Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder" channel.

@robertredmon5409 Surprise medical bills or expenses happen, 2001 and 2008 were both a thing. Even those who saved every penny lost it all thanks to poor macro economic conditions (and bad lending policy).
1
@jlighter1 ...But Russia did exercise trade leverage. The whole reason that Maidan happened was that Russia offered Ukraine a better deal than Europe did. That's why Yanukovich chose the oil and gas (among other things) trade deal over the European Association Agreement— the amount that Ukraine received in USD was larger. That's when people in Kyiv and Western Ukraine freaked out and protested. Then, a series of snipers shot into the crowds, conveniently becoming a unifying enemy and expanding the scope of the protests to Russia in general, despite there being no evidence that they were involved. Why did I specify regions? Because the entire east and south of the country held counter-protests a few days later, especially after Yanukovich was ousted (in violation of Ukraine's own Constitution). Really, the fact that you think Russia bad, so US can't also be bad, is truly baffling. Who's the one with a rap sheet of overthrowing foreign governments by funding NGOs and paying protesters??
1
@willgary8792 Wow, I've never seen someone have wishful thinking this openly before. You just really have an image of Russia in your head that you desperately want to be reality, huh? No. Russia offered to invest $15B into Ukraine's federal debt, and would shave expanded agricultural trade more generally. This was simply WAY more than what EU representatives said they would commit to Ukraine. Barely even a million immediately with another in loans (unlike with Russia, they need to be paid back) from the EU over the next 7 years. The IMF was not offering any better loan deals, either. Sorry, but ultimately, Yanukovich had genuine motivations besides "ahh big bad Russia scary and will invade!!!" to side with Russia on trade. The EU didn't try hard enough.
1
@willgary8792 Right, my question is why the "and now Russia" part. After the USSR collapsed, there should have been no reason for NATO to exist, since it was founded to counter communist expansion in Europe. Russia under Yeltsin wanted to be Western. So why did NATO not disband itself? And what you described aren't "flaws", they're crimes under international law. Bombing Serbia was literally called "illegal but necessary". Libya and Iraq even more obvious, since no European or American member states were involved. Once an alliance attacks someone unprovoked, it's no longer defensive. You can repeat it as much as you like, but that doesn't change what NATO did.
1
@outoftheforest7652 We can show compassion for his difficulties in life... that doesn't mean we have to agree with all his opinions. Especially because he seems to have swung way too far the other way— ever notice how drug addicts or ex-cons get fixated on clean living? Overcompensating for what's already been done. I wouldn't trust them to speak for the millions of Americans who just want more healthy food options. Even if that's what he speaks to, he's going about it the wrong way. While I agree with his assessments in general, doing away with seed oils and replacing them with tallow, or doing away with GMOs, is just plain stupid. Health nuts called nuts for a reason.
1
@dr.zoidberg8666 This is what I was going to comment. This is not the end, but the beginning. The unraveling of Western institutions and power, naturally will be a painful and bloody transition. But if Russia wins in Ukraine and Palestine successfully beats away Israel (or the rest of the world forces it to retreat to 1967 borders), the West will lose a lot of power. Francafrique (as seen in Niger and Mali) is falling apart, Germany is in recession, the UK is in recession and looking to its former colonial subjects for strength. The traditional power structure upheld for hundreds of years and cemented after WWII is coming undone, and Russia and China are chiefly behind it. Of course it seems climate issues are forgotten now so we may in fact all perish before we are able to reverse the effects, but in the final moments the rest of the world will have broken free from the West.
1
 @josephsimmons9241 And they speak perfect English too, much harder to spot
1
@coryneff7048 The original agreements from April 2022 were actually more generous. Crimea would have to be Russian (I mean, would any country willingly give up a massive naval base to a foreign military alliance? Especially when 90% of the population politically aligns with your country?) And Donbass would be tabled for later— though the indication was that they'd stay part of Ukraine in exchange for Russian co-official language status, and greater autonomy in general. The annexations happened way after that. So the situation ultimately has gotten worse for Ukraine, but their own maximalist pre-negotiation conditions are just as delusional as Russia's.
1
@Neon_Plasma Not to be pedantic, but a Memorandum of Understanding isn't binding under international law. Same argument used as "No, NATO did not agree to stop moving eastwards. It wasn't technically signed, only verbally assured". When you set the precedent of being a nitpicky weasel, don't be surprised when others leverage that, too.
1
 @manderly33 Some hicks are gonna genuinely think that's a better solution. "Your package is more secure at our facilities" will be the grand pitch.
1
People are willing to ignore all of that because of one simple reason: they're promised something if he wins. As long as Trump improves the country, their thought process goes, it's worth overlooking all of the other stuff. Kamala barely campaigned on the abortion issue and talked incessantly about why Trump was bad— but she didn't outline any policies of her own. Kamala didn't have her own version of Medicare for All, or (even from a Trump point of view) Tariffs, or Build a Wall. She was a vibes-based candidate who checked off all the boxes a well to-do liberal might want in a candidate, but with no substance. To this day I have no idea what her economic policy is. What's her position on student loans? Taxes? Inflation? And so on. She didn't message it, at all
1
I think the fundamental issue here is, you see Russia as a bad actor with ill intentions. You simply cannot fathom that they are an aggrieved party with genuine concerns and vulnerabilities. It isn't appeasement to come to a deal with Russia. They didn't even care about Western companies developing Ukraine's economy. Their sole concern was military. Had they gotten some kind of assurance that Ukraine wouldn't be in NATO (for instance, not announcing that they WOULD join in 2008 despite only 11% of Ukrainians wanting to then) then Russia would not have any reason to react. You cannot separate NATO from the US' foreign policy. All the bad stuff that the US does, NATO just helps them do it better. The "defensive alliance" means the US military gets access to new lands farther east, making it easier to conduct surveillance, sabotage, covert operations... This is the main crux of the Russian argument. With the US having such a long history of overthrowing leaders and destroying foreign countries for profit, is it really a stretch to think Russia has good reason to want to keep the US military as physically far away as possible? ESPECIALLY after what had just happened in the 1990s?? Russia's goal is to keep the US at arm's length. That's it.
1
@RedXlV Source? They were far-right and there's more evidence to suggest that they were ultra-nationalists funded by Western NGOs Just by heuristics alone— why would Russia fund something that stoked hatred against the pro-Russian government, and how wouldn't hey convince ultra-nationalists who hate them to do that?
1
Folks, this is what Israelis sound like when they're talking in Hebrew. When they think no one can hear. This was just a lucky occurrence to hear from someone who has foreign sympathies and adopted the ideology that most of Israeli society holds. Thank him for the translation!
1