapegoat for his own imperialism. "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" Offering to put a halt to the current war so Putin can stock up on ammo and launch a new invasion in 5 years while demanding Ukraine give territory for nothing in return is not not ending a crisis but merely trying to get more of another nation's land with less effort. Putin could save Russian and Ukrainian lives tomorrow by simply having the Russian military return to Russia. He chooses not to. Plus in the meantime his forces have repeated attacked hospitals-raising the question over if Putin is trying to cause the Ukrainian healthcare system to collaspse to inflict more death and suffering. Considering that the Russian military purposefully attacked Ukrainian energy infrastructure last year trying to get people to freeze in their homes it is a safe bet Putin wants deaths to go up not down. Anyway almost missed your reply. But since I didn't I was glad to point out that you were basically repeating propaganda points made to excuse a murdering imperialist-and so has Russell Brand.
    1
  779. @MattAngiono "you mean Ukra1ne.... am I right?" I mean Ukraine but you are badly wrong in other ways. For example: "there's ALWAYS more than one side", "without understanding the history", & "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" I listened to multiple things people on both sides have said. Thing is the Putin leaning side tends to be laden with lies, false equivalencies, and nonsense. Putin trying to "de-nazify" a nation with a Jew as its elected President? Really?? Notice I said "elected" that happened with Zelenskyy. In comparison the question with Putin is not if he is going to rig the upcoming election in Russia but how badly. But back to Ukraine and a Putin leaning argument. I was the opposite of impressed when J. Mearsheimer tried to argue that Putin sees Ukrainians being able to elect their President as US meddling. Let that sink in.. honest elections = US meddling and a problem Putin wants to address and put an end to. A different way of thinking about it is it sounds like Putin wants to oppress Ukrainians, pick their leaders for them, and then scapegoat for his own imperialism. "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" Offering to put a halt to the current war so Putin can stock up on ammo and launch a new invasion in 5 years while demanding Ukraine give territory for nothing in return is not not ending a crisis but merely trying to get more of another nation's land with less effort. Putin could save Russian and Ukrainian lives tomorrow by simply having the Russian military return to Russia. He chooses not to. Plus in the meantime his forces have repeated attacked hospitals-raising the question over if Putin is trying to cause the Ukrainian healthcare system to collaspse to inflict more death and suffering. Considering that the Russian military purposefully attacked Ukrainian energy infrastructure last year trying to get people to freeze in their homes it is a safe bet Putin wants deaths to go up not down. Anyway almost missed your reply. But since I didn't I was glad to point out that you were basically repeating propaganda points made to excuse a murdering imperialist-and so has Russell Brand.
    1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782.  @MattAngiono  "you mean Ukra1ne.... am I right?" I mean Ukraine but you are badly wrong in other ways. For example: "there's ALWAYS more than one side", "without understanding the history", & "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" I listened to multiple things people on both sides have said. Thing is the Putin leaning side tends to be laden with lies, false equivalencies, and nonsense. Putin trying to "de-nazify" a nation with a Jew as its elected President? Really?? Notice I said "elected" that happened with Zelenskyy. In comparison the question with Putin is not if he is going to rig the upcoming election in Russia but how badly. But back to Ukraine and a Putin leaning argument. I was the opposite of impressed when J. Mearsheimer tried to argue that Putin sees Ukrainians being able to elect their President as US meddling. Let that sink in.. honest elections = US meddling and a problem Putin wants to address and put an end to. A different way of thinking about it is it sounds like Putin wants to oppress Ukrainians, pick their leaders for them, and then scapegoat for his own imperialism. "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" Offering to put a halt to the current war so Putin can stock up on ammo and launch a new invasion in 5 years while demanding Ukraine give territory for nothing in return is not ending a crisis but merely trying to get more of another nation's land with less effort. Putin could save Russian and Ukrainian lives tomorrow by simply having the Russian military return to Russia. He chooses not to. Plus in the meantime his forces have repeated attacked hospitals-raising the question over if Putin is trying to cause the Ukrainian healthcare system to collaspse to inflict more death and suffering. Considering that the Russian military purposefully attacked Ukrainian energy infrastructure last year trying to get people to freeze in their homes it is a safe bet Putin wants deaths to go up not down. Anyway almost missed your reply. But since I didn't I was glad to point out that you were basically repeating propaganda points made to excuse a murdering imperialist-and so has Russell Brand.
    1
  783. Hmm... I don't see either of my replies to @lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre nor @MattAngiono So at least 1 of them (maybe both) is abusing the flagging system as a way to censor other people. But just so it doesn't get missed here is my reply to MattAngiono pointing out that Russell Brand is basically repeating propaganda to excuse a murdering imperialist. Here it is.: @MattAngiono "you mean Ukra1ne.... am I right?" I mean Ukraine but you are badly wrong in other ways. For example: "there's ALWAYS more than one side", "without understanding the history", & "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" I listened to multiple things people on both sides have said. Thing is the Putin leaning side tends to be laden with lies, false equivalencies, and nonsense. Putin trying to "de-nazify" a nation with a Jew as its elected President? Really?? Notice I said "elected" that happened with Zelenskyy. In comparison the question with Putin is not if he is going to rig the upcoming election in Russia but how badly. But back to Ukraine and a Putin leaning argument. I was the opposite of impressed when J. Mearsheimer tried to argue that Putin sees Ukrainians being able to elect their President as US meddling. Let that sink in.. honest elections = US meddling and a problem Putin wants to address and put an end to. A different way of thinking about it is it sounds like Putin wants to oppress Ukrainians, pick their leaders for them, and then scapegoat for his own imperialism. "was trying to negotiate the end to a crisis" Offering to put a halt to the current war so Putin can stock up on ammo and launch a new invasion in 5 years while demanding Ukraine give territory for nothing in return is not ending a crisis but merely trying to get more of another nation's land with less effort. Putin could save Russian and Ukrainian lives tomorrow by simply having the Russian military return to Russia. He chooses not to. Plus in the meantime his forces have repeated attacked hospitals-raising the question over if Putin is trying to cause the Ukrainian healthcare system to collaspse to inflict more death and suffering. Considering that the Russian military purposefully attacked Ukrainian energy infrastructure last year trying to get people to freeze in their homes it is a safe bet Putin wants deaths to go up not down. Anyway almost missed your reply. But since I didn't I was glad to point out that you were basically repeating propaganda points made to excuse a murdering imperialist-and so has Russell Brand.
    1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. ​ @brantpam222  This is an example of the truth hurting. Anyway the switch in Parties arguably started with Truman (a Democratic President) desegregating the military. FDR was important in recording the history of former slaves with one of many activities that was part of the New Deal but efforts to help black people were limited in the South out of fear of annoying Southern States/politicians. It was Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) that took the step of pushing for Civil Rights despite knowing it would cost his party the South. Those Democrats that opposed civil rights often weren't the Northern liberals but Southern conservatives-who later became Republicans. Not all at once and not in the same way. Perhaps most interesting is former Democrat Strom Thurmond. He left the Democratic Party and helped build up the racist and largely Southern Dixiecrat third party. This was before supporting Barry Goldwater (a Republican opposed to the Civil Rights Act) as well as joining the Republican Party himself. And there were Republican steps towards embracing racism that also slowly happened beyond Goldwater. Nixon ran his "lily white" campaign. Ronald Reagan promoted "State's rights". Interestingly in places outside the South such as the Upper Midwest the Republican party became the party that controlled suburban areas which racism (due to not wanting to live in the same neighborhood as black people) helped build. There is also Republican Jesse Helms who is associated with the organization described as racist that did much of the work for and funded the book titled "The Bell Curve" which also has racist arguments. Now you would get some points for pointing to Planned Parenthood as being founded by a bigoted eugenist (Sanger), except the same rightwing (politically) judges Republicans tend to support with the goal of upending Roe v Wade Planned Parenthood is so concerned about now have also been undoing efforts to protect minority voting rights-especially but not limited to black voters. President Lincoln may be spinning in his grave that Trump, who welcomed bigots as "fine" people, is the last Republican President but change happens-including within political parties.
    1
  870. Neil Barembaum I already gave part of the answer to you in my reply to brantpam222-which I'll include in my reply to you. I'll also include some things addressing what you did and didn't bring up. For example, when the Civil Rights Act passed a greater % of Democratic Congresspeople outside the South voted for it than Republican. That little detail is something Prager purposefully leaves out of its videos and most discussions of the % of members of both parties that voted to pass the Civil Rights Act. Additionally the only Republican Senator from a Southern state voted against the Civil Rights Act meaning Southern Republicans in the Senate voted against it at a 100% rate-higher than the conservative Southern Democratic rate of 95%. Further getting into what Prager (and you) didn't mention is that outside of the South the rate of Republican Congresspeople voting for the Civil Rights Act was lower (85%) than that of Democratic Congresspeople (95%) out side of the South. As I mentioned to brantpam222 most opposition within the Democratic Party to Civil Rights come from Democrats that were Southern and had more conservative politics. So there is a major geographic issue here. To their credit most Democrats and Republicans that were outside of the South supported Civil Rights. To his credit Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) knew pushing through Civil Rights would hurt his party in the South but did it anyway. I touched on other events and figures in the switch where the Republican Party increasingly accepted racists and the Democratic Party increasingly fought racism and embraced Civil Rights. It was a process that happened during the 20th Century-which Prager (purposefully I suspect) does not do a good or accurate job of representing the videos I've seen by it put discussing the history of the time. Fun fact about Ike-who I'd give credit for trying to help black people in the South. 1 of the 1st things he did after federalizing the national guard to bring black students into school was have the news that he did so translated into other languages-especially Russian-so it could be transmitted internationally where the Soviet Union had been scoring political hits on the USA over segregation and racism. On this "major Democratic politicians saying blacks are unable to get photo ID" you didn't mention why. A lot of "photo ID" bill Republicans pushed through make it so photo IDs many people have are no longer considered valid. A % of older black people who moved North from the South often don't have the type of records people typically get at a hospital in modern times (like a birth certificate) thus for paperwork related reasons were initially prevented from getting IDs. Now the photo ID thing gets more interesting for a different reason not associated with race in that the claim was made photo IDs would bring integrity to elections and thus people trusting them. However after the 2020 election many of the ballots that Republicans tried to get thrown out in court-thus not counted and depriving citizens of their rights and votes-were cast by people who used photo IDs to get their ballots-indicating election integrity wasn't what really mattered here. Mentioning rights and voting.. something that matters a great deal in recent years is that Republicans and not Democrats have been the ones blocking updates to Civil Rights and voting bills-including after Republican appointed Judges struck down part of Civil Rights and voting protections. In my reply to brantpam222 I didn't mention that Ike (President Eisenhower) supported Civil Rights for black people. He was President long before Reagan's sympathies for "State's Rights" or Trump's activities. Including him-or not-does not contradict my point about the 2 parties switching on Civil Rights since he came and went before the change really got going rather than after. If Prager counted up the number of people in Congress who voted for and against the Civil Rights bill and made a point about which party they were part of then that also means Prager likely knew what geographic location they were from-pointedly from inside or outside of the South. That a higher % of Democratic Congresspeople outside the South voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans outside the South does contradict Prager pushing the narrative a higher % of Republican Congresspeople than Democratic Congress people support the Civil Rights Act. Withholding that is hiding evidence that challenges a narrative. Thus Prager was being deceptive and in a fashion beyond what is simply "opinion" since it leaves very relevant facts hidden. Anyway here is what I said to brantpam222: This is an example of the truth hurting. Anyway the switch in Parties arguably started with Truman (a Democratic President) desegregating the military. FDR was important in recording the history of former slaves with one of many activities that was part of the New Deal but efforts to help black people were limited in the South out of fear of annoying Southern States/politicians. It was Democratic President Johnson (LBJ) that took the step of pushing for Civil Rights despite knowing it would cost his party the South. Those Democrats that opposed civil rights often weren't the Northern liberals but Southern conservatives-who later became Republicans. Not all at once and not in the same way. Perhaps most interesting is former Democrat Strom Thurmond. He left the Democratic Party and helped build up the racist and largely Southern Dixiecrat third party. This was before supporting Barry Goldwater (a Republican opposed to the Civil Rights Act) as well as joining the Republican Party himself. And there were Republican steps towards embracing racism that also slowly happened beyond Goldwater. Nixon ran his "lily white" campaign. Ronald Reagan promoted "State's rights". Interestingly in places outside the South such as the Upper Midwest the Republican party became the party that controlled suburban areas which racism (due to not wanting to live in the same neighborhood as black people) helped build. There is also Republican Jesse Helms who is associated with the organization described as racist that did much of the work for and funded the book titled "The Bell Curve" which also has racist arguments. Now you would get some points for pointing to Planned Parenthood as being founded by a bigoted eugenist (Sanger), except the same rightwing (politically) judges Republicans tend to support with the goal of upending Roe v Wade Planned Parenthood is so concerned about now have also been undoing efforts to protect minority voting rights-especially but not limited to black voters. President Lincoln may be spinning in his grave that Trump, who welcomed bigots as "fine" people, is the last Republican President but change happens-including within political parties.
    1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882.  @barbara3911  Actually it is strongly implied he can see the future with the comment "Why do you think I came all this way." That means he came to King's landing with the purpose and expectation of being made king while he was there. One of the very few ways he could know that is if he knew the future or what possible futures where available. Keep in mind that in GoT more than one magic user has been able to see the future or possible futures. Sometimes they try to warn a character about it so the character can avoid it and at least one has said it will happen. Will the latter doesn't imply people can do anything to prevent it if they want to the former strongly says otherwise. Regardless Bran is a user of magic thus may have an ability to see possible futures. Judging by Brans actions like pushing for Jon's linage to be revealed when at that moment all it would do is cause tension between her and Jon as well as help lead to possible death and destruction. It is Bran pushes Sam to tell Jon when Sam otherwise may not have and then reveals to Sansa there is something she doesn't know by stating Jon has a choice when having that be known makes it less Jon's choice because Sansa would likely press him for information shortly after learning there would be something to learn. And at the end Bran keeps Jon's linage a secret at the council meeting when they are discussing who should be king next and potentially Jon's fate. Bran does not really have a good excuse to push so hard for Jon's linage to be known when it complicates things for him and Dany but not when it could benefit Jon but hinder Bran's rise to power. Bran was the chief person pushing this issue and for him to suddenly keep silent at the Council meeting is questionable. Plus it is Bran who decides to exile Jon. Possibly further disposing of a potential rival claim to the throne before anyone else can ask him of his linage-and in a way that Arya is less likely to be pissed about (keeping her off his case without letting her know why he may be doing it).
    1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957.  @shescraftea9107  Thank you for your reply and saying we should try to come to an understanding. We agree she did say models projections didn't turn out to be. But what she said wasn't true. Many computer models did. I recommend reading a politifact on something Charlie Kirk said a month ago. It is titled 'For climate change environmentalists, "not a single one of their predictions ever come true." It turns out they did and some people claiming otherwise after the fact are just saying some that was wrong on the facts afterwards. We agree people don't have to "hate" each other and it would be a good thing if we tried to understand each other more. I remember years ago when a repeated claim made about Global Warming was that it wasn't happening. I change I've noticed is that more people-often conservative-are now saying it is happening but then trying to say it isn't happening for the reasons the people who made the predictions that turned out to be correct said it was. I figure since the people with the models that turned out to be correct were correct about what would happen then they probably were correct about why since that is what was part of what they based their models on. Liberals and conservatives can and should talk with each other without hating each other so thank you for supporting that. Part of that discussion can be if we can test if something is true or not. We probably cannot do that on ever issue or everything but there are some things that can be checked on. Anyway, thank you again for your reply.
    1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963.  @x_asp3x_x  Thank you for acknowledging both a challenge and asking for evidence. It can come from at least 2 sources. 1 what she said. 2 me & my experiences. 3 if you know anyone who is actually in college in the USA now or recently. Possibly a 4 if you count national news reports. For 1, instead of assuming what she said is accurate listen to the specific things she claimed happened and ask if that sounds realistic. She claimed this happened in every class (was therefor planned/orchestrated) including math class but lacked facts thus numbers. Like I said before, it is not common for numbers to not come up in a math class. If anything the opposite is often true. She said all they talked about was "feelings" yet in actual situations where discrimination is a topic specific facts are brought up. With the USA it would include that slavery was practiced in the past-a fact. After slavery was ended there was a time period when governments of politically conservative southern states began imposing "Jim Crow" lows to prevent former slaves and their descendants from having the full rights most citizens should have. Later, and in more states, there were bans on certain groups of people from moving into specific neighborhoods-these bans could come in the form of houses having contract attached to them requiring that only people of specific religion or skin color could purchase the house-another fact. There are more but essentially if there was an actual attempt to discuss the history of discrimination in the USA-where she is saying she is from-there are a long list of facts people could discuss. And she claims that not only were these events orchestrated in all of her classes but in none of them did the teacher start discussing a list of facts that could be expected to be part of the discussion. The combination of claims of orchestration ("all" of her classes) yet no facts in them (despite there being facts to discuss) are both relatively unlikely. Plus they contradict. Why plan enough to have this discussion in each class yet not plan enough to bring up any of a list of available and relevant facts? The odds of 1 of these on its own are low but both at the same time?? Very unlikely. On 2, I've took a couple of courses at a tech college in recent years. In my classes what she described did not happen. My own experiences contradict the narrative she claims. I've taken a math class within the last few years and it had more numbers than I can remember. The other classes focused on their subjects. 3, do you know anyone in college in the USA right now? If so ask them if they have seen a similar event where these discussions were supposedly both orchestrated for all of their classes and lacked any facts that were brought up. 4. If you look at US news reports do a search on things like book bans. Some of the books being banned discuss bigotry and unfairness as a topic they bring up. Odd that students would be banned from reading books in a library relating to these topics but the same topics are supposedly being forced on students no matter if it is in their classes's studies or not.
    1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. Its Prager/Proaganda U so lets see what they aren't telling us. Yes there are Arab citizens of the nation-state of Israel. There are also some lands Israel took control over in a war with other nation-states some decades ago, the people living in these lands are not treated as Israel citizens and are often referred to as Palestinians. Thus there are three groups of people-Jewish Israelis, Arab Israelis, and Palestinians. The apartheid claims are about how the third group of people is treated-not the second. This group tries to confuse people over which is which. The reason Arab Israeli members of parliament would be able to pick who won is because the biggest political parties in that particular election were close to the number of seats they needed in order to win but not quite there. So smaller parties could form a coalition with either of the larger parties and become a tie breaker. I'm not critical of the Israeli political system that encourages or allows smaller political parties to make coalitions with larger ones. I'm not critical of the war the Israel fought and won decades ago when it was trying to (techically preemptively) defend itself against multiple neighboring nations. But there is still the question of how people are treated. And it is the third group of people, not the second, that the Israel nation-state treats the worst. And that is why Israel gets some of the negative media coverage it does. How to treat the people living on those lands nor what to do with the lands themselves has not yet been resolved after many years. Meanwhile people who are not treated well as a group an be easy for terrorist groups to recruit so no matter how thing started years ago a cycle of violence can continue today.
    1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. This video becomes less persuasive if people apply critical thinking to the excuse making going on here. This video claims "The Wheel" is broken yet a more logical argument is that "The Wheel" won. The new government isn't "enlightened" but a bunch of nobles laughing at the notion of giving serfs a voice. And they just made someone who can serve as his own KGB (an internal spying organization designed to make sure the population doesn't become disloyal to an authoritarian government) into the king. This video also praised using Nazi images without going into what the Nazis supported that made them bad-for example the Nazi liked racism. So making Daenerys, leader of the largest multi-ethnic and multi-skin color coalition in GoT, into a bad guy if anything is pro Nazi ideology rather than opposed to it. Speaking of Nazis the video praises that speech D and D put in Tyrion's mouth. Look up Niemoller's First They Came. It is a poem about how people repeatedly ignored how people who were always innocents were abused and "taken" away by Nazis but the oppression the Nazis did was ignored at that time because it was directed at other groups based on political party, religion, or ethnicity that the poem's narrator didn't share. The slavers, rapists, and child killers that Daenerys is brutal to in Game of Thrones were not innocent (at least as far as she knew at the time she was going after them). This is nonsense making because it claims that going after guilty people for doing specific evil things means going people who haven't done anything and are innocent. That speech is also disgrace because it tries to put real live victims of the Holocaust (real human beings who were killed) on the same moral level as slavers, rapists, and child killers. That is disgraceful in itself.
    1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080.  @mandrews1245  "the US passed the Monroe Doctrine which outlawed any foreign government from being close enough" This sounds a lot like "repeating Mearsheimer messing up history in an attempt to push his ideology". No the US Monroe Doctrine didn't outlaw foreign governments. The British Empire still maintained control over lands that became Canada. Neither Mearsheimer, nor those who blindly repeat him, seem to know much history. "The Cuban crises was about a foreign country being in a position which could threaten USA sovereignty." This is shows more of a lack of knowledge when it comes to history. Cuba was never in a position to threaten US sovereignty. There was a question of if the US would invade Cuba-something that could have started a nuclear war-but Cuba was not in a position to invade the USA. That is just silly. "Russia felt NATO in Ukraine" This is repeating a lie. Ukraine was not in NATO. NATO is a group of nations that agree to defend each other if any of them is attacked. NATO primary exists to defend nations against invasion. And Ukraine was not in NATO at the time. Other nations at the time like Germany felt letting Ukraine join NATO would annoy Putin so they didn't let Ukraine join. Turns out Putin invaded anyway so maybe letting Ukraine join would've been a good idea as it may have prevented the current war. Now maybe not since Putin is an Imperialist and they like to invade other nations, but maybe it would have. Getting back to actual sovereignty. Putin has long been threatening Ukrainian sovereignty. Not only is the current war a major violation of Ukrainian sovereignty (and agreements Russia made with Ukraine) but years earlier Russia was unhappy Ukraine may make a trade deal with the EU. The EU is less corrupt than Russia so Putin probably feared a lot of Ukrainian businesses would end up doing more business with the EU than Russia. Putin wanted to be able to tell Ukraine not to make a trade agreement. That is also disregarding Ukrainian sovereignty. So please repeat this phrase in your next reply: "Ukrainian sovereignty"
    1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. I've seen Mearsheimer's Monroe Doctrine commentary and I was not impressed. He get major historical facts wrong because they hinder the ideological point he wants to make. RBurns80, he also predicted Putin would not attack Ukraine if you are referring to the particular youtube speech of his I think you are. Guess how that prediction turned out. Also what happened in 2014 was not a coup. A corrupt Ukrainian former President used force on people protesting him for braking his campaign promises and the backlash got so bad he ran away. The Ukrainian Parliament-a currently legitimate and elected body-determined he abandoned his post. Since then Ukraine has gone through a couple elections for President and they have been honest elections. If the corrupt former President of Ukraine wanted he could've gone to Ukraine's court system and appealed. Of course then that same court system may have had some discussions with him over corruption. Meanwhile Putin is trying to rewrite history because Kyiv was an established city before Moscow was. And if Putin would like a return to old borders-which shows he is basically trying to restart Czarist imperialism by the way-then he probably ought to turn most of Russia over to the Mongolians since there was a time when it was largely inside the borders of their empire. FYI If you happen to get curious about what Mearsheimer got wrong with the Monroe Doctrine it happens to include that the "Cuban Missile Crisis" was over missiles and not over if Cuba had an alliance with Russia-something it had through most of the "Cold War". Additionally Mearsheimer failed to mention that the main enforcer of the Monroe Doctrine for many years was the British navy and not the USA. Why? Because the British saw it as an excuse to disrupt the colonies of other European powers at the time. Now do you think the British enforced it on themselves?
    1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 4% of people in Louisiana get news from Newspapers? Does that explain why Louisiana has such high crime and poverty rates alongside low test scores? Prager U???? Prager U doesn't do education it is source of political propaganda-perhaps this explains Louisiana's problems even more. Also a guy who points to an actual political propaganda organization and calls it educational has no excuses to complain about bias ever again. Perhaps his real problem is that PBS has been repeatedly voted the most trusted news network in the USA. Also speaking of NPR and Avenatti here are a few headlines from or shared by NPR.: Attorney Michael Avenatti, Sometime Scourge To Trump, Now Faces Federal Charges (3/25/2019) Michael Avenatti is convicted of stealing nearly $300,000 from Stormy Daniels (2/4/2022) Avenatti gets 4 years in prison for cheating Stormy Daniels out of book proceeds (6/2/2022) Seems like NPR wasn't afraid to cover him getting caught and sentenced for his criminal activity. Funny how Sen. John Kennedy here made a point of not mentioning that. Something else he doesn't go into-the content of any of those articles and follow up articles related to what they went into. Someone who complains about headlines and is afraid to talk about the content. I'm pretty sure the Senator here has more trouble with dishonesty and immorality than NPR or PBS-proof of that comes from his calling a political propaganda organization (Prager U) educational. I guess we can say we watched a current US Senator lie and thus commit an act of immorality-that kind of thing was disapproved of in the 10 Commandments.
    1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. If voting had no impact then some politicians would not be so eager to hinder some people from voting or use methods like gerrymandering to rig elections. I've already seen the impact of voting. Cities around my state are getting funds from the Federal government to remove pipes that have lead in them. Cities around my state are also getting some funds from the State government to compensate for that they have been cutting budgets for years and were stuck in a financial trap was pushing them to continue that way. That a firefighter station was opened in rather than closed (as has been the trend for the last several years) was an actual newsworthy event. And that is just on how budgets and local problems interact. That isn't even touching on major national issues like worker's rights or international issues like Global Warming or wars. People with money often get their way in politics. This rightfully can breed cynical thoughts. But in order to decrease the influence of money in politics people who oppose it have to get elected so they can pass laws making rules about it or appoint new people who are willing to rule against the farce that money is simply speech. Speaking of elections. People not voting is actually had an important impact on an election I know of. Ron Johnson is a multi-millionaire and sitting US Senator. When the Trump Tax cuts were passed to help rich people they were briefly held up by Ron Johnson to be sure they benefited rich people like Ron Johnson in specific just a little bit more (his kind of business got a specific benefit). Last year he was challenged by a black guy from the largest city in the state that came from 1 of the poorest and most crime hampered zip codes of the state. Pretty sure that guy-who was never close to a millionaire and even lived off peanut butter for awhile because it was cheaper-had some ideas on how the working class should be treated and brought up how the city he was from was actually once 1 of the best places for people like him (black and from a working family) to live in all of the USA. Pretty clear personal difference as well as policy differences between those 2 people running for US Senate. There was a notable drop in the number of people voting in the city the non-millionaire candidate was from that election year compared to last. Sure some people showed up to vote but some didn't. A member of Ron Johnson's political party who happened to be on the State's Election Commission for the State this took place in referred to the drop off as a victory. Kind of odd that people not voting was seen as a victory by someone on an Election Commission. But he knew certain types of people were more likely to not vote if discouraged than others. Discouraging voting wasn't out of earned cynicism due to lack of change, it was a tactic used to prevent people who would be a change from being in a position to make or allow changes to happen. So it was a victory for that Election Commissioner's political party even if it betrayed what an Election Commissioner is kind of expected to do (be part of making it so elections are honest and people can vote). Multi-millionaire Ron Johnson kept is job. The non-multimillionaire was not elected (he the election was pretty close but not being elected is still not being elected).
    1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. ​ @icecoldham  Sansa was a Stark so oaths are supposed to matter to her. She herself even mentioned they were important in what I think was season six. Since Sansa had just met Dany she has no reasonable way to know if Dany would be a tyrant or not. If anything she should be glad Dany is around because it shows Dany honors her promises. Plus Sansa knows Cersei would try to get her and Jon (said so at the start of season 7) and Dany, in functional terms, is protecting Sansa from Cersei by distracting her. What Sansa did was not "mildly duplicitous in order to protect her family and country". Sansa knew she was trying to cause trouble in Dany's court so it was Sansa striking out when no harm had been done to her. As a matter of fact even Arya-the person who stabbed the Night King-admitted they needed Dany's help. So Sansa was trying to backstab someone else who had just helped save Westeros-including the North-from White Walkers. Sansa was not protecting "her family and country" but striking at someone who had already protected her "family" (saving Jon's life) and "country" (through defending Westeros including the North). Since Sansa didn't even claim Dany would be a tyrant that really isn't an excuse. Like I mentioned earlier, Sansa didn't know if Dany would be a tyrant or not. Judging by the facts that Daenerys freed people in Meereen, allowed them to do what they wanted with their lives even if she didn't like it, and made Meereen into a democracy as she was leaving a strong case can be made that Daenerys was not and would not be a tyrant. Jon was made King in the North not Sansa. He only gave up that crown when Daenerys showed she was worthy by choosing to risk her life both to try to save Jon's life and then do so again by agreeing to help fight the Night King despite his-then proven-ability to be able to take down a dragon. So when Sansa tried to undermine Jon's decision she wasn't just undermining who was in charge of the North (Jon not her), but the ethics and honorability behind that decision. That Sansa had Cersei and Littlefinger as tutors and models to follow in gaining and holding power can show not only was Sansa not being as a honorable as a Stark should be, but also potentially less just and less merciful as well. It is not only ironic but striking that after claiming the North should be independent because supposedly Northerners shouldn't have to kneel she then turns around and makes Northerners kneel to her as soon as that independence was granted. That is both hypocritical and self serving.
    1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. ​ @jasonleslie203  Books are a different story-otherwise Euron would be very different, Barristan would be alive, and a lot more people would be there. It seems like you didn't examine the excuses for season 8 and if they really held water or not. They generally don't and if you want we can go over a few scenes that prove it. Also think on the logic of this. If Dany doesn't want to compromise her ideals and one of those ideals is trying to protect or at least avoid harming the innocent then the burning of King's Landing is nonsense. As burning it would break with one of her ideals-and we already know she has kept at least some of them after arriving in Westeros because not only does she decide to put her war for the crown on hold in order to help Jon fight undead, but while she was fighting that war she did it in a more complicated manner than she needed to because she was trying to avoid harming innocents. This is not "accelerating" a character's aspects. Instead this is ignoring a character's aspects to follow a plot that does not make sense-especially when the natures of the characters involved are applied. Jon Snow abdicated in favor of her. That means she is the legit heir to the 7 kingdoms. Her being paranoid over Jon's popularity after that point is silly at best-Jon's loyalty to her (and he was) makes that popularity of his and thus him even more helpful to her. Even simpler than that they can even get married-so even if Jon didn't give up his claim it is still not much of a problem. Also as popular as Jon was in the North the other lords of Westeros that were fighting Cersei had pledged themselves to Daenerys. Yara Greyjoy stayed pledged. The idea of a guy loyal to her being popular in his hometown should not be threatening to her. The main way it could seem to be is if D and D kinda forgot how to count and thus failed to notice both there was more than 1 kingdom in the 7 kingdoms and Jon was loyal to her. Since math still works and Jon was loyal the idea this was actually a problem is vastly overstated-but that is because season 8 depended on contrived nonsense to make its plot happen. If Varys remembered that Daenerys has a record of being good for the realm in Meereen (not just claims and promises but a record that shows she acts in a manner according to those claims and promises) then he shouldn't have a problem with her ruling instead of Cersei. Especially as Daenerys very much planned to honor her promise to help fight the undead and Cersei (the primary person Varys would be helping if he got rid of Dany in season 8) did not. And no Varys was not actually helping Jon in season 8 by spreading knowledge of his claim to the throne. Not only did that ignore that Jon chose to abdicate and that he and Dany could just marry (thus combining their claims into one joint claim) but spreading that kind of info when Cersei is willing to hire assassins puts a huge target on Jon's back. Even worse at that point the armies were-according to season 8 Varys himself at the time-becoming evenly matched. So if something did happen to Dany and Jon tried to step in as leader of the anti-Cersei coalition then some groups that supported her like the UnSullied may just go home and not fight for Jon. This means that Jon would have a smaller army than Dany and thus Cersei-not Jon-would be more likely to win the war (provided Cersei doesn't just have Jon assassinated to wrap things up quickly). Season 8 didn't just break characters it was illogical and stupid if one just looks at the situation and ignored aspects of the characters involved. That season 8 (or D and D more specifically) kinda forgot that Dany cared about innocent people's lives, or that Varys cared about his own life, and on for many of the other characters only makes season 8 more illogical and stupid.
    1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461.  @walhdamaskus2408  Are you aware that some years ago China launch missiles that landed near Taiwan because Taiwan was having an election and China wanted to scare Taiwanese voters into voting for politicians it liked. Now the current President of China has said he may not wait for negotiations to reunify China and Taiwan-and this is in addition to China making official complaints whenever T-shirt makers have an image of China that does not include Taiwan. Anyway Xi's own remarks are taken as a subtle threat China may attack Taiwan and that is a comment coming from China's President. Would you care to explain how "western medias" control the words coming out of China's President's mouth? Also how exactly did the "west started the war with russia" when the current war started with Russian troops moving into Ukraine? Does the West control where Putin puts Russian troops? Who said the "west started the war with russia"? That sounds like something Russian media would say rather than people who looked at what happened. Now China is hypocritical because it claims nations should respect other nations borders and complain about what goes on inside nations. I suspect China has argued this to try to get other nations to not complain whenever China does something put Tibet or Uyghur people in mass prisons for not being Chinese. If China wants other nations leave nations alone that includes respecting those nation's borders-Russia is not doing this. Even if you don't want your nation to put sanctions on Russia like other nations may do it would still be good to be honest about which nation started this war-which is Russia.
    1
  1462. ​ @walhdamaskus2408  It may seem odd but in both a practical and literal sense Taiwan is not part of China. How much history have you heard about the history of Taiwan? Modern Taiwan and China came from 2 sides of a civil war that never ended. At the start of it Taiwan's government was called China and given all or all international recognition. The US made an agreement with both on how they are to unite and China attacking Taiwan would be disrespecting that agreement. The group that won most battles and thus took over mainland China is currently referred to as China by most. But it never took over Taiwan. For awhile, as unrealistic as it may sound, Taiwan held recognition for all of China and mainland China was officially treated as part of Taiwan because people called Taiwan the word China. President Nixon lead the USA (which encouraged many other nations) to make an agreement with mainland China that resulted in it being called by the word China but that China and Taiwan would re-unite by a negotiated and peaceful way. China's suggestion for reunification suggestion was often called 1 nation 2 systems. This would supposedly allow Taiwan to keep its laws and democracy (including honest elections). It was similar to the promise China made to Britain when discussing how Hong Kong would be reunited with China. The Hong Kong reunification happened and for several years it looked like 1 nations 2 systems was working. However then China started doing things like saying certain politicians could not take office if they said something China didn't like regardless of if these politicians took office or not. Hong Kong's laws began to be set aside and mainland Chinese secret police began arresting people in Hong Kong when those people had not broken any laws in Hong Kong-again violating the idea of 2 systems. 1 of the laws Hong Kong had is that people living there could say whatever they want. China does not practice that law and arrests people for saying things government officials don't like-often now even inside Hong Kong. Thus China isn't following its 1 nation 2 systems promise. If it breaks its promise about Hong Kong then people in Taiwan have no reason to trust it thus no reason to reunite anytime soon. In addition to that there are a group of people on the island of Taiwan whose ancestors were not treated well by the capitol in mainland China back when China actually was 1 nation. So their own history gives them reason to be suspicious of China. The most realistic thing to do is simply admit the Civil War never completely ended and that both places have been ruled by different governments for so long that they probably will never reunite within 100 years. So in a practical sense China and Taiwan are not 1 nation and have not been acting like 1 nation for decades. Calling them 2 nations would simply admit that. That kind of recognition would actually be similar to North Korea and South Korea which are still 2 different nations and have been acting that way for decades. Now I'm not against China reuniting. But I am very supportive of the point that if reunification happens it should not be at the expense of most of the rights and freedoms-including democracy-that people in Taiwan have today. Also life isn't looking good for many people in Tibet nor Uyghur people. Mainland Chinese people have been moving into both lands and taking control of local lands as well as jobs and control that Uyghur people had at 1 time. So life is actually getting worse for Uyghur people and China has been trying to replace them with mainland Han people which means life may stay worse for Uyghur people for a long time. I spoke with someone that did visit mainland China. Was part of a group 1 of which said something mainland China's government didn't like and mainland China's government tracked that person down within three days and deported him. I know many people come and go from China, but the possibility that mainland China's government may deport me or put me in jail (it does that with a lot of people who say things it doesn't like these days including some people from Hong Kong) just because it decides it doesn't like something I said makes me have no desire to visit China. Anyway to another nation you mentioned. If you think it is a bad thing for the US to threaten other nations and aim missiles at other nations then is it not a worse thing for Russia to actually attack other nations and launch missiles at other nations? That is what Russia has been doing to Ukraine. And unlike with China and Taiwan there was no civil war that never stopped and both nations did recognize each other as different nations decades ago.
    1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495.  @axe863  Then support Ukraine now to avoid the bigger war Putin may start later if he is not stopped here. Near the beginning of the current war the current dictator of Belarus showed off a map showing Russia was planning on hitting Poland after supposedly winning in Ukraine (Putin claimed victory would take 2 weeks-thankfully he was proven wrong). Also right now Ukraine is saving the US some money. Instead of having to pay to decommission or store old weapons (both cost money) they can simply be given to Ukraine. Additionally both Ukraine (if it wins) and a lot of Europeans powers are going to want to rebuild their military stores-that means more customers for the USA after they used up many of their stored weapons & ammo and after the US made weapons were proven to work well. If Ukraine wins this turns into a long term financial boost to the USA. Want to see things get really expensive? Let Putin win now so he can start another war in 4 or 7 years. A war the US will be obligated to send its own troops to the frontlines for. That would be much more expensive. Also some of the same politicians who opposed helping Ukraine right now also have problems both increasing the debt and doing things that would help US citizens. So a dollar not sent to Ukraine is not going to be spent on helping US citizens-especially not by the politicians pushing against both. So this is 1 of those times when doing the morally right thing (and yes helping Ukraine is the morally right thing, it was attack by another nation which would like to steal both its lands and the rights of its citizens away) can also end up being the profitable thing. So turning the chance down would be a waste 2 ways at the same time-throwing away both potential profits and a chance to do what is morally correct.
    1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. I see Propaganda U is coming up with a fresh batch. 1. Segregation? Err.. that was conservatives down South-though we still see it in Northern metro areas where suburbs have been used to segregate people by race and class-hint it isn't liberals or leftists that oppose lower income housing in these areas. 2. Liberals do approve of free enterprise. However then you have to ask if this would be a European style liberal that wants the free market to run amok or a US style liberal that recognizes regulation has an important place-often saving capitalism from some of its worst elements. This form of regulated capitalism (capitalism where you can still drink the water and breath the air-little things like that) is sometimes accused of being Socialist by those who want government to do little or nothing (maybe they just don't want food you can eat, water you can drink or air you can breath but..) 3. Liberals can believe that immigrants help an nation and make it stronger. 4. Recognizing racism as real and having impact on the USA in many bad ways is called realistic. Recognizing to oppose is trying to improve your nation-not undermine it. 5. I got to call BS here. There are plenty of examples of conservatives trying to trample free speech. Some of which are quite recent. Some new ones come from Wisconsin where peaceful protesters that stood around singing songs (of all things) were arrested at the state capital building. And a Republican Assemblyman took down a man's permit attached sign. This Republican is now a candidate for State Senate in the seat being vacated by the Republican candidate for US Senate there. Also if you sign on to someone else's privately funded and run blog or service. That blog doesn't belong to you and you have no right to it-I'm pretty sure a lot of conservatives support the idea of private property. (I also wonder if some of those banned were found to be frauds in some way-but that is a side point.) Though if there concerns about people being treated unfairly or discussions being hindered conservatives could start supporting net neutrality. I'm pretty sure conservative complaints about censorship are more paranoia and hypocrisy (pushed to generate a sense of victimhood?) than fact. After all this video is still on youtube. Oh, and how many conservatives concerned about "free speech" on college campuses would like to force liberal professors to take down office, door, or desk signs about the environment, social justice, and on..? 6. FDR was accused of being Socialist by the Conservatives of his day. So thank you for using him as an example.
    1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. Hm.. 'The girl who allegedly suffered during the shelling of the Mariupol maternity hospital and whom the Western and Ukrainian media presented to the World as a victim of the "aggressive aggression of aggressive Russia" signed in support of Putin' If anyone needs proof Russian bots/propagandists are posting on this thread consider that the woman mentioned here died over a year ago. The documentary "20 days in Mariupol" showed her being carried out of Ukrainian maternity hospital that a Russian attack hit it in Mariupol. Reports from March of 2022 are that both her and her baby died. So unless her ghost came back to support Putin (my guess is her ghost would oppose what he has done very deeply) we have people or bots repeating Russian propaganda right here. In 1781 french troops and part of the french navy helped American Revolutionaries defeat the British in Yorktown. After that loss the British Empire decided to recognize the independence of colonies that became the USA. When talking about "the money" it is not a slush fund going to buy Zelensky new houses (another Russia lie being passed around the internet) it is so that Ukraine can defend both its people and their freedom. And this after both Russia and the USA promised Ukraine support for its "territorial integrity". Putin and Russia betrayed that promise. The US should not now. US is not send a sizable chunk of our navy. Instead we are sending ammo that is sometimes 30 years old. The Ukrainians more than deserve that help.
    1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. @user-gy1pu3gq3d "Great powers like Russia and China will always exist and always desire territorial integrity" Russia is invading another notion-that is not preserving "territorial integrity" but violating it for another nation. Also the Communist Party of China has never controlled Taiwan. The Civil War in China failed to end with 1 faction wiping out the other. A sane way to recognize the result would have been to call both sides' regions separate nations. Yes that would've hurt their pride but many decades later is is pretty clear the 2 governments that evolved are very different. And before anyone wants to bring up the 1 China idea I'll point out that at first Taiwn-not mainland China-was treated as the 1 China and given the UN seat for China. Doing that now would be seen as silly and possibly prideful. What we have now is just the legacy of 2 nations passing back and forth prideful silliness rather than recognizing reality. Also I noticed someone brought up the Monroe Doctrine. Mearsheimer likes to talk about it but routinely avoids mentioning that the biggest initial enforcer of the Monroe Doctrine was the British navy-not the USA. Why? Because it gave the British an easy excuse to disrupt colonies of other European powers in the the Americas. Britain did not give up Canada as it did this. But the Monroe Doctrine brings up something else Mearsheimer has gotten wrong. In lecture of his several years ago he claimed the Cuban Missile Crisis was not over missiles. This is nonsense. The crisis began when the USA found out the Soviet Union was putting missiles in Cuba and ended with an agreement between the USA and Soviet Union to remove missiles from Cuba and Turkey. Cuba kept its alliance with the Soviet Union throughout the majority of the Cold War. Mearsheimer falsely had tried to claim that is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about when events show that is not correct.
    1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811.  @jiridrapal7512  1. Putin was already costing Russia billions of dollars with this invasion. Additionally withholding gas after having made contracts to sell to to Europe was Putin willfully risking billions of dollars of revenue-especially if Russian gas companies were sued over breaking contracts. If Russia blew the pipeline it could still do what it was doing (withholding gas from Europe) but claim it wasn't breaking contracts and be sued for it-and it had already been withholding gas. So there is a motive for Russia to have blown the pipeline. 2. Not sure what you mean since German didn't elect a new national government after the pipeline blue. Elections for the German parliament were already done. 3. Funny thing Biden had already stopped US opposition to the pipeline. Now that was before Russia's invasion but, if taken as a signal it was the opposite of what you claim. 4. I watched an interview with that journalist. He made a lot of accusations but provided little evidence to support them. He had made noteworthy articles decades ago but in recent years seems to have fallen into conspiracy theories. Right now there is a list of suspect nations, both the USA and Russia are on that list because both may have motives. But the evidence to claim either for sure did it is rather lacking. And, like I said earlier, the reporter was lacking in evidence that would either prove the USA did it and also lacking evidence that would disprove other nations on the suspect list did it such as Russia. 5. I notice you haven't directly addressed what I said earlier. That may mean you don't have a good response for what I said. I even numbered (like I am again with this new comment) it so it would be easier to bring up a specific point. 6. The aid Assad was withholding was international aid coming from other nations to help victims of the Earthquake. The rules related to that aid indicate it should help victims no matter where they are in Syria. By stopping it from reaching some places Assad was both breaking the rules and being cruel to people. 7. Not a fan of military wars for oil. And don't approve of it being done if Syria if that is why those troops are there. But that you did not mention some of the things I did makes me wonder if there are important factors in the situation you are leaving out there too.
    1
  1812.  @jiridrapal7512  Please number issues like I am in order to keep track of them. Anyway.. 1. It may not be up to Russia's government if a company is sued. In a joint venture part of 2 different companies is involved in each nation and the contract may even specify that court cases are handled in a specific nation. That means even if Russia's judicial system is corrupt enough to do whatever Putin wants regardless of what the law is that it still would not be up to a corrupt Russia judicial system. It could even be a third party nation that just doesn't have to be corrupt like Russia's judicial system and the company is still in trouble. 2. Of the company or of specific people? On the 1 hand if it was of the company then whatever part of Nordstream was available may have already been seized meaning it wasn't Russian property anymore. On the other hand sanctions have often been applied to specific people or organizations. Thus an ordinary Russia like a college student that was visiting outside of Russia at the time Putin tried to invade Ukraine would still have all of his or her property such as any car, cloths, and money he or she brought with him or herself. 3. Already went over why Russia still could be sued if it broke contracts. Also the Russian companies that were supposed to be shipping gas to Europe but not were doing things like claiming the pipelines they would do it through were temporarily down due to being maintained or something like that. Not an outright refusal to honor the contract. Thus Russian companies were still pretending that they intended to honor the contract. Why pretend if they had nothing to lose by breaking it? 4. Already went over that it has not been proven the USA blew up the pipeline. A guy can claim it is but people can claim many things and those claims still not be true. 5. If you have evidence it was martians than feel free to present it. What you don't have is evidence it was the USA. Not only have you not but I listened to the reporter speak who claimed it was and he did not. 6. Even if it was the USA you have yet to address that Russia has likely been conducting sabotage 1st with the Arctic communication line that was cut before Nordstream was blown. If Russia did that should NATO declare war on Russia?
    1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856.  @hello-mynameis  I actually forgot because I'd watched this video over a week ago. I started to rewatch it where it related to Ukraine and noticed very heavy distortions when he discusses European reactions to Putin's Russia trying to invade Ukraine. He claims that Europeans supposedly were too scared to say what they really think and that it is US power (in that the US is supposedly pushing this) that is getting non-NATO nations to try to join and NATO nations to increase military spending. That is nonsensical. It isn't that Europeans saw the US invasion of Iraq under W as a time when they could speak and somehow not recently but that Europeans saw Putin's actions as immoral and threatening their to own long term safety. When Trump-a US President-visited parts of Europe plenty of Europeans felt free to show up and protest. That was just a few years ago so there has been no shutting down of Europeans ability to speak since W was President. Oliver Stone is trying to dodge admitting that Putins actions are very unpopular in Europe and properly so. Also when Oliver Stone even contradicts himself by claiming being in NATO required other nations to join in US wars when many NATO members did not join W's invasion of Iraq. Plus when he complained about US nukes supposedly being put in other nations' territory he ignores that generally they are not and that France in particular has its own nuclear weapons program that is separate from the USA. One more thing if the USA and allies were supposedly "ready" for Putin's invasion as Oliver Stone claimed and this was just a big trap for Russia around minute 58 then why is it now-in February of 2023 that that US and most NATO members with "modern" tanks are getting around to sending them when Putin invaded in February of 2022? That really doesn't make much sense.
    1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948.  @KarthikKarthik-jn6xi  "let's say Russia toppled canada and Mexico govt and put puppet and put Russian military over Canada" This analogy is wrong. The Ukrainian people scared a corrupt former President off that was Putin puppet and have been holding honest elections since. The USA didn't elect Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian people did and over a different Ukrainian President that was already in office and Pro-West. I've seen talk of big powers toppling governments in Ukraine already and it is actually very wrong because it routinely ignores the will of the Ukrainian people and is often put forwards that way to paper over that President Zelenskyy is honestly elected while Putin is not. "Putin attacked Ukraine after NATO's relentless expansion" Ukraine wanted to join NATO, Germany vetoed it to appease Putin and Putin attacked anyway. Not only was NATO expansion not the main reason Putin attacked but it was hardly "relentless". Also calling it that overlooks that nations have to request to join NATO thus it involves both current NATO members not vetoing a request to join and the potential new member nation wanting to join enough that it asks to. "Russia attacked Ukraine after many failed negotiations with USA" This goes back to the earlier problem of trying to pretend the Ukrainian people themselves don't have a say. They didn't want Putin running their nation-they still do not. "Even after world war 2 there are many instances where one country attacked another sovereign country" There are but for awhile the number decreased. Also there are times the attacking nation was punished for launching the attack. But even if someone sets aside and ignores those times the attacking nation was punished for attacking that still does not mean Ukrainians want Putin running their nation-they did not and still do not.
    1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965.  @MrBahjatt  1st, there was no coup. I have 2 Ukrainian sources. 1st a Ukrainian person I spoke with and 2nd the elected Ukrainian Parliament at the time. The Ukrainian parliament declared Yanukovych abandoned his office. The Ukrainian I spoke with described a situation where there were people protesting Yanukovych over breaking his campaign promises and he decided to use force on them which resulted in more Ukrainians getting upset and not only protesting but engaging in a popular revolt. So calling it a coup is actually misleading as many Ukrainians felt he had betrayed them and gone against the practices of Ukraine. And he fled when his own actions resulted in a backlash and unrest. Where do you get the 14,000 number? Politifact (an organization that tests if politicians are lying by seeing if their words match the facts) referred to the UN Commission on Human Rights and found the number of civilian deaths to be much much lower than that. With most of those taking place in the earlier fighting between 2014 and 2016 and less than 500 civilian deaths from 2017-2021. While civilian deaths are bad that shows not only were Ukrainians not trying to commit genocide but the deaths were dropping and had been since partway through former President Poroshenko's term in office. Also the current President of Ukraine-whom Putin would like to kill-is a Russian speaker. Many of the Russian speakers that Putin claims he is supposedly protecting don't want him to control their government-1 of the factors in that probably is because they know Putin doesn't support having honest elections and many of them do. To them Putin is not bringing liberty but oppression.
    1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052.  @zivaradlovacki2666  "well it sounds like you are ignorant because if you were not, you would know that 500000 children died in Iraq during USA and UK invasion" It sounds like you are repeating a lie. Many people have criticized George W Bush for invading Iraq but those criticisms do not include "that 500000 children died in Iraq during USA and UK invasion". I think you are repeating someone else's lies while not knowing what you are talking about (being ignorant). Albright was not even part of the George W. Bush White House. So you have proven you don't know what you are talking about-thus are "ignorant". Now she was Secretary of State during the time Clinton was President but Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq. He was President after Saddam had invaded Kuwait and then been driven out. To repeat there were no invasions of Iraq during the time Bill Clinton was President. Now there were sanctions on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. And it turned out Saddam's government lied about a rise in infant mortality during those sanctions. But the sanctions were a result of Saddam invading another nation. And even with those sanctions it appears Saddam's government lied about infant mortality as part of a propaganda campaign. Oddly after the George W Bush invasion of Iraq there was a claim that the invasion was a good thing because infant mortality supposedly suddenly dropped. But it seems what actually happened is that the government in charge of Iraq stopped lying about the number of infant deaths. There is an article about this titled "Changing views on child mortality and economic sanctions in Iraq: a history of lies, damned lies and statistics"
    1
  2053. "well it sounds like you are ignorant because if you were not, you would know that 500000 children died in Iraq during USA and UK invasion" zivaradlovacki2666 you have already shown you are "ignorant" with this comment. Perhaps you should stop falling for propaganda so much. It seems you fall for it so often that not only do you not know that it is often lies but you don't know which lies are about what. Saddam's government lied about the impact of sanctions-not an invasion since Saddam himself had done the invading and his invasion of Kuwait is why sanctions were put on Iraq. But even if Saddam's government didn't lie (and it often did). That does not change that you repeated some Russian lies during a time of Putin's attempted invasion now (not years ago). The same Putin who is a billionaire due to his corruption and his willingness to use the Russian government to steal from the Russian people and nation. And no, he didn't invade Ukraine to fight off an imaginary Nazi government. President Zelenskyy is not only Jewish but speaks Russian as his 1st language. Putin invaded Ukraine, in part, to topple the elected government of a Russian speaking President. Why did Putin actually invade? Probably a list of reasons. Putin misses the old Russian empire-so this is his attempt to return to Imperialism. Putin probably wants Ukrainian lands and resources-after all Putin got to be a billionaire by being both corrupt and very greedy. And Putin also doesn't like that Ukraine has honest elections while Russian elections are rigged. There may be more reasons that Putin invaded but that trio of reasons is probably very high on the list. So when you repeat excuses for Putin's war of aggression you should remember that you are making excuses for Imperialism, land and resource grabbing, rigging elections, and so on for a corrupt billionaire. Now is that what you really want to be doing? If you were actually concerned about wealth gaps in the world perhaps you would at least consider not supporting a corrupt billionaire as he both tries to enrich himself further and get thousands of other people killed.
    1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. Is "Live Not By Lies" itself embracing lies-especially by conservatives who are looking to self proclaim victimhood? (Often while holding a great degree of not just freedom but influence.) I've lived through both when there was a gay marriage ban in effect in my state and when it was overruled by the Federal law via the US Supreme Court. Gay people, not conservatives, were denied the legal rights and abilities others had. If I go into a church today when gay marriage is allowed the pastor if not required by law to perform any if he or she does not feel they are part of his faith but gay couples now get the same rights only heterosexuals already enjoyed. Additionally in this video I noticed nods to conspiracy theorists as if they were being oppressed (anti-vaccine stuff) yet it was rightwing conspiracy theorists who joined in the attempt to steal a Presidential election after the candidate they supported lost in 2020 and in that attempt to steal an election deny other people their votes-thus their liberty. I noticed this video wrongly portrayed environmental (fossil fuel) protestors as somehow being paid off by the government (even getting a concert seats or, the horrors, better "medical care"). When I've gone to a hospital they never asked me if I protested against fossil fuels. Same thing fails to happen when most people buy tickets to a concert. Better healthcare would simply be a good thing for the government to insure citizens get. But there are reports some people advocating in relation to Global Warming did get benefits. With both Koch and Exxon-Mobile both having spent (at least) millions of dollars on those deny it is happening.
    1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158. 1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. Netanyahu wants Trump win. Trump was more willing to let Israel annex land than any other US President in modern history. Plus if you have access to C-span I recommend looking at the US Senate Debate in Wisconsin last week. The Republican (Hovde) said it was a problem and wrong that the US tried to stop Israel from causing so much death and destruction (he phrased it as meddling). Check out Bob Woodard's book War and how he mentioned that Biden had to push Netanyahu to let any food in for Palestinian civilians in Gaza. US meddling is trying to save lives by preventing starvation. BTW the Democratic candidate (Baldwin) supported a ceasefire. Stein is pointing blame at Democrats and saying there is no difference when there very much is one-responses to the destruction in Gaza show it. Interestingly enough Stein has been getting help from Republicans in this election. I recommend looking up a Crooked Media podcast titled "Why is Jill Stein trying to get Trump Elected". On Gaza in specific I recommend a Politico article titled "Far Right Israeli Minister suggests Trump would be better than Biden". If you live in a swing State I'd recommend a vote for Harris both for Palestinians and for people living all over the World. If you don't live in a swing state and really want to vote for a third party there are some out there-I'd recommend a different third party than Stein 'ssince, despite that I have voted for a Greene Party candidate before, I cannot recommend them while Republicans are supporting them (and some quietly have this year.) If you care about genocide of children I'd recommend not rewarding the person ordering much of the destruction-that would be Netanyahu. The best way to avoid rewarding Netanyahu would probably be to give him someone he doesn't want as the US President (which would be Harris).
    1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. It actually doesn't make sense. A bunch of nobles laughing at the idea of giving serfs a voice is not a new "enlightened" government-it is a continuation of the wheel. And the speech this video proudly references related to Tyrion is arguably a disgrace. And season 8 arguably embraces some Nazi racist ideology rather than opposes it. This is a copy of something I just mentioned to someone else but the same details apply, so my apologies if you noticed I repeated myself. But some of the details here remained the same. This video also praised using Nazi images without going into what the Nazis supported that made them bad-for example the Nazi liked racism. So making Daenerys, leader of the largest multi-ethnic and multi-skin color coalition in GoT, into a bad guy if anything is pro Nazi ideology rather than opposed to it. Speaking of Nazis the video praises that speech D and D put in Tyrion's mouth. Look up Niemoller's First They Came. It is a poem about how people repeatedly ignored how people who were always innocents were abused and "taken" away by Nazis but the oppression the Nazis did was ignored at that time because it was directed at other groups based on political party, religion, or ethnicity that the poem's narrator didn't share. The slavers, rapists, and child killers that Daenerys is brutal to in Game of Thrones were not innocent (at least as far as she knew at the time she was going after them). This is nonsense making because it claims that going after guilty people for doing specific evil things means going people who haven't done anything and are innocent. That speech is also disgrace because it tries to put real live victims of the Holocaust (real human beings who were killed) on the same moral level as slavers, rapists, and child killers. That is disgraceful in itself.
    1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. Droughts and floods are made worse by Global Warming. Ron (is a) Johnson has been full of bs and lack of concern for others for a long time. Funny thing, back when Bush Sr was in the White House and thinking of doing something about it (unlike Reagan) some scientists put together a report warning about Global Warming and some economists joined in the report. The economists said whatever dollar value lost (yes lost) in agriculture would be made up for in other parts of the economy such an industry in the "developed" world. It seems impacts on developing nations were disregarded, long term thinking was disregarded, and the realization that profitable or not people typically still need to eat was disregarded. Meaning rightwing disregard for Global Warming's impacts on developing nations has been disregarded for a long time. Some of the same lies used about Global Warming were spouted then too-such as the claim any current warming was due to "cycles" and 1 of the liars in this regard even said cooling would start to occur after a few years when the next part of the cycle happened.. instead a few decades later things are warmer. Interesting video was done on this history by a youtuber Simon Clark. It was titled Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth. I'll add that I still call Global Warming by the phrase "Global Warming". It is what is happening. Also if Frank Luntz (then a political consultant) can send out a memo in the W administration saying to use the phrase "Climate Change" because it sounds less scary than Global Warming then maybe his remarks should be thought about and the opposite of his suggestion done. Especially as-like I said before-Global Warming is what is happening. BTW thank you for paying attention to Wisconsin's modern political history.
    1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. There was a point raised in this discussion that nobody addressed so I'll try. How to deal with Global Warming while having less government? Have the government get out of the way when it comes to suing fossil fuel companies for damages related to Global Warming. There is a Federal block on lawsuits towards fossil fuel companies when it comes to harm caused by Global Warming. Usually if a company wrecks someone's house-say a delivery truck for crashes through the front door-whoever owns the house can sue. But fossil fuel companies supposedly cannot be sued if the Global Warming use of their products creates happens to burn down a town. That is not really a capitalist as being capitalism typically involves paying your own bills-including bills for the damages you or your company cause. Now I'm ok with the government trying to do something about Global Warming because I think the government should try to deal with many problems. If there is a street gang causing problems it is reasonable to call the police. That is getting the government to respond to the gang. Same basic principle with Global Warming. I saw being concerned about Global Warming being inaccurately labeled a "religion" in some comments here. I have no problem with religion and go to church every Sunday. But that isn't what addressing Global Warming is. Being concerned about Global Warming largely comes from either looking at the evidence yourself or talking to people who did. Yes evidence can and does exist to support religion (there are places in the Bible that still exist today if people want to visit them) but the level of provable evidence at your fingertips at any given moment is usually very different. I'm not ashamed to call my faith (my religion) my faith and still be part of it. As a side note.. someone made a remark of computer models supposedly being all wrong. There are computer models that so far have gotten things correct. So a claim I saw otherwise strikes me as wrong-flat out wrong. Someone claimed humans couldn't impact the atmosphere on a wide scale. The issue with Ozone holes and CFCs disproved that. With the impacts of both earlier use of CFCs and of no longer using CFCs nearly as much both also being reflected in changes in the Ozone layer. If someone is feeling especially bashful about humans and supposed inability to have an impact I'd ask if a human living in the USA can drive a car from 1 side of the continent to the other and stay on man made roads the whole time. That is a pretty impressive span of asphalt, steel, and concrete. Humans have been burning over 7 billion tons of coal per year for years. That is well over 7,000,000,000 tons in just 1 year. Recently it became 8 billion. So the notion that this may have an impact in some way should not be too surprising.
    1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. I'm waiting to see if Russian trolls pop up here as often as elsewhere. Putin has not had success on the battlefield. So to get around the Ukrainians who are, pretty heroically, stopping him he looks to corrupt politicians elsewhere to undermine their own nation's interests and Ukraine's to help Putin by sabotaging Ukraine from behind-by cutting support Russia cannot do by itself. And no, it isn't that there are money problems. A well over $800 billion military bill is going through as we speak and it costs far, far less than that to help Ukraine. It isn't that there are popularity problems. Even if supporting Ukraine even more is less popular there are still pretty sizable numbers of people who want to maintain aid at the current level. It isn't ideology, some of the people who wanted to cut aid to Ukraine wanted to double military aid elsewhere. So claiming they want peace is a lie and can easily be called for the excuse it is by most people who examine such claims. Sadly that leaves it to corrupt politicians and how they are connected to or owe Putin. Some may owe him a lot of money and others may as well but they are also forces for corruption Putin himself is very corrupt thus their ally. Edit: Also in that press conference Putin claimed that Odessa-a city that is very much not Russian and Russian troop have never occupied during this whole war-is supposedly Russian. Thus showing he is trying to go around landgrabbing. Any excuse put forwards by his propagandists is undercut by that.
    1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. "cannon fodder for NATO's power play". Really?? You seem to be laying the propaganda pretty thick here. Ukraine wanted to join NATO earlier and wasn't let in. With the current war that Russia started showing that appeasement often doesn't work the nations that opposed Ukraine joining earlier are likely to think differently. Also Lex Friedman already interviewed Oliver Stone and let Mr. Stone's propaganda efforts (making excuses for Putin) flow. Out of the many choice distortions here I think another ironic one is "our cynical pawn". Ukraine is not a pawn. That is what Putin would prefer. Specifically for it to be his puppet-though if reports he wants to absorb Belarus when its current dictator dies are true them maybe even that would be enough for him right now. You call for Mearsheimer to speak. He can, but 1 of the things he has already said is that Putin sees actual democracy in Ukraine-where the elections mater and vote totals are reported honestly-are something he holds against the USA and sees as US interference. If accurate that is some pretty twisted and yet revealing thinking on Putin's part. It shows he wants Ukrainian citizens to not have a say in who runs their (not Putin's nor the US's) own government. Kotkin directly addressed the invalidity of Putin's actions. He mentioned Russia already recognized Ukraine as a nation. This means, as its own nation, Ukraine has the ability to make decisions for itself. Kotkin interestingly compared the Russian complaints Ukraine was thinking of joining NATO as an excuse to start a war to a rapist complaining a girl was wearing a short skirt as an excuse for raping her. Neither excuse actually excuses the action. In both examples the perpetrators are trying to cover for their unjust actions. Also as Kraut correctly points out, it is followers of supposed "realism" like Mearsheimer that provide cover from terrible things like military coups in Latin American. They put forwards the idea that big nations should be able to bully small ones and that they can be party to any horrible action as long as it is within their "sphere of influence" as Russia would like Ukraine to be and realists have already treated Latin America as for the USA. If you support the things Russia has done in Ukraine no matter how horrible then you should support the horrible things the USA approved of or did in Latin America. Not to would be hypocrisy on your part. If you oppose things like torture and military coups in Latin America (not approve of them because they are supposedly in a US sphere of influence) then you should oppose Putin's murders, support for oppression in, and now war in parts of Eastern Europe-including Ukraine.
    1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. ​ @VLK-73  When talking to individual people there is probably some luck of the draw, but if what you said was correct about Russian speaking Ukrainians supposedly supporting Putin the odds would be against with Ukrainians like the 1 I spoke with having the views he does. Instead the opposite is true. Where do you get the Dnipro River idea from? I doubt that it is true. Especially since a majority in each of the areas East of the Dnipro River voted to be independent back in 1991. It was a closer margin than in Western Ukraine but it was still a majority in each of the Eastern regions. And those vote totals are something that goes beyond luck. Putin did not complain about NATO enlargement when he was in Rome 2002 and spoke of deepening NATO-Russian relations. Now that was only slightly more than 20 years ago but enlarging NATO was a topic at hand during that time. Now even if Putin does mind there are still 2 points which makes that not a good excuse. 1. Germany had been blocking Ukraine from joining NATO so Russia already had the appeasement it wanted before Putin tried to invade in 2022. 2. As Mr. Kotkin correctly pointed out that even if Putin minded is not an excuse and has no more validity than a rapist claiming a woman invited rape by wearing a short skirt (or some other article of clothing). Which of those 4 nations has the USA tried to annex? None. Where where you in 2001 when the USA was attacked? It is well established that if a nation is attacked it is not imperialism for that nation to go to war. The worst of those examples morally is probably Iraq-no massacres to try to prevent and outright invasion of a nation that was not planning to attack the USA as far as most people know.. and the USA didn't try to annex Iraq. Instead the USA withdrew its troops from Iraq when an agreement could not be made between the Iraqi (elected by the Iraqi people) government and the USA that would allow US troops to stay. That is not the action of an imperialist. So even in the worst morally of the 4 situations you mentioned it wasn't imperialist. Now if you opposed the USA's invasion of Iraq because you believe big nations should not be allowed to invade smaller nations then you should oppose Putin's invasion of Ukraine for the same reason. Meanwhile, Putin declared that Ukraine's government has no right to exist-disregarding that it is elected by the Ukrainian people-and already tried to annex parts of Ukraine. That is imperialist. The "real" aggressor in this situation is Putin. There is no silence or "crickets" about that. "Russia stands up to something" Russia is not standing up to anything in this situation. Russia is invading. Another nation-Ukraine-is standing up to Russia. Since you mentioned Afghanistan earlier and Russia falsely standing "up to something" earlier I'll point out it was report that Putin offered GWBush all the support he could want in Afghanistan if Putin would let Russia have control over Eastern Europe. GWBush did not accept because he was not in a position to accept as it would be ignoring the views of nations in Eastern Europe and that they were their own nations and not part of any empire. Thus Putin may have had imperialist urges and a disrespect for seeing other nations as other nations for years. "This type of hipocrisy is literally mind bobbling and it all comes from your side." This not only is this statement false but I would ask if your "side" is projecting.
    1
  2302. 1
  2303.  @VLK-73  I saw your shorter post 1st-which is why I responded to that as it was the only reply you made. Anyway to address this comment.. "The Dnipro river is a rough divider that is used by historians and analysts, as far as which side is pro-Russian or anti-Russian. There is of course some overlap, but for most part the eastern part is pro Russian, because of the proximity to the Russian border and these people lived there for long time as Russians and part of the Soviet Union....it only makes sense" You said "used by historians". That is not a test of if the people living there like Putin or not. Moreover I already pointed out that in each region of Ukraine a majority of people voted for independence in 1991. While the margin was smaller in places closer to Russia the vote there was still a majority in favor of independence. So the history available doesn't directly disprove the idea that Russian speaking Ukrainians like Putin it does directly disprove the idea a majority of them see themselves as part of the Soviet Union or Russia. It does not make sense to claim that people who voted for independence a few decades ago supposedly want Putin now. I think it is quite possible a majority of them or their children who were too young to vote back in 1991 see Putin as a murderer and do not want him in control of where they live. Your Mexico scenario is wrong or a very misleading way to try to refer to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy was honestly elected-not appointed by the USA. "Russia would then install their puppet regime and flow weapons and military consultants into Mexico" Wasn't Obama criticized for not sending weapons to Ukraine? Again the history disproves rather than supports your analogy. And, again, President Zelenskyy was honestly elected by Ukrainian citizens as a whole when they voted-not installed by some other nation. "If the Cuban missile crisis could be used as an indicator, we already know the answer to that one." The US government didn't like Castro's revolution. That said, it never invaded officially itself (Bay of Pigs arguably failed or failed sooner because the US did not use its official military) and the "Cuban missile crisis" was over missiles. Not a coup. The Bay of Pigs makes me think a bit of Russian supported separatists in Ukraine's east-except it was actually Russia soldiers that shot down that civilian passenger jet as the supposed separatists order. And didn't Putin pro-claim the supposed areas separatists control are part of Russia anyway partway through this war? Not really aiming for independence after all. "Russia's patience had finally run out and this is the result." Other nations get to choose if they will ask to join NATO or not. If Russia doesn't like that then there is a question of if Russia had any "patience" in the 1st place. Instead such claims reveal that Russia views itself as having the authority to make other nations decisions for them regardless of if they agree. Out of order in terms of when you mentioned it but this was worth returning to.: "If you want to see some actual, independent journalism on this topic, look up Eva Bartlett." I did look up Eva Barlett. I found out she writes columns for RT-Russia Today. That is the opposite of "independent journalism". I already watched the discussion when Lex interviewed the person who made the documentary "Ukraine on Fire". That person is Oliver Stone. I felt he was full of distortions and excuses in that interview and would fully expect the same of a documentary he made.
    1
  2304.  @VLK-73  I'm only going to rely 1 time with 1 comment to the 4 you made. 1st and most telling is that you-not any media but you-said Eva Bartlett was an "independent journalist". I checked and found out she writes for RT or Russia Today so that is not true. Not only is it not true but when I pointed it out to you your response to to repeat the "independent" falsehood. And after you repeated a falsehood after I pointed out why it was a falsehood you called me "brainwashed" near the end of you last comment. Now there are other things I can point disproving the narrative of your comments such as that Zelenskyy recieved a majority of the vote from Eastern parts of Ukraine Russia didn't occupy and thus were still able to have honest elections while a significant portion of the people there are Russian speakers. But there is a problem. People can start having a discussion or even a disagreement with very different views but if they go over the evidence honesty they can see which of them is correct, if both are correct, or if neither of them are. But going over the evidence is very different from willfully ignoring the evidence and even trying to dodge it by complaining (or projecting) about other supposed propagandists and repeating a falsehood after why it is false has already been said. Maybe its just that I'm tired but when that happens it is a sign of dishonesty and also that still going on with the discussion is a waste of time since evidence will not be discussed honestly. I do not feel a need to waste my time right now. I don't know if I will return to this discussion thread. If you want for there to be a chance that I do you should start next reply you make with acknowledging that Eva Bartlett writes for RT or Russia Today.
    1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. "western powers seized power in Ukraine by way of a coup detat. This war is completely legal but totally unnecessary. All Ukraine had to do was remain neutral" This is Russian propaganda and a lie. 1st of all there was not a "coup" in Ukraine-let alone a coup where Western nations seized it. 2nd Ukraine was neutral when Russia attacked it. Ukraine was not part of NATO. The main reason NATO exists as a defensive alliance, many former Soviet nations want to join NATO because they want help defending themselves if Russia ever attacks them to try to become their overlords again. Back in 2014 a corrupt former President of Ukraine broke campaign promises he made. There were some Ukrainians who didn't like this and protested. The corrupt former President tried to use security forces to suppress them and many more Ukrainians didn't like this and there was a backlash against the corrupt former President. He fled the Ukraine of his own choice. The Parliament of Ukraine ruled he abandoned his office. If he disagreed with them he could've filed a court case with Ukraine's legal system. He didn't. Since then Ukraine has had multiple honest elections to determine who is the President of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine decided Zelenskyy is the current President of Ukraine, not "Western nations" like the USA and not Russia either. 1 of the things Putin is unhappy about is that elections in Russia are rigged but not in Ukraine. Since Ukraine's current President speaks Russian as his 1st language Putin is probably worried that Russians will see the example of an honestly elected President in Ukraine and want the President of Russia to be honestly elected rather than having the rigged elections Putin has now.
    1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749.  @mvp019  Going to number those to better address them. 1. Higher food prices happened before there were anti-Assad protests and before the recent (last several years) Syria Civil War exploded. Also some rebels were "moderate" otherwise there would've been less fights between rebel groups. While the US ended supporting both Islamist and moderate groups it isn't like Assad (and the Russians supporting him) didn't release Islamists early on to make sure a number of those group opposing him during the would be Islamist. A complicated mess but one where the local government (Assad's) has more blood on its hands than any other faction in that mess. 2. Saying they are "inept" is putting it mildly. Bolsonaro has been actively bad and deadly for many Brazilians and that is even if he doesn't attempt a coup upon losing the election. 3. There was ethnic cleansing going on. That started without the US being involved. Blaming the response that stopped it rather than those who were creating mass graves seems to miss who is the guilty party-(EDIT) in the former Yugoslavia.) 4. I see forces of corruption and ideology frequently combining in the USA to undermine the care it has for its citizens. That said if there was no care there wouldn't be such things as public hospitals (or laws relating to those which aren't), social services in general, EPA, and on. There are many nations that try to take better care of their citizens than the USA but that doesn't mean it has no care. 5. Speaking back to the 1950s would be understandable during a history class but less so when discussing current political events this century. As bad as the things the US was involved in (especially in South America) during the 2nd half of the 20th Century were that lends itself to letting off current political leaders and groups for their own actions much more recently. Feel free to remember the past, but don't ignore the present because of it.
    1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. ​ @mvp019  1. "US interventions in Latin America by pointing out how how inept their leaders are" this is misrepresenting the situation in 2 ways. 1st the US hasn't done much in the way of interventions in Latin America this century. 2nd you are dodging/downplaying that these leaders are worse than "inept"-such as Bolsonaro getting his own people killed and hinting he would hold a coup if the people of Brazil elected someone else (thankfully it looks like he lost and that a transition will happen even if he doesn't admit someone else was honestly elected). 2. 'The only reason human rights in China have become a "problem" is that China isn't dancing to our tune anymore' This is straight up false. Human rights have been a problem in China for decades. Ironically enough it sometimes took an unusually bad event like suppressing popular calls for reform in China back in 1989 that the US was embarrassed enough to limit US companies putting money into China for a little while. 3. "this whole Ukraine thing started in February of this year" Russia invaded Ukraine in February of this year. Trying to come up with excuses for that is trying to make excuses for imperialism and the current war. Additionally Russia was often the offender earlier. It wasn't Ukraine invading some part of Russia and seizing control but Russia doing so in Crimea which is Ukrainian territory. 4. "Stop pretending these CIA cutouts don't exist and aren't very active" I noticed you are now ignoring both the specific nation mentioned (Syria) and that people were protesting because they had problems. Strikes me as a typical blame outsiders routine politicians and dictators engage in. Place blame and accountability on anyone but them despite that they are in charge. Like I said before: "Pretty sure the crowds of Syrian protesters weren't out there over a pipeline deal." 5. "they are getting ready to have an election in Haiti. Our current puppet isn't very popular" So is it "they" or "Our". Are you Haitian or not? Also I noticed you have not supported the claim the US is supposedly messing with elections in Haiti. 6. "you to admit the US has done a long list of terrible things. Well, then, why are we continuing to do them?" Thus ignoring that I pointed out that US stopped doing many of them. The support for Ukraine is a good thing and doesn't belong on that list. Meanwhile you seem to be making excuses for a nation that is currently committing such a large range of war crimes that odds are good it is systematic thus planned (I don't say Putin planned individual Russian troops doing much of the individual level looting in Ukraine). "Are the leaves turning nice colors outside in Langley this week?" Don't know since I don't live around there. Does the color of the leaves wherever you are make you feel better about trying to excuse or willfully ignore Putin's war crimes as he continues to commit them?
    1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. "Why? He doesn't want peace". President Zelensky already said he would accept a peace deal that let Russia keep the land it occupies if it involved Ukraine joining NATO so Putin would think twice about restarting the war. What the false claim about President Zelensky and war (purposefully?) misses is that he wants a peace that will last-not just a pause to let Putin store up more artillery shells before restarting things. A good historical point to keep in mind is that Chamberlain (a British Prime Minister before WW2) declared "Peace In Our Time" after making a deal with Hitler that would allow Hitler to take part of Czechoslovakia (a part that happened to have many of that nation's defensive fortifications). Hitler promised he would never want to take more land again if he could have that land. Less than 1 year later (and less than 1 year after Chamberlain proclaimed "Peace In Our Time") Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. WW2 followed not too long after. Chamberlain didn't even let representatives from Czechoslovakia in the room while he was cutting deals with Hitler. When dealing with someone who does want war-that is Putin as he started this war and has been starting wars since he first came to power in Russia-is that something is often required to make them think twice about continuing to start wars. That is why President Zelensky wanted security guarantees and was even willing to give up lands that are rightfully Ukrainian to get them-President Zelensky wants peace and knows the best way to get actual peace is to be sure it will be a peace that lasts.
    1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854.  @elysianfields1671  You can go on if you want but how much of that is really accurate and how much is Russian PR? For example "shelling civilians for 9 years" sounds a lot like Russian claims of genocide for which it does not provide evidence. Now there is a war with separatists in Donbas that Russia supports 1 side of but civilian deaths in that conflict have been way down for years. "accepting USA help to overthrow a democratically elected government" Which government? When a corrupt former Ukrainian President used force on people protesting against him breaking his campaign promises the USA didn't tell him to use force on the protesters and generate a backlash that scared him into leaving the nation. Moreover partway through that situation the USA's local ambassador was trying to work out an agreement between multiple figures and political parties including that former President's political party. "not implementing Minsk 1 and 2" Not sure of the exact details but I've heard Russia broke the Minsk agreements. Since I'm not sure of the details at this time I'll leave this one hang but because of what I've heard I'll point out that if Russia was breaking the Minsk agreements itself then that really does not make for a good excuse of provocation. "amassing a huge amount of troops in Donbas" Donbas is Ukrainian territory, there may be a low grade war with separatists there but it is Ukrainian territory. "prevented a massacre in Donbas" If Ukrainians were not massacring people before-and they were not-then there isn't a good reason to say they would suddenly start right before Russia invades. Meanwhile you left out little things like that Putin has said Ukraine is not really its own nation-meaning he decided what is or is not a nation and is putting himself in the aggressor's chair in an attempt to enforce those decisions of his. You also didn't mention that Russia had invaded Crimea because Putin felt like. There were not any massacres there and for awhile Russia even tried to officially pretend it wasn't behind the soldiers that suddenly started taking control of parts of Crimea. So not only was the particular current head of Russia the aggressor now but he has been in the recent past. So Putin has a history of invading Ukraine.
    1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. ​ @simkiankiong3599  You claim they are "10x worst" yet Trump didn't put Biden in jail to prevent him from running against him in an election nor has Biden put any Republican (including Trump) in jail to prevent them from running against him. Freedom House-an organization that focuses on honest elections and corruption-also rates nations across the world and found that Zelenksyy was honestly elected and that Ukraine has honest elections. Also yes, Western media did report positive things on Russia but that has tended to decrease in recent years as Putin has done things like attack neighboring nations and arrange assassinations and assassination attempts. Against Navalny stands out in recent years because Putin really did not want him to run for election but other assassinations are also noteworthy like some people killed in the UK a few years back. Lets look at some of Putin's claims for why he started this war and if they are honest. 1. Nazis supposedly run Ukraine-Nazis hated Jews yet a Russian speaking Jew is currently Ukraine's elected President. 2. Ukraine is not a real nation-Ukraine has existed not just as an independent nation for more than 30 years (something that the Russian government already acknowledged decades ago) but it was officially a "Republic" inside the USSR or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 3. He is coming to free Russian speakers-yet a Russian speaker is the current President so they don't need freeing, their votes honestly count so even if President Zelenskyy was not President they still have political freedoms, and in areas where Russian speakers are a majority and already had elected local officials Putin is having those elected officials removed from office and replaced by a list of people he picked-thus Putin is taking political freedoms away from towns he has already occupied in the current war even if those towns are of mostly Russian speakers. Plus there are many photos and videos of Russian troops abusing, stealing from, and sometimes murdering Ukrainian civilians. Bucha was the 1st location where this was found in a sizable way but not the last. Putin's own claims about why he started this war are lies. Western media doesn't have to say that. People can read a transcript of Russian claims made at the beginning of this war and see if that transcript matches the facts-it does not. But if Putin is so good then why do Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Finnish people, Polish people and more all dislike him. Their nations are geographically closer to Russia than many nations so if Western media was supposedly lying to people about how bad Putin was they would know better because they are close enough to Russia that they can easily travel there and would see or hear of the supposed good things. You complained about Western media but how much time have you spent listening to pro-Putin propaganda?
    1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. Greenpeace says this guy was not one of its founders. Instead he worked for Greenpeace for about 5 years before realizing he could make more money doing propaganda for organizations Greenpeace may not get along with. His bio may be a fraud and even if it isn't that is still a sell out. He mentioned using the Milankovitch cycle excuse in minute 32 (using big words people may not know the details of thus not realize he could be trying to pull a fast 1 on them. NASA put out a statement Milankovitch cycles do not explain current Global Warming in 2020, over a year before this interview. So he knows he is lying. Also in minute 33 he falsely claimed humans brought "balance" to the Carbon Cycle. The carbon cycle has been functioning for thousands of years. What humans did is dig up carbon that has been buried for tens of thousands of years (if not longer) and add it to the air. Now there is more carbon in the air than has been present for over 400,000 years. That is not bringing balance, that is upsetting the balance that existed for more than years than known human civilization has existed. Also if Global Warming isn't killing everyone but just some people (and making life worse for others) then it is still a problem. He runs to abuse language to try to argue a crisis should not be dealt with. If you live in a neighborhood or town with 20 houses and 4 of them are burning down does that mean it is not a problem and that it would supposedly be alarmist to call a fire department? And yes, I called it "Global Warming", that is what is happening. Whatever you call it does not change if it is happening.
    1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. I liked much of this video including the groups I hadn't heard of before. That said, you missed out on explaining what the difference is between a cult and a religion. A better term than "cult" is "mind control organization". There are a list of things that are basically red flags a group is more mind control organization than religion-ideology doesn't really matter but practices do. The practices to look at are those that impact typical members-not members of the clergy like priests or ministers nor even people who are staff in some way. The practices include things like.. 1. Having 2 levels of honesty-one that is expected from members vs that of leaders in the group (meaning it is ok for leaders to lie to members but members are expected to be honest). 2. One of the other red flags is how many times per week are typical members using up their time with the group rather (is the group dominating typical members time and forming a mini-society so members aren't as likely to interact with other people outside of work). 3. A very notable one is if the organization actively tries to isolate people from friends or family. I understand some people may try to get someone they are concerned about or care about to leave a bad influence in their lives-this isn't that. This is asking if the organization tries to isolate people from friends and family that are not members of the group. Are you not allowed to talk to a friend that leaves the group? If no that is questionable. If a friend leaves the group or refuses to join are lies and badmouthing spread about that friend when the friend isn't there to defend him or herself? If yes that is very questionable. 4. Is the group big into believing they are the only worthy group of people? I know many religious groups think they believe only they follow or do things a proper way so this may not be as helpful a flag as you'd think. But a better way to look at is if the group actively badmouths other organizations. Thus if they have an internal propaganda effort aimed at other religions simply because they are different (this may be disguised behind false accusations at specific groups like the next church over) and, more importantly, could be a rival for people's time and attention. 5. Are there strange loyalty tests or pressure situations? This could be things like a college student being told no they shouldn't study for the exam they have within the next day or 2 but go over some religious readings or discussion that someone in the group decided. These situations are actually put together to pressure a person to get in the habit of putting the group first and in front of what their responsibilities may be. This isn't actual moralizing (for an extreme example actual moralizing would be something like a hitman being told he shouldn't murder people because it is wrong) but trying to get person to put their acceptable responsibilities aside so the group can get control over his or her time. Unless the people involved are normally awake overnight or the government in whatever nation they are in bans religious discussion (which means people have good reason to talk about it in the middle of the night to avoid laws that are unfair or unjust) then someone's religious study leader generally should not be waking them up at 2am or 4am in the morning to talk about religion when that member should actually be sleeping. 6. Are secrets used to manipulate members and privacy only goes 1 way? People should be able to talk to their priests and ministers. They can have problems and this is helpful or they may simply want to understand their religion better. Both of these are generally fine. But are a person's secrets used to manipulate him or her or keep the person in the organization and under the organization's control? This is different than trying to help someone deal with a problem-that is typical and usually a good thing. Not always such as if a minister doesn't know how to handle a situation or has even been taught a bad way, then that can be a bad thing. Thankfully I think or hope that is a minority of the time. Also if a minister contacts some civil authority or someone who is a professional because he or she thinks a member with a problem may do something bad or harmful to himself or others that is an understandable reason to break with the usual expectations of privacy. This is about if rather than dealing with problems a member has those problems are used to control him or her. This can go back to point 1 and asking if there are 2 levels of honesty. My apologies for not remembering the whole list but there is something like a dozen things that serve as red flags. Just 1 red flag doesn't make the group a mind control organization but many red flags are a sign of trouble. Some of the old cult watching groups may have a more full list of things to watch for. (Scientology sued CAN-the old Cult Awareness Network into bankruptcy and then bought the organization so it may or may not be helpful but there are other organizations that asked what is the difference between a mind control organization and religion.) Again, these are questions to ask about typical members. If someone decides to become a minister of some sort and that would increase the amount of time he or she spends with on the organization for good reason (thus issue 2 wouldn't apply as much). The point of a mind control organization is not to follow some ideology, its actions may even contradict the group's proclaimed ideology if someone thinks about various situations hard enough. The point of a mind control organization is to abuse members' time and money. I hope this is a useful distinction and I wanted to make it because while I liked the video I didn't think it went over the distinction between religions and mind control organizations well enough and may have been distracted by ideology and beliefs rather than the practices that are an important thing to watch for and what those practices are.
    1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1