Youtube comments of LancesArmorStriking (@LancesArmorStriking).

  1. 5300
  2. 3600
  3. 1200
  4. 689
  5. 592
  6. 559
  7. 469
  8. 355
  9. 331
  10. 321
  11. 254
  12. 221
  13. 217
  14. 193
  15. 187
  16. 186
  17. 186
  18. 183
  19. 180
  20. 170
  21. 163
  22. 162
  23. 158
  24. 152
  25. 150
  26. 146
  27. 146
  28. 143
  29. 136
  30. 135
  31. 124
  32. 123
  33. 117
  34. 117
  35. 115
  36. 115
  37. 107
  38. 104
  39. 102
  40. 98
  41. 97
  42. 95
  43. 94
  44. 93
  45. 91
  46. 90
  47. 86
  48. 85
  49. 84
  50. 84
  51. 79
  52. 77
  53. 75
  54. 75
  55. 74
  56. 74
  57. 72
  58. 72
  59. 71
  60. 70
  61. 70
  62. 69
  63. 69
  64. 68
  65. 68
  66. 67
  67. 66
  68. 66
  69. 65
  70. 64
  71. 64
  72. 64
  73.  @gogopoweryubari  "you need therapy" True. Also, what a privileged take. Not everyone can afford it, nor does their insurance cover it. Stop victim blaming, thanks. And bold of you to assume that I date. You're so arrogant you assumed that I'm not self-aware enough to avoid that situation altogether. I know that I have trauma, and try to be conscientious of its effects on others. But I wasn't talking about women whom I want to be in a relationship with. This "ew, he's struggling" mentality extends even to friends. I try to confide in my female friends and gain an ear and some healthy perspective. What do I get in return? Slowly kept at arms' length by someone whom I thought was a friend. I have no issues like this with guy friends. My female friends have NO issue telling me about their SA experiences and their issues, that doesn't drive me away. I want to help them through it. But when the shoe is on the other foot? Suddenly we're not worth the time of day. This holds true for most of my guy friends. Whether friends or partners, women for some reason want someone who's very well-adjusted while seeing no issue dating with issues of their own and expecting their bf to be their rock. The hypocrisy is unreal. And the worst part is women are partially to blame for the male trauma that goes on to affect other women's dating experiences down the line. Unless you start holding the worst of your own to account and acknowledge there's a phenomenon of emotionally suppressing men, nothing will change. Enjoy your Tinder dates
    64
  74. 63
  75. 63
  76. 63
  77. 62
  78. 62
  79. 61
  80. 61
  81. 61
  82. 61
  83. 60
  84. 60
  85. 60
  86. 59
  87. 59
  88. 59
  89. 58
  90. 58
  91. 58
  92. 58
  93. 57
  94. 57
  95. 56
  96. 55
  97. 55
  98. 53
  99. 53
  100. 53
  101. 52
  102. 51
  103. 51
  104. 51
  105. 51
  106. 51
  107. 51
  108. 50
  109. 50
  110. 50
  111. 50
  112. 50
  113. 50
  114. 49
  115. 49
  116. 49
  117. 48
  118. 48
  119. 48
  120. 47
  121. 47
  122. 47
  123. 46
  124. 46
  125. 45
  126. 45
  127. 45
  128. 45
  129. 45
  130. 44
  131. 43
  132. 43
  133. 43
  134. 42
  135. 42
  136. 41
  137. 41
  138. 40
  139. 40
  140. 39
  141. 39
  142. 39
  143. 38
  144. 38
  145. 38
  146. 38
  147. 38
  148. 38
  149. 38
  150. 38
  151. 38
  152. 38
  153. 38
  154. 37
  155. 37
  156. 37
  157. 37
  158. 37
  159. 37
  160. 37
  161. 36
  162. 36
  163. 36
  164. 36
  165. 35
  166. 35
  167. 35
  168. 35
  169. 35
  170. 35
  171. 35
  172. 35
  173. 34
  174. 34
  175. 34
  176. 34
  177. 34
  178. 34
  179. 33
  180. 33
  181. 33
  182. 33
  183. 32
  184. 32
  185. 32
  186. 32
  187. 32
  188. 32
  189. 31
  190. 31
  191. 31
  192. 31
  193. 31
  194. 30
  195. 30
  196. 30
  197. 30
  198. 30
  199. 30
  200. 30
  201. 30
  202. 29
  203. 29
  204. 29
  205. 29
  206. 28
  207. 28
  208. 28
  209. 28
  210. 28
  211. 27
  212. 27
  213. 27
  214. 27
  215. 27
  216. 27
  217. 27
  218. 27
  219. 26
  220. 26
  221. 26
  222. 26
  223. 26
  224. 25
  225.  @nathanlovik1753  Ah yes, the '4D chess' argument. When your figurehead is so stupid that even you can't rationalize their behavior at face value, so you inject it with meaning to compensate. There is no evidence to suggest that JLP was using the Socratic method here- he doesn't ever hint at a deeper, underlying reason for questioning the way that he does. In fact, he does the opposite: When Hassan answers his question at 38:19 "Do you think black people are victims?" with "I think black people, just like white people, are all victims of the same system that we live under". He keeps repeating the same question, "I didn't ask about all I only asked about one group" and so on, until they move on. This isn't Socratic- he isn't questioning assumptions, he's creating them. While I personally do think that black people are victims in a way exclusive to them (court sentencing lengths, policing, weed arrests, all connected to generational wealth)-- if Hasan doesn't think that, JLP needs to accept the answer and move on, or address the underlying disagreement. His question rests on a false assumption, that Hasan needs to think exactly the way he does. If Hasan established that he doesn't believe the premise of the question (black people are victims in particular) then JLP needs to prove that the premise is true. Instead of actually questioning the premise, like you're saying, he just keeps going with it. As for the rest of your gibberish comment, again, I need evidence to suggest that JLP actually thinks that. Does he explicitly say that we're all a part of society, or capitalism? Does he hint at it? I need words from his mouth, not yours. And you went from one point to another: Dylan Roof shooting up a black church after writing things like "Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior." That's the definition of racism- thinking that some races are beneath others, or that they're inherently bad. So, there is "some individuals must be behind the racist or injustice." Dylann is racist, and he killed black people. Is innocent black people dying not injustice? Is being killed, having members of your family killed by a child not oppressive? I think you proved yourself wrong. Then you went to power, which is a different argument. You need to stay on track. Even then, you're wrong. The power to kill innocent people and not be killed on the spot, like Ahmaud Arbery, Eric Garner, or Treyvon Martin, is power. Why do the police not kill him, but kill all those other people? It's because he's white and his family will raise hell if their little 'troubled angel' is killed. "Is society racist" is exactly the same type of question as "are black people victims"! Too fucking broad!! Which society? Which country? U.S.? Okay, which region? Racist against which group? How, where? Is it legal or illegal? Why don't you conservatives ever want to being your ideas out of La-La Land and into the real world? Talk about specific places, times, dates. For fuck's sake. Be specific, for once.
    25
  226. 25
  227. 25
  228. 25
  229. 25
  230. 25
  231. 25
  232. 25
  233. 25
  234. 25
  235. 25
  236. 25
  237. 24
  238. 24
  239. 24
  240. 24
  241. 24
  242. 24
  243. 24
  244. 24
  245. 23
  246. 23
  247. 23
  248. 23
  249. 23
  250. 23
  251. 23
  252. 23
  253. 23
  254. 23
  255. 23
  256. 23
  257. 23
  258. 22
  259. 22
  260. 22
  261. 22
  262. 22
  263. 22
  264. 22
  265. 22
  266. 22
  267. 22
  268. 22
  269. 22
  270. 22
  271. 22
  272. 21
  273. 21
  274. 21
  275. 21
  276. 21
  277. 21
  278. 21
  279. 21
  280. 21
  281. 21
  282. 21
  283. 21
  284. 21
  285. 21
  286. 21
  287. 20
  288. 20
  289. 20
  290. 20
  291. 20
  292. 20
  293. 20
  294. 20
  295. 20
  296. 20
  297. 20
  298. 20
  299. 20
  300. 20
  301.  @frankySR21  I fail to see where I am wrong; all of your examples confirmed my point: African nations can, and are, leading themselves. I'm glad you acknowledged each country's strengths, and that's my point. Given political autonomy, they will raise their own standards of living. And they have been. Rwanda, by the way, has a murder rate less than half of the U.S., and has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. You clearly didn't do what I said, because you think they're still reeling from the Rwandan Genocide. That was 30 years ago, keep up. Things are changing for the better. Egypt is an African country. Did you say, "sub-Saharan African?" No? Then stop moving the goalposts so you don't have to admit when you're wrong. Grow some balls and recognize when you've made an error in judgement. The rest of my comment was meant to illustrate why African countries aren't going to "just be better" overnight. Their boundaries rope in multiple ethnic groups in conflict with each other for hundreds if not thousands of years. That leads to instability, and moving borders now would be too complex. And really? If you're severely flawed, you're unable to self-govern? So the fact that Norway relies on oil exports is fine, but Nigeria is 'behind' for exploiting its own natural resources? Turkey has its Kurds, Russia its Chechens, and China its Tibetans and Uighurs. Ethnic conflict is somehow the fault of an African nation whose boundaries were drawn without any African input, but another nation with the same problem is 'just securing its territory,' right? Why won't you address the rest of my comment? If it were actually moronic, you'd tear it to pieces. But you didn't because you know I'm right. African nations have been sabotaged again and again by the United States and France. Trying to establish a national currency is sooo corrupt, stupid monkeys! /s Africa was doomed from the start by Europe, that was the point of my analogy. Rwanda is the African version of Poland and Russia. Enemies for centuries, forced into the same country. And then people like you have the gall to say "they re just backwards, they just need to get over their differences and advance!" When European conflicts are treated seriously. It's a double standard and you know it.
    20
  302. 20
  303. 20
  304. 20
  305. 20
  306. 20
  307. 20
  308. 19
  309. 19
  310. 19
  311. 19
  312. 19
  313. 19
  314. 19
  315. 19
  316. 19
  317. 19
  318. 19
  319. 19
  320. 19
  321. 19
  322. 19
  323. 19
  324. 18
  325. 18
  326. 18
  327. 18
  328. 18
  329. 18
  330. 18
  331. 18
  332. 18
  333. 18
  334. 18
  335. 18
  336. 18
  337. 18
  338. 18
  339. 18
  340. 18
  341. 18
  342. 18
  343. 18
  344. 18
  345. 18
  346. 18
  347. 18
  348. 18
  349. 18
  350. 17
  351. 17
  352. 17
  353. 17
  354. 17
  355. 17
  356. 17
  357. 17
  358. 17
  359. 17
  360. 17
  361. 17
  362. 17
  363. 17
  364. 17
  365. 17
  366. 17
  367. 17
  368. 17
  369. 17
  370. 17
  371. 17
  372. 17
  373. 17
  374. 17
  375. 16
  376. 16
  377. 16
  378. 16
  379. 16
  380. 16
  381. 16
  382. 16
  383. 16
  384. 16
  385. 16
  386. 16
  387. 16
  388. 16
  389. 16
  390. 16
  391. 16
  392. 16
  393. 16
  394. 16
  395. 16
  396. 16
  397. 15
  398. 15
  399. 15
  400. 15
  401. 15
  402. 15
  403. 15
  404. 15
  405. 15
  406. 15
  407. 15
  408. 15
  409. 15
  410. 15
  411. 15
  412. 15
  413. 15
  414. 15
  415.  @Khalkara  "Yeah.. To stop the mass slaughter of civillians. They didn't start the Libyan war." 1. You're moving the goalposts, and flagrantly lying. You started by saying " The vast majority of NATO members didn't have anything to do with those 4 countries mentioned by OP." I responded by saying that NATO (& most of its members) did, in fact, have direct involvement with all 4. So when you get called out for lying, your first instinct is to say, "yeah b-b-but when WE do it it's okay!" Just admit you lied dude, you're supposed to be the 'defenders of democracy', and me the bot- not the other way around. 2. My mistake, ISAF was in Afghanistan, not Libya. This, though, makes it even less justifiable, since the reasoning behind invading (WMDs) was entirely fake. See? I can admit when I said something wrong. "No, I'm not being selective. NATO isn't a country, its a voluntarily defensive alliance" How does that at all refute what I said? My point was that you tried to wash individual countries' hands of the crimes, despite them signing off on it, and simultaneously claiming that they are a "voluntary defensive alliance". I never claimed they were a country, so stop putting words in my mouth, thanks. If they're an alliance, then they all hold responsibility for their actions, since they are collectively united in policy. You can't have it both ways, sorry. "that badly try to smear NATO as an offensive organization" Could you explain to me how conducting airstrikes over another country, killing tens of thousands of civilians no less, is defensive? It is, literally, offensive. You are taking your military force and projecting it outwards. That is by definition not just defensive. Which NATO country was Libya threatening with its actions? Where in Article 5 is it written that a non-NATO country, not posing any attack to a NATO member state, can be bombed?? "Why can't you people just be honest and admit you're ok with Russian imperialism?" I, personally, am only okay with it conditionally. If the US gets to invade a country, slaughter innocent civilians, and leave with no punishment--- all while benefitting from the stolen oil fields--- then any other country should be able to do the same. I am not pro-Russia per se, I am anti-hypocrisy. If the imperial power claiming to abide by universal human rights then demands and forces others to, despite reaping the benefits of violating those rules, then it can be expected to be challenged. Basically- unless Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, and Biden are all captured and presented before the ICC, then there is no chance in hell Russia would ever consider doing the same for Putin. You don't get to reap the benefits of being a hypocritical destroyer of nations... without others doing the same.
    15
  416. 15
  417. 15
  418. 15
  419. 15
  420. 15
  421. 15
  422. 15
  423. 15
  424. 15
  425. 15
  426. 15
  427. 15
  428. 15
  429. 15
  430. 15
  431. 15
  432. 15
  433. 15
  434. 15
  435. 15
  436.  @alekshukhevych2644  Not nearly as much of a myth as Kyi. We have strong evidence of Scandinavian rule over Slavic lands at around the time of the legend. We also have archaeological evidence of Novgorod being founded around that time too, and that the Rus did extend their power to Kiev after raiding the city. You will need to specify what you mean by "Rus itself according to all manuscripts is literally North-Central Ukraine". That is vague and patiently untrue— East Slavic settlements were also concentrated in northern pockets around Novgorod and current Pskov, far from Kiev. Also— weren't you just questioning the truthfulness of the manuscripts? You seem to be cherry-picking which parts you believe. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about the Polans tribe— Russians trace their tribal ancestry to the Krivichi and Vyatichi. Old Ukrainian isn't directly descended from Old East Slavic— it became distinct from Ruthenian/Rusian after Poland changed its vocabulary to such an extent that it separated from the uncaptured Rus territory (modern Russia). 300 years of Polish occupation changed western Rus into Ukraine and Belarus. I won't pretend like Russian is very similar to the Old Rus language— it has gone through a vowel shift, like English did with Old English. It has picked out Dutch and German words during its Imperial period. But to try and claim that Ukrainian is more similar to it than Russian is insane. Maybe if you purged all Polish borrowed words, but then you'd lose 40% of your vocabulary.
    15
  437. 14
  438. 14
  439. 14
  440. 14
  441. 14
  442. 14
  443. 14
  444. 14
  445. 14
  446. 14
  447. 14
  448. 14
  449. 14
  450. 14
  451. 14
  452. 14
  453. 14
  454. 14
  455. 14
  456. 14
  457. 14
  458. 14
  459. 14
  460. 14
  461. 14
  462. 14
  463. 13
  464. 13
  465. 13
  466. 13
  467. 13
  468. 13
  469. 13
  470. 13
  471. 13
  472. 13
  473. 13
  474. 13
  475. 13
  476. 13
  477. 13
  478. 13
  479. 13
  480. 13
  481. 13
  482. 13
  483. 13
  484. 13
  485. 13
  486. 13
  487. 13
  488. 13
  489. 13
  490. 13
  491. 13
  492. 13
  493.  @elfatzeqiri7202  I have spent much more than 2 minutes, and the conclusion is the opposite. The Slavs migrated to what was called Dardania in the 7th century. Serbian rule was well-established from the early 1200's with the Nemanjić Dynasty and lasted until the defeat to the Ottomans at the Battle of Kosovo. Only after the Ottoman Turks took over, did Albanians start to migrate into western Kosovo. Then when Tito came to rule, they were transported to Kosovo as cheap labor. This is why there are so many of them in Kosovo today- it's all very new. I'm sorry, but there is no evidence that either the Illyrians (who only lived along the Adriatic Coast and didn't ever live in Kosovo anyway- so Albanians could be Illyrians, but then they could only claim Croatian coastline, not Kosovo which was deeper into the Balkan land, the Illyrians never lived in Dardania) or the Dardani (no evidence of Dardanian culture being Albanian- the first mention of Albanians in writing wasn't until 1248, decades after Serbian Kingdom ruled Kosovo and had a culture and presence there for hundreds of years). It wasn't even Albanian, it was written in Latin. The first evidence of Albanian language in writing comes from 1462! So Albanians will never be able to prove that they are Dardanians- they couldn't even create a writing system until the 1400's. We don't have any writing about Albanians before 1462, and we don't have any records of the Dardanians' culture. So, what evidence do you actually have? Please, be precise and give dates and times. I just want to remind you that Kosovo itself is a Serbian word.
    13
  494. 13
  495. 13
  496. 13
  497. 13
  498. 13
  499. 13
  500. 13
  501. 13
  502. 13
  503. 12
  504. 12
  505. 12
  506. 12
  507. 12
  508. 12
  509. 12
  510. 12
  511. 12
  512. 12
  513. 12
  514. 12
  515. 12
  516. 12
  517. 12
  518. 12
  519. 12
  520. 12
  521. 12
  522. 12
  523. 12
  524. 12
  525. 12
  526. 12
  527. 12
  528. 12
  529. 12
  530. 12
  531. 12
  532. 12
  533. 12
  534. 12
  535. 12
  536. 12
  537. 12
  538. 12
  539. 12
  540. 12
  541. 12
  542. 12
  543. 12
  544. 12
  545. 12
  546. 12
  547. 12
  548. 12
  549. 12
  550. 12
  551. 12
  552. 12
  553. 12
  554. 12
  555. 11
  556. 11
  557. 11
  558. 11
  559.  @nathanlovik1753  Lol, if the best you can do is say "they look unprepared" you've already lost. Attacking the person shows that you know his arguments are right, but you can't talk about that because it'll be obvious the second you start. And Peterson was the one mumbling through his own show, I don't know where exactly you saw him as being 'unprepared' or clueless. I need specific timestamps. You're making assumption after assumption here, it makes you look really stupid. Give me evidence that Hasan 'rolled out of bed' to the interview. Comments by him later, testimonies from friends, groupchat messages, anything. You're jumping to conclusions without any documentation that it actually, really happened. But you're conservative, so what should I expect. The rest of your statement is also completely ridiculous. Red states mooch off of blue states, consistently. https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/ If the Republican South is so great, why is it still piss-poor after all this time? Even Texas cities are blue lol. New Orleans is blue. Missoula is blue. Face it, Democrats pull the weight of the country, red flyover states mooch off Medicare while pretending they hate it. Slimy hypocrites. Ben Shapiro couldn't handle a 15 minute interview with Andrew Neil, a conservative! His job was to read arguments from the left and play Devil's Advocate, to see the interviewee defend their positions. The second Ben steps off a college campus or his safe little show, he gets destroyed LMAO, he even had to apologize for it, fucking loser https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126561352867147776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1126561352867147776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fben-shapiro-bbc-interview-intl%2Findex.html He's so not used to actually being challenged that he cracked the second it happened. He's not prepared, he literally says he didn't do his research before. Stop lying right to my face. https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1126894051456774144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1126894051456774144&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F05%2F11%2Fus%2Fben-shapiro-bbc-interview-intl%2Findex.html
    11
  560. 11
  561. 11
  562. 11
  563. 11
  564. 11
  565. 11
  566. 11
  567. 11
  568. 11
  569. 11
  570. 11
  571. 11
  572. 11
  573. 11
  574. 11
  575. 11
  576. 11
  577. 11
  578.  @TheTokkin  Wow, that was insane. Easily the dumbest, most wishful thinking I've seen all week. You're unironically an idiot. "A chance to build something better" You think that a Libyan state will just magically spring from nowhere once a Parliamentary vote is established? What exactly do you think people vote on? Infrastructure, food security, unemployment, education- domestic issues. Can you guess what Gaddafi was working to improve during his rule? "Just because the people of Libya failed" You mean, the loud minority of rebel fighters that received training and backing from the US? Yeah, they failed. "doesn't mean that the policy was a failure: it's perfectly possible that they might be do so in the future" This is what boils my blood the most. You are comically naïve- ideological, childish in your approach to nationbuilding. You think the principles come before the material gains, and are willing to sacrifice people's lives just to satisfy your own finnicky little needs. Do you think that before democracy, all countries were unstable messes just waiting to emulate the Constitution so that they could start 'being good'? What a load of shit. "I agree its risky, but the risk is partly why I love it" You're sitting comfortable in your developed nation, of course you "love" it. You seem to treat politics like it's sports. But I wouldn't expect anything else from a Westerner. Especially an American. The people of Libya don't need stability 'in the future', they need help NOW. The Tripoli government is a radical Islamist faction, I find it laughable that you think women or minorities would have a better life there. Slaughter the Tripoli government, if you really stick ot your values. But I'm sure you'd survive just fine down there, since you're so committed to putting those values before everything else. Spend a few months there and tell me how great the American plan is. Let's see how much you love "risky" when your next meal depends on it. I fucking hate people like you- you're no better than a Maoist or a Jacobin; you refuse to base, or at least temper, your principles based on what's actually going on in the world, and stubbornly stick to your values for your personal emotional reasons, no matter how detrimental they are to real, living people. And I hope you're willing to extend those same sentiments to your allies in Saudi Arabia. The entire family would need to be murdered. Same goes with Naftali Bennet, and Bibi in Israel. And the UAE, and Brazil, and Hungary and Poland. Be my guest, please.
    11
  579. 11
  580. 11
  581. 11
  582. 11
  583. 11
  584. 11
  585. 11
  586. 11
  587. 11
  588. 11
  589. 11
  590. 11
  591. 11
  592. 11
  593. 11
  594. 11
  595. 11
  596. 11
  597. 11
  598. 11
  599. 11
  600. 11
  601. 11
  602. 11
  603. 10
  604. 10
  605. 10
  606. 10
  607. 10
  608. 10
  609. 10
  610. 10
  611.  @ZackWolfMusic  Lmao dude which university are you studying at, what major? I have a hard time believing that you're in aerospace and refuse to accept the fact upon which all of our global navigational systems are based. If the Earth is flat, why can't I see the North Star from any place on Earth at night? Why are some constellations only visible from certain places on Earth (and they aren't far apart either- according to the flat Earth model, I should be able to see the Southern Cross from Catalonia in Argentina, and also be able to, from the northernmost tip of the same country. I can't.) That rules out the possibility that the atmosphere "clouds your view," because the distance between two points equidistant from the Equator (or, in your model, the Ring?) is smaller than the distance between two points in the Northern Hemisphere (or "semi-circle") from both of which the North Star is visible. In other words, the boundaries where the atmosphere "gets too thick" blocking the view of fucking gas giants (or "Firmaments"), is completely put of line with reality, and conflicts with the observable properties of our atmosphere. If I can see the same stars from Mongolia and Norway, why can't I see them from Egypt and South Sudan? Because the Earth is a sphere. Not to mention there are complete videos of rockets with cameras attached going to space. Though if you dismiss it as fake, then you'll have to provide evidence that the video had been doctored, and if you can't, then you're admitting that evidence does not matter to you, because you leave no room for your worldview to be challenged if everything that you disagree with just happens to be "fake." That and, because of the force of gravity, anything as large as Earth would collapse back into a spherical shape under the weight of its own gravity. Oh, and the Earth faces the moon at different angles throughout the month, but always casts a circular shadow; something impossible with a disc.
    10
  612. 10
  613. 10
  614. 10
  615. 10
  616. 10
  617. 10
  618. 10
  619. 10
  620. 10
  621. 10
  622. 10
  623. 10
  624. 10
  625. 10
  626. 10
  627. 10
  628. 10
  629. 10
  630. 10
  631. 10
  632. 10
  633. 10
  634. 10
  635. 10
  636. 10
  637. 10
  638. 10
  639. 10
  640. 10
  641. 10
  642. 10
  643. 10
  644. 10
  645. 10
  646. 10
  647. 10
  648. 10
  649. 10
  650. 10
  651. 10
  652. 10
  653. 10
  654. 10
  655. 10
  656. 10
  657. 10
  658. 10
  659. 10
  660. 10
  661. 10
  662. 10
  663. 10
  664. 10
  665. 10
  666. 10
  667. 10
  668. 10
  669. 10
  670. 10
  671. 10
  672. 10
  673. 10
  674. 10
  675. 9
  676. 9
  677. 9
  678. 9
  679. 9
  680. 9
  681. 9
  682. 9
  683. 9
  684. 9
  685. 9
  686. 9
  687. 9
  688. 9
  689. 9
  690. 9
  691. 9
  692. 9
  693. 9
  694. 9
  695. 9
  696. 9
  697. 9
  698. 9
  699. 9
  700. 9
  701. 9
  702. 9
  703. 9
  704. 9
  705. 9
  706. 9
  707. 9
  708. 9
  709. 9
  710. 9
  711. 9
  712. 9
  713. 9
  714. 9
  715. 9
  716. 9
  717. 9
  718.  @johnrogers235  I don't think he's wrong- there's plenty of research poking into the issue, before Weinstein even became a grad student. This took me all of 5 minutes: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.bi.65.070196.002005 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/28/22/4474/2383801 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867401800064 What's very important to remember, even more than the content, is the situation itself. You are watching a Joe Rogan podcast/interview, on YouTube. To turn a phrase from Mark McLuhan, the medium is the message. The context surrounding the information you're taking in informs you of its character and, possibly, validity. In this case, a biologist has taken 3 full hours, and at least a few more to plan and arrive, to do a media appearance. In most scientific fields, consistently doing that often indicates a lack of current research (you can only devote so much time if you're constantly doing public speaking events) or a lack of credibility (Ken Ham, every Theology PhD, Bill Nye- yes, him too. Marketing yourself as a scientist generally tells you that there is a reason to do so unrelated to actual science). Most scientists- especially prolific ones- genuinely don't have the time to interview, or to hone their communication skills. I was only able to find 2 publications where he was directly involved, and most scientists haven't registered a website with their name as the domain. Or a Ted Talk, or multiple media appearances. Again, not damning, but something to consider. That's also not to say that every single person on Joe Rogan's podcast is a 'fraud', but if someone is well-known and just so happens to be very media-focused, don't ignore that. Dr. Oz does have an MD, but he does weekly TV appearances on his own show. That's crucial information and should be the lens through which you look at what he's telling you. Oftentimes it's so obvious (because it's woven into your knowledge of them to begin with), that you can forget that it's there altogether. Don't miss the frame for the painting. Sorry for the text block, just bored and wanted to help out, since I was waiting foe his reply too lol
    9
  719. 9
  720. 9
  721. 9
  722. 9
  723. 9
  724. 9
  725. 9
  726. 9
  727. 9
  728. 9
  729. 9
  730. 9
  731. 9
  732. 9
  733. 9
  734. 9
  735. 9
  736. 9
  737. 9
  738. 9
  739. 9
  740. 9
  741. 9
  742. 9
  743.  @vredacted3125  ...What are you smoking? The Sofia Chronicle mentions Novgorod in 862, while the Novgorod Chronicle mentions it first in 862. If it was founded in 930, then where exactly did Oleg come from to capture Kiev? In fact, what was his goal of securing a trade route 'from the Varangians to the Greeks' if he was coming home to nothing? You need to cite these "archeological surveys". With no evidence, your opinion is worthless. Rus' was not exclusively the southern region. You're still trying to draw a line around a specific territory like it is a modern country. You're misunderstanding history at a basic level. Like I said before, according to every Chronicle that survives today, ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́ was originally just the lands wherever the Роусь conquered. The Роусь then became the name for the Slavic tribes that lived there. Rus' was founded in Novgorod by Rurik, therefore the people there are Rus'. Simple as that. I don't care which events you think legitmize your EXCLUSIVE claim to the legacy of Rus' and I don't care what a dead Ukrainian scholar thinks of it either. You need to explain WHY those events mean that only the southern part of Rus counts as Rus. You need to provide the primary evidence, here. Dates, names, figures, explanations. I could say that my opinion is "indisputably proven" by some Russian scholar too. So now what? Unless you understand how and why it is indisputable, you are just blindly believing what someone tells you. So please, explain. Don't just give the events, WHY does a military campaign against Constantinople mean that only the southern areas are Rus? About the rest of your comment: Moscow conquered Novgorod, so what? You JUST said that Kiev attacked Constantinople. So attacking another city doesn't mean that someone isn't Rus. Also if you put "democratic" in quotes, saying that it actually wasn't democratic, then why does it matter anyway? Sounds like you're saying that Novgorod wasn't democratic anyway so what difference does it make, and how does that mean that BOTH cities weren't still ро́усьскаѧ землѧ́? Kiev was ruled by a Velikiy Knyaz, that's not democratic either. So why are you using the "democracy" argument when Kiev doesn't reach that standard either?? I agree that Muscovites aren't anything like Rusyns. They also aren't anything like Permians, Omskites, or Krasnodarians. Each city and region has its own culture, this was true during the Rus period too, how does this prove that Moscow wasn't Rus? THE RURIKID DYNASTY MOVED TO MOSCOW, RUSSIA. The Dynasty that founded the Rus lands which you're claiming belongs only to Ukraine, started in Novgorod, Russia, and ended in Moscow, Russia. Also, I am ethnically Rusyn. Ukrainians aren't Rusyns. Don't try to claim that, too. The Boykos, Lemkos, Hutsuls, and other smaller groups have a distinct Carpathian culture that a Kyivan would not recognize before 1921.
    9
  744. 9
  745. 9
  746. 9
  747. 9
  748. 9
  749. 9
  750. 9
  751. 9
  752. 9
  753. 9
  754. 9
  755. 9
  756. 9
  757. 9
  758. 9
  759. 9
  760. 9
  761. 9
  762. 9
  763. 9
  764. 9
  765. 9
  766. 9
  767. 9
  768. 9
  769. 9
  770. 9
  771. 9
  772. 9
  773. 9
  774. 9
  775. 9
  776. 8
  777. 8
  778. 8
  779. 8
  780. 8
  781. 8
  782. 8
  783. 8
  784. 8
  785. 8
  786. 8
  787. 8
  788. 8
  789. 8
  790. 8
  791. 8
  792. 8
  793. 8
  794. 8
  795. 8
  796. 8
  797. 8
  798. 8
  799. 8
  800. 8
  801. 8
  802. 8
  803. 8
  804. 8
  805. 8
  806. 8
  807. 8
  808. 8
  809. 8
  810. 8
  811. 8
  812. 8
  813. 8
  814. 8
  815. 8
  816. 8
  817. 8
  818. 8
  819. 8
  820. 8
  821. 8
  822. 8
  823. 8
  824. 8
  825. I think Russiphobia comes in different forms from different nations: The Baltics probably (understandably) feel what I call "civilizational threat" from Russia— not being annihilated through violence, but economically, cilturally, and eventually militarily absorbed into a behemoth, never to be seen again. Poland has some of that, but moreso a bitterness and chip on its shoulder over having been subjugated by the Russians. They themselves had zero qualms about conquering and Polonizng areas of Rus that they captured after the Mongols invaded. They're just mad that they lost the geopolitical game. Speaking of games, the UK— its Russophobia is markedly different. Its origins are likely in the days of Empire, when the Great Game over Central Asia made Britain feel threatened that Russia would eventually "steal" India away from them. This carried on into the Soviet period, with the USSR supporting uprisings in British colonies which drained the UK's resources. The same can also be said for the US. Initially they were actually friendly with the Russian Empire, with their friendship peaking around the 1830s— but conflicting economic interests and especially the Revolution set them ideologically and economically at odds with each other. Japan just doesn't like that the USSR took the Kuril Islands from the Japanese Empire. Each element of "the West" has its own historical reason to hate Russia, but they're mostly either historical grievances, or the economic threat posed by another large, resource-rich country competing with them.
    8
  826. 8
  827. 8
  828. 8
  829. 8
  830. 8
  831. 8
  832. 8
  833. 8
  834. 8
  835. 8
  836. 8
  837. 8
  838. 8
  839. 8
  840. 8
  841. 8
  842. 8
  843. 8
  844. 8
  845. 8
  846. 8
  847. 8
  848. 8
  849. 8
  850. 8
  851. 8
  852. 8
  853. 8
  854. 8
  855. 8
  856. 8
  857. 8
  858. 8
  859. 8
  860. 8
  861. 8
  862. 8
  863. 8
  864. 8
  865. 8
  866. 8
  867. 8
  868. 8
  869. 8
  870. 8
  871. 8
  872. 8
  873. 8
  874. 8
  875. 8
  876. 8
  877. 8
  878. 8
  879. 7
  880. 7
  881. 7
  882. 7
  883. 7
  884. 7
  885. 7
  886. 7
  887. 7
  888. 7
  889. 7
  890. 7
  891. 7
  892. 7
  893. 7
  894. 7
  895. 7
  896. 7
  897. 7
  898. 7
  899. 7
  900. 7
  901. 7
  902. 7
  903. 7
  904. 7
  905. 7
  906. 7
  907. 7
  908. 7
  909. 7
  910. 7
  911. 7
  912. 7
  913. 7
  914. 7
  915. 7
  916. 7
  917. 7
  918. 7
  919. 7
  920. 7
  921. 7
  922. 7
  923. 7
  924. 7
  925. 7
  926. 7
  927. 7
  928.  @badluck5647  It's not the intensity of the work but the expectation surrounding it. Japan has become so thoroughly Americanized that working at a business is not only a part of life but a social value there. For example you may not need to actually do huge amounts of work, but you do need to stay at work to show 'committment' to the company. So you might have nothing productive to do but still need to look busy because you're expected to remain in the office. You cannot under any conditions levae before the boss leaves. And if the boss goes our drinks and asks you come with, you simply must. Not doing so is a social taboo, not just a business decision. If the boss asks you to keep drinking, you keep going. If you do not, your entire social circle is in jeopardy, possibly your job. So the result is miserable feeling of no control while at work and no time after work for personal enjoyment, and crazy hours doing either insane work or mindless pencil pushing. Bureaucracy is insane, they still require you to have a fucking stamp custom made with your name because of how many documents you need to fill out throughout your life for even simple things. It seems like they have taken things that were developed to be a means to an end (doing business, paperwork) and turned them into a ritual valued for it's own sake. And the funniest part of all is that they worship these social norms that were imposed on them by the Americans after the war. It isn't even a traditionally Japanese societal organization, but a perversion of the Western one, with a lack of the history that shapes the understanding of these different aspects in society.
    7
  929. 7
  930. 7
  931. 7
  932. 7
  933. 7
  934. 7
  935. 7
  936. 7
  937. 7
  938. 7
  939. 7
  940. 7
  941. 7
  942. 7
  943. 7
  944. 7
  945. 7
  946. 7
  947. 7
  948. 7
  949. 7
  950. The larger picture is even more interesting, and nefarious: When Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955, it galvanized the US public (and scientific community) to eliminate the perceived threat (I won't comment on how warlike and simplistic I think the reaction to this event was). From the emerging research, two major hypothesis sprang: the sugar one, and the fat one. Dr. John Yudkin (in the UK) led the sugar-hypothesis, positing that it was the excess of complex sugars getting processed in our liver, unable to be fully converted, that the body turns into fat cells. Meanwhile Dr. Ancel Keyes, an American physiologist, led the fat-hypothesis, stating that dietary unsaturated fats led to people getting fat. It is worth mentioning that Keys had some... 'help', if I'm not mistaken, from the American Sugar Association, a lobbying group which had vested interests in keeping sugar on grocery shelves. Key among Keys' (ha!) evidence was the famous Seven Countries study.. which was also found to have been tampered with. The original study contained 21 countries, with no association (or correlation) between dietary fat and cholesterol levels, but Keys seems to have cherry-picked his own data. In the end, with the help of the companies, and a huge smear campaign, Yudkin's career ended with him discredited and destitute. Only 40 years later are we discovering that, once again, money interfered in politics... and now, despite the fact that everything is 'fat-free', we have 40% morbidly obese, and another 30% on top of that overweight. This is why I try not to give money to any Western food establishments, good or bad. Bad apples and such.
    7
  951. 7
  952. 7
  953. 7
  954. 7
  955. 7
  956. 7
  957. 7
  958. 7
  959. 7
  960. 7
  961. 7
  962. 7
  963. 7
  964. 7
  965. 7
  966. 7
  967. 7
  968. 7
  969. 7
  970. 7
  971. 7
  972. 7
  973. 7
  974. 7
  975. 7
  976. 7
  977. 7
  978. 7
  979. 7
  980. 7
  981. 7
  982. 7
  983. 7
  984. 7
  985. 7
  986. 7
  987. 7
  988. 7
  989. 7
  990. 7
  991. 7
  992. 7
  993. 7
  994. 7
  995. 7
  996. 7
  997. 7
  998. 7
  999. 7
  1000. 7
  1001. 7
  1002. 7
  1003. 7
  1004. 7
  1005. 7
  1006. 7
  1007. 7
  1008. 7
  1009. 7
  1010. 7
  1011. 7
  1012. 6
  1013. 6
  1014. 6
  1015. 6
  1016. 6
  1017. 6
  1018. 6
  1019. 6
  1020. 6
  1021. 6
  1022. 6
  1023. 6
  1024. 6
  1025. 6
  1026. 6
  1027. 6
  1028. 6
  1029. 6
  1030. 6
  1031. 6
  1032. 6
  1033. 6
  1034. 6
  1035. 6
  1036. 6
  1037. 6
  1038. 6
  1039. 6
  1040. 6
  1041. 6
  1042. 6
  1043. 6
  1044. 6
  1045. 6
  1046. 6
  1047. 6
  1048. 6
  1049. 6
  1050. 6
  1051. 6
  1052. 6
  1053. 6
  1054. 6
  1055. 6
  1056. 6
  1057. 6
  1058. 6
  1059. 6
  1060. 6
  1061.  @tsytryna4014  Yes, you're right. In the Hypathian Codex, "ѡ нем же оукраина много постона". The document is referring to Pereyaslav Principality, which was a border with the Golden Horde. This term оукраина did not refer to a single, specific place, as it was also used to describe Kyiv's borderlands of Pskov and Ryazan. Not to mention, even though modern Ukrainian makes a separation between "окраина" and "украина", Proto-Slavic does not. *krajь only meant "edge" or "border", nothing else. You are free to research the etymology yourself; the definition of "edge" came first. Ukrainians re-interpreted it later, after their national identity formed. There is nothing wrong with this— Denmark also means borderland. Ethiopia means "burnt face", but do they complain about that? Rusyns and Ruthenians are interchangeable, but neither of those are Ukrainians. They took their name from Rus', but that name only applied to people living in the Carpathian Mountains. Their regional designation is Carpatho-Rusyns, after all. They are nowhere near Kyiv! I should know— I'm a Hutsul by blood. Yes, the Ukrainian language has been more conservative— what is your point? American English is closer to Old English than modern British English. Does that make the U.S. closer to English culture than... England? Russian went through 2 reforms, if you look at old texts it is identical to Ukrainian. There was no difference, only one piece of the Tsardom changed and broke away. I assume in the last part you're talking about the Grand Duchy of Moscow. It was called Russia starting with Ivan Grozny, not Peter I. You must be confusing the Tsardom of Russia with with Russian Empire.
    6
  1062. 6
  1063. 6
  1064. 6
  1065. 6
  1066. 6
  1067. 6
  1068. 6
  1069. 6
  1070. 6
  1071. 6
  1072. 6
  1073. 6
  1074. 6
  1075. 6
  1076. 6
  1077. 6
  1078. 6
  1079. 6
  1080. 6
  1081. 6
  1082. 6
  1083. 6
  1084. 6
  1085. 6
  1086. 6
  1087. 6
  1088. 6
  1089. 6
  1090. 6
  1091. 6
  1092. 6
  1093. 6
  1094. 6
  1095. 6
  1096. 6
  1097.  @crazypolite  You being Canadian makes very little difference in my impressions of your political worldview. You're near identical to Americans, culturally and politically (sorry if that grates you, but that's my thought). "I'm also not above saying that if it weren't for Russia, U.K, and the USA, I'd be speaking German" Well, that's progress. Your southern neighbors haven't advanced past crediting the third nation on your list. It was a Herculean effort from all parties, but the Soviets did the brunt of the warring. That's an interesting characterization. I don't see it that way, especially if you take both countries' histories and actions into context, but feel free to see it how you like. I personally see Russia as traumatized: after having been attacked by the Poles, Germans, Vikings, and Tatars, then invaded and subjugated by the Mongols, it vowed to overcome its geographic vulnerability (completely flat land open to invasion) by expanding. That mission continues on to this day to avoid another Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Hitler. The US has it easy by comparison. Surrounded by oceans, far from the world's problems (rather, the impacts of them) and is free to be as ideological as it wants, because nuance is only needed when you're in competition for limited resources. I agree with the dynamic between the two but I would hardly call the US democratic. It acts in its own self-interest. I'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy, again it is a step above what many of your southern compatriots believe. No, those are very much opinions. You listed adjectives, not numbers. There is no objective criteria for any of them. All you've done is display your personał feelings. Again.. every country is 'in it' for ulterior motives. That's self-interest. Was the US being democratic when it supported Syngman Rhee in South Korea? Or Chiang Kai-Shek in China? Or Pinochet, or Batista, or the Shah? All countries act in self-interest. You're drawing a false line between countries you like and ones you don't. Russia will support who it supports as long as it benefits them. The US will support democracies as long as it benefits them. When it doesn't, it will do as Russia does. It already has: see above. And no, the Soviets had fundamentally different goals. The Nazis had no grand vision, they wanted a slice of the world for Germans and that's all they would focus on. The rest, Japan and Italy could carve up. They wanted to eliminate entire races. The Soviets wanted to spread an ideology to others- not kill them, but make them Soviets as well.
    6
  1098. 6
  1099. 6
  1100. 6
  1101. 6
  1102. 6
  1103. 6
  1104. 6
  1105. 6
  1106. 6
  1107. 6
  1108. 6
  1109. 6
  1110. 6
  1111. 6
  1112. 6
  1113. 6
  1114. 6
  1115. 6
  1116. 6
  1117. 6
  1118. 6
  1119. 6
  1120. 6
  1121. 6
  1122. 6
  1123. 6
  1124. 6
  1125. 6
  1126. I take issue with this. The name Russia was not invented by Peter I, that is a Ukrainian ultranationalist myth, with no more evidence supporting it than the idea that Russians are actually Finns/Turks/Mongols/whatever. The Byzantine name for Rus, Ρωσία (Rus-ia) first appeared in 1387 and was used interchangeably with Rus throughout the 15th century, continuing into the 17th century. Even as far back as Pope Gregory VII used Ruscia when writing to Iziaslav I. The name itself is much older than Peter I and referred to Rus. When western Rus fell to the Mongols and later Poland-Lithuania, it referred to what was left of it (Novgorod and Vladimir-Sudzal). But even if you think Russia only started with the Grand Duchy of Moscow, then 'Russia' has still been called Rus since its inception. It never stopped calling itself Rus, even after the Mongols took over. There is no record of Katherine having to force people to call themselves anything. Also, Russia is not an offshoot of Ukraine. If you want to argue that Ukraine is the original Rus because of geography (since Kiev was its capital) then you have to address the fact that Novgorod was the founding city of Rus, and that Oleg traveled south and captured Kiev. By this definition, Rus started in modern Russia. You're also ignoring that the Rurikid Dynasty died in Volhynia and only survived in Moscow, after Mstislav IV did not produce any children. And the fact that the Western Rus lands were Polonized so much that they stopped calling themselves Rus and started calling themselves Ukrainians. Thankfully Belarus avoided this fate.
    6
  1127. 6
  1128. 6
  1129. 6
  1130. 6
  1131. 6
  1132. 6
  1133. 6
  1134. 6
  1135. 6
  1136. 6
  1137. 6
  1138. Your view of Russia is honestly delusional. On all counts. For one, its vulnerability is also an asset— nobody thus far (besides the Mongols) successfully occupied all of Russia with brute force. Any invading army would get stretched to breaking, whether by land or air. Secondly— Russia TRIED to become a second power, a large force within the sphere of Europe. Right after the USSR, Yeltsin showed almost comical eagerness to play along with the US geopolitically. How was this kindness repaid? By sending US Treasury employees to Moscow to liberalize its economy and completely destroy any quality of life from the USSR. That meant hyperinflation, collapse of institutions, and a complete selloff of state assets. Before you say that it was inevitable, Poland was put under the same 'transition' program, but was given different parameters which conspicuously led to stabilization and enrichment. Why did they insist that Russia privatize EVERYTHING, when Poland had been allowed to keep its courts and state-run companies intact just a few years earlier? It was malice. Kicking the enemy while he was down. Russia learned a difficult but valuable lesson: America is an ill-intentioned country. Acting "normally" by abiding by the rules doesn't work when they're actively trying to make your standing in the world worse— that means domestically, too. Had the USSR not spread communism, the US would still have tried to sabotage it, because it simply doesn't like peer competitors in any area. Lastly— Putin inherited a shithole from Yeltsin. Go watch old videos of the breadlines and empty grocery stores that resulted from capitalism entering Russia. Or just ask any Russian over 40. They'll gladly tell you what life was like under "Gorby" and his drunken successor. You might not like his authoritarianism, but he inarguably improved the quality of life within Russia. If that makes you mad, ask yourself why.
    6
  1139. 6
  1140. 6
  1141. 6
  1142. 6
  1143. 6
  1144. 6
  1145. 6
  1146. 6
  1147. 6
  1148. 6
  1149. 6
  1150. 6
  1151. 6
  1152. 6
  1153. 6
  1154. 6
  1155. 6
  1156. 6
  1157. 6
  1158. 6
  1159. 6
  1160. 6
  1161. 6
  1162. 6
  1163. 6
  1164. 6
  1165.  @TheWoollyFrog  I'm talking about both past and present. Past, because it has affected the maritime economies of the countries in question (where Russia couldn't do trade in the Pacific for 9 months out of the year as a result, this was only solved in 1897. Present, because it still affects the speed with which goods can be delivered around the world, takes billions to build and tens of millions to maintain. This affects 1) shipping capacity 2) shipping price. "So, icebreakers are not expensive today" Yeah, right. Tell that to the U.S. government. ~$1B/unit. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34391/191#:~:text=As%20shown%20in%20Table%201,%242%2C619%20million%20(i.e.%2C%20about%20%242.6 "Sure, they are not empires but they don't need to be in order to have a good gdp and gdp per capita." This is all still because of port access. The many countries of the EU can economically develop through trade, because the bloc allows them to use Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, ports to sell and receive goods. Russia was denied EU membership because it was "too big." So, what other options are we left with? China? We already border the Pacific as they do, are able to traverse their waters, and they're in an economic war with the U.S.. So much for free trade. And Vladivostok still freezes, increasing shipping costs. Even if EU membership were allowed, how would that work? Russia's best and brightest would leave en masse (many already do), European goods would destroy domestic production, and make Greek crisis look like a child's plaything. Your solution does not address the reality of Russia's situation. Tourism has a limited capacity- not everyplace can be a hotspot. Every other industry relies on supply chains, and marine trade is crucial. "And lastly, the answer to all your worries is free trade" This assumes all countries will be beneficiaries and act in good faith- they do not. The U.S., for example, blocked Palau's membership into the WTO unless they repealed their recent law banning turkey glands from being sold in the country (which was causing cancer in its residents). More vulnerable nations are thus subject to continued to exploitation, just by the U.S. instead of a regional power. I suppose that's something you'd like, though. "Turns out you can move stuff into your country by road or rail without the need of a warm deepwater seaport OR having to pay a neighbouring country tariffs and taxes." Okay... I've gotten my Karelian fish to Murmansk... now how do I send it to Brazil for sale? OH, RIGHT. Your analogy was so pea-brained I almost fell out of my chair. To cross maritime borders and access markets outside your own continent, you need ocean access. If Russia tried to send everything via rail, its goods (maintenance fees for its own rails, and transit fees for foreign rails) would become so expensive as to be uncompetitive with seafaring countries' alternatives. I can't believe I have to explain something so simple. Sending goods by water is ~10X cheaper than ant land transport. No amount of good governance will make a dent in that gap. Unless Russia gains a warm water port, we will forever remain poorer than the coastal countries. This is still true today, with Atlantic-facing countries richer than Central European ones. "dOn'T tElL mE wHat iS aCcePtAbLe tO dO" Indeed, don't. You're American, you've never known what that's like. Perhaps when the West Coast becomes uninhabitable, you'll get a taste.
    6
  1166. 6
  1167. 6
  1168. 6
  1169.  @cbass6879  More complicated than that. Putin is actually an authoritarian, not a dictator- important distinction, he is beholden to the oligarchs and manages their interests. Unlike Kim Jong Un, he doesn't have absolute rule. Also, he was democratically elected twice, but after 2012 is when things got ugly. This is also when he reportedly "snapped", after seeing the usa violate the same international law touted as Russia's path forward. From then on, Russia has been devoted to acting as an ideological and military threat to the West. And he actually did fix the economy. You might think it's shit, but even now that the poverty level has gone up and goods are dwindling, it is still better than Yeltsin (whom Amerivans seem to like for some reason) left it. He acted wisely on the back of high oil prices in the 2000s and rebuilt a lot of the country. The loss in economic growth happened before Crimea with falling oil prices (though it certainly didnt help it), so any Russian president during that time would have taken the blame for "he made Russia shittier". And diversifying takes a long time, and consistent support from either foreign investment or domestic development, hard to do when wages are higher than China but lower than Europe That thing said, Putin is not a good strategist. He can toe boundaries and exert power well, but his planning in the very long term is shit. He could have reformed the government, eliminated corruption, and drew Ukraine into Russian sphere through economic means, many Ukrainians would actually welcome that f it means better life. But no he has to start a war and divide the Rus people even more
    6
  1170. 6
  1171. 6
  1172. 6
  1173. 6
  1174. 6
  1175. 6
  1176. 5
  1177.  @romanroman1850  I'm aware of its history, but even under that logic, the media ban makes no sense because they're not taking anything 'back' from Russian-speakers. Lvov grew quickly in the 1250s because of many Polish migrants coming into the city. In 1339 Casimir III of Poland captured the city and started to Polonise it. In 1358 the city became the seat of the Roman Cathokic Archdiocese of Lviv, which made into a Catholic center of influence. By the 15th century, it had prospered because of trading rights given to it by the Polish Crown, and the immigrants to the city (Poles, Germans, Czechs) had become Polonized. It was, by that time, almost fully culturally Polish, although it was surrounded by Ukrainian towns and farms. I mean hell, the architecture there looks distinctly Polish/German, most of historic old town is built in that style, and even the little remaining fragments of the High Castle are the stone pieces built under Casimir III. Where exactly is the propaganda? It was founded by Rus' (east Slavic culture before it split into 3), then became a center of Ukrainian culture, then for the rest of its entire history until very recently, it was totally polonized. Even during the Hasburg rule, 86% of the city's inhabitants spoke Polish. In 1923, after WWI, it was intentionally recognized as part of the Polish state. It was only under the Soviets that Ukrainian language started to be used in the city, instead of just the farm areas. They reopened Ukrainian-only language schools that the Polish had closed. Under the Soviets, Lwów University was renamed after Ivan Franko. When the Nazis invaded, it was only because the Ukrainians there had been under Austrian Hapsburg that they weren't massacred, because they were "aryanized". The Soviet government did it's best to expel the Polish population and, because of the Curzov line agreement, it became a part of Ukraine. At the time, the city was still ~67% Polish. It is thanks only to "Imperialist Russian" actions that Lvov is now Lviv, and majority ethnically Ukrainian. So again, why is there a Russian media ban in Lvov? Wouldn't it make more sense for it there to be a Polish language media ban?
    5
  1178. 5
  1179. 5
  1180. 5
  1181. 5
  1182. 5
  1183. 5
  1184. 5
  1185. 5
  1186. 5
  1187. 5
  1188. 5
  1189. 5
  1190. 5
  1191. 5
  1192. 5
  1193. 5
  1194. 5
  1195. 5
  1196. 5
  1197. 5
  1198. 5
  1199. 5
  1200. 5
  1201. 5
  1202. 5
  1203. 5
  1204. 5
  1205. 5
  1206.  Mendoza Juan  Embryology and biology have not determined that is a human infant. The fact that you even used the term "infant" reveals how little you understand to begin with. "Life" isn't a set thing; its exact boundaries are unclear. The Catholic Church believes that a zygote just after conception is equivalent to a human life, but doesn't explain on what basis it makes that claim. Bacteria are "alive", are we all committing involuntary manslaughter by destroying millions of them every second, then? No- it's about human life? Okay, then what defines that? A cell with human DNA? What happens when in-vitro fertilization fails, should the doctor be sent to prison for involuntary manslaughter, too? Are the parents accomplices? Yes, no? If yes, then people that can't naturally get pregnant are taking a huge gamble when deciding whether to have children, right? If no, then what is human life? You conservatives don't seem to understand- the things that seem obvious, upon close inspection, aren't at all. It's like your arm: look at it, touch it. Seems pretty real, right? Solid, even. Look closer. It's full of pores, and dead skin cells constantly being recycled. Not so solid and your skin is constantly becoming 'another set' of skin. Look even closer. It's made of molecules, none of which are 'skin', mostly water. Go even deeper, it's all atoms and nothing's even touching. 99% of atoms are empty space. So, how exactly is your arm solid and real, when only 1% of it is material? Same with life. There is no set, objective definition. "Life" is a human label which generally works, but fails with specifics. So, we instead look at what's moral: if a thing cannot feel pain, then 'hurting' or 'killing' it is impossible. So, before the embryo's nerve cells develop at about 22 weeks, abortion is legal.
    5
  1207. 5
  1208. 5
  1209. 5
  1210. 5
  1211. 5
  1212. 5
  1213. 5
  1214. 5
  1215. 5
  1216. 5
  1217. 5
  1218. 5
  1219. 5
  1220. 5
  1221. 5
  1222. 5
  1223. 5
  1224. 5
  1225. 5
  1226. 5
  1227. 5
  1228. 5
  1229. 5
  1230. 5
  1231. 5
  1232. 5
  1233. 5
  1234. 5
  1235. 5
  1236. 5
  1237. 5
  1238. 5
  1239. 5
  1240. 5
  1241. 5
  1242. 5
  1243. 5
  1244. 5
  1245. 5
  1246. 5
  1247. 5
  1248. 5
  1249. 5
  1250. 5
  1251. 5
  1252. 5
  1253. 5
  1254. 5
  1255. 5
  1256. 5
  1257. 5
  1258. 5
  1259. 5
  1260. 5
  1261. 5
  1262. 5
  1263. 5
  1264. 5
  1265. 5
  1266. 5
  1267. 5
  1268. 5
  1269. 5
  1270. 5
  1271. 5
  1272. 5
  1273. 5
  1274. 5
  1275. 5
  1276. 5
  1277.  @crazypolite  I would also disagree, but with what you said. America made arrangements with Europe following the end of the war, opening European markets up to American goods and military bases in exchange for protection. This also included supporting extremely corrupt governments in Italy and Greece to stave off communistic movements. This wasn't done for the wellbeing of those countries- it was done explicitly for American business interests. Self-interested, like any other nation. Sure, that's true, but again, the amount of hate you're feeling towards the Russian state is disproportionate to the amount of 'dictator-support' it's actually done. Virtually every nation supports nations that benefit their position; and democracies are relatively new to the world, so (because Europe and Russia have always been at odds, and Europe happened upon democracy first)- Russia does subvert their governments. But not because they're democratic, but because they're European. And it's really rich that you genuinely named real-life countries the same way a comic book written for children would. "Bad guys"? Really? Iran's theocratic government was a response to the US/UK backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 because he wanted to nationalize its oil fields... which would threaten the UK's colonial holdings. Cue running and crying to the CIA. Assad kept stability in Syria and prevented it from becoming another Libya or Afghanistan. The US already tried arming 'moderate rebels', it never works. Thank goodness it failed here. And China has seen enormous economic growth over the past several decades, lifting billions out of poverty (no, they weren't 'caused by the CCP's actions'- they lost their cultural connection to the dynasties, but they were poor then, too). Venezuela was already suffering from poor government by the time Maduro showed up- the oil wealth had been siphoned into the president's pockets. Again, your naiveté with respect to the 'goodness' of entire nations is stunning. To the US, geopolitics is a sport. Hiding behind two oceans, you can afford to sit back and moralize from an ivory tower. You have security, and have never been put in a situation where you have to make a hard decision when threatened. Why did Russia invade Chechnya? Because Islamists had been bombing southern Russia for years and finally formally invaded. Why did China inavde Tibet? Because it contains the source of all of China's rivers. Survival matters. Sorry. ...Actually, you did war with and annex half of Mexico to secure your borders, so I suppose you understand. Or, when the US stationed missiles in Turkey, pointing them at Moscow. The Soviets sent their own nuclear missiles to Cuba, and the US was so adamant that "you can't do that, only we can!" that they almost ended the world over it.
    5
  1278.  @crazypolite  That is true, Italy was rather amusing during that war. Ironically, France has a good track record with wars, but only in the last major 2 did it flounder. But that wasn't my point- I wanted to highlight the differences between Soviets and Nazis, and why being occupied by the former is much preferable to the latter. Yes, a scarred nation. Although I think you're taking what I said rather literally. No one is losing sleep over Genghis Khan, but we recognize him as the first in a cycle. It wasn't the validation, but Hitler was. His invasion of Russia is still in living memory. And people do not forget what their parents tell them about such a horrible event. It matters to us. It matters to me, personally. You say that I should take a step back, but you immediately follow with 'one side is always for good and the other always for bad'. That's not apolitical or objective, it's the most black and white, childish view of the world I've ever seen anyone claim. The rest of your comment is equally as silly. 'Thank GOD I'm more American!' You're not convincing anyone with that argument. The US is undemocratic as well, it is simply more subtle. The Patriot Act directly violates your (since you're an American now) 4th Amendment. Your racism hasn't died after 400 years, and you have supported dozens of dictatorships around the world. How in the world is that the mark of a democratic nation? You still haven't answered this. Canada was sterilizing its native population well into the 1970's, and there are reports it is still happening. Your claim that you are free would make an American laugh- he would tell you that your freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are restricted! Free? You may have it, but you restrict others from having it. Was the Guatemalan farmer free when President Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA? Is the Yemeni mother whose child was killed in a bombing with American-made bombs free? Are the first nation women free? They did not vote to get sterilized, that is a human rights abuse. No better than us. As for being 'hung up': Again, the past events are mirrored by more current ones. Frankly, I don't respect any Canadian or North American opinion on this matter because you have never experienced it yourself. You will never know the feeling of genuine existential threat. Russia's heartland is flat. And unlike America's it has zero natural defenses. Imagine you have a border with China (give Vancouver another 10 years and it might come true!) and Afghanistan. That is Russia's current situation (replace Afghanistan with Islamists in Dagestan). We cannot just 'let it go'. The Mongols were just a symptom of an unchangeable geographic problem: The only way for Russia to secure its borders, is to expand.
    5
  1279. 5
  1280. 5
  1281. 5
  1282. 5
  1283. 5
  1284. 5
  1285. 5
  1286. 5
  1287. 5
  1288. At risk of getting firebombed here: I think Hasan is absolutely part of the problem with lazy streamers. In fact, he's among the worst. Yes, his political content is very transformative— pausing and giving commentary (or even yelling at people in chat) breaks the pace of the video enough that it can be considered its own thing. That being said— the criticism isn't about his streaming as a whole, it's about his NON-POLITICAL streams. I don't think I need to point out how un-transformative playing someone's whole video while you just eat quietly in the corner of the screen is. For those of you tripping over yourselves to play defense for Hasan, "what he can't even EAT now, omg you people are literally unironically brainbroken-" Nope. He's more than free to eat. He just can't play someone else's content in the background. It's way harder to add commentary when your mouth is full of food, (not like Hasan does that anyway and for that I'm grateful) so knowingly playing a video while you're unable to add anything transformative is no better than pirating a movie, except instead of a big studio you're depriving income from a small creator. Add to that Hasan Chair content which I hope I don't have to explain and you've got a streamer who's successfully toeing the line. It's not so egregious that he'll come in the line of fire like xQC, but it's just bad enough that it's taking traffic away from other streamers (the ones whose content is organic and by nature less frequent) and YouTubers who just watch Hasanabi clip channels. Like seriously how hard is it to put up a BRB screen when you're eating or leaving the chair? He's never addressed this. I'd like for once for Hasan to answer the question instead of crying "sO yOu wAnT mE To DiE?! I CaN'T eVEN EaT!!" No you idiot, no one's saying that. Stop with the red herring. You don't HAVE to play other people's videos while you're gone or unable to speak. So why don't you put up a BRB screen?? Rant over. Fuck content stealers
    5
  1289. 5
  1290. 5
  1291. 5
  1292. 5
  1293. 5
  1294. 5
  1295. 5
  1296. 5
  1297. 5
  1298. 5
  1299. 5
  1300. 5
  1301. 5
  1302. 5
  1303. 5
  1304. 5
  1305. 5
  1306. 5
  1307. 5
  1308. 5
  1309. 5
  1310. 5
  1311. 5
  1312. 5
  1313. 5
  1314. 5
  1315. 5
  1316. 5
  1317. 5
  1318. 5
  1319. 5
  1320. 5
  1321. 5
  1322. 5
  1323. 5
  1324.  @vredacted3125  No, it is incorrect. Just because Italian sources say it, you think it's the ultimate truth? Maximus of Lakedaimonia referred to "Muscovy" as both Ῥῶς and Ρωσία. Different words for the same thing. Muscovy or Moskowia was a term that first circulated in the Polish royal court, and appears to have been invented to diminish Rus claims over the parts of Rus that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had previously captured and were trying to Polonize. That Italian document you are referring to, the first written mention of Moscovia in 1500, was printed right around the time the Milanese princess Bona Sforza was married off to the Polish King Sisigmund I. It was a political name, created not because it reflected the truth but because it benefited the Polish. In fact if you won't believe Russian claims, there is outside evidence of how the Rus saw themselves. Jacques Margaret, a French captain who served in Russia wrote to England: "foreigners make a mistake when they call them Muscovites and not Russians. When they are asked what nation they are, they respond 'Russac', which means 'Russians', and when they are asked what place they are from, the answer is Moscow, Vologda, Ryasan and other cities". The transition between Rus and Russia is slow, and it always referred to all 3 parts of the Rus: modern day Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. Only later did Latin start to distinguish between 'Ruscia' (Russia) and 'Ruthenia,' (Ukraine) neither of which were called Rus. You may not like it, but Rus was founded in Novgorod, Russia. The Rurik Dynasty moved to northern Rus (Russia) after Kiev was destroyed. Rus is Russia, sorry.
    5
  1325. 5
  1326. 5
  1327. 5
  1328. 5
  1329. 5
  1330. 5
  1331. 5
  1332. 5
  1333. 5
  1334. 5
  1335. 5
  1336. 5
  1337. 5
  1338. 5
  1339. 5
  1340. 5
  1341.  @kazoode  He's a very apt comparison. All three have careers making overinflated promises and/or lies with only superficial results. Where's the tax plan that will be cheaper for everyone, with "the best" healthcare? Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, but even if you stretch it to say "they'll pay indirectly with our trade deal," we've still got a deficit with Mexico, and he shut down the fucking government to force Americans to pay for it! He thinks coal can be clean (given his gestures at the rally, it seemed like he thinks you actually clean the coal, but even if we assume he knows it's a metaphor, he's still wrong). Hillary Clinton isn't in jail. He failed at that too. Drain the swamp— his Treasury Secretary literally worked at Goldman Sachs! He's an elite— the same kind Trump bashed on the campaign, and then he hired him! His Education Secretary has never been to a public school, or stepped foot in one in her life! She has no qualifactions for that job!! You know what she and her family have done? Donated millions of dollars to the Trump family over the years and his recent campaign. If that's not "the swamp," nothing is. He's a conman. When the energy dies down and the edgy 16 year olds take a step back, they'll realize they were just naive children being taken advantage of. Frankly, I could say the same of his adult supporters, too. They're all vulnerable in one way or another, and they're being promised things that aren't happening. He's perfectly comparable to a psychic and snakeoil salesman! Period!
    5
  1342. 5
  1343. 5
  1344. 5
  1345. 5
  1346. 5
  1347. 5
  1348. 5
  1349. 5
  1350. 5
  1351. 5
  1352. 5
  1353. 5
  1354. 5
  1355. 5
  1356. 5
  1357. 5
  1358. 5
  1359. 5
  1360. 5
  1361. 5
  1362. 5
  1363. 5
  1364. 5
  1365. 5
  1366. 5
  1367. 5
  1368. 5
  1369. 5
  1370. 5
  1371. 5
  1372. 5
  1373. 5
  1374. 5
  1375. 5
  1376. 5
  1377. 5
  1378. 5
  1379. 5
  1380. 5
  1381. 5
  1382. 5
  1383. 5
  1384. 5
  1385. 5
  1386. 5
  1387. 5
  1388. 5
  1389. 5
  1390. 5
  1391. 5
  1392. 5
  1393. 5
  1394. 5
  1395. 5
  1396. 5
  1397. 5
  1398. 5
  1399. 5
  1400. 5
  1401. 5
  1402. 5
  1403. 5
  1404. 5
  1405. 5
  1406. 5
  1407. 5
  1408. 5
  1409. 5
  1410. 5
  1411. 5
  1412. 5
  1413. 5
  1414. 5
  1415. 5
  1416. 5
  1417. 5
  1418. 4
  1419. 4
  1420. 4
  1421. 4
  1422. 4
  1423. 4
  1424. 4
  1425. 4
  1426. 4
  1427. 4
  1428. 4
  1429. 4
  1430. 4
  1431. 4
  1432. 4
  1433. 4
  1434. 4
  1435. 4
  1436. 4
  1437. 4
  1438. 4
  1439. 4
  1440. 4
  1441. 4
  1442. 4
  1443. 4
  1444. 4
  1445. 4
  1446. 4
  1447. 4
  1448. 4
  1449. 4
  1450. 4
  1451. 4
  1452. 4
  1453. 4
  1454. 4
  1455. 4
  1456. 4
  1457. 4
  1458. 4
  1459. 4
  1460. 4
  1461. 4
  1462. 4
  1463. 4
  1464. 4
  1465. 4
  1466. 4
  1467. 4
  1468. 4
  1469. 4
  1470. 4
  1471. 4
  1472. 4
  1473. 4
  1474. 4
  1475. 4
  1476. 4
  1477. 4
  1478. 4
  1479. 4
  1480. 4
  1481. 4
  1482. 4
  1483. 4
  1484. 4
  1485. 4
  1486. 4
  1487. 4
  1488. 4
  1489. 4
  1490. 4
  1491. 4
  1492. 4
  1493. 4
  1494. 4
  1495. 4
  1496. 4
  1497. 4
  1498. 4
  1499. 4
  1500. 4
  1501. 4
  1502. 4
  1503. 4
  1504.  @richhagenchicago  No, you shouldn't have, and I am very glad you didn't, and never will. "No country, not us" Well there is the problem. You are more than happy to protest the US destabilizing and messing up the world... but action is never truly taken. However, when a rival to the US is doing the same, they need to be stopped! So you fail to realize that, in the current system, your "upholding of values" just leads to a one-sided outcome: the US gets a scolding, and China/Russia/Iran get military action. This is unacceptable. I do, but I do not believe it. NATO is an extension of American military power. Show me the instance where a coalition of European NATO members called the shots-- they are equal members of an alliance, no? Europe has no political or military autonomy, it is all directed by the US. They can formally protest, but no country will ever act against their master. I referred to Israel and Tibet because NATO's justification for bombing Libya and Afghanistan were human rights abuses. I see a selective application of force-- only bomb if they are rival nations or connected to rival nations. Saudi Arabia beheads people for adultery, yet I see no NATO warplanes flying over Medina. And your last statement is exactly why Russians hate the US- it pompously sees itself as a "father figure", despite being the youngest nation in the world. It thinks that its way is best, and that other nations need to be treated like children- hence the language of "we need to put [head of state] in his place!" "Putin needs to be punished for its aggression" Then so to, do you. Americans need to suffer for supporting presidents that have wreaked havoc on the developing world. Let's see if you survive a period like we had to, in the 1990s. Imagine, gangs on every street. Social services, gone. Bribery everywhere. This is what you get when you trust the US to intervene in your affairs.
    4
  1505. 4
  1506. 4
  1507. 4
  1508. 4
  1509. 4
  1510. 4
  1511. 4
  1512. 4
  1513. 4
  1514. 4
  1515. 4
  1516. 4
  1517. 4
  1518. 4
  1519. 4
  1520. 4
  1521. 4
  1522. 4
  1523. 4
  1524. 4
  1525. 4
  1526. 4
  1527. 4
  1528. 4
  1529. 4
  1530. 4
  1531. 4
  1532. Thank you. Paine here seems to have a massive blind spot regarding the end of the USSR and the chaos that followed— pretending like "everyone wanted Russia to be like Europe and just do business". The former Soviet Republics were all preyed upon by US-government-employed economic advisors, whose advice led to state firms being sold for pennies, hyperinflation, and a complete collapse of investment (even compared to Soviet standards). The US communicated very clearly to Russia what it does to countries that it deems too weak to be worthy of respect. Russia simply took that lesson and ran with it. Hence Georgia and Ukraine. Become strong in a conventional sense first, then work on business. You can't foster investments if foreign powers are constantly pushing your leaders to make poor decisions, on account of there being no military consequences (deterrent) for meddling in their domestic affairs. In fact the whole "maritime vs continental" idea is short-sighted: she is correct about which types of countries are on either side of that framework, but she doesn't realize the dynamic that fuels it. Those that have geographic security, and those who don't. All of the maritime powers are states which have geographically stable and protective borders. Australia, New Zealand, Britain— islands. Canada and US: virtually islands, surrounded by sparse lands or oceans. Western Europe: protected by distance and the Northern Plains. Europe was itself continental until coming under the US umbrella. All of these areas are insulated, instilling a natural sense of security. China and Russia are large and much less protected. China was for much of its history until its Pacific coast became a vector for states to use.
    4
  1533.  @ianofliverpool7701  If you can't, then there's no helping you. If you're so utterly impatient that you refuse to listen to another person's detailed critique, then you're a lost cause. If your mind has really been turned to mush, here's an easy, digestible little soundbite for you: At 9:14, PJ mentions the case of a German woman, refugee activist, supposedly being abducted and killed by a migrant from Morocco. He conveniently omits that the man was only held as a suspect, yet his point is presented as an instance of migrant violence against Germans, when that hadn't been determined. Innocent until proven guilty. To top it all off, the man wasn't even a migrant! He was a truck driver legally living in Spain. Hopefully that isn't a problem— after all, conservatives don't take issue with immigrants, as long as they're legal. Here, the original article in German (just use Translate), spoonfed to you: https://www.br.de/nachricht/oberpfalz/inhalt/vermisste-sophia-loesche-aus-amberg-polizei-kuendigt-neue-informationen-an-100.html There are plenty of English articles on the story, as well. So, so suppose I simply think his point is entirely fabricated, as opposed to "disagreeing with one of his points." That being said, 'West is the Best" is too vague statement to be defensible without context, which is why I hate that PJ uses it as a tagline. Best in what? Quality of life? Sure. Depends on where in the West you mean. I certainly wouldn't lump the U.S. together with Europe or Australia in that regard. Freedom? Again, that's subject to change. Is Japan Western? It's Westernized, so is it Western? Can the "West" be generalized like that at all? I'd argue that you're better off in South Korea than you are in, for instance, Ukraine. Happiness? Definite no. Get my point? Hopefully you, being so "very far from dumb" could absorb all that?
    4
  1534. 4
  1535. 4
  1536. 4
  1537. Russian here. While I agree that it's about human lives in addition to NATO expansion, it's also about history. Russia actually had a chance to become wealthy and democratic in the 1990s, but the U.S. economists brought into Russia advocated for 'shock therapy' to violently pull Russia from communism straight into the capitalist system... and it failed horribly. Russia's state enterprises were bought up by oligarchs, and Western banks were happy to launder money from Russia for as long as they politically could do it. This isn't even mentioning that Clinton illegally meddled in Russian elections to re-elect Yeltsin. Guess what that did for the wealth of average Russians. Russia's actions, however cruel they may be, are a way to get back at the U.S. for ruining its chance to become like Georgia or Estonia (Russia wanted to join NATO, but was refused. It wanted to join EU, but was also refused due to corruption and "large size"... nevermind the fact that some current EU members are already corrupt). The West told Russia "no" when it asked to join the European system, but it gave no alternative. No path to democratization without economic ruin. It essentially said "no, we want to keep you poor and isolated." So, what other options does Russia have? It is cruel, but it seems no one is offering a hand to work with Russia. Membership was off the table even before the 2008 war, and when Yeltsin was friendly to the U.S., Russia suffered economically. So I ask you- in this situation, what does Russia do? Just allow Western companies to rob us like last time? Allow ourselves to be economically exploited, and politically manipulated, like last time? Allow missiles to he pointed at us at all times? Agree to one-sided economic deals because of threat of those missiles? It seems to me Americans' long term goal is to weaken Russia enough to where it can be used as a resource farm for the West. An Africa in Europe. So yes, it is cruel, but we are left with little choice. We were rejected from Europe..so we go back to what we know.
    4
  1538. 4
  1539.  @MiStuSia16  Seems like nobody can answer my point. The person I originally commented on has fallen silent... Again: Was Stalin supposed to just let the Germans steamroll Poland and get right up to his border? Or was it smarter for him to give the USSR as big of an advantage as possible? Please answer my question. My point, by the way, wasn't about the brutality of Russian soldiers, but of the need to "ally" with the Germans, knowing they would destroy Poland either way. And it is rich that you're trying to make the Germans out to be better than the Soviets. They were nice to Russian civilians, too--- there is even a photo of a soldier sharing his last ration with a civilian woman. What you Poles consistently fail to comprehend that the Soviets were, in fact, better for the Poles than the Germans. Would you prefer an alternate history where they kept Poland? Sure, they would genocide the Poles out of existence forever.... but at least they had "class" and could run a country, unlike those Soviets! At least they kept their streets clean, all the easier to transport you to the chambers! Who cares if they turn Poland into Germany, at least they were polite! Your country's view of history is coloured so heavily by emotion that you honestly believe a regime set on wiping you from the face of the Earth for Lebensraum is somehow better than living under Russian rule. The only reason you're alive to bitch and moan about it too, is because the Russians weren't as brutal as the Germans.
    4
  1540. 4
  1541. 4
  1542. 4
  1543. 4
  1544. 4
  1545. 4
  1546. 4
  1547. 4
  1548. 4
  1549. 4
  1550. 4
  1551. 4
  1552. 4
  1553. 4
  1554. 4
  1555.  @DaveSmith-cp5kj  Yes, I do realize what you said. And I'm saying that you're brazenly lying through your teeth. I've personally been to St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Gdańsk, Kraków, Hel, Vienna, Frankfurt, Vancouver, and Shenzen. My friends have all been to various other cities throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and South America. You're wrong— you still failed to describe why you think that Europe and China's public transports are worse, whereas I described in detail the ones I most frequented. I could just as easily argue that the Soviets outdid the Brits when building their hypersonic passenger jet— it functions, after all! And that's all you need! ...In case the sarcasm wasn't apparent, the experience of riding public transport in places that aren't the U.S., and my willingness to do so again, was much higher on Europe and Asia. They're faster, cleaner, and most often cheaper to use than the shitty American versions. And no, they aren't dirty, and they don't squeal like a pig. That is a distinctly American problem, that hasn't been fixed for a decade. And yes, obviously they aren't perfect. Did you even read what I wrote? (certainly not to the extent of "20 minutes late due to track repairs" at least once a month) London's Tube is famously late, but it's still better serviced and maintained than NYC's or Chicago's systems. And it's much older than either of those systems, yet England managed to upgrade it multiple times. Why can't America? Nobody's even asking you to make it bigger, just keep it in fucking shape! At least do the bare minimum! As was mentioned before, England's former prime minister can afford to use private services, but chooses not to. And people preferring it doesn't really say much, except that they enjoy privacy and can afford to have the best of both worlds: I'd much rather relax on my way to work than stress over traffic. But have fun in your asphalt playground. Stop ignoring things that challenge your worldview, like a child with his fingers stuck in his ears. Pay attention. Give evidence, please. What qualities (besides, "it exists!!" Well, no shit) make the American transport better? I've been to all three continents, and compared them all. Have you?
    4
  1556. 4
  1557. 4
  1558. 4
  1559. 4
  1560. 4
  1561. 4
  1562. 4
  1563. 4
  1564. 4
  1565. 4
  1566. 4
  1567. 4
  1568. 4
  1569. 4
  1570. 4
  1571. 4
  1572. 4
  1573. 4
  1574. 4
  1575. 4
  1576. 4
  1577. 4
  1578. 4
  1579. 4
  1580. 4
  1581. 4
  1582. 4
  1583. 4
  1584. 4
  1585. 4
  1586. 4
  1587. 4
  1588. 4
  1589. 4
  1590. 4
  1591. 4
  1592. 4
  1593. 4
  1594. 4
  1595. 4
  1596. 4
  1597. 4
  1598. 4
  1599. 4
  1600. 4
  1601. 4
  1602. 4
  1603. 4
  1604. 4
  1605. 4
  1606. 4
  1607. 4
  1608. 4
  1609. 4
  1610. 4
  1611. 4
  1612. 4
  1613. 4
  1614. 4
  1615. 4
  1616. 4
  1617. 4
  1618. 4
  1619. 4
  1620. 4
  1621. 4
  1622. 4
  1623. 4
  1624. 4
  1625. 4
  1626. 4
  1627. 4
  1628. 4
  1629. 4
  1630. 4
  1631. 4
  1632. 4
  1633. 4
  1634. 4
  1635. 4
  1636. 4
  1637. 4
  1638. 4
  1639. 4
  1640. 4
  1641. 4
  1642. 4
  1643. 4
  1644. 4
  1645. 4
  1646. 4
  1647. 4
  1648. 4
  1649. 4
  1650. 4
  1651. 4
  1652. 4
  1653. 4
  1654. 4
  1655. 4
  1656. 4
  1657. 4
  1658. 4
  1659. 4
  1660. 4
  1661. 4
  1662. 4
  1663. 4
  1664. 4
  1665. 4
  1666. 4
  1667. 4
  1668. 4
  1669. 4
  1670.  @shelbyleach4860  Yes, it is incumbent that you provide references. Without a link, or at least a reference, I cannot know whether you just made all of that up in your head. Until you can show me that someone else did research and found that information, it isn't evidence. From my point of view, it is still opinion (because I have only heard you tell me this.) Do you understand? Thank you for finally providing something with substance. I am assuming, now, that you're talking about this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778 You spent all that time typing, when you could have just posted the link. Again, I'm not doing your work for you. Show the link. I read the paper. Iain Mathieson wasn't investigating ancestry, he was investigating genetic admixture of Neolithic populations. Not once in the paper were the genetics of modern Albanians or Slavs mentioned. The DNA which he analyzed was 5,000+ years old, and he didn't compare any of it to modern DNA. Are you sure this is the right paper? Maybe just post the link next time, so there's no misunderstanding. No, it's not my opinion. I don't care whether or not it's true, but 'Glorious Tom Chang' (the person I replied to before you came in) seems to care. He said, "it always was albanian land populated by albanian people". I am pointing out that there is no evidence for that claim. Wait, so finding remains in Kosovo "doesn't matter", but you're still trying to say that they've been in this region much longer than Slavs? But that doesn't matter, right? You just told me it doesn't, so why are you mentioning it? No, not really. Every survey of the region that we have shows (because Ottomans only surveyed by religion) that Muslims were a minority (less than 5%) in Kosovo by the 15th century. In the 18th century, Ottomans persecuted Serbs and drove them north, while the Albanians slowly multiplied to become ~70% of the population by the 20th century. They weren't "always there", they just had more children than the Serbs and slowly took over.
    4
  1671. 4
  1672. 4
  1673. 4
  1674. 4
  1675. 4
  1676. 4
  1677. 4
  1678. 4
  1679. 4
  1680. 4
  1681. 4
  1682. 4
  1683. 4
  1684. 4
  1685. 4
  1686. 4
  1687. 4
  1688. 4
  1689. 4
  1690. 4
  1691. 4
  1692. 4
  1693. 4
  1694. 4
  1695. 4
  1696. 4
  1697. 4
  1698. 4
  1699. 4
  1700. 4
  1701. 4
  1702. 4
  1703. 4
  1704. 4
  1705. 4
  1706.  @michaelm3691  Um, yes, there is. It's one of several recognized types of inteligences, and the reason you don't think it exists to begin with is precisely because of what you said later: it can't be quantified. This is the fundamental flaw of IQ tests— if we're measuring the untrained biological capacity to grasp and solve new concepts or problems (if that can even be done— you can improve your IQ score tests, after all, how innate could what they're testing really be?), why do we only measure STEM fields? Because those are fields whose solutions are concrete. That doesn't mean there is no biological component to any other type of thinking. For instance, Einstein was said to be so creative (seeing solutions where others didn't) because, upon autopsy, it was discovered that his brain's hemispheres had not separated properly, leaving his frontal lobe as a single mass with no gap to transit neurons over. And yes, while context matters in gauging intelligence, that's why we try to filter out any situational differences. Hence the standardized test. You yourself said that the dumb person would have difficulty adapting to a new situation, where the smart person wouldn't. You really don't think the same applies to people with inherent social deficiencies? People with autism have to develop a 'mask' by learning what others have as instinct. When a new situation arises, they don't have any new information to use, whereas the brains of neurotypical people simply work around the situation. That's an example of what I'm referring to— a gap in social intelligence. Some people naturally pick up on the flow of conversation better, have a better sense of how intonation holds attention, are naturally better at making jokes or keeping the flow of conversation, these are all things you can learn, sure, but they all come to us naturally— to some more than others, and those abilities are what emotional/social intelligence refers to.
    4
  1707. 4
  1708. 4
  1709. 4
  1710. 4
  1711. 4
  1712. 4
  1713. 4
  1714. 4
  1715. 4
  1716. 4
  1717. 4
  1718. 4
  1719. 4
  1720. 4
  1721. 4
  1722. 4
  1723. 4
  1724. 4
  1725. 4
  1726. 4
  1727. 4
  1728. 4
  1729. 4
  1730. 4
  1731. 4
  1732. 4
  1733. 4
  1734. 4
  1735. 4
  1736. 4
  1737. 4
  1738. 4
  1739. 4
  1740. 4
  1741. 4
  1742. 4
  1743. 4
  1744. 4
  1745. 4
  1746. 4
  1747. 4
  1748. 4
  1749. 4
  1750. 4
  1751. 4
  1752. 4
  1753. 4
  1754. 4
  1755. 4
  1756. 4
  1757. 3
  1758. 3
  1759. 3
  1760. 3
  1761. 3
  1762. 3
  1763. 3
  1764. 3
  1765. 3
  1766. 3
  1767. 3
  1768. 3
  1769. 3
  1770. 3
  1771. 3
  1772. 3
  1773. 3
  1774. 3
  1775. Jake Brown I am very well aware of the etiquette of debate, but if you'd like me to be polite, I suggest that you do that same. I would like to note that the reason I addressed you in such a crass manner was because I also assumed that you were American; I cannot fathom of anybody else who would defend such a large, complex nation with a simpleminded approach to its foreign policies. You do not seem to make any attempt to restrain yourself when addressing the value of other people's lives despite not having known even a fraction the the potential people you are referring to. If you'd like to scorn me for calling you stupid, then perhaps you'd like to apologize for calling somebody's culture and people worthless- sincerely at that. That is, with no reasonable doubt, universally unacceptable to say, even on the internet. You do people no favors by telling somebody to cease existing and for their entire homeland to follow suit. May I ask you, what do expect to happen afterwards? For them to commit suicide? To leave your sight? This I cannot understand. I, for one, consider the Pakistani culture to be beautiful one, having founded one of the five hearths of civilization- the Indus River Valley. On a personal and modern level, my best friend is Pakistani, and he displays more intelligence and open mindedness than most of my former teachers.  You never did address your self-contradiction in argument; regardless of what you chose to define "bigot" as, you later denied having been one and reasserted yourself as a possible ignoramus and a snob, to both of which I agree. If you're going to argue, cover your tracks. You look like you're making things up as you go along, which, from the looks of it, you are.
    3
  1776. 3
  1777. 3
  1778. 3
  1779. 3
  1780. 3
  1781. 3
  1782. 3
  1783. 3
  1784. 3
  1785. 3
  1786. 3
  1787. 3
  1788. 3
  1789. 3
  1790. 3
  1791. 3
  1792. 3
  1793. 3
  1794. 3
  1795. 3
  1796. 3
  1797. 3
  1798. 3
  1799. 3
  1800. 3
  1801. 3
  1802. 3
  1803. 3
  1804. 3
  1805. 3
  1806. 3
  1807. 3
  1808. 3
  1809. 3
  1810. 3
  1811. 3
  1812. 3
  1813. 3
  1814. 3
  1815. 3
  1816. 3
  1817. 3
  1818. 3
  1819. 3
  1820. 3
  1821. 3
  1822. 3
  1823. 3
  1824. 3
  1825. 3
  1826. 3
  1827. 3
  1828. 3
  1829. 3
  1830. 3
  1831. 3
  1832. 3
  1833. 3
  1834. 3
  1835. 3
  1836. 3
  1837. 3
  1838. 3
  1839. 3
  1840. 3
  1841. 3
  1842. 3
  1843. 3
  1844. 3
  1845. 3
  1846. 3
  1847. 3
  1848. 3
  1849. 3
  1850. 3
  1851. 3
  1852. 3
  1853. 3
  1854. 3
  1855. 3
  1856. 3
  1857. 3
  1858. 3
  1859. 3
  1860. 3
  1861. 3
  1862. 3
  1863. 3
  1864. 3
  1865. 3
  1866. 3
  1867. 3
  1868. 3
  1869. 3
  1870. 3
  1871. 3
  1872. 3
  1873. 3
  1874. 3
  1875. 3
  1876. 3
  1877. 3
  1878. 3
  1879. 3
  1880. 3
  1881. 3
  1882. 3
  1883. 3
  1884. 3
  1885. 3
  1886.  @DailyMusic  It being "madness" doesn't discredit the Crimean people's genuine wishes at the time. Independence from Ukraine being impractical doesn't therefore mean it's okay to send a post-Soviet branch of the KGB in to silence people. To that extent, though, remember that the "cutting off" (I assume you mean the Dnipro Canal) applies to Ukraine just as much as it does to Crimea. The Dnipro starts in Russia, passes through Belarus, then Ukraine, and flows into the Black Sea. Would you make the same argument for Ukraine being "mad" to oppose Russia because Russia could divert or dam the river and permanently ecologically destroy Ukraine? That's the language of appeasement and I'm frankly shocked that you're willing to use it after all that's happened since 2022. I guess it doesn't matter when it's your guys... Anyways, the autonomy thing was never considered by Ukraine to dispel Crimean fears of Ukrainianization. And frankly, the Ukrainian Parliament disregarding the 1991 election vote where most voted to leave Ukraine and sending soldiers in to take Crimea by force (never mind the later referendum in 1994) dampens the idea that they defended their borders for the sake of democracy. The Crimeans weren't allowed the right to self-determination. The Rada (a few days before the annexation, on the 23rd) repealed the 2012 law that gave Russian legal status as a regional language within Crimea. Were it not for Turchynov's veto, Crimeans would be forced to learn only Ukrainian in schools, and all legal documents and bureaucratic matters would have to handled in a lanuage they didn't even speak. And the law was repealed in October of that year anyway, but the Rada showed its intentions even without the annexation as a justification. I'm not saying that the annexation was correct, but surely Ukraine could have done anything to even pretend that they didn't want to turn Crimea into ethnically Ukrainian land, despite supposedly being a democracy that respects multiculturalism. About the UN— it isn't very good at its job. Somaliland should be separate, Basque shouldn't be part of Spain, yet the UN didn't do anything to endorse or propose a referendum. In either case, Somalia and Spain quickly shut it down. Leaving elections up to a legal body that isn't capable of organizing them isn't a good solution.
    3
  1887. 3
  1888. 3
  1889. 3
  1890. 3
  1891. 3
  1892. 3
  1893. 3
  1894.  @pepperVenge  No, I'm not grasping. I'm explaining why certain lines, even in the US' case, won't be crossed. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you: I think that the US still believes- especially given how recklessly it has acted recently- that Russia would actually attempt a nuclear attack, consequences be damned. I also did address that point on China, though indirectly, in the first comment. Pure capability works in tandem with plausible defensibility. That is to say, if Russia's sea lanes within its own EEZ are actively blocked, it will be much more willing to counter because there is plausible reason to do so. There will be much less, if any, backlash from the "international community" because, whatever they may think of Russia, they are all party to agreements that state a country can counter-attack when its sovereignty is violated. To willingly disregard the norms that they themselves abide by and benefit from would be politically untenable. Now back to the China point. In the late 1990s, the US sent warships right next to China's border with Taiwan to defend it. This would be unthinkable today because, in the eyes of the world, China would be justified in protecting its borders- so the economic and political fallout of aggressively preventing another US encroachment would be reduced compared to, say, Russia in Ukraine. The US knows this- which is why it hasn't done anything like that since, despite repeat violations. Regarding Ukraine, you're ignoring that the US hasn't done many other things, despite repeat calls from Western countries. The vast majority of the rejections follow the same core logic: doing this would bring us in direct conflict with Russia, which (despite what you said, which is true) we don't want. If you're convinced that Russia would lose, why the American hesitation? Why might that be? Because I'm right. MAD works, and doing something that gives Russia plausible reason to respond indiscriminately (and defend those actions) is politically /unthinkable, even in the US. For example, despite lots of Baltic, Polish, Lithuanian, and European pressure, the US has refused to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Washington also makes Ukraine promise every time it sends weapons that it won't fire beyond Ukraine's own borders. Consider what they are avoiding here.
    3
  1895. 3
  1896. 3
  1897. 3
  1898. 3
  1899. 3
  1900. 3
  1901. 3
  1902. 3
  1903. 3
  1904. 3
  1905. 3
  1906. 3
  1907. 3
  1908. 3
  1909. 3
  1910. 3
  1911. 3
  1912. 3
  1913. 3
  1914. 3
  1915. 3
  1916. 3
  1917. 3
  1918. 3
  1919. 3
  1920. 3
  1921. 3
  1922. 3
  1923. 3
  1924. 3
  1925. 3
  1926. 3
  1927. 3
  1928. 3
  1929. 3
  1930. 3
  1931. 3
  1932. 3
  1933. 3
  1934. 3
  1935. 3
  1936. 3
  1937. 3
  1938. 3
  1939. 3
  1940. 3
  1941. 3
  1942. 3
  1943. 3
  1944. 3
  1945. 3
  1946. 3
  1947. 3
  1948. 3
  1949. 3
  1950. 3
  1951. 3
  1952. 3
  1953. 3
  1954. 3
  1955. 3
  1956. 3
  1957. 3
  1958. 3
  1959. 3
  1960. 3
  1961. 3
  1962. 3
  1963. 3
  1964. 3
  1965. 3
  1966. 3
  1967. 3
  1968. 3
  1969. 3
  1970. 3
  1971. 3
  1972. 3
  1973. 3
  1974. 3
  1975. 3
  1976. 3
  1977. 3
  1978. 3
  1979. 3
  1980. 3
  1981. 3
  1982. 3
  1983. 3
  1984. 3
  1985. 3
  1986. 3
  1987. 3
  1988. 3
  1989. 3
  1990. 3
  1991. 3
  1992. 3
  1993. 3
  1994. 3
  1995. 3
  1996. 3
  1997.  @rick323  "Maybe" No, really. The fundamental core of post-Ruthenian identity wasn't developed on its own, it is a mix of Russian and Polish cultural identity. There was never a Ukrainian cradle of civilization separate to everything around it, like Vietnam's relationship to China and India. It's distinct and its identity has developed independently— with foreign influences, but the continuity is distinctly Vietnamese. Not so with Ukraine, whose identity was forged from the interaction between two distinct older cultures. That doesn't really justify Russian action, but it is illustrative of European attitudes over the centuries. Do something bad. Then when the effects of that bad thing are permanent and you benefit from them, screech at anyone else doing the same thing if it threatens your ill-gotten benefits. Poland permanently benefits geopolitically from Polonized buffer states between itself and Russia, yet it can't stand the idea of those buffer states being controlled or aligned with Russia... Despite the fact that it was more than happy to do that when it was in control. Hypocritical to its core. The real reason for Russian action is to keep US military infrastructure as far away from Russia as possible. If NATO had disbanded in 1991, none of this would have happened. Finland is a perfect example. They weren't in the alliance for 70 years and Russia gave them no issues because they agreed not to invite American troops onto their soil. It's a simple agreement, yet the US and Western Europe are so proud that they cannot even accept such meager terms. Their way or the highway.
    3
  1998. 3
  1999. 3
  2000. 3
  2001. 3
  2002. 3
  2003. 3
  2004. 3
  2005. 3
  2006. 3
  2007. 3
  2008. 3
  2009. 3
  2010.  @Adam-dn5oc  Yes, that's right! The point's clearly gone over your head, so I'll say it real nice and clearly: cracking your joints isn't a long term solution. Your knuckles, and every other joint in your body, reform the nitrogen bubbles very quickly. Going to a chiropractor who looks to crack your (whatever body part) is pointless. You can go back in a few weeks to another chiropractor and receive the same diagnosis- "you have x pain, x range of motion! Let's crack your joints to fix that!" If you're able to re-crack of all those joints within a short time period, then what has the chiropractor actually done for you? "Popping/cracking your joints can provide relief by relaxing muscles and improving range of motion." That's the problem, dumbass- they don't! Explain please, how the fuck joints have any effect on the tension of muscle fibers, or the tendons connecting to them. They don't interact with each other!!! How the fuck does your chiropractor explain it to you?!!! I'd genuinely like to hear what comes out of his mouth. Please, 'enlighten' me. Range of motion, are you insane?!! Forcefully jolting your joints and muscles around is the exact opposite of what you want to do to increase range of motion!! If your range of motion is decreased because of muscle tightness, jerking them around like ragdolls will only cause you to pull, or god forbid tear, one of those muscles. Same with joints or tendons. They aren't dislocated shoulders, you can't just yank them back into place. They need to be trained, over time. They can gain or lose flexibility, depending on your habits. Oh, and "spinal subluxations" aren't a thing. They have no medical definition. It's complete jackshit. I can't believe these basic concepts, easily discoverable through personal physical experience, are lost upon you. This is really sad to me.
    3
  2011.  @Adam-dn5oc  Yes, I did. What you're advocating for is anti-scientific and physically dangerous. Every second spent convincing someone that people shouldn't jerk their own necks around like a dog's chew toy is worth it. If chiropractic isn't a long-term solution, then why the hell do you support it? It isn't an emergent solution to some incurable problem- you could spend similar amounts of money on an osteopath, massage or physical therapist and stop having to go to them altogether within a year's time! With the same- permanent- results! Also, you don't re-align your tire by pushing it back into place. Bad analogy. And that (not popping your joints on your own) is why you should instead focus on what's keeping you simply moving your neck or back along its full range of motion to begin with. General medical consensus is that cracking your joints too forcefully or too often is what perpetuates pain- you know, the thing that you get done with regular visits to a chiropractic? Wow, it's almost as if that's not what I'm referring to. Imagine getting fully "healed" by a chiropractic, coming back a few weeks or months later, and having the same issues be "solved." Still have "spinal subluxations"? (you didn't address that, because it's horseshit and you know it is) "We'll just crack your joints again! You're fixed! ...see you in a few months, when your harmless air bubbles reform!" Also, if ("may take multiple visits") really is the case, then please show me the study(ies) that demonstrate what part of the spine can only be fixed with numerous sessions of pushing against joints and popping air bubbles. It's not an opinion. What you said is false. Cavitation just describes the phenomenon of cracking your joints. Small cavities of air inside the synovial fluid in our joints collapse, causing the "cracking" sound. More of a pop, really. Nerves shouldn't stretch- actually, they can, but this causes injuries, such as carpal tunnel, if we're talking about nerves in the hand. If you meant to say that "stretching" nerves improves their movement through our joints, then you're wrong about that too. The restriction of nerve movement is- surprise!- inactivity, and subsequent muscle tension. Stretch the muscles, and your nerves will be fine. I should also add that "stimulating the nerves" happens all the time- otherwise you wouldn't feel anything. You'll have to be more specific. Now, imagine being so spiteful and dumb that you resort to name-calling instead of addressing the rest of the arguments. I'm not taking shit from a man who believed that you can regenerate complex parts of the ear by pressing on a spinal joint. Look up your brilliant founder. Instead of acting like a 5-year old, you wanna start discussing facts? Or retreat back into the world of re-enacting murder scenes in a pseudo-doctor's office? With a camera, of course- everyone knows that the best doctors have to advertise how good they are on YouTube.
    3
  2012. 3
  2013. 3
  2014. 3
  2015. 3
  2016. 3
  2017. 3
  2018. 3
  2019. 3
  2020. 3
  2021. 3
  2022. 3
  2023. 3
  2024. 3
  2025. 3
  2026. 3
  2027. 3
  2028. 3
  2029. 3
  2030. 3
  2031. 3
  2032. 3
  2033. 3
  2034.  @crazypolite  My apologies. Next time I will include quotes, and write less. I think YouTube should have a quote system by now. "North AND South American issue that's taken too long to cease" Yes, I know. My point was simply that it is difficult to call one's country 'free' when not even (all of) its own citizens have equal rights. The difference in mindset between Russia and US is large, but in practice at local level things are the same; they are "worked out", and our courts are slowly improving (one thing I congratulate the West for, sincerely). "If you give them too much or even any sort of a welfare compensation for previous atrocities, it leads to freeloading behavior and cycles of poverty" Perhaps. But I also know that the US has a difficult history with racism, and many grandparents today still remember "whites only" very well. I don't expect any country to change so quickly, so while government help may discourage their independence, that is not mutually exclusive to being at a disadvantage. Of course nobody is racist like in the 1950's, but your black populations are still poorer than the white. This is because of a refusal to loan houses, cars, well-paying jobs, and so on. This effect lingers today. So while the US is not 'racist' anymore, it discriminates based on race because other differences can be exploited. "as conspirators and activists would be shot on site. " Haha, yes. Though many Russians would disagree, I acknowledge the political situation. "Ridiculous. The biggest country on the planet wants to justify to me why it 'needs' more land..? Seriously?" Yes. In case you're not aware, Russia is cold. Over 60% of the land cannot be used for agriculture. Our harvest season is 3 months long. In Europe and the US, it is 8! Most of that land is unusable on its own- it cannot support a population beyond 200M. When we reach that limit, and the population starts to age, we will have very big stability problems. I expected you, as a Canadian, to understand this very well. 90% of your country lives near its southern border. Trudeau's dream of 100M population will hit a wall very quickly. Your territory is simply unsuited for growth and prosperity. We have a similar problem. You can never be an independent nation- you could be self-sufficient, but with a small population, subject to the US; or you have a large population, but be economically bound to a food exporter. Not unless you have land that can support a population, and be defended. Canada has neither. The only source of growth it has is oil, and Chinese investment. Again: it is difficult to understand unless your native territory is under genuine threat. Russia is flat. Poland, Turkey, and the Baltics host American bases. Without a geographical defense, Russia will suffer in the case of an invasion in the same way it has before. The only way to stop it is to secure a territory that A) can sustain a populace, B) be defended. "Who's going to invade you? No one wants war" I don't know. But Stalin did not suspect Hitler, nor did Alexander I suspect Napoleon. I personally think a greater threat is bombing or droning. "All that aside, I'll say it's nice to talk to you with your opposing opinions. Discussion is what will solve problems." I agree. One thing I do hate about American leftists, is their refusal to speak with anyone outside of their political view. I appreciate the conversation and understanding your worldview, and would be happy to continue it, if you so wish.
    3
  2035. 3
  2036. 3
  2037. 3
  2038. 3
  2039. 3
  2040. 3
  2041. 3
  2042. 3
  2043. 3
  2044. 3
  2045. 3
  2046. 3
  2047. 3
  2048. 3
  2049. 3
  2050. 3
  2051. 3
  2052. 3
  2053. 3
  2054. 3
  2055. 3
  2056. 3
  2057. 3
  2058. 3
  2059. 3
  2060. 3
  2061. 3
  2062. 3
  2063. 3
  2064. 3
  2065. 3
  2066. 3
  2067. 3
  2068. 3
  2069. 3
  2070. 3
  2071. 3
  2072.  @artcurious807  I agree! We should try that, but if I'm being honest, I wouldn't hold my breath. Most politicians already do that, if not through business or diplomatic visits then through expensive vacations. The real issue is, they see the world in a different way. How to explain it?.. Because they've likely been raised rich, or have at least gotten used to the lifestyle, they don't think on the same scale as the average person. If there's a problem with one region of the world, they aren't forced by circumstance to stay and think about how that region could fix it long-term. Instead, they'll just fly somewhere else. Is D.C. too lifeless? I'll just go to Paris! "Problem solved!" To them, sprawl isn't a problem because it doesn't have an impact on their lives, and they don't experience it nearly as often as we do. So I don't think exposure tp better infrastructure would help. They'd already see it through the lens of, "this is one of those places that is charming, and getting to it is no problem for me." What we need to do (sorry in advance if you're on the political right) is change the conservative attitude towards housing, like NIMBYs and very autocentric zoning codes. Also, repeal Citizens United. Once corporations' hands are cut off, they won't be able to persuade those of us less-educated, to reduce the profits of automakers and suburban developers, by encouraging more sustainable mixed-use housing. But sadly, hell will freeze over before that's wrestled from the grip of almost literally every company in the U.S.. So I comment on YouTube to numb the pain.. :(
    3
  2073. 3
  2074. 3
  2075. 3
  2076.  @EpochUnlocked  No, you're confusing capitalism with markets. Markets have existed for thousands of years, whereas the concept of capital (I'm referring to assets which not only hold value, but can be used as investment to accrue more value- namely stocks, since the idea of capital first came in the form of corporate stock, pioneered by the Dutch in the 19th century) -- is relatively new. Capital can be gained involuntarily. Again, value accrued from, say, slave or child labor, is still value. A rigid political system also doesn't mean economic control-- China is a great example. Markets, but authoritarian rule. The system can reach the point you're talking about, but the areas where centralization works best is with essential parts of a society-- public services. We obviously can't have an all-private toll highway system, because rural areas- being unprofitable- would just get neglected until they completely get cut off. Same goes for healthcare and especially public transport- British Rail tried to privatize under Thatcher in the '80s, and it failed miserably. You are right about the wastefulness of the U.S. gov't, but that's not exclusive to them. Companies are notoriously wasteful, too. Poor management of assets almost killed HP, and Amazon's piss-poor conditions starkly contrast to Bezos' wealth. Not to mention every boss who's ever spent a payraise on fancy things for himself. Without the taxes you're "burdened" with, the quality of the road you use to drive to work, the air you breathe, the quality of the water that comes out of your tap, your mail, the rights guaranteed to you by your company (no more than 16 hours a day work), would all slowly go to shit.
    3
  2077. 3
  2078. 3
  2079. 3
  2080. 3
  2081. 3
  2082. 3
  2083. 3
  2084. 3
  2085. 3
  2086. 3
  2087. 3
  2088. 3
  2089. 3
  2090. 3
  2091. 3
  2092. 3
  2093. 3
  2094. 3
  2095. 3
  2096. 3
  2097. 3
  2098. 3
  2099. 3
  2100. 3
  2101. 3
  2102. 3
  2103. 3
  2104. 3
  2105. 3
  2106. 3
  2107. 3
  2108. 3
  2109. 3
  2110. 3
  2111. 3
  2112. 3
  2113. 3
  2114. 3
  2115. 3
  2116. 3
  2117. 3
  2118. 3
  2119. 3
  2120. 3
  2121. 3
  2122. 3
  2123. 3
  2124. 3
  2125. 3
  2126. 3
  2127. 3
  2128. 3
  2129. 3
  2130. 3
  2131. 3
  2132. 3
  2133. 3
  2134. 3
  2135. 3
  2136. 3
  2137. 3
  2138. 3
  2139. 3
  2140.  Hernando Malinche  "Russia was absolutely screwed over by the Mongols in 1200 to 1400s" Yeah, so was everyone. Fucking China, with 2000 years of civilization and technology, fell to them, and were then ruled by the Yuan. Same with Persia. The only reason Japan survived is because of typhoons, and Poland was too far away. "Constant struggle with Poland and Sweden" Yeah.. that's how borders work. Was France weak because it was constantly fighting Britain? Or the other way around? Your threshold for 'not strong' is extremely low and not very logical to begin with. Also, ultimately beating Sweden, absorbing Finland for centuries, and denying Poland statehood for a large chunk of its own history doesn't seem too bad from the Russian perspective. "Russia was weak in 1830's not being able to get Constantinople" No, Russia was in an optimal position to take it from the dying Ottoman Empire. Seeing this, France, Britain, Austria, and Sardinia, all ganged up to prevent this from happening. I don't know what you expected, but any country facing that kind of alliance- especially one just starting to modernize its military- would lose. If the Ottomans didn't have that support, we'd have Constantinople instead of Istanbul right now. "Even now Russia is weak" Yes, its influence is lessened considerably. That being said, the West gives it no credit at all for bouncing back so quickly following the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. Meanwhile, China never competed in the Cold War and so didn't spend all of its money spreading its ideology or restructuring its entire government and economy. Given its performance geopolitically today, after having lost over 1/5 of its land and 40% of its industrial capacity, Russia punches well above its weight.
    3
  2141. 3
  2142. 3
  2143. 3
  2144. 3
  2145. 3
  2146. 3
  2147. 3
  2148. 3
  2149. 3
  2150. 3
  2151. 3
  2152. 3
  2153. 3
  2154.  @ravenblood1954  How am I delusional? For exploring all possible scenarios playing out in the conflict? You literally refused to even entertain the idea that there would be any outcome besides Ukraine's complete victory. Really going for broke there, huh? The West is more prosperous because of colonialism and slavery. One only need look at Europe before the Age of "Exploration", and after. I just find it just astounding that you think the countries which had literal colonies in living memory are the "good guys". Why do you think Kenya is still furious with Britain? Why do you think France still has French Guiana-- their fantastic diplomacy and democratic governance?? You know how much Europe had funneled into it in terms of resources and FREE manpower? Untold trillions, for hundreds of years. It'd be a miracle if Europe WASN'T prosperous. That is something which Russia was A) hundreds of years late to, courtesy of the Mongols, B) stopped at every turn by Europe, which had already industrialized and colonized. See the Crimean War: all of Europe wanted to prevent Russia from having what they had: access to the sea. Same with Japan in the East. Historic instability came at the hands of constant invasion. We don't have the British Channel. Or the Mediterranean. Or the Alps, or Pyrenes, or the Atlantic. Just flat, indefensible land. How do you expect us to be stable under these conditions? The only time we came close was the 1900s, when Russia had expanded to the Carpathians in the West, the Karakum Desert in the south, and the Pacific in the far East.
    3
  2155. 3
  2156. 3
  2157. 3
  2158. 3
  2159. 3
  2160. 3
  2161. 3
  2162.  @jdeuraud1096  China did not build them all. And you are trying to shift away from my point: the US, despite all of its wealth and power, is unable or unwilling to provide basic services for most of its citizens. The wealth and power just makes the fact much more pathetic. "when Africa defaults on their loans China is going to take that" By whatever means necessary. The US must be brought back down to earth. It gained most of its overseas bases and territory from Europe in WWII. The Europeans got them through colonialism. I see that as far, far less moral than a "debt trap" (not exclusive to China, and never called that when France does this is Africa, or US does in Micronesia). "The US has the #1 commercial rail system in the world" Why do Americans have a psychological need to both rank everything, and insist they are #1? I think it is projecting some kind of insecurity. No country self-assured in its achievements would need to scream it at everyone so much. The US has the longest rail network, yes. But it is not as efficient as other countries, because it is older, and it is not even necessary. You have many rivers and could use barges for cheaper. "the reason we do not have a major passenger rail system is because we like our private automobiles to much" This reminds me of our nationalists who say, 'we don't need your silly Western technology, we have our own things here!" A very nativist, "look how much cool stuff we have" sentiment. And it is not even true. Zoning laws simply disallow any infrastructure to exist which could eventually be connected with a transit network. Would you like to know how I know you're wishfully thinking? The areas that have been grandfathered in (before the zoning codes) are usually the highest-selling. Those dense, non-American styled places are the most valuable and the most popular. You do not even allow a free-market, which you love so much, to dictate what type of housing you have. And here you sit typing to me about what every American wants. Maybe they want a Soviet-style microblock neighborhood? Too scary?- let me rename it: a Lisbon-style "megablock" neighborhood, fancy!! "(My first new vehicle was when I was in the US Navy.)" Well, this explains a lot about how you think. Did they tell you that the US has never lost a war, like they do in the Army? Well, if not, I see your spending habits are just as sensible. Was it a Charger or a Mustang?? :) "I’ve owned 5 properties and my top pay was 65K per year" This is not the majority of Americans. It is like telling Marie Antoinette about the starving French, and having her list you her dinner menu. Your problem is country-wide, it is not solved just because you have it good "You ever done this on your own property?" Not mine, a friend's dacha. We have bears instead of quail)) "that has become an issue in every developed nation" Whose fault is that? Which event usually causes obesity to spike? Maybe, the introduction of certain companies, from a certain country?... "you can be so fucking ignorant of the US after watching this vid" Me, ignorant? I have lived there. I do not understand why immigrants come. Unless you are dirt poor, it is no country to build a life. It seems you are ignorant-- every problem I stated, you replied with your single, individual experience. You seem unable to consider that there are 330M population, and trends persist across them.
    3
  2163. 3
  2164. 3
  2165. 3
  2166. 3
  2167. 3
  2168. 3
  2169. 3
  2170. 3
  2171. 3
  2172. 3
  2173. 3
  2174. 3
  2175. 3
  2176. 3
  2177. 3
  2178. 3
  2179. 3
  2180. 3
  2181. 3
  2182. 3
  2183. 3
  2184. 3
  2185. 3
  2186. 3
  2187. 3
  2188. 3
  2189. 3
  2190. 3
  2191. 3
  2192. 3
  2193. 3
  2194. 3
  2195. 3
  2196. 3
  2197. 3
  2198. 3
  2199. 3
  2200. 3
  2201. 3
  2202. 3
  2203. 3
  2204. 3
  2205.  @cgt3704  You described Romania to me. I now have to ask: what has it achieved? It sounds like you have all the same issues, just with a different political alliance. You said it yourself- you have massive brain drain (especially to UK), corruption, bad infrastructure,, etc. So was aligning with the West, and opening up your market right away, even worth it? What do you have to show for it, Pizza Hut? I am not saying you should "give up", but I think your strategy is bad, Greece is still worse now than it was before joining the EU. Will you tell them to "never give up!"? You seem to put a lot of faith in this idea, that being with the West will eventually make things better, with basically no evidence to show for it. Poland and Baltics are really all that come to mind, but this comes from their smoother transition to capitalism and technology transfer. There was a political motivation to get them away from Russia, so the countries with money and colonial legacies made sure they succeeded. Not sure what to tell you about Putin, literally anyone was better than Yeltsin, you have no position to lecture others about ideals and values when we were starving to death. He is not perfect, but he is much better (even now) than the results we got under the Western-supported leader. And none of what happened in 2000s, stabilizing the country and economy, was "easy". We are sacrificing the political process, yes, but if we put all our efforts into one goal and fail, there will be nothing left. Better to stabilize the economy first, then transition to more democratic. We tried what you are suggesting (Glastnost first, than Perestroika). It failed
    3
  2206. 3
  2207. 3
  2208. 3
  2209. 3
  2210. 3
  2211. 3
  2212. 3
  2213. 3
  2214. 3
  2215. 3
  2216. 3
  2217. 3
  2218. 3
  2219. 3
  2220. 3
  2221. 3
  2222. 3
  2223. 3
  2224. 3
  2225. 3
  2226. 3
  2227. 3
  2228. 3
  2229. 3
  2230. 3
  2231. 3
  2232. 3
  2233. 3
  2234. 3
  2235. 3
  2236. 3
  2237. 3
  2238. 3
  2239. 3
  2240. 3
  2241. 3
  2242. 3
  2243. 3
  2244. 3
  2245. 3
  2246. 3
  2247. 3
  2248. 3
  2249. 3
  2250. 3
  2251. 3
  2252. 3
  2253. 3
  2254. 3
  2255. 3
  2256. 3
  2257. 3
  2258. 3
  2259. 3
  2260. 3
  2261. 3
  2262. 3
  2263. 3
  2264. 3
  2265. 3
  2266. 3
  2267. 3
  2268. 3
  2269. 3
  2270. 3
  2271. 3
  2272. 3
  2273. 3
  2274. 3
  2275. 3
  2276. 3
  2277. 3
  2278. 3
  2279. 3
  2280. 3
  2281. 3
  2282. 3
  2283. 3
  2284. 3
  2285. 3
  2286. 3
  2287. 3
  2288.  SirVixIsVexed  LOL LOL LOL LOL Am I speaking with a person, or a broken record player? It doesn't really help your credibility, if you were looking to convince me of anything. You remind me of me, at 12. Anyway, "LOL So what?!" So, a justification is all you need. Irrespective of religion, history has shown us that religious dogma has little impact on the behavior of any single adherent. Conquistadors slaughtered millions of natives who resisted the spread of Christianity throughout the Americas. Secular ideas haven't fared much better. Stalinism and Maoism have eradicated tens of millions and warped entire societies. Why can't you understand that the capacity for murder and conquest is not bound or even amplified by religion? Even Buddhists have committed (rather, are committing) genocide, in Myanmar. Scriptural text can and will be interpreted to a society's will. Islam is no exception to that. You ignored the fact that they were capable of maintaining stable, peaceful societies on their own. Needlessly? You're making a strange distinction— which areas did the Muslims need to conquer? Why did Europe need to conquer that land? "Taking back" is bullshit. Just because a region has people practicing your religion, doesn't make it yours. The Middle East wasn't even a part of Europe geographically. To be frank, I found that last part rich, considering how much of the world Christian Europe would go on to conquer, colonize, and ruin. As for the Westboro Baptist church, stop dodging. My point wasn't their scope, but the capacity for people to become extreme regardless of ideology. I'm aware that all countries currently issuing capital countries are Muslim. Australia and Britiain did the same not long ago. Again, religion plays a smaller part than historical context. And as for your last thing, I don't even know what to say. That's just completely the opposite of true. It's leftists that try to justify Islam being a 'normal' religion. It's usually rightists who can't see it as anything but a death cult, which certainly won't encourage Muslims to see your side of the story. They're doing the grueling work of de-radicalizing an entire Tori tomb religion, so please let them get to work. If you wanna keep speeding garbage go ahead, but we need to finish up. This either goes somewhere or it doesn't.
    3
  2289. 3
  2290. 3
  2291. 3
  2292. 3
  2293. 3
  2294. 3
  2295. 3
  2296. 3
  2297. 3
  2298. 3
  2299. 3
  2300. 3
  2301. 3
  2302. 3
  2303. 3
  2304. 3
  2305. 3
  2306. 3
  2307. 3
  2308. 3
  2309. 3
  2310. 3
  2311. 3
  2312. 3
  2313. 3
  2314. 3
  2315. 3
  2316. 3
  2317. 3
  2318. 3
  2319. 3
  2320. 3
  2321. 3
  2322. 3
  2323. 3
  2324.  @farzana6676  We won the war, by capturing Berlin. What is so hard to understand here? Yes, absolutely, we were 'hiding' behind the snow. Taking advantage of geography is not something I would prohibit or fault or prohibit anyone for doing. This goes for the U.S., Britain, and the U.S.S.R.. The major difference being, that our geographical advantage didn't come with actual protection- the Germans' tanks had already gone into Russia before winter hit. The Soviets still had to fight for every inch of their territory. Meanwhile, the Americans and Brits were never invaded by land. The Brits got bombed to hell, so did we. The Americans never faced anything even near their soil (Pearl Harbor was 1000's of miles away from their homeland, and meant to cripple their Navy, not their population.) Our geography slowed their invasion, theirs prevented it altogether. That's why they're hiding- we weren't. We had to fight. And again, yes we did. Hitler's reaction to our productivity alone proves his fear, not of the snow, but of the Red Army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUgV8_meyo8&t=7m20s 80% of German casualties despite Stalin's stupidity (having most military officers murdered out of paranoia) sounds like a win to me. The Soviets also killed more than twice as many Japanese as did the Americans, I mention again. Bear in mind that the U.S. had to invade Vichy France, because *Europe had fallen*. The vast majority of the continent had already been conquered by 1942, and the U.S.S.R. had been fighting back for over a year with no Lend Lease. In that time- no American help, no winter- the Soviets held Moscow and the gateway to the Caucasus. Sorry, but we did hold our own. Get over it.
    3
  2325. 3
  2326. 3
  2327. 3
  2328. 3
  2329. 2
  2330. 2
  2331. 2
  2332. 2
  2333. 2
  2334. 2
  2335. 2
  2336. 2
  2337. 2
  2338. 2
  2339. 2
  2340. 2
  2341. 2
  2342. 2
  2343. 2
  2344. 2
  2345. 2
  2346. 2
  2347. 2
  2348. 2
  2349. 2
  2350. 2
  2351. 2
  2352. 2
  2353. 2
  2354. 2
  2355. 2
  2356. 2
  2357. 2
  2358. 2
  2359. 2
  2360. 2
  2361. 2
  2362. 2
  2363. 2
  2364. 2
  2365. 2
  2366. 2
  2367. 2
  2368. 2
  2369. 2
  2370. 2
  2371. 2
  2372. 2
  2373. 2
  2374. 2
  2375. 2
  2376. 2
  2377. 2
  2378. 2
  2379. 2
  2380. 2
  2381. 2
  2382. 2
  2383. 2
  2384. 2
  2385. 2
  2386. 2
  2387. 2
  2388. 2
  2389. 2
  2390. 2
  2391. 2
  2392. 2
  2393. 2
  2394. 2
  2395. 2
  2396. 2
  2397. 2
  2398. 2
  2399. 2
  2400. 2
  2401. 2
  2402. 2
  2403. 2
  2404. 2
  2405. 2
  2406. 2
  2407. 2
  2408. 2
  2409. 2
  2410. 2
  2411. 2
  2412. 2
  2413. 2
  2414. 2
  2415. 2
  2416. 2
  2417. 2
  2418. 2
  2419. 2
  2420. 2
  2421. 2
  2422. 2
  2423. 2
  2424. 2
  2425. 2
  2426. 2
  2427. 2
  2428. 2
  2429. 2
  2430. 2
  2431. 2
  2432. 2
  2433. 2
  2434. 2
  2435. 2
  2436. 2
  2437. 2
  2438. 2
  2439.  @captlazer5509  Haha, you're trying so hard to spin having a larger transportation system as being worse😂 It's not just how expansive the system is, it's the quality. I have been to both New York and Chicago, and both their transit systems make me want to jump on the tracks. You Americans are uniquely awful at building anything public. Skip if you want, but this is what I thought of both: New York's was extremely dirty and small, clearly built with no future plans in mind, It was always crowded (why haven't they built out the most popular stations?) full of awful smells (rats, piss). It was also disorganized, why are there 3 separate levels each disconnected and requiring different payment types? Why are the tickets machines so old and slow? The entry passages, too. No automatic door, just a turnstyle. Very old. Chicagos was better, but still horrible by any European country standards. Cleaner than New York, but still garbage was everywhere, many stations are placed in the middle of a highway. The "L" cars were small and cramped, and poorly designed. The buses don't announce their next stop (broken speakers?) and you need to pull a string for the bus to even stop. No dedicated bus lanes for most stops in either city. The inter-state transit was even worse. Both Metra (Chicago) and Amtrak were slow and ticket prices were very high for such a slow train. Every time either one turned slightly on a track, it squeals like a pig. And all 3 modes of transport were very, very loud. Should I go on? Moscow's by comparison is a marvel. Now maybe you, obviously with firsthand experience with both, could tell me what you think?? You are right- Spain has more. But you are holding a poor standard, since Spain has the most in the whole world, behind only China. It is like saying I am a bad basketball player because I am not Michael Jordan! Russia has at least some high-speed rail, reaching beyond 200km/hr. You have none. To experience something amazing like that, you have to travel outside your wonderful country, since your homeland simply cannot provide it.
    2
  2440. 2
  2441. 2
  2442. 2
  2443. 2
  2444. 2
  2445. 2
  2446. 2
  2447. 2
  2448. 2
  2449. 2
  2450. 2
  2451. 2
  2452. 2
  2453. 2
  2454. 2
  2455. 2
  2456. 2
  2457. 2
  2458. 2
  2459. 2
  2460. 2
  2461. 2
  2462. 2
  2463. 2
  2464. 2
  2465. 2
  2466. 2
  2467. 2
  2468. 2
  2469. 2
  2470. 2
  2471. 2
  2472. 2
  2473. 2
  2474. 2
  2475. 2
  2476. 2
  2477. 2
  2478. 2
  2479. 2
  2480. 2
  2481. 2
  2482. 2
  2483. 2
  2484.  Angelo Stevens  No, there is. You just don't see it that way, but that doesn't make what you think true. If the murder (or perceived murder— even if you think Floyd deserved to die, you must acknowledge that someone who believes he didn't, would naturally be enraged and called to action) of a man isn't justification for rioting, then I don't know what to tell you. "I can't breathe" is what Floyd uttered before the police killed him. It's become a motto for the rioters. Explain to me again how it has nothing to do with the police killing people. No, it isn't less dependable. It's been around since the Civil War, and never had issues since its inception. Much of the US' early infrastructure was based on mailing routes, and in places where polling stations weren't built, mail-in voting was used for decades without fail. Why has it become an issue only now, when the Republicans stand to lose from it being used? I didn't hear Bush sounding the alarm. If mail-in ballots are so unreliable, why does the military use them every single year?? And yeah, the Democrats are urging some voters to go in person— because those ballot harvesting boxes were set up by California Republicans and labeled as "official", which is a federal crime. They only backed off after they got caught. They're pushing for early voting because mail-in takes time to process. Republicans are more likely to vote in person (lots think coronavirus is a hoax) so their votes will get counted first. Trump will probably use the initial results (before absentee and mail in ballots are counted) to declare himself the winner of the election. And I don't like Biden, he's a creep and he's a liberal. Don't lump every person voting blue with him or his ideas. We're just trying to get Trump out of office so we can fix the economy and get this country running properly again. He bungled the response to the virus, the economy is starting to tank even in the tech sector. Trump is a failure.
    2
  2485. 2
  2486. 2
  2487. 2
  2488. 2
  2489. 2
  2490. 2
  2491. 2
  2492. 2
  2493. 2
  2494. 2
  2495. 2
  2496. 2
  2497. 2
  2498. 2
  2499. 2
  2500. 2
  2501. 2
  2502. 2
  2503. 2
  2504. 2
  2505. 2
  2506. 2
  2507. 2
  2508. 2
  2509. 2
  2510. 2
  2511. 2
  2512. 2
  2513. 2
  2514.  @Max_Mustermann  1) You STLL haven't answered my question. Answer it next time, or don't bother replying. You certainly won't get another reply from me if you keep trying to evade it. 2) Wrong-- there was infighting within NATO on the issue of Ukraine in 2007, with Italy, Germany, and France opposed to the declaration (due to zero feasible pathways for membership for Ukraine), with the US and UK on the other side. The US eventually won out. Also, a former head of NATO, involved in Finland's recent ascension, has gone on record saying that there was political pressure placed on Finland to join long before its decision. On the point of a referendum: 1) you're lying, NATO membership is based on certain military and economic requirements, and 2) if that were the criteria every state was held to, Ukraine would never have even requested to join. In 2007, the percentage of the population that wanted to join was barely breaking double digits. It was the post-Maidan government, not the people, that wanted to join. On the nuclear sharing: that's like asking the wolf how the sheep are doing. How do you trust the very source you're supposed to be analyzing, to paint an accurate picture of itself? It has every incentive to downplay the scope of its operations. Do you give anyone or anything else- American police, corporations, Russia- that enormous benefit of the doubt? I swear, your brain must shut off when in a geopolitical rivalry. Case in point: Germany has no nuclear bombs of its own per se, but hosts US nuclear bombs on its territory. You can couch the reality with flowery language all you want, but the truth is clear: "sharing the nuclear alliance's deterrence mission" includes sharing weaponry.
    2
  2515.  @Max_Mustermann  "So my answer is no, the US wouldn't put nukes near the Russian border." FINALLY. Jesus. Was that so hard? "to which I answered that only a few NATO states have nukes and-" That wasn't answering the question, either. Accusing me of moving goalposts, but refusing to give a one word answer? "don't usually ship them to other states" Again, that argument is useless as an assurance to Russia. What is stopping the US or a European state from eventually changing their mind and shipping them to Ukraine? They refuse to negotiate with Russia on pretty much anything even before February, violating the Minsk II agreements, so what guarantee does Russia really have that this scenario won't happen in the future? It would not even have to be predicated on Russia's actions-- when Russia was at its absolute weakest, in the 1990s, NATO still existed, and kept its open door policy, and expanded eastwards. In spite of the perceived threat (USSR) being gone. What reason at that time did it have to keep going? If you want to cite Georgia, we can talk in more detail about what caused those wars. This to me demonstrates a deviation from the 'principled' stance of 'don't invade your neighbors and NATO will dissolve on its own" (which itself is laughable). "on what basis you are accusing me of lying" Because you said, "and we joined because the majority of people wanted to based on a referendum." -When that just isn't the reason states are admitted. Like I said, Ukraine's population didn't even want to join by a very wide margin and its government still sought to join. It has nothing to do with the will of the people. " which is why there weren't talks of them joining prior to Putin's invasion." ...Bruh. "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." Bucharest Summit, 2008 Please, stop claiming things falsely to bolster your argument and accept what the actual reality is. NATO could have dissolved in 1991 and Europe, Russia included, could have been part of a pan-European security architecture. This was proposed multiple times but (chiefly) the US shot them down. This is the consequence.
    2
  2516. 2
  2517. 2
  2518. 2
  2519. 2
  2520. 2
  2521. 2
  2522. 2
  2523. 2
  2524.  @fedeonio555  I don't think you and I agree on what "kneeling" means. To me, it is a repeat of the 1990s: 1) no institutional/international power- the US/EU control most of the institutions, like SWIFT, and will arbitrarily use that control to extract political and economic concessions. See France's treatment of West Africa, US threatening Palauan membership in the OAS over refusal to import American meat scraps, Africa generally (30 years and only now Chinese infrastructure is pushing industrialization). 2) Allowance of corruption if it suits the West. With no easily protected borders, traffickers and smugglers and easily slip through and cause epidemics, CIA-trained militias could "liberate" Chechnya so it declare a jihad on Moscow like last time, etc. Laws will routinely be broken if Western companies can take resources for cheap, in exchange for kickbacks to oligarchs (already happens now tbh). Basically with no goodwill towards a bloc of states devoted to weakening you on every level, you must overpower them or succumb to their influence. 3) No economic development. With the implicit threat of violence, trade deals can be extracted that wreck the domestic capabilities of the country. This already happened in Greece with the EU, though they convinced Greece rather than coercing them. They still have not recovered financially from that. Take the US, too. Trading with China has transitioned the market to service sector, but left manufacturing regions with nothing to do anymore. The same, but more drastic and violent, happened in Russia a few decades later. Get the idea? The economic and political power that comes with controlling all the services that Russia uses and goods that it imports means you can threaten to do things which are entirely legal (sanctions) in hopes of making them do what you want. This is much more achievable if you control their access to global trade, i.e NATO turning Baltic into an American lake. Well, it's already happened, so you will see in the coming decades moves to restrict or control Russia's trade capacity.
    2
  2525. 2
  2526. 2
  2527. 2
  2528. 2
  2529. 2
  2530. 2
  2531. 2
  2532. 2
  2533. 2
  2534. 2
  2535. 2
  2536. 2
  2537. 2
  2538. 2
  2539. 2
  2540. 2
  2541. 2
  2542. 2
  2543. 2
  2544. 2
  2545. 2
  2546. 2
  2547. 2
  2548. 2
  2549. 2
  2550. 2
  2551. 2
  2552. 2
  2553. 2
  2554. 2
  2555. 2
  2556. 2
  2557. 2
  2558. 2
  2559. 2
  2560. 2
  2561. 2
  2562. 2
  2563.  @geetee2392  You really wanna tell me that Evangelicals successfully putting the Ten Commandments' tablets into courthouses and state capitols around the country doesn't worry you? The insistence of millions of Americans that creationism be taught in schools and evolution be outlawed? The promotion of (here's a secret: they're largely Christian) charter schools, by the Secretary of Education? Or the recent attempted appeal of abortion (irrespective of your view on that, the power of religious movements to reverse political decisions? Or the politicians promoting America as a Christian nation, insisting our laws are based in 'Judeo-Christian' values? I also don't think it's accurate to put either religion into a vacuum. Radicalization doesn't come about solely by the merit of a religion's doctrine (not to say that it doesn't contribute at all, but): Context matters. Iran was set to transition into a secular society until its Prime Minister was overthrown in 1953, followed by decades of forced Western-style rule, causing a religious backlash. Indonesia is a relatively free country, with the largest population of Muslims on Earth. Saudi Arabia is showing signs of secularization, though time will tell if the current Prince is deposed for this. My point is, history matters, and extreme dogma is often a defense mechanism in the face of a threat to survival. 'Christian' nations also happen to be wealthy, and had longer periods of time to develop secular culture (the Franks' old civilization, vs. the Bedouin tribes being united for the first time in their history, by Muhammad).
    2
  2564. 2
  2565. 2
  2566. 2
  2567. 2
  2568. 2
  2569. 2
  2570. 2
  2571. 2
  2572. 2
  2573. 2
  2574. 2
  2575. 2
  2576. 2
  2577. 2
  2578. 2
  2579. 2
  2580. 2
  2581. 2
  2582. 2
  2583. 2
  2584. 2
  2585. 2
  2586. 2
  2587. 2
  2588. 2
  2589. 2
  2590. 2
  2591. 2
  2592. 2
  2593. 2
  2594. 2
  2595. 2
  2596. 2
  2597. 2
  2598. 2
  2599. 2
  2600. 2
  2601. 2
  2602. 2
  2603. 2
  2604. 2
  2605. 2
  2606. 2
  2607. 2
  2608. 2
  2609. 2
  2610. 2
  2611. 2
  2612. 2
  2613. 2
  2614. 2
  2615. 2
  2616. 2
  2617. 2
  2618. 2
  2619. 2
  2620. 2
  2621. 2
  2622. 2
  2623. 2
  2624. 2
  2625. 2
  2626. 2
  2627. 2
  2628. 2
  2629. 2
  2630. 2
  2631. Okay, here are a few: Not all animals are killed inhumanely, (slowly and painfully)— this is in fact something I would advocate for with you. Animals that are killed need to live good, stress-free lives (humane, and makes them taste better as cortisol alters flavor), and killed quickly with as little suffering as possible. But no, it's still murder right? How about this? We've bred animals to be the way they are— an American cow is no bull, nor is a farm pig a boar. If we were to release these animals back into the wild, most of them would starve or be eaten. They'd suffer anyway, but we'd be wasting food (sorry! I'm talking both about the animals, and the plant life they eat btw) in the process. At this point, there's not much we can do with them besides let them live in captivity, and just raising and wasting time and energy on animals, letting them live and die without providing anything for us, isn't a good way to be sustainable. From a purely historical perspective, our bodies have adapted to eat meat. The simple fact that we can even digest meat indicates that we have evolved to do so, and that people who were able to, passed their genes on more successfully than those who couldn't. It is, in some sense, written in our genes to crave and eat meat. But we deny pleasure to ourselves in pursuit of higher ideals all the time, so what's the big deal here? Here's what: Humans need vitamin B12. You could, in theory, isolate it and take pills for it, but that seems to scream that veganism isn't natural or healthy, if a commerical, industrial product is needed to sustain our new lifestyle. A common argument is that animals don't actually produce it, but rather ingest it themselves, ridding humans of the need to eat them as a gastronomical middleman, so to speak. That's absolutely true, but many vegans forget that it's synthesized by bacteria found in soil. Soil contains silica, which is toxic to humans, so if you were to get B12 directly from the source, you would die. Finally, culture and politics are tied into this. Would you protest against the diet of the native population of Greenland, which is exclusively carnivorous? How about places whose geography simply can't sustain a biodiversity large enough, to feed a population on vegan food? You in America may have the luxury of importing almost any food you like and forget about availability when thinking about food choices, but most others countries don't, and have to make do with what their (usually colder, drier) climate can provide them. There are some arguments. Thoughts?
    2
  2632. 2
  2633. 2
  2634. 2
  2635. 2
  2636. 2
  2637. 2
  2638. 2
  2639. 2
  2640. 2
  2641. 2
  2642. 2
  2643. 2
  2644. 2
  2645. 2
  2646. 2
  2647. 2
  2648. 2
  2649. 2
  2650. 2
  2651. 2
  2652. 2
  2653. 2
  2654. 2
  2655. 2
  2656. 2
  2657. 2
  2658. 2
  2659. 2
  2660. 2
  2661. 2
  2662. 2
  2663. 2
  2664. 2
  2665. 2
  2666. 2
  2667. 2
  2668. 2
  2669. 2
  2670. 2
  2671. 2
  2672. 2
  2673. 2
  2674. 2
  2675. 2
  2676. 2
  2677. 2
  2678. 2
  2679. 2
  2680. 2
  2681. 2
  2682. 2
  2683. 2
  2684. 2
  2685. 2
  2686. 2
  2687. 2
  2688. 2
  2689. 2
  2690. 2
  2691. 2
  2692. 2
  2693. 2
  2694. 2
  2695. 2
  2696. 2
  2697. 2
  2698.  @chrispatriot  Lmao dude No, efficiency is the right term to use. Humans have a certain number of hours they can work per day, at full attention. If you, as a boss, try to work them harder than that, you will receive diminishing returns for each extra hour they are kept working. Past a certain point, the costs actually become higher than just letting them go home (in the form of reduced productivity, workplace mistakes which take more time and money to correct, reduced employee engagement, etc). Sometimes, in the case of Japan or Korea, it gets so bad that people don't have time to do anything outside of work. So, no dating, no kids, no new working population. At a certain point the devotion to "working hard" gets so bad that it starts to destroy the same foundation that allowed it to prosper to begin with. People don't have the money or time for raising children, so the next generation is smaller, they need to pay more to support the retiring older generation, and this shrinks the economy. Also, I think it's funny that you think Elon Musk is the best example of efficiency. You didn't have to tell us that you're anti-academia, the Elon Musk part was enough to realize that :) He isn't the head engineer, or the project manager at Tesla. He didn't even found the company. Similar with SpaceX- he's not an aerospace engineer, and most of his funding came from the US government. He didn't earn those higher profits, he just got free handouts in the form of taxpayer money! I am sure someone at Elon's companies is working to increase efficiency, but not him. He's not smart enough.
    2
  2699. 2
  2700. 2
  2701. 2
  2702. 2
  2703. 2
  2704. 2
  2705. 2
  2706. 2
  2707. 2
  2708. 2
  2709. 2
  2710. 2
  2711. 2
  2712. 2
  2713.  @revolverDOOMGUY  "the idea that we were "bullied" into entering NATO is absolutely false" I didn't say that. I was responding to your point, "Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence...The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking" I said that most of America's allies are allied because America at one point or another rigged their elections or installed a dictator, and their government worked with Washington. I am surprised that, as an Italian, you do not know your own history. Do you know why the Fronte Democratico Popolare lost in 1948? The CIA forged letters, gave $100M's to right-wing parties, used money from the Marshall Plan -- meant to help rebuild Italy-- to rig your elections instead. And you wonder why it is so hard to find a job in Italy now... "Those "overthrown leaders" were not actually elected leaders" In most cases, they were. Sometimes, the US did not even give the country a chance to elect a democratic leader before installing their chosen dictator. -Salvador Allende in Guatemala: democratically elected, overthrown 1954 -Shukri al-Quwatli in Syria: democratically elected, overthrown 1949 -Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran: democratically elected, overthrown 1953 -Sukarno in indonesia: democratically elected, overthrown 1959 -Patrice Lumumba in Congo: democratically elected, overthrown 1965 This is not even a fraction of the list. South Korea did not even elect a leader before the US installed Syngman Rhee, the CIA used Imperial Japanese troops to fight the Chinese Communists, they militarily occupied Haiti for decades, overthrew Mexico's government twice, and on and on. The only reason you like the US is because your country is rich now, and your government will forget the crimes they committed if you can be pampered like mammoni "it's a sovereign nation, with a democratically elected president who was not in bad relations with Russia until Russia itself decided they wanted Crimea back" You are getting the events in the wrong order. The Maidan protests happened first, then Crimea. It is strange to me that many American Senators were present during the revolution, and there is some question about who orchestrated the rooftop shooting in Maidan that made the regional protests turn into a Ukrainian revolution against Russia... Look at the list I showed you again. Is it so strange to add just one more? "You are putting Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden on the same plain as Zelensky" Ironically, I think Hussein should have been kept in power. How is Iraq doing after America's brilliant operation there? I think Zelensky should be kept, too: it is the glorification of WWII Nazi collaborators (Ukrainian version of Mussolini) and downgrading Russian to a regional language that I have issue with. Despite the fact that most Ukrainians speak it, and 30% of the country speak natively. Banning Russian books, teaching in schools, etc "then they made riddicolous demands to be basically in command, then they constantly tried to re-define what NATO was supposed to be" Mostly because they were a power much larger than Europe. If they joined, how will Soviet equipment be used? Different military philosophy? Does the US get to station wargames in Russia? Do Russian troops get to do the same in US? The 2 sides had fundamental differences, and needed to be resolved. Making Russia replace its entire military still causes a problem, what happens when they have a disagreement with US and Russia happens to produce most of the NATO artillery/tanks? What then? How are disputes between such large powers, on the same side, resolved? "The inequalities between U.S.A and mexico are as you say, but again, America is not constantly flying it's jets over the border and menacing military action every 2 weeks" Do you have amnesia? I will repeat again: it is because the US doesn't need to. Mexico has no strategic land, it can do nothing to the US. You are praising US for allowing Mexico to keep the crumbs, after it has already stolen the whole loaf of bread "Let's take Canada...an indipendent entity from the United States" Lol, no. US is largest trading partner, 75% of ALL trade is with them. 90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of US border, Canadian Shield (mountain region) covers most of Canada so most of their land is useless to live on. Canada's only connection between east (Toronto) and west (Vancouver) is a single highway. It is extremely vulnerable. It is independent in theory, but if it ever opposed the US in a way they could not resolve, Canada would not last 1 day on its own "Yes it might do some sanctions here and tear some deal apart, but it will not attack unless a country become a legitimate threat to itelf" So you admit that it is not just defense? It can attack a country by destroying their economy? Also, NATO did attack. Afghanistan and Libya. NATO took control of the no-fly zone in Libya, and had direct control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, bombing and killing 10,000s of women and children. "we have NO INTENTION of conquering Russia!" You seemed to have no issues stealing our money away. Yes, the oligarchs were Russia's creation, but why did the West take their money even knowing it was stolen from Russian people? Italy is directly responsible for this, many oligarchs bought homes in Italy and luxury Italian goods and cars. You were getting rich off of Russian workers' stolen money "Putin could have removed them" Yes, I agree. I never said I liked Putin or that he was perfect, but he was better than Yeltsin and was at least trying to give Russia geographical security against NATO. If they were going to expand anyway--- (since you are unable to tell me how Russia could 100% guarantee that American military would not keep expanding to its border), ---I say again: what did they have to lose?? "They rebelled againist the Zar but couldn't take on Putin?" The Tsar did not have machine guns and riot gear. The secret police is much more advanced now, harder to change. Like Roman concrete, the more time passes the more rigid everything becomes "we put our shit toghether and kicked most of Mafia out of power in the '70s" Part of the reason you had to deal with the Mafia after WW2 (even after Mussolini arrested pretty much all of them, he doesn't like competition) is because the US pardoned so many of them, which allowed Cosa Nostra to re-establish themselves. "Russia on the other hand, instead of growing or showing some maturity and become a liberal democracy after decades of oppression" How many times do I need to repeat? After the fall of USSR, no one in Russia knew how to run a capitalist economy. So Clinton and later Bush sent their economists to "help" Russia... by throwing it violently into capitalism ('shock therapy'). It failed horribly, the government had no control and (ironically) Bratva (Russian mafia) ran everything.. until Putin came to power, and arrested or killed them, like Mussolini did. Not perfect, but better than being a part of the West. We tried that, and all it got us was pain and suffering. You never wanted to help us, only hurt.
    2
  2714. 2
  2715. 2
  2716. 2
  2717. 2
  2718. 2
  2719. 2
  2720. 2
  2721. 2
  2722. 2
  2723. 2
  2724. 2
  2725. 2
  2726. 2
  2727. 2
  2728. 2
  2729. 2
  2730. 2
  2731. 2
  2732. 2
  2733. 2
  2734. 2
  2735. 2
  2736. 2
  2737. 2
  2738. 2
  2739. 2
  2740. 2
  2741. 2
  2742. 2
  2743. 2
  2744. 2
  2745. 2
  2746. 2
  2747. 2
  2748. 2
  2749. 2
  2750. 2
  2751. 2
  2752. 2
  2753. 2
  2754. 2
  2755. 2
  2756. 2
  2757. 2
  2758. 2
  2759. 2
  2760. 2
  2761. 2
  2762. 2
  2763. 2
  2764. 2
  2765. 2
  2766. 2
  2767. 2
  2768. 2
  2769. 2
  2770. 2
  2771. 2
  2772. 2
  2773. 2
  2774. 2
  2775. 2
  2776. 2
  2777. 2
  2778. 2
  2779. 2
  2780. 2
  2781. 2
  2782. 2
  2783. 2
  2784. 2
  2785. 2
  2786. 2
  2787. 2
  2788. 2
  2789. 2
  2790. 2
  2791. 2
  2792. 2
  2793. 2
  2794. 2
  2795. 2
  2796. 2
  2797. 2
  2798. 2
  2799. 2
  2800. 2
  2801. 2
  2802. 2
  2803. 2
  2804.  @thebossmana  If you don't mind, I'd like to know which section of the university you're referring to, and proof that it was, in fact, constructed after the alleged assault of Dr. Ford. I'd also like you to show me video, audio, or quotes from the preceding days proving that the Prosecutors had any sway over the proceedings, including but not limited to witness testimonies. The problem (and the reason for my requests) is, I simply don't know who's right here. That being said, it puzzles me why, being the majority party hosting the court case, the Republicans didn't include or call to the stand Kavanaugh's friends or people at the party, or Dr. Ford's therapist, who could have provided dated records of her recalling of the incident several years prior. It also puzzles me that Kavanaugh lied about what 'Devil's Triangle' means, or the fact that he didn't want to say that he'd be open to an independent investigation. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. It sounds to me that you're brazenly lying through your teeth, or were gullible enough to believe the first thing you heard. The verdict is literally not out yet. That being said, I personally think Kavanaugh raped Dr. Ford and doesn't want the bad PR. It would be easier if he had fessed up to it earlier on, she might have forgiven him and he could've gotten his seat. But he had to drag this out and to add insult to injury avoid simple questions and spew half-truths in court. If he really is innocent, he's really bad at showing it. Oh, and those documents, please. Back up your claims.
    2
  2805.  @robertkleiman  Lmao, you're equating Nixon's presidency to now? It's true— the U.S. brought China out of Maoism and into capitalism. But the Americans were stupid enough to believe that free trade would magically bring democracy. That's the problem with Americans; too naive and self-infatuated. Afghanistan and Iraq will magically get democracy after we show up and install our government! That's not even the point. It's not the '60s anymore, and no U.S. company will ever come back once they've tasted foreign labor. In fact, there's a new trend, now that China is modernizing— Southeast Asia! Vietnam and Indonesia will be the new China. And after that, India! Then Africa! After that, robots will likely do the work. Jobs are never coming back to America. Sorry, man. It's too expensive. No amount of patriotism will convince shareholders to pay exorbitant amounts for workers who already don't like manual labor. Capitalism and nationalism are like oil and water. There's nothing a company loves for profits like overseas labor. And China is more powerful than you think. A much, much larger domestic market than the U.S. and the most fertile tracts of land on Earth ensure that if you cut them off completely, China would still survive. After all, they did for 1,000 years. The Europeans were the ones who came looking for trade routes to them, not the other way around. And if China's manufacturing "means nothing," why is the U.S. bidding with other countries for masks produced in China? Shouldn't America be all-powerful and not rely on another country?? China already bought IBM and makes BJI's drones, Oppo, Vivo, OnePlus, Xiaomi, Huawei, and on and on. It does produce its own things, and will only get more prolific with time. What a joke you and your ideas are. Open your eyes. The Dragon is waking up, and it'll be everything you think you are right now, but with an extra billion people to boot. For shits and giggles.
    2
  2806. 2
  2807. 2
  2808. 2
  2809. 2
  2810. 2
  2811. 2
  2812. 2
  2813. 2
  2814. 2
  2815. 2
  2816. 2
  2817. 2
  2818. 2
  2819. 2
  2820. 2
  2821. 2
  2822. 2
  2823. 2
  2824. 2
  2825. 2
  2826. 2
  2827. 2
  2828. 2
  2829. 2
  2830. 2
  2831. 2
  2832. 2
  2833. 2
  2834. 2
  2835. 2
  2836. 2
  2837. 2
  2838. 2
  2839. 2
  2840. 2
  2841. 2
  2842. 2
  2843. 2
  2844. 2
  2845. 2
  2846. 2
  2847. 2
  2848. 2
  2849. 2
  2850. 2
  2851.  @DaveSmith-cp5kj  You ignored what I said. I did compare the U.S.'s public transport to that of Europe's, Russia's, Australia's, Asia's, and S. America's. All of those places have better transport— let me repeat myself— the CTA is small, cramped, and dirty compared to: St. Petersburg's Metro, Warsaw's Metro, Frankfurt and Berlin's Metro, London's Tube. It's a physically smaller, dirtier area than every European underground I've been on. There are fewer seats, their design is space inefficient, they're uncomfortable. The same can be said of Metra and Amtrak, with the added insult of screeching while turning due to poor alignment with the track. They're both slower than the European models and are always late— I've never had that problem with Europe's trams, subways, and trains (certainly not to the extent of "20 minutes late due to track repairs" at least once a month). That's just first-hand experience. China and Japan's bullet trains simply don't exist in the U.S.— it's deemed too expensive and difficult to make by our government, even down the extremely dense Atlantic seaboard (where they could actually be profitable). And they go over 200 mph on average, rarely if ever delayed. Explain to me, with evidence, why exactly America's system is better. You can't just say that "it is", and hope that it's true. What qualities does the U.S.'s transport have that make it equal or better? Also, like I said, politicians need security clearance in case of a threat to their life, as a result of their job. I'm just saying that famous people, with enough money to use a private jet or chauffeur, can sometimes choose not to. Public transport has its merits.
    2
  2852. 2
  2853. 2
  2854. 2
  2855. 2
  2856. 2
  2857. 2
  2858. 2
  2859. 2
  2860. 2
  2861. 2
  2862. 2
  2863. 2
  2864. 2
  2865. 2
  2866. 2
  2867. 2
  2868. 2
  2869. 2
  2870. 2
  2871. 2
  2872. 2
  2873. 2
  2874. 2
  2875. 2
  2876. 2
  2877. 2
  2878. 2
  2879. 2
  2880. 2
  2881. 2
  2882. 2
  2883. 2
  2884. 2
  2885. 2
  2886. 2
  2887. 2
  2888. 2
  2889. 2
  2890. 2
  2891. 2
  2892. 2
  2893. 2
  2894. 2
  2895. 2
  2896. 2
  2897. 2
  2898.  @morefiction3264  So, the Austrian School and 20th-century liberalism? The former is anthropologically unsound, as the theory rests upon the assumption that macroeconomic activity is composed exclusively of individual, rational choices. Humans, meanwhile, are self-interested animals— literally. Hominids. Group dynamics and thinking vastly differ from individual choices, and even then those choices are rarely ever rational. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the Austrian School of thought (though it has contributed foundational features to economics, such as the ideas of marginal subjective value) — is its outright rejection of macroeconomics as being distinct from microeconomics— is why I don't wholly believe in it. Much like Darwin's work on evolution, it is indeed a good start. But, also like Darwin, several of its core tenets are simply wrong, and mainstream economics is well past the point of venerating outdated information. I certainly hope you've read past the 20th century section in the library. As for liberalism, it worked, until it didn't. The sciences ate away at philosophy, and the idea that humans are Enlightened, rationally-thinking beings. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a better world, but the liberalist principles used to justify the pursuit of that better world are simply flawed. The fundamental goal of becoming rational masters of our own destiny shuns the collective side of our existence. Ironically, Christianity was always contradictory with liberalism. Individual rights? No, they were priveleges given by God. The tribe is most important, etc. Very collectivist. I suppose with it fading, the counter-balance to liberalism faded too, and we got neoliberalism in its place. —Precisely the thing that's making younger people reject capitalism.
    2
  2899. 2
  2900. 2
  2901. 2
  2902. 2
  2903. 2
  2904. 2
  2905. 2
  2906. 2
  2907. 2
  2908. 2
  2909. 2
  2910. 2
  2911. 2
  2912. 2
  2913. 2
  2914. 2
  2915. 2
  2916. 2
  2917. 2
  2918. 2
  2919. 2
  2920. 2
  2921. 2
  2922. 2
  2923. 2
  2924. 2
  2925. 2
  2926. 2
  2927. 2
  2928. 2
  2929. 2
  2930. 2
  2931. 2
  2932. 2
  2933. 2
  2934. 2
  2935. 2
  2936. 2
  2937. 2
  2938. 2
  2939. 2
  2940. 2
  2941. 2
  2942. 2
  2943. 2
  2944. 2
  2945. 2
  2946. 2
  2947. 2
  2948. 2
  2949. 2
  2950. 2
  2951. 2
  2952. 2
  2953. 2
  2954. 2
  2955. 2
  2956. 2
  2957. 2
  2958. 2
  2959. 2
  2960. 2
  2961. 2
  2962. 2
  2963. 2
  2964. 2
  2965. 2
  2966. 2
  2967. 2
  2968.  @ViriatoII  "Being exploited for cheap labor is not necessarily super bad" You've clearly never been forced to work in a factory, or worked a hard manual labor job, then. It's no fun. The hardest I've worked was as a contractor, 9-10 hr days, with 15 minute lunch period. Constant physical activity, no breaks. That was only for a few months. It was wrenching. And that's a luxury to someone in a sweatshop, or even working a field in the US. While it's great for the country (and certainly it's leaders), this doesn't always translate to transitioning into middle-income economies. India and Africa have been working those types of jobs for decades of not centuries, where's their reward? It only works if the government is willing to leverage its resources and work for its own people— something not likely if you're kowtowing to a Western corporation. And you'll have to explain what you mean by 'society and culture'. The Guatemalans are descendants of the Maya (who are also still around today), you've seen the ancient pyramids, no? As for the marijuana point, I was talking about the cartels. And how America specifically caused Mexico's problem. Which it did, in the 1920's. If you haven't thought about it before, now you know. What is your response to that? I don't care what other countries do (in all cases, gangs use drug trade as a way to make money and continue existing), I'm talking about Mexico right now. So I'm hoping you're either able to justify what America did, or acknowledge that it was wrong.
    2
  2969. 2
  2970. 2
  2971. 2
  2972. 2
  2973. 2
  2974. 2
  2975. 2
  2976. 2
  2977. 2
  2978. 2
  2979. 2
  2980. 2
  2981. 2
  2982. 2
  2983. 2
  2984. 2
  2985. 2
  2986. 2
  2987. 2
  2988. 2
  2989. 2
  2990. 2
  2991. 2
  2992. 2
  2993. 2
  2994. 2
  2995. 2
  2996. 2
  2997. 2
  2998. 2
  2999. 2
  3000. 2
  3001. 2
  3002. 2
  3003. 2
  3004. 2
  3005. 2
  3006. 2
  3007. 2
  3008. 2
  3009. 2
  3010. 2
  3011. 2
  3012. 2
  3013. 2
  3014. 2
  3015. 2
  3016. 2
  3017. 2
  3018. 2
  3019. 2
  3020. 2
  3021. 2
  3022. 2
  3023. 2
  3024. 2
  3025. 2
  3026. 2
  3027. 2
  3028. 2
  3029. 2
  3030. 2
  3031. 2
  3032. 2
  3033. 2
  3034. 2
  3035. 2
  3036. 2
  3037. 2
  3038. 2
  3039. 2
  3040. 2
  3041. 2
  3042. 2
  3043. 2
  3044. 2
  3045. 2
  3046. 2
  3047. 2
  3048.  @mjm3091  It isn't 100% Russian, but all (minus the 2 I mentioned) areas are majority ethnically Russian. And you scenario isn't really likely. There are indeed multiple factions-- but the pro-democratic ones will quickly be snuffed out, as they are mostly funded by Western NGOs and would lose organization in event of a civil war. The oligarchs would likely elect just one of themselves to rule, and that person right now is Medvedev. Or Kadyrov-- in both cases, the conflict will continue, as both have expressed commitment to the issue and even taken it farther than Putin. The Church-- now this one is laughable. It is a cultural institution with sway over older people's lives, but ruling Russia? With what army? Let's move past that one, if you really insist then I'll explain to you why you can't rule a country with no way to have a monopoly on force. Regarding Siberia becoming independent-- how? If we assume that Siberia as a whole secedes, then sure-- but any region outside of Vladivostok will be landlocked and forced to negotiate with a neighbor that can access the world's oceans. The problem is, Vladivostok is in no position to defend itself from the US Navy, which has been trying to establish any sort of foothold in the Okhotsk Sea for decades. Any regions in between Vladivostok and the Russian core would face a similar problem-- foreign encroachment, Chinese or Western. All they have of value is minerals-- It is happening currently, but would accelerate if they all became smaller, weaker countries. Lastly, much of Siberia is dependent on investment from the Russian core to survive, especially the more remote areas. The people can't just move to China-- they don't speak Mandarin! So they will need to keep ties VERY close to Moscow even in your fantasy scenario. That is even assuming it happens, which it is VERY unlikely to. You have a surface-level understanding of Russia, which is fine, but don't go around acting like a policy expert. Or like someone who actually lives there.
    2
  3049. 2
  3050. 2
  3051. 2
  3052. 2
  3053. 2
  3054. 2
  3055. 2
  3056. 2
  3057. 2
  3058. 2
  3059. 2
  3060. 2
  3061. 2
  3062. 2
  3063.  @Morwenna1220  No, not really. At the time of NATO General Secretary de Hoop Schefer announced that both Georgia and Ukraine "would become a part of NATO", interest in Ukraine for membership was barely in double digits. If it were held to a vote, instead of the ruling party deciding the interests of the entire country, and the US taking advantage of that fact, then the vote would fail. So I'm not really sure what you mean by "would never have sought to join nato". That sounds like empty assurances to me. It is not the first time the West has done that, either. Most of their current international influence was rooted in them not being beneath lying, cheating, stealing, and colonizing. "As usual Russia creates its own problems" If Europe genuinely attempted to integrate Russia into Europe, instead of exploiting its economic and political weakness immediately after the fall of the USSR, it would not as paranoid ans hostile as it is today. Russia did not create this problem, the West did. Every Russian stateman's (Tsar, Emperor, or Premier's) worst fears were confirmed when Russia fell under Western influence- and the country was absolutely ruined for over a decade as a result. The economic policies and political reforms that the West instructed Russian leadership to do, seemingly were designed to keep it destitute. You could argue "well Russian leaders made that choice", but you would also need to concede that the West has never had Russia's best interests at heart, and that when the formalities fall away, they really deep down just wanted to plunder our natural resources and human talent, which they did. I have seen people unironically tell me that it was Russia's fault to be so naïve as to think the West would honor any agreements or good wishes between us. And you wonder why it is aggressive. The oldest Russian motto was re-affirmed in 1991: “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.” Security against whom? Well, now we have our answer.
    2
  3064. 2
  3065. 2
  3066. 2
  3067. 2
  3068. 2
  3069. 2
  3070. 2
  3071. 2
  3072. 2
  3073. 2
  3074. 2
  3075. 2
  3076. 2
  3077. 2
  3078. 2
  3079. 2
  3080. 2
  3081. 2
  3082. 2
  3083. 2
  3084. 2
  3085. 2
  3086. 2
  3087. 2
  3088. 2
  3089. 2
  3090. 2
  3091. 2
  3092. 2
  3093. 2
  3094. 2
  3095. 2
  3096. 2
  3097. 2
  3098. 2
  3099. 2
  3100. 2
  3101. 2
  3102. 2
  3103. 2
  3104. 2
  3105. 2
  3106. 2
  3107. 2
  3108. 2
  3109. 2
  3110.  @yosefmacgruber1920  1) You must not understand how airplanes work very well. Generally, autopilot will take over the duration of the flight, with the exception of the takeoff, landing, and taxi. i.e., all the basic functions that a driver tends to behind the wheel in the form of starting, stopping, and turning. Pilots are still expected to be mindful of the plane's flight, and only extremely new models can land themselves (which was my point- we are just barely scratching the surface, and it will take decades to reach the consumer market at large scale). 2) They can, but again, pilots need to land and navigate the plane in poor conditions. This is why every runway is plastered in guiding lights. 3) Not sure what you're saying here- I'm just being realistic. I'm extremely excited to see electric, self-driving cars take off, but hyping yourself up will leave you with deflated expectations. 4) Obviously, the cars (the drivers, rather) will travel cross-country. I'm just basing my prediction off of what we currently have, which is precisely what I said- navigational systems can't deal with snow and poor visibility yet. Tesla's entire lineup freaks out under bridges and in snow, thinking every snowflake is a lane line. It's simply the reality right now. When the cars come to market, they'll be allowed to self-drive in certain regions/weather conditions, and drivers will need to take over in poorer conditions, or farther north. 5) They do, but radar and especially lidar- the main technology behind getting to Level 5 (as opposed to the current 2) cars won't work in some regions without en entirely new technology or workaround. For this reason, liberal cities will receive the earliest forms of the technology first, because most of them (in the U.S.) are in sunny or temperate climates.
    2
  3111. 2
  3112. 2
  3113. 2
  3114. 2
  3115. 2
  3116. 2
  3117. 2
  3118. 2
  3119. 2
  3120. 2
  3121. 2
  3122. 2
  3123. 2
  3124. 2
  3125. 2
  3126. 2
  3127. 2
  3128. 2
  3129. 2
  3130. 2
  3131. 2
  3132. 2
  3133. 2
  3134. 2
  3135. 2
  3136. 2
  3137. 2
  3138. 2
  3139. 2
  3140.  @Hooksleft-1  According to the Bible (if you really take it at its word): Noah— a 600 year old man— somehow went to the North and South Pole, got polar bears, penguins to come with him, along with enough animals to feed them, and took them back to the Ark without them dying of heat stroke in the Middle East. That's not even taking into account travelling to Australia for koala bears, or to Madagascar for its endemic species. Or the fact that at the time of the Ark's construction, woolly mammoths were still alive on Wrengel island in modern day Russia, so he'd have to brave the weather and bring them back, and enough food to last them for months, too. And preserve the larger animals' food, and keep enough gazelles for the cheetahs, fish for the bears (both European and North American!) another place he'd have to get to— let's not even get into the South American Amazon and its numerous species— and to even get the polar bears and koala bears, he'd need to build more Arks to get them onto the main one! Not to mention adequate ventilation to keep the animals dying from methane poisoning (animals fart, don't forget) and all with only wood and with a shipbuilding crew of eight, as specified in the Holy Bible. None of that is even close to possible with modern technology, so how do you expect Noah to pull that off? Or address the fact that, if the olive trees all died in the Flood, then it couldn't have been the first tree whose branch the dove brought back to Noah, because olive trees take YEARS to blossom. And of God "helped" him by making the animals passive, or not eat each other, or created the olive tree from nothing, then why couldn't He have just snapped the sinful people out of existence? Why put Noah through all that? He is omnipotent.
    2
  3141. 2
  3142. 2
  3143. 2
  3144. 2
  3145. 2
  3146. 2
  3147. 2
  3148. 2
  3149. 2
  3150. 2
  3151. 2
  3152. 2
  3153. 2
  3154. 2
  3155. 2
  3156. 2
  3157. 2
  3158. @Netizen's United Cleaner, safer? Cities subsidize the suburbs. They don't generate any economic activity of their own— no shops or public places, just houses. You're quite literally mooching off of the people you despise. Biting the hand that feeds you. So even if what you said were somehow true— it can't last. You're coasting on borrowed money. Your way of life cannot and will not continue. Your grandchildren are gonna need to make some tough choices that you didn't have the balls to. All that being said: Safer? Is it safer for children to be chauffeured around all the time and never learn how to fend for themselves? You tell me which you think a trafficker would target. Suburbs are almost always empty, no one fucking walks in them. Except for kids, because they don't have cars. In the city, more people are out, so more potential criminals, but you're always within earshot. If anything happens, everyone knows right away. On the other hand, if you're a kid in the suburbs and aomwthing happens, you're fucked. I was one of those kids who had to walk, the city was always safer for me. And don't get me started on your opioid problem. Safer, my ass. Cleaner? Not really. Suburbs are most wasteful per person and frankly, I don't consider barren grass lawns to be a sign of cleanliness. New York is dirty, sure, but it's the exception, not the rule. Chicago, Tampa, Austin (it's blue, too), San Francisco, are all cleaner and better serviced than whatever backwater subdivision you crawled out of. Chickenwire houses and dingy little grass patches =/= cleaner.
    2
  3159. 2
  3160. 2
  3161. 2
  3162. 2
  3163. 2
  3164. 2
  3165. 2
  3166. 2
  3167. 2
  3168. 2
  3169. 2
  3170. 2
  3171. 2
  3172. 2
  3173. 2
  3174. 2
  3175. 2
  3176. 2
  3177. 2
  3178. 2
  3179. 2
  3180. 2
  3181. 2
  3182. 2
  3183. 2
  3184. 2
  3185. 2
  3186. 2
  3187. 2
  3188. 2
  3189. 2
  3190. 2
  3191. 2
  3192. 2
  3193. 2
  3194. 2
  3195. 2
  3196. 2
  3197. 2
  3198. 2
  3199. 2
  3200. 2
  3201. 2
  3202. 2
  3203. 2
  3204. 2
  3205. 2
  3206. 2
  3207. 2
  3208. 2
  3209. 2
  3210. 2
  3211. 2
  3212. 2
  3213. 2
  3214. 2
  3215. 2
  3216. 2
  3217. 2
  3218. 2
  3219. 2
  3220. 2
  3221. 2
  3222. 2
  3223. 2
  3224. 2
  3225. 2
  3226. 2
  3227. 2
  3228. 2
  3229. 2
  3230. 2
  3231. 2
  3232. 2
  3233. 2
  3234. 2
  3235. 2
  3236. 2
  3237. 2
  3238. 2
  3239. 2
  3240. 2
  3241. 2
  3242. 2
  3243. 2
  3244. 2
  3245. 2
  3246. 2
  3247. 2
  3248. 2
  3249. 2
  3250. 2
  3251. 2
  3252. 2
  3253. 2
  3254. 2
  3255. 2
  3256. 2
  3257. 2
  3258. 2
  3259. 2
  3260. 2
  3261. 2
  3262. 2
  3263. 2
  3264. 2
  3265.  @stormyprawn  I'm glad you agree, everyone seems to just deflect and call me a bot when I am clearly not. Would a bot have perfect English (or is that another sinister Russian plot?:) I agree that violating sovereignty and warcrimes is a horrible thing to do, but I ultimately see the world in terms of likely outcomes. We have already had decades of US hegemony, and they have abused that privilege greatly. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing of their own accord. Essentially, we cannot condemn one and not the other--- partially because it's morally wrong, but also because it reinforces negative behavior. If the US has genuine competitors- China, Russia, maybe someday India- it will need to treat countries better, or risk having them "fall" to other countries' influence. Currently, Europe refusing to hold the US accountable for its crimes reinforces its bad behavior-- what incentive does it have to stop? Additionally, Russia refusing to stop and pointing out the hypocrisy- however brual they themselves may be- is holding the US' reputation as a bargaining chip. "If you claim to be against X, you need to apply it to everyone, your won government too". If Europe and the US cannot do that, then Russia will simply keep reaping the benefits of the same actions the West does. And they cannot credibly tell Russia to stop without drawing attention to their own actions-- unless they stop, or retroactively pay for them. So I don't personally see it as whataboutism, more like "ensuring impartiality".
    2
  3266.  @stormyprawn  I certainly could say that, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that. I agree with your assessment here, and I have thought about this too: The only 2 "final" options for power politics are: hegemony, or not hegemony. In other words, a single country controlling things, or a balance of power, as you said. I would argue that we already did rather well, all things considered, with a balance of power in the nuclear age. Case in point: the Cold War. The mere fact that we're here is testament to the fact that it can be managed. I also agree with you about the concept of interconnectedness, but your view of history here seems to be in a vacuum. The "world order" was never truly reset, nor was it rebuilt from scratch. Europe still retained much of the international connection, industrial know-how, experience in statecraft, etc, that defined its own global domination in the 500 years prior. America had also developed its own and left WWII unscathed. So the idea that the economies of "the world" become so interconnected as to disincentivise war is missing the whole picture. The rest of the world-- the newly freed European colonies, non-aligned countries-- had no such history of development and funneling resources and human capital into their own states for their benefit. The "interconnection", in their case, just means Western global domination. Colonialism by another name. Western companies and societies have so much more experience and time to make mistakes, come back from them, without a peer competitor completely absorbing them. My point here? Russia got a similar treatment in the 1990s. The aim of "shock therapy" may have been to transition Russia into capitalism, but it was so poorly done that-- while it did rope Russia into the West's financial institutions and companies (the reverse effect is being felt now)-- it also ruined Russia's prospects of developing on its own. I can go into more detail if you like, but generally speaking: mass privatization (eliminating a gov't budget), opening up to Western companies, supporting Yeltsin and his "super-presidential" system (a weak democratic government to boot), and rigging the 1996 elections to get him re-elected, All made Russia unstable and weak, and very, very resentful of the West. That decade essentially confirmed the Russian state's every fear about foreign occupation. The centuries-old fight had been lost, and Russia was paying dearly- the economic impact was worse, comparatively speaking, than the Depression. So while I think it's a nice sentiment to have, it will never be executed by the US. They would never intentionally help such a large country, a potential competitor. China got lucky because Nixon worked with them to create an anti-Soviet alliance, and that let them slip through. But otherwise? Unless the US can gain cheap labor or resources from a country, it will treat it as a threat.
    2
  3267. 2
  3268. 2
  3269. 2
  3270. 2
  3271. 2
  3272. 2
  3273. 2
  3274. 2
  3275. 2
  3276. 2
  3277. 2
  3278. 2
  3279. 2
  3280. 2
  3281. 2
  3282. 2
  3283. 2
  3284. 2
  3285. 2
  3286. 2
  3287. 2
  3288. 2
  3289. 2
  3290. 2
  3291. 2
  3292.  @ConorMcgregor322  Yes, you did. You still haven't addressed any of the points. Are Polish neo-Nazis and nationalists not marching through the streets with banners that say "Polska dla Polaków'? Are they not yelling "nie czerwona, nie tęczowa, tylko Polska narodowa"? Did PiS not just pass another abortion restriction? Are the police not beating protestors in the streets? Is the Catholic Church not aligned with PiS? Did Patryk Jaki not say that "zatrzymanie islamizacji to moja Westerplatte"? Answer a single question, you weasel. "Absolutely no reasons" and stop sticking your head in the sand. I just gave you six. It's happening. Now tell try and tell me that it isn't. Go ahead, I dare you to try. You also haven't changed your comment to say that it's not laughable that a country would do what the Nazis did. I gave the example of Israel cleansing away Arabs like the Germans did to them, you replied with... nothing. You didn't reply. It's not laughable. Poland could do it again. It's started against LGBT, it might move to Jews or Vietnamese. "Putin wants to recreate the Russian Empire" give evidence, when did he say that? I acknowledge that it is an authoritarian country. But it isn't fascists. I've already said this. Russia doesn't target its minorities like Germany did. Not even close. And, unlike Poland, it doesn't want a single ethnicity to be in its territory. Poland has many, many supporters of this. "strong nationalism due to historic Russian oppression" how does PiS' actions have anything related to Russia at all?
    2
  3293. 2
  3294. 2
  3295. 2
  3296. 2
  3297. 2
  3298. 2
  3299. 2
  3300. 2
  3301. 2
  3302. 2
  3303. 2
  3304. 2
  3305. 2
  3306. 2
  3307. 2
  3308. 2
  3309. 2
  3310. 2
  3311. 2
  3312. 2
  3313. 2
  3314. 2
  3315. 2
  3316. 2
  3317.  BusterPlanet  1) Sounds like someone's never been fat before! It makes your life much, much worse. 2) You ignored every other point that I made. Stop cherrypicking. "This is not a commie country" Bismarck's Germany was the first to invent public healthcare, the USSR was just the first to make it nationwide. Also, most capitalist European countries pride themselves in how much better their system is than US. So I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove. "And again, dude, dont come at me with "whataboutism" Also you: "the US did some shady sh*t, but.." You're ridiculous. Accusing me of doing something which you clearly have no problem doing, when it suits you. You started off with a comparison. I simply replied to your comparison by going deeper. I have lived in both countries, and in many ways, life in US is better. But it comes at the heavy cost of your sanity. Pace of life is much faster, there are almost no vacations even for high earners, poor infrastructure (yes, Russia's is better- 60% of Russia is like Alaska. Alaska's infrastructure is poor, and is mostly comprised of roads. Russia's is mostly rail.) You have money, but no time to spend it. Your life becomes a cycle of work. You are not living anymore. This is the trap. It looks like paradise to an immigrant, but by the time they have realize the negatives, it is too late. Europe is much better than both. Also, "extremely shady history"? Again, if you are comparing the two countries, which you just did, this is no standard to judge America as any better than Russia. At least Russia's Native tribes still exist. "Oh, and in WWII the Nazis bassicly reached Moskau which is pretty emberessing." Considering that they occupied most of Europe, it's not embarrassing. The only reason Britain (and US) escaped Nazi fighting was because of water. 80% of Nazi deaths were in the USSR, America just cleaned up the crumbs. "And did you forget that you also had the Japanese to worry about?" Did you forget that the reason the US dropped the bomb was to stop the Soviets from invading (they already killed 700.000 Japanese in Manchuria), and taking the northern half of Japan? They also refused to attack the Soviets even when Hitler asked, I wonder why...
    2
  3318. 2
  3319. 2
  3320. 2
  3321. 2
  3322. 2
  3323. 2
  3324. 2
  3325. 2
  3326. 2
  3327. 2
  3328. 2
  3329. 2
  3330. 2
  3331. 2
  3332.  @davidbourne8267  'Talking points'? Could you point out where I was incorrect, then, if these are just talking points? Because I gave concrete examples. Did Musk not receive an initial multi-hundred-million dollar NASA contract before he had a single viable product? Did he not hire rocketry engineers so he wouldn't have to do that himself? All I see, looking at the actual timeline of events surrounding the development of his companies, is an average at best 'leader' who does literally the same thing as any other founder. He's not an engineer, or a rocketry expert, or especially Tony Stark. The reason he succeeded-- again-- is that the US government sees great value in making itself independent of Russian rocket tech, and so sponsored SpaceX so it couldn't fail. Similar story with Tesla; no Chinese EVs allowed in the US so it was very important to develop an American one. This is evident in both cases from the amount of subsidies that they receive: To date, Tesla has received ~$4.5B in subsidies, and this doesn't count the untold billions it will avoid paying as a part its tax deal for setting up its Gigafactory in Nevada. Those unpaid taxes are gonna cost Nevadans. The SpaceX subsidies were difficult to even count, but rest assured it is more than the Tesla subsidies. This isn't even counting the $6B in tax credits they've received. With benefits like this, you don't need to be a genius- or even remotely competent- to actually "run" your company. He's just the figurehead-- and the fact that he sleeps and does nothing but work at the Gigafactory? That's pretty stupid as well, humans need stimulation or they start to lose decision-making skills. "Never sleep!" is a great line, not a good real-life strategy. But we'll see how Twitter plays out, and you can tell me how incredibly smart he is :)
    2
  3333. 2
  3334. 2
  3335. 2
  3336. 2
  3337. 2
  3338. 2
  3339. 2
  3340. 2
  3341. 2
  3342. 2
  3343. 2
  3344. 2
  3345. 2
  3346. 2
  3347. 2
  3348. 2
  3349. 2
  3350. 2
  3351. 2
  3352. 2
  3353. 2
  3354. 2
  3355. 2
  3356. 2
  3357. 2
  3358. 2
  3359. 2
  3360. 2
  3361. 2
  3362. 2
  3363. 2
  3364. 2
  3365. 2
  3366. 2
  3367. 2
  3368. 2
  3369. 2
  3370. 2
  3371. 2
  3372. 2
  3373. 2
  3374. 2
  3375. 2
  3376. 2
  3377. 2
  3378. 2
  3379. 2
  3380. 2
  3381. 2
  3382. 2
  3383. 2
  3384. 2
  3385. 2
  3386. 2
  3387. 2
  3388. 2
  3389. 2
  3390. 2
  3391. 2
  3392. 2
  3393. 2
  3394. 2
  3395. 2
  3396. 2
  3397. 2
  3398. 2
  3399. 2
  3400. 2
  3401. 2
  3402. 2
  3403. 2
  3404. 2
  3405. 2
  3406. 2
  3407. 2
  3408. 2
  3409. 2
  3410. 2
  3411. 2
  3412. 2
  3413. 2
  3414. 2
  3415. 2
  3416. 2
  3417. 2
  3418. 2
  3419. 2
  3420. 2
  3421. 2
  3422. 2
  3423. 2
  3424. 2
  3425. 2
  3426. 2
  3427. 2
  3428. 2
  3429. 2
  3430. 2
  3431. 2
  3432. 2
  3433. 2
  3434. 2
  3435. 2
  3436. 2
  3437. 2
  3438. 2
  3439. 2
  3440. 2
  3441. 2
  3442. 2
  3443. 2
  3444. 2
  3445. 2
  3446. 2
  3447. 2
  3448. 1
  3449. 1
  3450. 1
  3451. 1
  3452. 1
  3453. 1
  3454. 1
  3455. 1
  3456. 1
  3457. 1
  3458. 1
  3459. 1
  3460. 1
  3461. 1
  3462. 1
  3463. 1
  3464. 1
  3465. 1
  3466. Yes, neutral towards me. I'd really appreciate it if you were. If you refuse to even respect me on a very shallow level, then I can definitively conclude that you're a horrible person. I can't take your argument seriously while you keep misspelling "ridicules."  That actually wasn't very insulting. Insulting a person's entire belief; what they stand for, is far worse than some half-Norman curse words you sling at me. I find it fascinating that atheists, who so often pride themselves of being "freethinkers" (which is B.S.) and who are constantly searching for new knowledge- especially in biology- refuse to use the unknown as a benchmark or an inspiration for what they can achieve. Jesus' resurrection may not be possible now by conventional means, but what if scientists 200 years from now discover a dormant gene in the skin's DNA that allows telomeres to regrow and the dermis to regenerate? Religion is a faith, not a science. The two should not have to clash. They should help one another, that would be much more productive. I would still respect that person's opinion, regardless of its vileness. That isn't to say I won't try to convince him otherwise or tell somebody before he hurts someone, because there is (contrary to what you apparently think) a huge gap between believing in a hell and creating one on Earth. You're correct, people of another worldview will unfortunately go to Hell in the Christian doctrine. That's just how we see it. But that does not make us infinitely worse than a person who actively hates people. Christians (in theory) should love everyone, regardless of the sins that they've committed. Our job is to prevent people from Hell. All a person has to do is to sincerely confess Jesus as savior once. As an added bonus, you can become a deist if you want. You keep the evolution (which is only slightly contradictory to the Bible) the quantum physics, etc. And you'd be saved. You'd just have to confess.
    1
  3467. TheTurinturumbar Fine. You got me there, but respect does not mean that you do me the great honor of insulting my beliefs by calling them irrational. That is not an exchange of ideas, that is an argument waiting to happen.  I never said that I didn't respect your opinion or that your horrible grammatical skill made it any less reasonable. Those were all your assumptions. I don't see what favor you think you're doing for me by correcting yourself, but if you think that you're somehow making me feel stupid for accusing you, you're not. I still don't see any point in reiterating whatever that slur of curses was; let's just assume that you're correct in saying that it's a vicious attack to get it out of the way. You're correct, then I'd have evidence of God's existence. However, trying to prove a non-physical concept is impossible, which is why we have faith in the idea that Jesus is our savior. The issue with trying to prove a human concept is that our knowledge of salvation can only be "a priori." Sad but true. I didn't even start a conversation with you; you just butted in of your own justification (your ideas will be "Shot down". They will not simply be shot down, that is the decision of the commenter. I'm fine with that, but you have to present your own evidence. You haven't shown me any reason why God is irrational.) You are basing evidence on a good physical basis, which is fine for observing phenomenon that are practical in our everyday lives.However, relying on realism (a subjective worldview) to assess a faith whose existence isn't bound by realism is not a good strategy. You haven't even set the boundaries for what is rational, so why should I believe that "rationality" is some universal concept? Rationality, as stated before, changes with what we discover can be possible. By definition, if my belief is in line with my reason to believe (which I've said before: Makes me happy), it is rational. If a person assuredly will not hurt anyone or create a hell on earth, then what reason should anybody have to change his ideas? I don't recall ever hearing that you can be a moral policeman who beats anybody that doesn't fit within a "rational" understanding of the world. Why should anyone care if that one person isn't a carbon copy of you?  In any case, you're correct. We all deserve to go to Hell, but not because we're monsters or because we're infinitely less perfect than God. You seemingly willingly, actively distort the way that Christians see Hell. We don't want to go to Hell, and we don't support that God sends people to it; neither does He. It is simply in His own policy that sinful people cannot go to Heaven. I do not actively wish or endorse that fact that Hell is even a place to go, We deserve it, but we don' think that people deserve it in an active sense; it a passive "default area." The only remaining place to go. I already said that our job is to prevent people from going there. If that doesn't get through your thick skull, I don't know what will.
    1
  3468. TheTurinturumbar I'll "disregard" the first part of your argument since we seem not to have starkly contrasting ideologies there. Not trying to ignore what you said, I'm just tired of it.  Now, starting with, "Rationality does not change.." You may think that my faith is ambiguous, and that's perfectly fine. I am perfectly fine with reason being thrown out the window. That is the truth; you cannot prove or disprove anything because we, as humans, rely heavily on one logical assumption or another (in your case, realism) to prove things "rational." Faith is an anchor for me, if an irrational one, because it cannot be disproven or proven any more than "the sky is blue" can. The evidence is just fun for me to ponder. Summed up: I acknowledge my irrationality despite learning swathes of it (which is subjective anyway) but I enjoy my faith because it makes me happy. You just created an "us" (non-religious) and "them (religious)." Guess what else that has led to throughout history? You also used him as an example for my obligation to oppose an assumedly ghastly idea but later propose that he isn't so bad after all? Keep consistent with the pictures that you paint of people, please. Sinful people is all of us, yes. We are all born with ancestral sin and the counter keeps rising after that. Only after we A) commit a sin in hatred and B) Reject God do really go to Hell. Why should a person's involvement in an action automatically mean that I support it? Just because I oversee a reconstruction of a basketball court into a prison to house my murderer-cousin means that I want to do it?  Would I stop him? No. There is no place for them to go to. In my perception, these would be (and are) normal people that go to Hell, but they simply can't go anywhere else. God won't defy Devil's will not to have them there (crazy as it sounds) and He won't defy people's will (knowledge of the world and its perceived functions) while they reside on Earth. So, we end up in a situation where God could only intervene into an area where everybody had the concept of a deity in their heads (ancient Israel) and had no reason to intervene after (Catholic Church probably rigged the timeline) ~33 CE. So, sure. According my morality, God is doing something wrong (would love it if everyone could spend eternity with Him) but he is doing what is necessary.
    1
  3469. TheTurinturumbar Have you not remembered the whole point of you starting this conversation with me? I was annoyed with you butting in (which is obviously allowed, no need to correct me there professor) and that you had no sense of common courtesy with the way you blatantly denounced my argument whilst not producing any reasons or counter-evidence. I did not waste all that time and energy going into the rationality of my religion, that's what you dragged me into. I do believe that, within the mutually established boundaries of realism, religion holds 'rational' value, but we've been discussing the objective value of theism and anti-theism. So that's why I threw it out the window, and would prefer if you didn't attempt to bring it back into the house. You did not defend your position on the innate subjectivity of the universe through human perception, and I'll probably die five times before anyone can do so. Science, by its bare definition, is the careful observation of the world through experimentation. There are plenty of christian scientists who do this, as well as the famous quasi-scientists - children. I believed in god as a child, and was always looking for new things to know. Did I not, to some extent, do science? Back to fairy tales. I'm not sure if you're referring to my religious belief, or what I said about subjectivity. If it's the former, you have yet to disprove the rationality of it because of your own assumptions about reality and many other things (uneven distribution of gasses after the big bang, more matter than anti-matter, dark energy, the constant acceleration of the universe going faster and faster- must have started from no speed at all, the creation of life, etc.) I'm just as curious as you are about the naturalistic processes that took place with these events, but I don't choose to isolate my five primary senses as tool for doing so. If it's the latter - subjectivity- you haven't defended that.
    1
  3470. 1
  3471. 1
  3472. 1
  3473. 1
  3474. 1
  3475. 1
  3476. ***** That's a fair example, and I'm sorry that your children had to go through that, but you're grossly oversimplifying a crucial factor here. You're trying to make religion and judgement upon others mutually exclusive, when it's a universal trait of children to notice others' differences. I myself was insulted by my fellow classmates from preschool to elementary school for having glasses. This is the case with 99% of my friends as well for various other traits of theirs, and I'm almost certain that it's happened to you or you've seen it happen in one form or another.  Religion, in your case, was just the means by which those kids decided to be brutally honest with yours. (Not saying that your kids will go to hell, they were just telling them exactly what they knew.)  While it's true that Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has some negative connotations and ill effects- as was seen when one of Bill Cosby's recently outspoken victims did what he told her to because she was told in Catholic school to obey authority- it does not mean that religion as a whole is bad. Christianity in particular calls not to judge others (Romans 14: 1-13) or if you must, judge yourself of the same thing first. You said you lived in the Bible Belt. I don't know how closely people actually follow Scripture there, but if the adults tried to prevent their kids from judging yours, or at least did not address your lack of belief in a similar manner, then you'd have no reason to assume that this generation in particular is 'ruined' because of religion. You might not believe me, understandably so, due to how traumatic it must have been to hear your child ask you if he was going to hell, but please take into consideration the fact that these are children, and they change over time. You, in effect, judged them in the same way they did your child.  A history lesson, if I may. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest still-standing religious hierarchies in the world. It was, during the Reformation, accused of selling remittances to "Purgatory" and was duly weakened. Many European settlers that first migrated into America were Protestant, and the Catholic Church only managed to slip in later on. So it makes sense, with its reputation for corruptness and a small population to begin with (although it is now the largest) that it would steadily decline. And, from my own firsthand experience, I can understand why nobody goes to Catholic Church. It's boring as hell :). I'd also like to mention that, when I went to Catholic school, I did not like the idea of Purgatory (it's fake) and challenged my teachers because of it in spite of practicing the same general religion. Now what I don't understand here is why you try to generalize religion as a whole with your bad experience, or that you say that religion is the enemy of education. Religion, in a purely pragmatic sense, is a form of education. Religion, I will say firsthand, is the enemy of deep thought, but aside from doing epistemology and cosmology lessons from scratch, there is no reason why religion should hinder established subjects' credibility in the minds of young people. If it does, that's not good, but it can be fixed.  That last statement is indeed true- are you implying that it makes religion worse? Much of what you have today, including your own existence, is because of Byzantine Christian and Islamic scholars providing the resources necessary for Europe to come out of its Middle Ages shambles and prosper. My final point: do not generalize; think for yourself. Atheism can and will, if left unchecked, do the same as religion does today, only with the roles reversed.
    1
  3477. ***** You've missed my point. Children, naturally being judgmental, will notice differences among their peers, and religion, despite being "brainwashing," is no more useful as a social-splitting tool than atheism would be in a largely atheistic society. Your point about not believing is a bit moot as (from the children's perspective) if they don't believe, then there is no hell to them; as you said. Creationism, I also believe, is a bit shaky in terms of the world's origins, but you have not provided a reason for your not believing in a deity. I find that the very nature of the universe without a deity itself requires many other leaps of faith that you clearly do have. You believe in naturalism, which you as an atheist cannot deny. You believe in realism, and the idea that our brains accurately pick up what we perceive. Looking at theism from an Occam's Razor perspective, theism is much more logical to believe in; it only assumes one thing. You cannot rely on intuition to tell you what to believe in, that is intellectually dishonest for an atheist ("In my thinking it is... absurd"). My problem with atheism, as you have mentioned, is that it has no ethos; no moral hierarchy coupled with masses of inconsistencies. For example: morality. Some atheists such as yourself say that there is no set of rules. In that case, what is technically stopping you from committing adultery, slaughtering your family, and robbing a bank in all one day if there is no objective morality tied to atheism? You would only suffer a gunshot or, at worst, years of your life, and then it would be all over. Nobody would deliver justice to those harmed, end of story. Those who object to this in any way immediately compromise their own consistency because their opinion of right and wrong indicates a moral code. Atheism can be held responsible for negative things if somebody uses the justification of subjective morality to defend a crime that they commit, as mentioned above. Like it or not, atheism has implications of its own that cannot be denied. Otherwise you'd just be running away from the problem.
    1
  3478. 1
  3479. 1
  3480. 1
  3481. 1
  3482. 1
  3483. 1
  3484. 1
  3485. 1
  3486. 1
  3487. 1
  3488. 1
  3489. 1
  3490. 1
  3491. 1
  3492. 1
  3493. 1
  3494. 1
  3495. 1
  3496. 1
  3497. 1
  3498. 1
  3499. 1
  3500. 1
  3501. 1
  3502. 1
  3503. 1
  3504. 1
  3505. 1
  3506. 1
  3507. 1
  3508. 1
  3509. 1
  3510. 1
  3511. 1
  3512. 1
  3513. 1
  3514. 1
  3515. 1
  3516. 1
  3517. 1
  3518. 1
  3519. 1
  3520. 1
  3521. 1
  3522. 1
  3523. 1
  3524. 1
  3525. 1
  3526. 1
  3527. 1
  3528. 1
  3529. 1
  3530. 1
  3531. 1
  3532. 1
  3533. 1
  3534. 1
  3535. 1
  3536. 1
  3537. 1
  3538. 1
  3539. 1
  3540. 1
  3541. 1
  3542. 1
  3543. 1
  3544. 1
  3545. 1
  3546. 1
  3547. 1
  3548. 1
  3549. 1
  3550. 1
  3551. 1
  3552. 1
  3553. 1
  3554. 1
  3555. 1
  3556. Thanks for answering, but your reply is disappointing, to say the very least. As I wrote before, I don't remember the name of the place. Private dealers may have changed de facto policy now, but this was well before Sandy Hook, at a Polish-owned arms & blackpowder dealer. No questions asked, my relative just bought two long guns, showed ID, paid, and left. The only regulation I could find in Wisconsin's stipulations to private guns sales were as follows: 'Wis. Stat. § 948.60, et seq: May not transfer firearms to anyone under the age of 18, or otherwise prohibited under state law.' It's important to note the legal grey area of not mentioning federal law, despite its precedence over state, in writing. Private dealers don't need to disclose sales anyway, but it even allows for plausible deniability should a licensed dealer 'forget' to ask the customer to fill out a 4473 form, because (and I can't believe I have to tell you this) the law is not pristinely followed. Plenty of children are taught creationism in schools, weed is sold in stores in Colorado. Need I say more? I'll, for the final time, repeat this in detail to get it through your thick skull. The 'gunshow loophole,' as it is referred to, is a flaw in the regulatory reach of the U.S. government. Private dealers, at gunshows, don't need to have a FFL, or ask a customer to fill out a form. The law states thusly: '(a) It shall be unlawful- (1) for any person- (A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; ...' The problem with that statement is, there is legal room to spare with the phrase 'engage in the business of.' There is no system in place to make sure that private dealers know who they're selling to, or for the federal government, with its statutes, to evaluate which unlicensed persons are selling arms at quantities, frequencies, and within the boundaries of 'engaged in the business of.' Assuming a busybody could instantly know the life story of a dealer, know that they're selling in legal limbo, and sue them for that, every time it happened, then the system would work fine. It doesn't work like that. A crazy person (or a Chicago gang member) goes out of state, and goes to a gunshow. The dealer, not being required to do a background check (only federally licensed, not private, dealers need to have you fill out a 4473 form), has no probable cause not to sell to a customer and doesn't want to stall the sale. He sells, crazy man has a gun. Crazy man kills people. In a normal country, the government would institute a tighter check on private gun dealers, requiring them to send all sales through a FFL specialist, background check and all. Even those who still don't comply would be deterred by the possibility that, if he sells to a murderer, and the sale is traced back to him, he could go to jail. Deterrent. In the U.S., however, whenever a teenager goes and shoots up his school, the NRA swoops in saying "not all gun owners!" and Fox News tells you "let's not focus on the politics," and the private dealer never gets found out. No deterrent, so the (theoretically) massive amount of untraceable sales aren't incentivized to check their customers. Keep on shootin', y'all! That is the loophole. No requirement to check, because no laws to check. Got it?
    1
  3557. 1
  3558. 1
  3559. 1
  3560. 1
  3561. 1
  3562. 1
  3563. 1
  3564. 1
  3565. 1
  3566. 1
  3567. 1
  3568. 1
  3569. 1
  3570. 1
  3571. 1
  3572. 1
  3573. 1
  3574. 1
  3575. 1
  3576. 1
  3577. 1
  3578. 1
  3579. 1
  3580. 1
  3581. 1
  3582. 1
  3583. 1
  3584. 1
  3585. 1
  3586. 1
  3587. 1
  3588.  @ChrisVillagomez  Lol, they are the same people. Sorry. Both are East Slavic, descended from tribes living in the area since Roman times. "Ukraine" did not begin to exist as a concept separate from Russia until the 1300s. Modern-day Ukraine has been settled by humans for longer, but the people there never saw themselves as Ukrainian. Originally, there wasn't even a nationalist concept of either "Russia" or "Ukraine" (nationalism is a new concept)-- rather, there was the Rus state and its subjects. After the Mongol invasion destroyed the Rus state, the Rus line (royal family, government) died out in southern Rus, but survived in the north. In the time that Moscow took to regain Rus' independence from the Mongols, the southern portion of Rus was captured by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was being Polonized. It was at this time that the people living there had their culture, language, mindset, modified into something separate from the original conception of "part of Rus". Hence, even the idea of Ukraine came strictly in relation to Rus, later Russia. Russia continued the government that originally ruled the entire Rus lands, Ukraine did not. This is why they have to resort to arguing that they as a people are connected to Rus-- because they have nothing besides that. No continuation of power, un-tainted culture, founding city (Novgorod). By the way-- Kiev is even older than Rus itself, so would that not make it entirely something different? They cannot have it both ways-- either they accept the legacy of Rus and embrace the cultural significance of Russia's role, or reject it and all the claims that come with it.
    1
  3589. 1
  3590. 1
  3591. 1
  3592.  @mirankrka3715  That's simply untrue. There is no existing consensus on this issue, which comes down to a simple lack of evidence. The cognate was proposed in 1854, and since then we've come no closer to a definitive answer. That should tell you how little there is to say about the Dardanians. There are precisely zero Dardanian (ever) or even Albanian (until 1462) inscriptions to work with. The issue with trying to link ancient words to a modern language is 1) The existence of the Albanian language is only acknowledged in text as late as the 15th century. So to try and link it with an even older language with no text at all is very, very shaky and nationalistic ground. 2) Especially since most of the connections (like Uscana or Epicaria) are place names, and don't need to come from the same language or culture to be preserved to the modern day. And very few Illyrian cities resemble any Albanian word today. Just because Georgia is a state in the U.S. doesn't mean it's populated by Georgians. After all, London is a Roman word. Language is fickle. A few cognates don't constitute a proven theory. Again, Albanians' claims mean very little in the face of a lack of evidence. There is no way to genetically test which haplogroup the Illyrians belonged to because there is no continuous record of their existence, so we can't compare to any modern populations. And even if we could, the 'Illyrians' would have been absorbed into surrounding populations (like Hungarians and Finns being white). No, please stop lying to me. There is significant debate and (more importantly) uncertainty regarding who the Illyrians were. I'm sorry, but to the same extent Bulgarians can't claim Thrace or Russia can't claim Scythians, Albanians cannot claim Illyrians. There simply isn't any documentation or record of a connection. The best we can do is piece together loanwords from other languages and placenames. That's very little. As for your last point, again that's unsupported. And frankly ridiculous. To the same extent the Albanians are native to the Balkans, so too are the Serbs. They've been there for over 1,000 years now. That's as old as any European nation-state. So unless you want to contest territory based on standards that would collapse Europe and give it back to the Romans ("they were there first!!"), you have to recognize that Serbs have a place in the Balkans, and hold the same status as you. The contention is Kosovo, which (again, unless you want to kick French out of France and give it back to the Romans) is their cultural homeland. Ironically, Kosovars recently tried to register Serbian Orthodox churches as UNESCO Heritage sites- after having tried to destroy them 20 years earlier. Their request was, of course, denied.
    1
  3593. 1
  3594. 1
  3595. 1
  3596. 1
  3597. 1
  3598. 1
  3599. 1
  3600. 1
  3601. 1
  3602. 1
  3603. 1
  3604. 1
  3605. 1
  3606. 1
  3607. 1
  3608. 1
  3609. 1
  3610. 1
  3611. 1
  3612. 1
  3613. 1
  3614. 1
  3615. 1
  3616. 1
  3617. 1
  3618. 1
  3619. 1
  3620. 1
  3621. 1
  3622. 1
  3623. 1
  3624. 1
  3625. 1
  3626. 1
  3627. 1
  3628. 1
  3629. 1
  3630. 1
  3631. 1
  3632. 1
  3633. 1
  3634. 1
  3635. 1
  3636. 1
  3637. 1
  3638. 1
  3639. 1
  3640. 1
  3641. 1
  3642. 1
  3643. 1
  3644. 1
  3645. 1
  3646. 1
  3647. 1
  3648. 1
  3649. 1
  3650. 1
  3651. 1
  3652. 1
  3653. 1
  3654. 1
  3655. 1
  3656. 1
  3657. 1
  3658. 1
  3659. 1
  3660. 1
  3661. 1
  3662. 1
  3663. 1
  3664. 1
  3665. 1
  3666.  @fjbz3737  First of all: use indentations. No one wants to read your text block. Second: "Leftism" is too broad a term to even try and classify or put strong boundaries around. the fact that you are trying to sell me a universally shared characteristic shows me how little of it you understand. A "belief in improving the well-being of people around the world" is meaningless, since it could apply to numerous right-wing ideologies as well--- (whether or not you think they work doesn't change the fact that you and a right-wing populist and/or a libertarian, under your "leftism" definition, share the same goal). "which is most practically conducive to that end"--- that, again, is your idea of well-being. I don't support the continuation of this war, at all, but I simply don't agree with the proposed solutions or actions. "Finlandization", for example, worked great for Finland and Russia, for decades. A neutral, non-NATO Ukraine would be a feasible solution for both sides. Zelensky himself is moving towards this conclusion as well. "And in this case, I would much rather America to occupy the status of global hegemonic superpower than Russia in its current state, in some hypothetical universe where it is" Why, exactly? Russia, for all its faults, doesn't have nearly the same penchant for destabilizing faraway governments as the US does. It is not ideologically driven to lecture other nations on how to live, which values to have. If the last 20 years are anything to go by, following Russia's advice for Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan would have yielded a more stable Middle East region than what we currently have. If "Russia in its current state" is problematic to you, you should oppose the US' position as hegemon just as much, if not more- Yemen is far more severe than Ukraine, yet nobody cares. Afghan civilians are currently starving, Holodomor-style, due to American sanctions... yet Americans will never see Biden like they do Stalin, because he's on "your team." This is my original point. You fail to see that your values, applied to this war and into the future, are not creating a better world. They are just propping up one, equally brutal, imperial power, over another.
    1
  3667. 1
  3668. 1
  3669. 1
  3670. 1
  3671. 1
  3672. 1
  3673. 1
  3674. 1
  3675. 1
  3676. 1
  3677. 1
  3678. 1
  3679. 1
  3680. 1
  3681. 1
  3682. 1
  3683. 1
  3684. 1
  3685. 1
  3686. 1
  3687. 1
  3688. 1
  3689. 1
  3690. 1
  3691. 1
  3692. 1
  3693. 1
  3694. 1
  3695. 1
  3696. 1
  3697. 1
  3698. 1
  3699. 1
  3700. 1
  3701. 1
  3702. 1
  3703. 1
  3704. 1
  3705. 1
  3706. 1
  3707. 1
  3708. 1
  3709.  @kruger7796  All you said in that entire paragraph, multiple times and with varying levels of exasperation, was "You're wrong!" Next time, please explain WHY you think that. NATO in of itself isn't necessarily threatening (Russia isn't concerned about a direct attack, nuclear arms on both sides make that impossible). What Russia is worried about is indirect means of destabilization. For example, Chechnya in 1999. Whatever you think of the first invasion by Russia, surely you understand that the second was not justified. In August 1999, several thousand Chechens, funded by Saudi and Western backers (Shamil Basaev among others), invaded Dagestan and declared a jihad on Moscow, with the intent to break Caucasia away from Russia, effectively Balkanizing it. So, NATO-member funded insurgencies, as we've seen before. Or we could look at how NATO treats countries it deems weak enough to directly engage. Libya, 2011. Gaddafi agrees to suspend his nuclear program in exchange for Libya's sovereignty being respected (not officially of course, his son who was in the room makes that claim— and I, given similar events occurring with Gorbachev in 1991, am inclined to believe him). Not a decade later, the US reneges on this agreement— even if you don't agree, Libya made public calls for the US to pressure Israel to do the same— and NATO directly leads airstrikes against Libya via the ISAF. Not NATO member countries, NATO itself, in an official capacity. Which NATO member did Libya attack to trigger Article 5 and prompt this attack? I think you know that the answer is none. NATO is a threat. It has attacked a country outside the terms of its defensive pact before. And there is nothing to suggest it won't do so again unless dissuaded by a nuclear strike. But again, Russia's concern in indirect: NATO gives the US access to Ukrainian territory, and allows them political and social power projection on Russia's southern border. We've seen how Ukraine on its own has cooked up the 'Bilhorod Liberation Force', imagine what bullsh** the US will attempt. NATO can still conduct invasions through proxies because doing it that way gives them plausible deniability— even though both parties know who is behind them.
    1
  3710. 1
  3711. 1
  3712. 1
  3713. 1
  3714. 1
  3715. 1
  3716.  @michaelkatz275  Okay, you've asserted that they do (call into question the validity of his viewpoints), but you still haven't answered my question of HOW. Where do you make the connection that merely "associating" with Solovyov (if you consider appearing for an interview to be associating with him, personally or professionally) ddnigrates the correctness of his viewpoints? As an example: Sachs asserts that, during his time as economic advisor to Boris Yeltsin, the "shock therapy" doctrine that was advocated for Poland was simply not allowed to be carried out in Russia. Every single request he put in to DC for funding Poland's government, he received. When he did the same thing in Moscow, he almost always got rejected. From this, he concluded that there was an inconsistent approach to the funding aspect of shock therapy, and that the US fumbled its opportunity to transition Russia to a capitalist economy, ruining it for a decade. Solovyov would agree with this sentiment, based around the same facts: the amount of funding Russia received was indeed less than Poland— with a population 4x as large. The amount given to the respective economies was clearly unequal, when the advice given by the shock therapists was to give Russia at least as much aid as Poland, proportional to its economy and population. The US government did not even heed the advice of its own economists working with the Russians. Sachs and Solovyov are drawing similar conclusions based on the same set of facts. So I'm struggling to understand how the conclusion is somehow less true just because Solovyov believes it? How is it less true because he believes it? I'd like to know.
    1
  3717. 1
  3718. 1
  3719. 1
  3720. 1
  3721. 1
  3722. 1
  3723. 1
  3724. 1
  3725. 1
  3726. 1
  3727. 1
  3728. 1
  3729. 1
  3730. 1
  3731. 1
  3732. 1
  3733. 1
  3734. 1
  3735. 1
  3736. 1
  3737. 1
  3738. 1
  3739. 1
  3740. 1
  3741. 1
  3742. 1
  3743. 1
  3744. 1
  3745. 1
  3746. 1
  3747. 1
  3748. 1
  3749. 1
  3750. 1
  3751. 1
  3752. 1
  3753. 1
  3754. 1
  3755. 1
  3756. 1
  3757. 1
  3758. 1
  3759. 1
  3760. 1
  3761. 1
  3762. 1
  3763. 1
  3764. 1
  3765. 1
  3766. 1
  3767. 1
  3768. 1
  3769. 1
  3770. 1
  3771. 1
  3772. 1
  3773. 1
  3774. 1
  3775. 1
  3776. 1
  3777. 1
  3778. 1
  3779. 1
  3780. 1
  3781. 1
  3782. 1
  3783. 1
  3784. 1
  3785. 1
  3786. 1
  3787. 1
  3788. 1
  3789. 1
  3790. 1
  3791. 1
  3792. 1
  3793. 1
  3794. 1
  3795. 1
  3796. 1
  3797. 1
  3798. 1
  3799. 1
  3800. 1
  3801. 1
  3802. 1
  3803. 1
  3804. 1
  3805. 1
  3806. 1
  3807. 1
  3808. 1
  3809. 1
  3810. 1
  3811. 1
  3812. 1
  3813. 1
  3814. 1
  3815. 1
  3816. 1
  3817. 1
  3818. 1
  3819. 1
  3820. 1
  3821. 1
  3822. 1
  3823. 1
  3824. 1
  3825. 1
  3826. 1
  3827. 1
  3828. 1
  3829. 1
  3830. 1
  3831. 1
  3832. 1
  3833. 1
  3834. 1
  3835. 1
  3836. 1
  3837. 1
  3838. 1
  3839. 1
  3840. 1
  3841. 1
  3842. 1
  3843. 1
  3844. 1
  3845. 1
  3846. 1
  3847. 1
  3848. 1
  3849. 1
  3850. 1
  3851.  @hunterkage2842  Doesn't really matter, the larger point you are making about the state of Russia's military is the same. And it's untrue either way. I would need a source for that claim, since 1) Ukraine's gains were tiny, and Russia has already leapfrogged past Avdeevka, and 2) Russia hasn't launched an actual offensive yet. They are retaking towns but it's not an all-out assault like Ukraine did. I'm also not sure what you mean by "cannibalize their own military". Russia does frequent rotations, and has 400,000 in reserve. Ukraine's President, by contrast, just signed a bill lowering the conscription age to 25. Why would they need to do that if they weren't... say, cannibalizing their own military? They are running out of willing fighters, while Russia is just ramping up. Same point with the economy— it is suffering not from contraction, but from overheating. There is a labor shortage and unemployment is basically zero, so real wages are rising fast. The central bank needed to raise interest rates to cool the economy down or risk a meltdown. Your next point is probably the funniest. I will grant that Ukraine does have Western weaponry, but most of it is older. And as German Leopards and Patriot missile systems smoldering in Ukraine right now show us, the supposed "advanced" nature of these weapons systems doesn't really matter in an actual wartime scenario. They can all be taken down with a cheap drone costing maybe a few thousand dollars. You can call it a sign of primitive development, I call it intelligent use of resources. I'm not really sure what you mean by "demilitarizing his own military", can you give an example of a specific action that indicates that? Like a policy change or something. Smells like vague, wishful bs to me. The gas export ban, so far as I can tell, is due to the increased consumer demand that I mentioned earlier (economy getting too hot and growing too quickly). It's also becoming spring, so people become more active, drive more, and drive up demand. I am not sure what delusions you are harboring in your mind, but it is likely Putin planned this out in advance. The US would have turned Ukraine into a NATO member had they not intervened. In case you forgot, the US has something of a track record with getting physically close to a country and then sending "freedom fighters" or "moderate rebels" in there to destabilize the country. Not because the government is incompetent or bad (if that were the case, you would not be allied with Saudi Arabia) but because they don't like threats to their global power. Russia, apparently, is that threat. It's almost flattering.
    1
  3852. 1
  3853. 1
  3854. 1
  3855. 1
  3856. 1
  3857. 1
  3858. 1
  3859. 1
  3860. 1
  3861. 1
  3862. 1
  3863. 1
  3864. 1
  3865. 1
  3866. 1
  3867. 1
  3868. 1
  3869. 1
  3870. 1
  3871. 1
  3872. 1
  3873. 1
  3874. 1
  3875. 1
  3876. 1
  3877. 1
  3878. 1
  3879. 1
  3880. 1
  3881. 1
  3882. 1
  3883. 1
  3884. I can only hope that you are correct. As far as I can tell, Russia's elite have always been just about as greedy as they are now. But what I think changed was the general expectation of those same elites. I would like to point out, as I think Americans are quite unaware, of the importance of public policy, or at least a facade of it. "Freedom" in America (to the extent it actually exists) is preserved almost entirely by the widespread belief that the country is free. Think about it- America has a litany of problems: over-consumption, mass obesity and depression epidemics, legal bribery and tax evasion at the national scale, all of which could threaten the foundations of individual liberties. However, there is a disconnect between the nightly news and the quiet suburban evening you get back to when you turn it off. Why? Because, at the local level, generally speaking, the people believe and therefore act as though they are free. This includes law enforcement, retail, banking, and all other facets of life. They could easily cheat the system and take advantage of the average American- it's done on a larger scale all the time. But they don't, for that reason. Back to Russia. During Soviet times, the mantra of workers' freedom was so widespread that no one could disobey it publicly and not get noticed (although the system was different- it was corrupt from the start, but still). Similarly, no one could completely indulge in capitalistic, materialistic wealth and greedy malpractice because some level of respect for the system existed. When it broke apart, though, the oligarchs had a field day, and stole most of Russia's wealth.
    1
  3885. 1
  3886. 1
  3887. 1
  3888. 1
  3889. 1
  3890. 1
  3891. 1
  3892. 1
  3893. ​ @SeanCrosser  I think a key difference in those arguments is the dynamic between either side in each analogy. The USSR collapsed on 1991, and NATO had no functional reason to continue existing. Russians are (at least in European Russia) truly native to the area, so the argument can't be made they're occupiers who need to be expelled. Russia wanted to be integrated into the West, but instead of mass capital investment (akin to West Germany postwar) it was robbed— US Treasury employees served as advisors to Moscow under Yeltsin's new government, and through their policies the entire post-Soviet region fell into comical levels of poverty. Russians (and many other post-Soviet countries) have genuine reason to be wary of US influence. NATO, in their analogy, predates Russia and its member states genuinely harmed Russia's civilian population. Russia was reacting to an already existent force at play. It, in Russia's view, is an aggrieved party. Israel, on the other hand, created its own strife. Yes, it's surrounded by neighbors who hate its very existence— but they want to because Israel commited atrocities to even begin existing in the region, and has territorial claims against most of its neighbors. You could say the same is true of Russia— but Russia's impetus for expansion is to achieve political stability. Israel, meanwhile, could achieve political stability by adhering to its 1967 borders— but refuses to, because that's not its actual primary goal. It wants to create a Greater Israel, as Smotrich has recently confirmed. Israel started its own problems, and refuses to compromise. Russia made genuine efforts to become part of the Western system, and lashed out when it was rejected for seemingly no stated reason.
    1
  3894. 1
  3895. 1
  3896. 1
  3897. 1
  3898. 1
  3899. 1
  3900. 1
  3901. 1
  3902. 1
  3903. 1
  3904. 1
  3905. 1
  3906. 1
  3907. 1
  3908. 1
  3909. 1
  3910. 1
  3911. 1
  3912. 1
  3913.  @jeremymcmains9280  Nobody's denying your sacrifice, but the cause you're fighting for isn't one we support. From what I understand, you were introduced to a whole different way of life, a different world, full of vibrancy and a deep sense of knowing exactly where you're placed and what your goal, your purpose is. I felt something similar when I was religious, and was finishing up Christian camp. Everything in the world fell into place, and just seemed... right. Everything I looked at had this sheen on it, this sparkle that lit up my mind and constantly reminded me of the larger reward. It was better than any drug. I hope that sounds familiar, at least a little, so I can voice the opinion of civilians. In spite of that experience, that little slice of paradise, being so real to you, it's still terrible. From your point of view, it was a part of a larger mission, but to the Iraqis? Afghans? The list is long, now: you were a scourge and a ruthless killing machine. Not even getting into the fact that destabilizing governments hurts more people than it helps, and that Bush and his top advisers knew there was no reason to invade as early as May 2003, you need to step out of your perspective. It's a rude, sobering splash of cold water, but it has to be done. Americans can't go off into the desert killing like that forever. You need to reopen your eyes, and see things for how they really are. As beautiful as it is, that sparkle only exists in your head. And there are other ways to chase adrenaline.
    1
  3914. 1
  3915. 1
  3916. 1
  3917. 1
  3918. 1
  3919. 1
  3920. 1
  3921. 1
  3922. 1
  3923. 1
  3924. 1
  3925. 1
  3926. 1
  3927. 1
  3928. 1
  3929. 1
  3930. 1
  3931. 1
  3932. 1
  3933. 1
  3934. 1
  3935. 1
  3936. 1
  3937. 1
  3938. 1
  3939. 1
  3940. 1
  3941. 1
  3942. 1
  3943. 1
  3944. 1
  3945. 1
  3946. 1
  3947. 1
  3948. 1
  3949. 1
  3950. 1
  3951. 1
  3952. 1
  3953. 1
  3954. 1
  3955. 1
  3956. 1
  3957. 1
  3958. 1
  3959. 1
  3960. 1
  3961. 1
  3962. 1
  3963. 1
  3964. 1
  3965. 1
  3966. 1
  3967. 1
  3968. 1
  3969. 1
  3970. 1
  3971. 1
  3972. 1
  3973. 1
  3974. 1
  3975. 1
  3976. 1
  3977. 1
  3978. 1
  3979. 1
  3980.  @Max_Mustermann  "You didn't ask for a one word answer" Yes, I did. Both times: "do you think they would refuse-" Do you think they would refuse, or do you think that? "do you think the US" is also a yes or no question. Do you think the US is, or do you not? Both are yes or no questions. "Also, do you honestly believe that any of this is about Russia feeling threatened by NATO in a military sense?" Yes. "That somehow NATO or the US would invade Russia or attack unprovoked?" No, and that's not what I claimed. NATO's function is not to marshal resources to attack Russia, or even to defend Europe against it. It is, broadly speaking, to project American power. The director of the National Endowment for Democracy has said on record that they do openly what the CIA largely did in secret 25 years ago. USAID has been caught trying to artificially manufacture an anti-Castro uprising in Cuba, by using a US-government-controlled social media site-- getting a critical mass of users onto it, then pumping anti-government messages onto the platform. We have seen the use of SWIFT as a weaponized political tool against Russia. You might think that's good, but Europe continues to do business with Saudi Arabia, who is much worse than Russia on human rights. You might reply with, "well I think both should be cut off!" Great.. is anything really going to happen? Probably not. Since we've established that morality isn't going to be a priority for anyone, the only question that remains is: why should the US or Europe decide who gets to do international banking? No one country should have that much political or institutional power. That's my larger point here: the point of NATO and every other Western entity is to reduce Russian options in case of a conflict, of any kind. Hungary was recently punished for aligning with Russia in the conflict-- this would not be possible if Russia and Hungary had a land border, this is the aim of the bloc. To defeat before the first move has even been cast. It's not about human rights-- France exploits West Africa to this day, the UK still won't let the Chagos islanders back onto their home islands, and has recently arrested hundreds for criticizing the monarchy. They don't actually care about human rights a principle. The reason they're doing that to Hungary isn't human rights-- if they really believed in those principles, Europe's actions would be radically different in every aspect-- it's to align their political bloc against Russia, no matter either side's human rights record(s). Plain and simple. So, yes, Russia doesn't want its sphere of influence taken, but why is that a bad thing? Who in their right mind would just roll over and let that happen? We've also established (hopefully, if you actually read) that neither side is really all that benevolent-- this isn't a question of good vs evil, but competing sides. I just wonder if anywhere near the number of current people would support US military aid to Ukraine knowing that the outcome is the same either way-- aligning with a political bloc for economic purposes. Surely, you understand as (I assume) either Hungarian (referencing 1968) or (because your English is good) a Balt, that your prosperity relies on the exploitation of the Third World.
    1
  3981. 1
  3982.  @Max_Mustermann  You're looking at it from an individual point of view. Like I said before, your (specifically Western) prosperity is based on the exploitations of others. Russia is bad, but it doesn't have the reach nor the desire to 'democratize' other regions of the world or less technologically advanced societies. It is comfortable letting faraway countries do as they wish and develop at their own pace. In Africa's case, US alignment meant constant lectures on how to 'do better' with little substantive help unless it also benefitted the US. China, for all its faults, helps those countries in a more substantial way: infrastructure. So to your point: the US will only really help you if it's beneficial to itself (weakening Russia is, so Ukraine would in fact be wise to do that- Latin America, not so much). However, that also means accepting US hegemony, and that comes with issues: openness to US businesses means rising obesity, mirroring similar problems (income inequality, privatization and collapse of social services, something the USSR was actually rather good at maintaining), and generally losing your political freedom in exchange for material comfort. Basically: the "benefit" of aligning with the US is limited to a select few (which calls into the question the idea that 'ally with the US' is good universal advice), the effects are limited, and they come with heavy drawbacks. Ukraine could, alternatively, declared itself politically neutral and picked the best from both worlds. But no, it chose to throw itself to one side after a revolution that required its own Parliament to violate its Constitution twice.
    1
  3983.  @Max_Mustermann  1) I want to point out, again, that you ignored the fact that you were wrong multiple times and refused to address any of it. 2) You pivoted at the end of your previous comment about "how countries aligned with x are doing", instead of addressing my point, which was perceived military threat from NATO, not an economic threat from the EU. 2 very different things. I find it strange that most people fail to understand that the Maidan, initially, was not about distancing from Russia politically, but about corruption within Ukraine itself. Ironically, much of this corruption was reignited in the 1990s when Ukraine was thrust into capitalism along with Russia. 3) Now, onto your tangential comment: I didn't advocate for aligning with Russia, my main point was not aligning with the West, politically. I'm not making claims beyond that point. 'that wouldn't have prevented Russia from meddling in their affairs" That wouldn't have stopped Western meddling, either. You're presenting this as a zero-sum game, when it is not. Ukraine should have joined India's Nonaligned movement, being sandwiched between large geopolitical forces. Or, if you really do think that the only way Ukraine could have staved off Russian meddling was by aligning fully with the West-- then you must understand that Russia is rationally acting in its own best interests. If the alternative is losing influence completely, why would they just let that happen? "those issues can be addressed" Not really. Those issues tend to inevitably arise from being Western-friendly, and they have never been addressed anywhere. Even Europe still has obesity issues, and it seems the only way to solve them is to expel American influence (like Bolivia kicking McDonalds out of its country), which is something you apparently don't want.
    1
  3984. 1
  3985. 1
  3986. 1
  3987. 1
  3988. 1
  3989. 1
  3990. 1
  3991.  @cosmonaut9942  "when too much history has gone by in the opposite direction" Great, so who determines what "too much history is"? A random American YouTube commenter? Your suggestion is completely useless— it is vague and open to interpretation by whoever is deciding. "Things like the USSR splitting up and constituent republics going their own way" What did I just say? How convenient, the perfect amount of history has passed to where it benefits the US geopolitical interests. Is Iraq too far back now too? "Crimea has always been a part of Ukraine" I would hope you weren't so incredibly lazy that you didn't even bother doing a google search. Crimea has been part of the Russian state since 1783, when it was annexed from the Ottoman Empire (technically Crimean Khanate but they were a vassal). It was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a 'gift' to 'commemorate their friendship'. Ask any Ukrainian whether the USSR was actually a Union and not just Moscow. I think you know what they'd say, and if that's the case then Crimea only became Ukrainian in 1991. In 1994 they held a referendum to secede but Ukraine declared it illegal. So much for respecting democracy. In short, you're flat wrong. Crimea was and is Russian, not Ukrainian. When even Western polls from before and after 2014 confirm this popular sentiment, you known you have no legs to stand on. "Should China invade Russia" It wouldn't really serve their interests. The border between the two is well-established and leaves both with sea access. Ironically it's 'Taiwan' that claims parts of Russia and all of Mongolia. Really it's the security of large states against other large states that is being discussed here. The US wants to get as close to Russia as possible to project power and extract resources from Russia for profit. Russia understandably wants to avoid that. The claims don't matter as much as the fact that Europe is flat, and political issues will continue to arise until hard borders are drawn along geographical lines. In this case that means the Carpathian mountains, in Ukraine's west. It also just so happens that Crimeans actually do overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia, and if the US claims to respect democratic will then they will honor that transfer of land.
    1
  3992. 1
  3993. 1
  3994. 1
  3995. 1
  3996. 1
  3997. 1
  3998. 1
  3999. 1
  4000. 1
  4001.  @ericlanglois9194  Ah, yes, it is [current year]. How silly of me to forget. That's not really indicative of anything. I am unwilling to "understand that concept" (concede to your view) because no alternatives have been presented. There are virtually no countries that have zero current issues that fall into the categories you described. Spain suppresses its Catalan and Basque independence movements. Finland suppresses its Sami population. Will you refuse to do business with them? Or are they countries with "a lot to work towards" instead of ones you'll refuse to do trade with them? You might say that you were talking about arm sales only, but money is fungible, so you'd just be washing your own hands and sitting back as your money goes to murder anyway. No one's saying it's your responsibility, but you're still choosing to uplift some over others, and I don't believe you can stick to your own principles as a matter of logistics. So, choosing to cut off sales to a certain country is little more than theatre to make you feel righteous. And you're ignoring the fact that there is no way to develop without A) bloodshed and/or exploitation or B) Wealth injection, which you've already sworn off. So... what do you suggest? That they figure it out by burning coal to industrialize, until Canada proudly says, "stop that!" through thick smoke. By then, it's too late. Choosing to be principled is foolish. Your rigid values assume givens that aren't present in the modern world. For one, if you don't help countries skip past the oil-producing phase of development, you'll end up hurting yourselves. By destroying the environment.
    1
  4002. 1
  4003. 1
  4004. 1
  4005. 1
  4006. 1
  4007. 1
  4008. 1
  4009. 1
  4010.  @frednicholson  Bahahaha, your grandfather was a wise man. Maybe you should listen to him for once. Explain to me how you, as an individual, "trying harder!" is supposed to conquer a cartel in your country. And while your release valve theory- known to the rest of us as brain drain- may be true, that doesn't absolve the U.S. of fault for starting and continuing this crisis. Bear in mind Augusto Pinochet was only overthrown in 1990. Almost every single person in Chile alive today remembers a time when the U.S. had backed a dictator in their own country. This isn't "ancient history." It's the United States opposing democracy as recently as the dawn of the Internet. How long ago was that? 29 years. Still wanna ask "how long ago was that?" Look to Haiti. The men who led the coup d'etat there in 1991 were trained by the CIA. Or Indonesia, in 1998. The president was ousted by the IMF, backed by the U.S., for trying to stabilize his country's currency, following a financial crisis that was lead largely by U.S. corporations laundering money and defrauding the government. Or Libya in 2011. How are they doing now? Should the rebel fighters stop and consider that they shouldn't blame the U.S. for what it did to them, 8 years ago? What about the hospitals and schools in Yemen that were bombed a few months ago by U.S. bought planes, sold to the Saudis with knowing intent? Should they just take responsibility for their laziness? This isn't even a forth of the list. You simply don't realize how much farther along the world would be without U.S. interference. It's been so common that it fades into the background, people forget why it happened, and instinctively blame the people in that country. It's not their fault. It's yours.
    1
  4011. 1
  4012. 1
  4013. 1
  4014. 1
  4015. 1
  4016. 1
  4017. 1
  4018. 1
  4019. 1
  4020. 1
  4021. 1
  4022. 1
  4023. 1
  4024. 1
  4025. 1
  4026. 1
  4027. 1
  4028. 1
  4029. 1
  4030. 1
  4031. 1
  4032. 1
  4033. 1
  4034. 1
  4035. 1
  4036. 1
  4037. 1
  4038. 1
  4039. 1
  4040. 1
  4041. 1
  4042. 1
  4043. 1
  4044. 1
  4045. 1
  4046. 1
  4047. 1
  4048. 1
  4049. 1
  4050. 1
  4051. 1
  4052. 1
  4053. 1
  4054. 1
  4055. 1
  4056. 1
  4057. 1
  4058. 1
  4059. 1
  4060. 1
  4061. 1
  4062. 1
  4063. 1
  4064. 1
  4065. 1
  4066. 1
  4067. 1
  4068. 1
  4069. 1
  4070. 1
  4071. 1
  4072. 1
  4073. 1
  4074. 1
  4075. 1
  4076. 1
  4077. 1
  4078. 1
  4079. 1
  4080. 1
  4081. 1
  4082. 1
  4083. 1
  4084. 1
  4085. 1
  4086. 1
  4087. 1
  4088. 1
  4089. 1
  4090. 1
  4091. 1
  4092. 1
  4093. 1
  4094. 1
  4095. 1
  4096. 1
  4097. 1
  4098. 1
  4099. 1
  4100. 1
  4101. 1
  4102. 1
  4103. 1
  4104. 1
  4105. 1
  4106. 1
  4107. 1
  4108. 1
  4109. 1
  4110. 1
  4111. 1
  4112. 1
  4113. 1
  4114. 1
  4115. 1
  4116. 1
  4117. 1
  4118. 1
  4119. 1
  4120. 1
  4121. 1
  4122. 1
  4123. 1
  4124. 1
  4125. 1
  4126. 1
  4127. 1
  4128. 1
  4129. 1
  4130. 1
  4131. 1
  4132. 1
  4133. 1
  4134. 1
  4135. 1
  4136. 1
  4137. 1
  4138. 1
  4139. 1
  4140. 1
  4141. 1
  4142. 1
  4143. 1
  4144. 1
  4145. 1
  4146. 1
  4147. 1
  4148. 1
  4149. 1
  4150. 1
  4151. 1
  4152. 1
  4153. 1
  4154. 1
  4155. 1
  4156. 1
  4157. 1
  4158. 1
  4159. 1
  4160. 1
  4161. 1
  4162. 1
  4163. 1
  4164. 1
  4165. 1
  4166. 1
  4167. 1
  4168. 1
  4169. 1
  4170. 1
  4171. 1
  4172. 1
  4173. 1
  4174. 1
  4175. 1
  4176. 1
  4177. 1
  4178. 1
  4179. 1
  4180. 1
  4181. 1
  4182. 1
  4183. 1
  4184. 1
  4185. 1
  4186. 1
  4187. 1
  4188. 1
  4189. 1
  4190. 1
  4191. 1
  4192. 1
  4193. 1
  4194. 1
  4195. 1
  4196. 1
  4197. 1
  4198. 1
  4199. 1
  4200. 1
  4201.  @TheMacC117  They do, but the US's "nautical area" doesn't extend into Russia's! It has a clear cutoff line, and beyond that, they have no authority. They especially don't have any authority over Russia's area, so "enforcing" would just be invading. Are you fucking stupid? It's Russia's backyard too, both agree that the area in-between belongs to neither of them. This isn't the South China Sea. Russia has territory that it legally owns, and the US acknowledges that legally. They cannot blockade Russia's "nautical area". That's my whole point. They can try, but Russia has already proven willing to throw bodies at a losing war-- I wonder if Alaskans would like their first taste of nuclear-tipped geopolitics? "sit there, don't bother us, and we'll leave you alone" Bro, do you have 0 self-awareness? That's what Russia would ask the US to do in Alaska!! Don't sail into Russian territory, stay over there, don't disrupt our trade, and everything will be fine. Jesus Christ. I'll say it again: the US cannot blockade the Bering. If it starts using "it's our backyard" as an excuse, then I think Russia will have a perfect reason to keep Ukraine out of NATO for another few centuries. It's their backyard, after all! The Bering has US-recognized Russian waters on one side. They cannot blockade that without risking a serious conflict, because Russia would 100% be in the right to, say, threaten to torpedo a US warship out of Russian waters. If you really wanna keep arguing, go ahead. But the US have no good excuses to blockade legally Russian territory, especially since it's for trade between Europe and China.
    1
  4202. 1
  4203. 1
  4204. 1
  4205. 1
  4206. 1
  4207. 1
  4208. 1
  4209. 1
  4210. 1
  4211. 1
  4212. 1
  4213. 1
  4214. 1
  4215. 1
  4216. 1
  4217. 1
  4218. 1
  4219. 1
  4220. 1
  4221. 1
  4222. 1
  4223. 1
  4224. 1
  4225. 1
  4226. 1
  4227. 1
  4228. 1
  4229. 1
  4230. 1
  4231. 1
  4232. 1
  4233. 1
  4234. 1
  4235. 1
  4236. 1
  4237. 1
  4238. 1
  4239. 1
  4240. 1
  4241. 1
  4242. 1
  4243. 1
  4244. 1
  4245. 1
  4246. 1
  4247. 1
  4248. 1
  4249. 1
  4250. 1
  4251. 1
  4252. 1
  4253. 1
  4254. 1
  4255. 1
  4256. 1
  4257. 1
  4258. 1
  4259. 1
  4260. 1
  4261. 1
  4262. 1
  4263. 1
  4264. 1
  4265. 1
  4266. 1
  4267. 1
  4268. 1
  4269. 1
  4270. 1
  4271. 1
  4272. 1
  4273. 1
  4274. 1
  4275. 1
  4276. 1
  4277. 1
  4278. 1
  4279. 1
  4280. 1
  4281. 1
  4282. 1
  4283. 1
  4284. 1
  4285. 1
  4286. 1
  4287. 1
  4288. 1
  4289. 1
  4290. 1
  4291. 1
  4292. 1
  4293. 1
  4294. 1
  4295. 1
  4296. 1
  4297. 1
  4298. 1
  4299. 1
  4300. 1
  4301. 1
  4302. 1
  4303. 1
  4304. 1
  4305. 1
  4306. 1
  4307. 1
  4308. 1
  4309. 1
  4310. 1
  4311. 1
  4312. 1
  4313. 1
  4314. 1
  4315. 1
  4316. 1
  4317. 1
  4318. 1
  4319. 1
  4320. 1
  4321. 1
  4322. 1
  4323. 1
  4324. 1
  4325. 1
  4326. 1
  4327. 1
  4328. 1
  4329. 1
  4330. 1
  4331. 1
  4332. 1
  4333. 1
  4334. 1
  4335. 1
  4336. 1
  4337. 1
  4338. 1
  4339. 1
  4340. 1
  4341. 1
  4342. 1
  4343. 1
  4344. 1
  4345. 1
  4346. 1
  4347. 1
  4348. 1
  4349. 1
  4350. 1
  4351. 1
  4352. 1
  4353. 1
  4354. 1
  4355. 1
  4356. 1
  4357. 1
  4358. 1
  4359. 1
  4360. 1
  4361. 1
  4362. 1
  4363. 1
  4364. 1
  4365. 1
  4366. 1
  4367. 1
  4368. 1
  4369. 1
  4370. 1
  4371. 1
  4372. 1
  4373. 1
  4374. 1
  4375. 1
  4376. 1
  4377. 1
  4378. 1
  4379. 1
  4380. 1
  4381. 1
  4382. 1
  4383. 1
  4384. 1
  4385. 1
  4386. 1
  4387. 1
  4388. 1
  4389. 1
  4390. 1
  4391. 1
  4392. 1
  4393. 1
  4394. 1
  4395. 1
  4396. 1
  4397. 1
  4398. 1
  4399. 1
  4400. 1
  4401. 1
  4402. 1
  4403. 1
  4404. 1
  4405. 1
  4406. 1
  4407. 1
  4408. 1
  4409. 1
  4410. 1
  4411. 1
  4412. 1
  4413. 1
  4414. 1
  4415. 1
  4416. 1
  4417. 1
  4418. 1
  4419. 1
  4420. 1
  4421. 1
  4422. 1
  4423. 1
  4424. 1
  4425. 1
  4426. 1
  4427. 1
  4428. 1
  4429. 1
  4430. 1
  4431. 1
  4432. 1
  4433. 1
  4434. 1
  4435. 1
  4436. 1
  4437. 1
  4438. 1
  4439. 1
  4440. 1
  4441. 1
  4442. 1
  4443. 1
  4444. 1
  4445. 1
  4446. 1
  4447. 1
  4448. 1
  4449. 1
  4450. 1
  4451. 1
  4452. 1
  4453. 1
  4454. 1
  4455. 1
  4456. 1
  4457. 1
  4458. 1
  4459. 1
  4460. 1
  4461. 1
  4462. 1
  4463. 1
  4464. 1
  4465. 1
  4466. 1
  4467. 1
  4468. 1
  4469. 1
  4470. 1
  4471. 1
  4472. 1
  4473. 1
  4474. 1
  4475. 1
  4476. 1
  4477. 1
  4478. 1
  4479. 1
  4480. 1
  4481. 1
  4482. 1
  4483. 1
  4484. 1
  4485. 1
  4486. 1
  4487. 1
  4488. 1
  4489. 1
  4490. 1
  4491. 1
  4492. 1
  4493. 1
  4494. 1
  4495. 1
  4496. 1
  4497. 1
  4498. 1
  4499. 1
  4500. 1
  4501. 1
  4502. 1
  4503. 1
  4504. 1
  4505. 1
  4506. 1
  4507. 1
  4508. 1
  4509. 1
  4510. 1
  4511. 1
  4512. 1
  4513. 1
  4514. 1
  4515. 1
  4516. 1
  4517. 1
  4518. 1
  4519. 1
  4520. 1
  4521. 1
  4522. 1
  4523. 1
  4524. 1
  4525. 1
  4526. 1
  4527. 1
  4528. 1
  4529. 1
  4530. 1
  4531. 1
  4532. 1
  4533.  @RTWPimpmachine  Kiev certainly was populated long before most other cities in Rus, but you need to give evidence to the fact that it has evidence of Rus' settlement earlier than the north of Russia. That is literally where the Rus' came from and we have multiple sources dating to the early 9th century (Byzantine source De Administrando Imperio saying that Sviatoslav I took tribute from Kiev but ruled from Lake Ilmen (right where Gorodische is currently) and Ahmad Ibn Fadlan describing the Rus as living on an island, which is what happens to the Gorodische peninsula every spring when it floods. Not to mention we have late 8th century Viking amulets excavated in the area, pointing to (if you believe that the Rus are Vikings) Rus presence since the earliest dates mentioned in the Primary Chronicles (late 800s). I would agree with your last point if not for a few important points: -Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols, and the Rurikid Dynasty moved up to Vladimir to rule. The political continuity of the ruling class that actually founded Rus kept on going outside of Kiev. -Western Rus' language was so heavily Polonized that it acquired a new name: Ukrainian. Belarus was Polonized too, but they kept their old name. When 40% of your language, and your culture, is influenced by an outside power, I hesitate to call you a direct successor to the Rus. Similar to the Holy Roman Empire claiming to be Rome. While you have control of the capital city, the culture is clearly different (Germanic HRE vs Roman) while a better option is still existing (the Byzantine Empire— which was Greek, but like Russia, came from the original Roman Empire and continued to exist after Rome itself collapsed.) The major difference here is that the 3 Slavic cultures all descend from 1, so it would be like of Romanian culture ruled the Byzantine Empire. Which was called the Eastern Roman Empire back then.
    1
  4534. 1
  4535. 1
  4536. 1
  4537. 1
  4538. 1
  4539. 1
  4540. 1
  4541. 1
  4542. 1
  4543. 1
  4544. 1
  4545. 1
  4546. 1
  4547. 1
  4548. 1
  4549.  @littlefinger4509  LMAO South Korea overthrew their dictatorial government... you know, the one backed by the US? There were massive student protests in the 1950s, because the USSR withdrew from North Korea, but the US didn't do the same in the south. So the US supported harsh repressions of the people's protests. What a democratic-loving country! You say that South Korea became rich, but how many US-backed countries didn't? Brazil, Guatemala, Congo, Albania, Indonesia... the list goes on and on. You also forget that South Korea was poor for decades, and became rich on accident. It happened despite the US support, not because of it. "Cuba is so free they have a dictatorship now" So does Saudi Arabia... what's your point? The US doesn't care, and you clearly support the US, so why do you care about Cuba, but not Saudi hmm?? "The US doesn't get abandoned by it's allies at first occasion like Russia is" When the US controls the world financial system and uses sanctions as a weapon to control other countries, it is hard to escape their tyranny. So only a few countries will reveal their true opinion. You think China doesn't agree with a war that destabilizes the West, after what the UK did to them? They don't fully support because they have business ties with the West. "the ones that didn't revolt (in the south) enjoy freedom and a high degree of political independence" "As someone from Poland i can tell you, Russia beings nothing but misery in this world." This is hilarious. Are all Polish people this blind and stupid? I could just as easily say that about Poland in the USSR. You revolted, so while you got oppression, more friendly countries like Belarus and (then) Ukraine got a high degree of autonomy. Do you think Ukraine should be a part of Russia, like Abkhazia should be in Georgia?? Why don't you want Abkhazians and South Ossetians to be free? They fought, even in the USSR, to have their own SSR. And now you want to impose Georgian imperialism on them, instead of Western freedom? I used to say that Poland's national anthem should say, Dał nam przykład Bonaparte jak przegrywać z Rosją", but now I see you two have one more similarity: you will abandon your own Republican values if it suits your geopolitical interests! At least Russia, for all of its faults, isn't such a hypocritical, self-congratulating country as Poland is, which I can see now.
    1
  4550.  @littlefinger4509  "So when did the US sent soldiers to prevent S.Korea from becoming democratic?" I didn't say that. Stop putting words in my mouth. They supported the South Korean government when they (not the US) put down student protests, in the Yŏsu-Sunch’ŏn Rebellion in 1948, the same year the USSR left North Korea. "Also S.Korea didn't become rich thanks to the US? So tell me, how is it possible that n.korea which had everything industry and natural resources became the poor one?" For decades, it was the other way around-- aż tak mało wam nauczyli w szkole? North Korea had a higher standard of living than the south right up until the 1970s-- only then did the trend start to reverse. You also don't think about sanctions-- plenty of countries see opportunity for expanding business in North Korea, but can't because the US will sanction them if they do. This is an example of abuse of power. "Answer: Because they were given to the Russians, and Russians ruin everything. " Lol, you're so completely full of bitterness and hatred, and I hope your daily life isn't consumed by it. And your opinion isn't even true. Like it or not, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and the rest of the Russian Empire were 90% peasants, and the USSR modernized them so rapidly that they beat the US (which had 250 years of development without wars) to space. That's not ruined. "and now is democratic." This seems to be the basis of your argument--- "who cares if the US never really cared about democracy? They got lucky and became democratic (by opposing the US!) so everything's okay now! :)" You're no naive and ignorant. The US is not a good country, and if you think the Russians ruin everything, take a trip to Afghanistan or Libya, or Guatemala, or Somalia, or Haiti, or.... see?? How many countries they ruined? And you still support them. Disgusting. ""Ukraine high degree of autonomy" you genocided them, just like you genocided people in Belarus." No, you Polaks are delusional--- even the Soviet archives, which were released by Gorbachev, showed that the USSR didn't target Ukrainians. They did die in a famine, of course, but it was not done to erase them. Hell, Russians died in the Holodomor too, how does that make sense (if it's "Russian Imperialism"???) "If Georgia has minorities and it engages in diplomatic solution with them why should anyone go in?" LMAOOO Okay then.... if Yugoslavia has Bosnian minorities, and it engages in diplomatic solution with them why should anyone go in?? You're such a filthy hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. You either are against Western intervention, AND Russian intervention, or you support both. Pick one. "Georgia was able to do it with the Ajaria which today have a high degree of autonomy" Then maybe they shouldn't have BOMBED Sukhumi, and threatened to GENOCIDE the Abkhazians!! You're the ones crying about Ukraine right now, but when one of your "buddies" does it it's okay?? "Russia is the country of the biggest hypocrites in the world" Right, we're the hypocrites. Read the above again. "Worked with Hitler to split Poland,baltics and Finland" What are you talking about?? Stalin found out about Hitler's invasion a few months before it started, so he could either let Hitler take all of Europe, or just some of it-- which would you prefer?? Ask your grandparents. President Ryti (Finland) worked with Hitler to split the USSR. What insane garbage are they teaching you there in Czrzszynskiowicz?? "You should be thanking the US for not nuking you when they had the nuclear bombs 5 years before you and saving you from extermination." And YOU should be thankful that Stalin invaded Poland--- if Hitler invaded, and Stalin did what you think is "correct," there wouldn't be Poland, but Ostland. Even if Germany lost, there would be maybe 15M Poles today. Is that what you want?? Well, so many Poles are moving to Germany anyway, maybe they changed their minds))
    1
  4551. 1
  4552. 1
  4553. 1
  4554. 1
  4555. 1
  4556. 1
  4557. 1
  4558. 1
  4559. 1
  4560. 1
  4561. 1
  4562. 1
  4563. 1
  4564. 1
  4565. 1
  4566. 1
  4567. 1
  4568. 1
  4569. 1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572.  @revolverDOOMGUY  "Russia keeps acting in a ridiculously aggressive way" A single, current, incident does not explain Europe's past behavior. If you want to retort with "Georgia Crimea" etc, let's take a look. Crimea voted in 1994, when Russia was politically collapsed, to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Ukraine's Parliament struck the results down and got their secret service involved. Georgian forces shelled Sukhumi, overreacting to a hostage crisis, and denied the wishes of independence of the Ossetians. Amnesty International recognizes as such. The concerns of Georgia's minorities were present even during the USSR, but Stalin dissolved the Abkhazian SSR. Oh, and Chechnya (Ichkerian Republic) invaded Dagestan (Russia) in August 1999, declaring jihad. But we're the bad guys somehow, for pacifying a Wahhabi movement funded by Saudi Arabia. "The point is being surrounded by American military infrastructure is not a problem if you have literally the biggest stack of nuclear weapons ever." Bullshit. You think of security as a binary, which it isn't. "If you can use the threat of nuclear annihilation then everything's fine!" is such a pea-brained argument I don't even know where to begin. To start, economic flexibility depends on access to the ocean. Russia has none, and needs to go through Turkey or Denmark to trade. This makes a huge chunk of its economy dependent on the political decisions of a foreign country. We aren't even getting into power projection, protection of trading routes, regional stability for economic investment, etc. Let's put the shoes on someone else's foot. If, hypothetically, a Caribbean country were to host nuclear weapons, or even just a naval base, off the coast of the US, shouldn't the US not care at all even if it is the military infrastructure of a superpower being hosted?? After all, they have nukes too, it should be fine, right?? In this hypothetical situation, do you think the US would abide by your worldview? If not, why? Is there perhaps something you're missing? "Russia had all the options to become a credible democratic nation, hell even PART of NATO" Russia applied, and told they had to wait. In the meantime, however, the West managed to bomb and overthrow leaders of foreign countries under false pretenses (Iraq, Afghanistan) and (Libya) after lying about security guarantees... The US demonstrated that its only real rule was "you're either in my club, or you're not. International law be damned." Is this what countries should aspire to? Kissing the ass of the pack leader? Freedom and democracy indeed. "the United States, instead of constantly menacing to attack them, helps them economically" ...Are you kidding? First off, no, Mexico's agricultural exports are fresh fruits and vegetables, the US meanwhile has managed to create an obesity epidemic in their country. US auto makers still dominate their market, in spite of the large volume of machinery imports. Second, yes it's very easy to help a country which can never pose a threat to you. The US took all of Mexico's most valuable land and neutralized it permanently. They came very close to annexing Yucatan. There's no pressure of a challenger, so of course they'll "help" (benefit from outsourcing) now. They won. Imagine a world in which the USSR survived, and became economically strong and politically unified. It starts trading with Western Europe. That is what actually happened in North America. The U.S. completely dominates everything. "Russia on the other hand bullies people into joining their sphere of influence. Don't you see? The problem isn't that American is pushing militarily speaking" Again, you must be kidding. Virtually all of the places that the US is allied with, short of Europe, are places that it has bullied (coup'ed) into allying with Washington. South Korea, Indonesia, most of South America, Vietnam, hell, even Italy and Greece. The singular difference between it and Russia is that the US had time (and the goodwill of the British) to develop its industry and economy undisturbed for 150 years. So even if the US has been a brutal oppressor in the past, it can just smother the citizens of allied countries in material wealth to make them forget about its past crimes. I acknowledge that corruption and pride are a big issue, but- do I really need to repeat it?- the US caused this. Directly. After the collapse of the USSR, Harvard economists were flown out to Moscow to convince Yeltsin to conduct "shock therapy" in Russia, swinging it as violently into a market system as possible. It did not go well. This would be forgivable, if the US did not rig the 1996 elections to prolong the Russian people's suffering. In 2000, Putin succeeded Yeltsin... and here we are. You reap what you sow. Shouldn't have ruined Russia intentionally.
    1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. 1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 1
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. 1
  4600. 1
  4601. 1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606. 1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609. 1
  4610. 1
  4611. 1
  4612. 1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. 1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. 1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. ​ @manderly33  Are you being contrarian just for the sake of it? This entire segment felt like it, too. RFK might be insane but these used to be liberal and left-leaning concerns. Republicans were the ones obsessed with burgers and guns. God you people are so annoying. Europe's standards are higher for a reason. EU crops, for instance, generally aren't allowed to be sprayed with inorganic pesticides, while they are in the US. rBGH use is still widespread in the US cattle industry. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance is also a concern, which is why US beef can't be exported to many places. Chickens in the EU are vaccinated and so don't carry a risk of salmonella, unlike in the US, where the resulting eggs are washed and sterilized, needing to be fridged. EU eggs can be kept out because the shell keeps them from spoiling. Add to that the risk of salmonella from the chicken meat. Food colorings (known to be carcinogenic, such as Red 40 or Yellow 5) are still allowed in the US. Just look at the German version of Froot Loops to see a great example. In general, the FDA takes a more hands-off approach to regulating, they wait until after an ingredient has harmed or killed Americans to ban it. The EU requires a company to first prove that the ingredient is safe. They don't have a GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) designation. There's a whole lot more, but the crops and meat that Americans grow are full of crap. Sorry. Anything they export would need to follow EU protocols, so they're saving their healthiest foods to export. While leaving the Americans to gobble up the irridated scraps. Same goes for whatever prepared foods they're selling. Oh, and whiskey is alcohol, so no real need to poison it any more than alcohol already is one.
    1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 1
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. 1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671. 1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. 1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702. 1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717. 1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723. 1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. 1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. 1
  4741. 1
  4742. 1
  4743. 1
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 1
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. 1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. 1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778.  @danialyousaf6456  "The amount of people he had starved, hung, shot and had much worse things done to makes Hitler's actionslook like child's play" No, not really. While his actions (namely, killing off 5M officers and leftover intelligentsia) were brutal, they are incomparable to the damage Hitler caused. Invading and subjugating most of Europe, killing millions explicitly with the goal of eradicating a culture and people, are nothing compared to a bog-standard famine. Even Churchill did that, and no one bats an eyelash because he was on America's team. Read over (or just read about) Generalplan Ost. Stalin only achieved more than Hitler in terms of death and destruction because Hitler didn't get the chance. He planned on wiping 99% of Slavs off the face of the Earth, and Germanizing or enslaving the rest. It would have made the Holocaust look like child's play, as you said. As for the rape of Berlin.. this is not a proud moment. But, after all the Soviet civilians that Nazi officers- most of whom were fresh out of training, practically civilians themselves- had raped, murdered, or tortured, many see it as a form of payback. If we're valuing all lives equally, the Germans did far more in terms of sheer numbers. So I question your reason for bringing that up. Like it or not, he was there precisely at the moment in history when he was needed. He may have been a monster, but Tsar Nicholas II was not going to beat a resurgent Germany. Europe would be speaking German right now, had Stalin not existed. Sorry.
    1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. 1
  4792. 1
  4793. 1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. 1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. 1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809. 1
  4810. 1
  4811. 1
  4812. 1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. 1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. 1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. 1
  4839. 1
  4840. 1
  4841. 1
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844.  @Colt-fr3hd  You're gonna have to be more specific. Prove that he's an idiot? That he's one of the worst presidents? That most people didn't vote for him? 'Idiot' is subjective, but there is some evidence he's way in over his head.- He said "I know more about ISIS than even the generals do!" 1 year later and he's assigned fucking Jared to create peace in the Middle East. He sent his son-in-law, a Jew, to negotiate peace in the Middle East. And before you pipe up that he's American first, you think the Iranians or Turks are going to believe that, or even give a shit? No understanding of foreign policy. Sounds like an idiot to me. January 15 2017, Interview with WaPo: "We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” Feb 27 2017, White House meeting: "Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," he added. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated." ... No one knew?! That's the only thing obvious about it, that's been the crux of the issue for years! It's too fragmented, bloated, and inefficient, and 45 thinks he can swoop in and pass a bill that makes no compromises and takes no time. Jesus Christ. "One of the worst presidents"- This one's subjective too, but making most of the Armed Forces hate you by forcing them to abandon the Kurds (the ones who actually beat ISIS, Jared be damned), leaving them to die at the hand of Turkey, is pretty impressive for a single term. "Most" people didn't vote for him. Hilary won the popular vote (more people voted for her than Trump), but Trump won the electoral college. Again "most" is subjective, but Trump sure as hell didn't win a majority of American votes.
    1
  4845. 1
  4846. 1
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849. 1
  4850. 1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860. 1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868. 1
  4869. 1
  4870. 1
  4871. 1
  4872. 1
  4873. 1
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 1
  4881. 1
  4882. 1
  4883. 1
  4884.  @shannonmikko9865  How do you think our oligarchs came to power? After Yeltsin took over in the 90s, the US sent a team of economists and advisors to Moscow, hoping to convince Russia to work with them. Several teams from Europe and Japan came, too. The team that ended up convincing Yeltsin were the US Harvard economists, working closely with the US Treasury. They wanted to do "shock therapy"-- basically throw Russia into capitalism so quickly and brutally that everything would magically "fall into place." As you may imagine, it did not work. The state enterprises were privatized and each citizen was given a share of the new companies- but, because everything had been done so quickly, no one bothered to tell the Russians what they had even received (no one knew how markets or stocks worked since they were born into Communism). They sold their shares quickly for food and water (because the country and currency had collapsed), and so the oligarchs (former Party members or black market dealers) were formed. If the US had sent economists not devoted to neoliberalism, there probably wouldn't be any, or as many, oligarchs today. Or not sent anyone at all, that would've been nice. "so instead of continuing to peacefully supply gas to Europe (who really want it and don’t want conflict" You say that, but Western companies were looking to drill into Ukrainian gas fields and reduce their purchase of Russian gas- they wanted to reduce the amount of gas money they were giving to Moscow. The governments weren't trusting of Russia so they tried to rope Ukraine into the EU, to have their own little Russia. Ironically, this is what caused Russia's aggression. "If Russia joined the EU they could negotiate fair trade deals" This is not enough. Look at Greece- pre-existing problems unsolved, made worse once in the EU. If this were to happen to Russia, the brain drain (remember, EU passport allows visa-free travel) would get even worse. It's already happened to Ukraine- the migrants coming to Poland increased even more, after their visa-free deal. "the idea of the US/EU being hell bent on wanting to turn Russia into an exploitation colony instead of a productive alliance member is simply unfounded." No, it's not. Finnish lumber may be fine, but it has legal protections. Whereas IKEA (for example) was more than happy to use illegal Russian lumber in its products. Russia's lumber is 12% of global total market. They would not give that opportunity up. They protect Finland's forests because it doesn't inconvenience them. Also, again- look at what they did in the 90s. Complete looting. Western companies were "officially" banned from participating in early auctions for Russian (former Soviet) firms... yet they came in anyway.
    1
  4885. 1
  4886. 1
  4887. 1
  4888. 1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896. 1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 1
  4901. 1
  4902. 1
  4903. 1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. 1
  4909. 1
  4910.  @thebignacho  No, it's not. The First Amendment does not protect you from censorship (of speech, religion, etc) by private companies or individuals. How many times do I have to keep telling you conservative fucks? In fact, the example you gave happens to be a perfect example of that! Companies can do what they want, since you, as an employee, legally agreed to their terms. They can also mandate dress codes that exclude religious garments (yarmulke, hijab, veils, etc), "violating" your freedom of religion. No crosses and/or prayer allowed at any McDonald's? Perfectly legal. As long as you're there, using their services. I don't like Big Tech either- they do have too much power. But you can't break the law to stop their actions, no matter how good your intentions are. It sets a dangerous precedent. If you want address the issue, you either create a new law or look into prior ones (like antitrust) as a possible avenue. you can't just go off the rails and completely ignore the legal system. And Trump has violated Twitter's ToS many times, specifically the Glorification of Violence and Civic Integrity policies. No, I won't oppose it. Charlottesville was a riot, so were the George Floyd protests, and so were the Capitol riots. John Locke (the inspiration for the Founding Fathers' writings) gave explicit permission to overthrow a government if it does not protect the people's natural rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Sometimes, it is necessary. And I think you're drawing a line that doesn't exist. What those people did at the Capitol was just as illegal as what the George Floyd protestors did. Sorry. Breaking and entering onto federal property, armed, is extremely illegal. Don't try to make something legal just because you support it happening now. It'll come back to bite you, case in point: Big Tech can do what it wants because the Court ruled that an anti-gay baker (private individual working for a company) can do what it wants. Okay, so would you support riots against stop and frisk? Or would you say that it's "not unfair"? Name me a situation where you'd support the left rioting against the police. Would you at all? Because if you can't, then you don't operate on principles, you just want your team to win. The riots were against the death of an unarmed man in breach of standard protocol. And an unfair ruling to dismiss Chauvin's 3rd degree murder charge. It's not a new law, but a legal decision. Same as the Capitol riots. And you're right, that is hypocritical. That's why I don't support those cops, either. And I also don't support people turning in their rioting coworkers to the Feds, that also sets a dangerous precedent. Most of the Left doesn't have that double standard, you're thinking of Liberals. And if you think those are the same, then you have a lot to learn.
    1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. 1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. 1
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 1
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. 1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953. 1
  4954. 1
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957. 1
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 1
  4961. ​ @markvalery8632  Are you asking for a source to confirm that Stoltenberg DIDN'T say something?... How would that even be manifested? "Show me that this thing didn't happen" lol Anyways, I assumed that you were replying to his comment which wasn't banned, so I'll just drop this here anyway: 07 September 2023— Opening remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) followed by an exchange of views with Members of the European Parliament: “The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.” Stoltenberg, in a friendly forum where he could have ascribed to Putin whatever he wants, madness, greed, pettiness— chose to pin his motivations on NATO expansion. Almost gave the game away...
    1
  4962. 1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967. 1
  4968. 1
  4969. 1
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. 1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 1
  4994. 1
  4995. 1
  4996. 1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. 1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011. 1
  5012. 1
  5013. 1
  5014.  @achelouss1717  I would argue that, within the context of our world (not some abstracted playing field), he most definitely can be proven not to exist. To start, anybody who asserts God/ a god's supernatural abilities/properties has no skin in the game, as the concept of something superseding the natural defies any human attempt to observe, and consequently, prove (or disprove) it. Come to think of it, that's a defining feature of the vast majority of deities, so I could just say that I rest my case, but... Evidence for any specific God is faulty when you're reading religious texts. (You could argue that they're allegorical or guidelines, but at that point there's no reason to cherrypick the existence of a God as true when the Creation story isn't.) Abrahamic: Creation story is clearly of Mesopotamian or Egyptian origin; archaeological evidence for a regional flood (not to mention the complete infeasibility of a 600 year old man capturing 2 of every kind of animal alive and bringing them all onto a seaworthy vessel); a huge chunk of Jesus' life completely absent from Scripture, little to no evidence for written accounts at the time of occurrence; apocalypse story defies the laws of physics; Contradictory Quranic verses; clear adhesion to cultural norms rather than universal truths (which is an unprovable concept on its own). Dharmic: Historical documentation of the development of religious doctrine, i.e. incorporation of foreign gods into the vernacular religion; literally too many gods to count with overlapping duties/abilities; speaks poignant truths about human nature, but neuroscience has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that consciousness is kept in our heads and leaves us when we die, i.e. no reincarnation.
    1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025. 1
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028. 1
  5029. 1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. 1
  5036. 1
  5037. 1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 1
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 1
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 1
  5062. 1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066. 1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069. 1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073.  @EpochUnlocked  "The private sector is more efficient" "most often, the lowest bidder are the companies that use the cheapest, shortest lasting material and the perform the poorest work" See any problems here? Sometimes, the most efficient (in the company's case, gross profit minus gross expenses) isn't always what a society needs to operate a key service well. Not everything needs to be profitable. Though, by some metrics, a better-serviced public transport system generates more economic activity in the long run than a cheaply-made one that the private sector magically creates. But that doesn't matter to the private sector, which (unless privately owned) is legally bound to its shareholders' wishes, which are invariably short-term financial gains. Efficiency, even if that were totally inherent to the private sector (it isn't; the businesses that survive are the ones that just so happened not to make mistakes, but that doesn't mean companies are immune from being wasteful and inefficient-- the ones that waste cease to exist, so our perception of the private sector's overall performance is skewed) isn't always the primary aim when providing a service. Also, "you don't have an argument there"? We'll let your side of the argument when the state stops taxing hardworking people like you to build roads you'll never use. Axe the Federal Highway System and dole it out to private companies- since they're clearly so efficient. I'm sure zero roads will be left to crumble. In case I didn't lay it on thick enough, that was about as sarcastic as I could get. You simply don't know just how poorly roads could get under a private system because companies currently only shoulder the burden of maintaining profitable ones. If the whole system was left up to them, we'd see thousands of miles left completely unmaintained, to cut costs. I sincerely hope, for your own sake, that the private companies don't get to test that theory out. Or maybe they should. I just hope your vehicle is offroad-certified.
    1
  5074. 1
  5075. 1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. ​ @カスカディア国人  Good historical view. Actually, Putin's story is different. He wasn't "pretending" to be pro-Western. He genuinely wanted to be a part of the system. Listen to his speech at the Bundestag, he was a different person then. After Yeltsin's failure, he probably adopted the idea of "the West will only respect and eventually include countries that are successful in their own right". He gets to work installing technocrats in the Kremlin and rebuilding the Russian economy, and yet Russia is treated like a third-world country. NATO continues to expand as if the USSR still exists. The tipping point for him was Libya, according to former aides. Seeing a person much like himself— unifying and rapidly developing a backwater country, if ruthlessly— be overthrown in a US-backed coup, changed him. If the US promised to normalize relations with Libya after he agreed to halt its nuclear program, and ended up throwing the country into a civil war— what moral boundary prevented them from doing that to Russia? Add to that the fact that Russia's woes in the 1990s were largely the US' fault to begin with, and you get a man bent on eliminating US influence in the world. He tried for over a decade to play nice, and was repeatedly snubbed in both the geopolitical and economic sphere (for example the Pentagon blocking the sale of Opel to Russia in 2008, or opposing the opening of Nordstream I). Trusting the West was the biggest mistake Russia ever made. Putin's personal evolution is an embodiment of that fact.
    1
  5095. 1
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100. 1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112. 1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118.  @wyattlong8321  Yes, it did. We still rely on the idea today, unless you want to tell me that Trump (and Obama, and Clinton, and Reagan, etc) actually reduced the budget ceiling? Or have you forgotten the word 'deficit'? Our "greatest period of growth" is a subjective term. GDP was fully fleshed out in the 1930's, so we can't exactly measure "growth" in conventional terms before then. If you have a metric you're using, let me hear it. That being said, I agree that America expanded massively during that century, but remember this: -Lewis and Clark were sent out by the Government to chart for them. -Most "Wild West" towns were sponsored by the Government. Their creation was to increase their Treasury size. -The 1800's were primarily marked by the creation of the Transcontinental Railroad and the Erie Canal. both Gov't projects. -When there was 'no regulation whatsoever,' a few robber barons were extremely wealthy, and the rest of America was dirt -poor. Remember tenements? Slums? Political machines? It wasn't called the Gilded Age for nothing. Without regulation, cities were filthy cesspools. People died of starvation, and worked for pennies. -The Interstate Highway System was (obviously) Government funded and built. We wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today, without it. About the rest of your comment: if it was geography, then economics had nothing to do with it either way, why mention it? And yes, it did. What the fuck do you think the Marshall Plan was? A not- government funded handout to stimulate Europe? Do you think the "Free Market" just "swooped in" and made everything better? The Government spent trillions to help rebuild. I know no one paid the 90% (btw) rate. The effective rate was still much higher than what we're paying for today.
    1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. 1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130. 1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. 1
  5137. 1
  5138. 1
  5139. 1
  5140. 1
  5141. 1
  5142. 1
  5143. 1
  5144. 1
  5145. 1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148. 1
  5149. 1
  5150. 1
  5151. 1
  5152. 1
  5153.  @SergeyMilitaryRankings  Lmao "this is copium to the highest degree" Even needing to speak in absolutes like that tells me you have no legs to stand on. Putting all your cards in with a bad hand. Truth is never that simple, and you spoke like a child who doesn't understand nuance or the actual, real details of a situation. Which is fitting for you. Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia will tell you I'm right. The Ukrainian strategy was to divert focus to Kherson, make the Russians thin out their northern forces, and then catch them by surprise in the south. In other words, get the Russians out before even attacking. From Taras Berezovets: "[they] thought [the counteroffensive] would be in the south… then, instead of the south, the offensive happened where they least expected, and this caused them to panic and flee." This is a Ukrainian military spokesman speaking. You want to tell me that Ukraine deliberately fought their way through dense fortifications? They themselves say the genius of their plan was making Russians leave before the attack, then forcing the rest to RETREAT INSTEAD OF FIGHTING. Literally like I said: a few initial big losses Verbivka, Volokhiv Yar, and by the time they reached Iziyum, the Russians decided to cut their losses. Or take a quote from none other than Zelenskiy: "The Russian army in these days is demonstrating the best that it can do — showing its back. And, of course, it's a good decision for them to run." Get the idea yet?? They didn't fight and lose every inch of the region. They left early on. How many more ways do I need to put this? You said that "they were pushed back" and then told me about Kupiansk. Dude... they got to Kupiansk 3 days after starting the offensive. Does that remind you of anything I may have said, about early victories BEFORE the decision to retreat?? "so if a country goes into battle and the other side just leaves" I don't know, that's what the US did in Vietnam, and to this day people are calling it a "tactical retreat". 1. Like I said before, Kupiansk and Iziyum were reached mere days after the start, after that point the Russians left Kozacha, Lopan, and Vovchansk, among others. Even local residents attest to the fact that they left so fast they left weapons behind. 2. "a tactical retreat is leaving an area to regroup and resupply and counter attack" ...Man. What is happening LITERALLY RIGHT NOW? What are the Russians doing in Kupiansk? You already told me. By your own definition, the Russians tactically retreated. They're back instead of leaving forever, so they, according to you, retreated. But it seems you weren't smart enough to notice your inconsistent line of reasoning. 3. A defeat in terms of what? I just said it's not strictly a defeat in Kharkhiv because they were never overpowered and forced to sign a treaty or something like that. If you wanna make sweeping claims like that you need to back it up. Explain why they were defeated in your eyes. What criteria are you basing that on?
    1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156. 1
  5157. 1
  5158. 1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. 1
  5163. 1
  5164. 1
  5165. 1
  5166.  @flame-sky7148  For someone who (I'm assuming) is American, you seem so fond of restricting personal freedom. Marriages aren't worth keeping if they don't work. A loveless marriage is psychologically worse for the child(ren) than having a single parent. I'd rather be poor than have a damaged view of relationships for the next few decades. Even if that weren't the case, it doesn't matter- the argument is that the idea of a nuclear family isn't natural. Extended families- tribes- are what humans evolved to be in. And sex was done by the tribe- all the men had sex with every woman when her time came. Why did it matter who the biological father was? The son would be raised by all the men, so he is the son of the tribe. The idea that one person belongs to another is a new idea, rooted in greed and ownership of property. Among the lower class, marriages were arranged for the betterment of the two families. Men could divorce women, but not the other way around. Women were considered property and men could do as they pleased with them. Among the upper class, marriage was political. Both families pawned off their kin for greater influence. Men who could afford it had mistresses (glorified escorts) which was accepted at the time. It is no longer. Nothing about marriage from the 1950's is normal or historical. Two people fallen in love, a single breadwinner, only 3-4 family members, etc. It's all manufactured by the U.S.. The only similarity I could find was that your ideas about divorce are quite literally medieval.
    1
  5167. 1
  5168. 1
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 1
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178.  @bubbajay1934  You act as though this was specifically directed at Ukrainians and no one else. The destruction of intelligentsia was felt just as much by Russian society, Kazakh, Georgian, etc. I will never understand why Westerners will frame things through a racial, or, where that isn't available, ethnic lens for literally anything political. It was seen as de-kulakization and encompassed all cultures. And the idea that it was a 'genocide' is questionable, too- since, if we're just talking about Holodomor, Russians in the south died in the hundreds of thousands, too. If it was an imperial project to eliminate Ukraine as a nation, then who exactly is benefiting from it, as the 'colonizers' were being brutalized in the same exact way? If we're talking about further back, then it is no different to any other empire and I see no reason why it is singled out, especially when (if we are claiming that principles are universalist) other European empires still have legacies unaddressed long before the invasion. Those were never fixed (breaking West Africa out of the imperial Francafrique economic arrangements and French military bases), ridding Britain of its colonial territories that it was supposed to let go postwar (Chagos is especially sad story), and the monopoly the US has on 'international' economic and political institutions (IMF requires 'liberalization of markets' despite none of the Western powers having dveeloped their industries that way, WTO is heavily influenced by American corporate interests in other countries, etc).
    1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 1
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. 1
  5197. 1
  5198. 1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201.  @agentorange6085  Some points: I don't think it's lost on Russia the relationship between India and China, and if anything, it will likely seek to be the prime mediator in any disputes they have (if they flare up to the point of instability). As an ally to both countries, it could likely make a better case for itself than the US, who is blatantly to one side. My guess is that, unless Russia (finally, one can dream) diversify its economy, it will try to maintain economic partnerships and influence in both countries, and do to China and India, what India does to Russia and the West. Regarding Japan and Europe: it's worth mentioning, to start, that while Japan as a whole likely values American presence as a counter to China, the Okinawans (where the actual base is located) aren't so happy. Beyond attracting China's military attention, they're generally an annoyance, being a near opposite to Japanese cultural ideals. In 2019, a majority of residents opposed the construction of a new base. Their continued presence is Tokyo's doing, not theirs. As for removing bases, could you give examples? I feel that the US only does that when there is no rival superpower in the region. I mean, after multiple rape cases in the Okinawan bases, they still insisted they stay and negotiated with Tokyo as such. They withdrew from the Gulf only after Hussein was taken care of. So could you provide examples? Now, the larger point you made: The Bretton Woods system isn't technically forced, but... with the US dominating so much of the world's financial systems and trade routes, does anyone really have a choice? You're implying that continued cooperation = willful cooperation. And the US has abused its hegemonic status numerous times in the past, and continues to do so (though under the new pretext of countering China). The economic development of Europe only happened because of the Marshall Plan, and the Allied victors were allowed to keep vestiges of their empires. Of course Europe would be more than happy to oblige. By the way, the prosperity you mentioned far predates democracy, and the US. Are you forgetting how wealthy Europe was before WWII, too? You act like the US' system is what singlehandedly gave them that power. When it was, in short, colonies and naval power that did. So no, it's not a Russian mindset. In fact, where they can blatantly get away with it, they do it. The US has leveraged its senior position at the WTO to force tiny nations like Palau (and large ones like Mexico and Canada- i.e. Trump) to accept bad trade terms. They've navally blocked trade between China and Iran. And counters to this system (Chinese digital yuan, Gaddafi's Afro currency, Russian alternative to SWIFT, etc) are vehemently opposed by US financial and political figures. About Russian prosperity, you are somewhat correct. Putin is a brilliant statesman, but a terrible economist. Russian industry and consumer goods are faltering, and the business environment is suffering as a result of his drive to funnel Russia's energy into being a geopolitical counterweight. Europe and Japan have had centuries of time to develop. Western Europe in particular shares geographical security in common with Japan. Their answer is not "kowtowing to the US". Japan's situation is entirely unique, never have birthrates been so low. Stop trying to do damage control and comfort yourself. The situation is unprecedented and will put a huge strain on Japan's remaining workers, just accept that. Either immigrants, which Japan refuses, or robots, which require healthy workers. The resentments faded from their minds because they won out. Rather, they did until the 80s, we will see how opinion changes. Same goes for Europe. The lack of bitterness comes from having been on the side of the victor. Russia took the brunt of the bloodshed and received little back. It paid back the Lend Lease in 2007. And its elections, and economy, were meddled in the 1990s by the US. So please, stop trying to sound profound about how Russia just needs to accept your personal values when you've no idea why it is the way that it is today.
    1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 1
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210. 1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213. 1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216. 1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. 1
  5220. 1
  5221. 1
  5222. 1
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 1
  5228. 1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240. 1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. 1
  5245. 1
  5246. 1
  5247. 1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. 1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 1
  5256. 1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261. 1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269. 1
  5270. 1
  5271. 1
  5272.  @SokarEntertainment  Adolf Hitler, interview with George Sylvester Viereck, 1923: “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” That sounds distinctly anti-communist. Marx advocated for all workers of the world to unite and seize the means of production. He saw history as the struggle between the working class and bourgeoisie, whereas Hitler: Debate with party member Otto Strasser- “Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” He did not believe in the most basic tenet of socialism or communism, that the workers should have power and control over what they produce, nor did he believe in their inherent social equality and unjust subjugation by capitalists. He was a fascist, through and through.
    1
  5273. 1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276. 1
  5277. 1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. 1
  5281. 1
  5282.  @obligatoryusername7239  That's simply untrue. You have a surface-level understanding of Russia colored by whichever cases Western media chooses to show you. Most investment projects aren't politically exciting, so they aren't mentioned. If it doesn't involve the potential breakup of Russia (wishful thinking by the West), it doesn't get reported on. Putin, for one, pulled Russia from the brink of collapse in the 1990s, when there were actual calls for independence across the RF. He invested massively in pretty much every region to bring it to some semblance of normalcy after a decade of Yeltsin's incompetence. In more recent times, he invested tens of billions of dollars (I forget the ruble conversion) into the Krasnodar region, turning it into an agricultural hub. Tatarstan has also received huge amounts of investment throughout the 2010s. Finally, more recently (and I think out of necessity, I do not think he would have done this otherwise) he has earmarked a lot of money in the 2024 budget for development of the Far East, specifically in reindustrialization and microchip tech. It remains to be seen whether this will actually happen, it has been promised before and failed multiple times. Of course Russia is still corrupt. But you take it for granted that Russia is a functioning state, and immediately look for problems within it. You never appreciate any achievements done by Russian statesmen, unless it's absolutely unavoidable (like launching Sputnik, or winning WWII, even then you try to diminish the scope of our contribution to those things).
    1
  5283. 1
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. 1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 1
  5307. 1
  5308. 1
  5309.  @alcoholandfun243  Difficult to speak to? The pot's calling the kettle black. ~ I replied to your 'gender isn't a social construct' comment; I explained the distinction between sex and gender, and gave examples of the biological basis of non-(male/female) genders. ~ You replied with the same assertion, with no evidence, again. I gave examples of societies that distinguish between sex and gender as evidence that the two are not, in fact, inseparable. ~ Your reply went off on a tangent. My focus was still the validity of 2+ genders, you chose to reply to the last part of my comment, instead of any other- I would have continued to discuss the science if you had, you know, replied to it. If you didn't want to get off topic, then stay on topic. Where on Earth you got the impression that I was doing so, I've no idea. But, let's just assume I was: following this comment, let's only discuss the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of 2+ genders. Deal? Or is that too specific for you? I never said that you think transgenders shouldn't have equal rights- I was explaining that other people don't, and that's why their protection needs to be formalized, instead of just "politeness." Why'd you interpret that as a personal attack? I didn't once say that you believed that. I was explaining. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. You were assuming my stances. And I am almost certain that you're referring to bill C-16, and that you watch Jordan Peterson. The entire bill is less than two pages long, and if you'd read the damn thing, you'd know that nobody is required to use pronouns they don't consider true. The law only prohibits people from explicitly advocating for genocide or speaking in such a way to encourage violence against the group in question. Punishment for refusing to call someone (whatever) is not anywhere in that law, or any law. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/c-16/royal-assent But, I guess that's what happens when you entrust a clinical psychologist who thinks Jung's work is still relevant to comment on legal issues. And when a bunch of teenagers follow him.
    1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 1
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 1
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335.  @michaeldunham3385  "They couldn't force Ukraine to relinquish Crimea" No, that's not what I said. Negotiate. Both parties, did, in fact, do that, but Russia's terms were certainly tempered given their recent economics and political collapse. That was also true of Ukraine, but one had simply lost more than the other. I suppose that's true, but I don't do it to distract. I bring up other examples because I want to judge acceptable precedence-- are we really willing to stick by principles which, if actually enforced, would bring enormous shifts to the global political order? Disadvantage some parties and enrich others? In most cases I think not, because almost everyone has vested interests. And working on a case-by-case basis generally brings better results. If you were talking about other threads, you need to specify. I can't read your mind and can't address things unless you express them. To the Basque and N. Ireland point, I have the same (above) reasoning. As for Yeltsin, I wasn't lying, but I did miscommunicate. And that's my mistake, I'm sorry. When I say "he wasn't elected", I'm referring to the fact that he had all the hard work (of name recognition, policy) done for him, as a former leader of the RSFSR. I didn't mention that it was Yeltsin who advocated for the creation of the office of the Presidency, and the 1st election happened within the USSR. His candidacy was built on the fact that he was appointed by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. So, while he legitimately campaigned, it's a lot like saying JFK got elected because of his hard work from the bottom-up. And I made the distinction-- the Russian (but not Soviet) media certainly helped him along in the 1st election, though I wouldn't consider it rigged. Clinton did, however, interfere in Yeltsin's 2nd election. He said, "I want this guy to win so bad." He sent in political staffers from DC every week to boost his then-abysmal approval numbers. ~$16M in total spent on his campaign-- advisors, marketers, ads, posters, groundwork, etc. So, in sum: 1st election, technically legitimate; 2nd, not. Got it?
    1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. 1
  5343. 1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346. 1
  5347. 1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 1
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. You made a lot of good points, many of which I haven't considered before. But, I think you are over-emphasizing the division between the EU and NATO. There are only 6 countries in the EU who are not NATO members. That leaves 21, or ~80%, of the EU as NATO members. Given the U.S.'s desire to project influence to Russia as close as possible (even before it did anything geopolitically bad, before 2008, it still expanded NATO) it is rather likely that the U.S. will want Ukraine to join. And it is not beneath the U.S. to support local elements to achieve a political goal. Your comparison also, I think, is missing the point. In both cases, the reactionary party (U.S. to missiles being sent to Cuba, and Russia to pro-Western demonstrations) acted to expel foreign influence from the region in question. Crimea (and more specifically Donbass) was a way to make sure Ukraine could not meet all EU or NATO requirements, keeping U.S. military presence out of Ukraine. Same with the U.S. actions- keeping Soviet presence out of Cuba. Whatever the specifc details of the events are, the geopolitical goals are similar, which is why the comparison was made. And yes, I agree, the amount of influence Russia had over Ukraine before 2014 may not have been worth losing over a little peninsula. But Russia's issue is strategicocally focused and economic. Russia's main trading route is through Turkey, and its southern region is the most economically productive. Allowing Turkey (who would easily coerce Ukraine) to navally dominate the Black Sea could cripple Russia economically. Bad trade deals and so forth (along with the new strait planned through Istanbul, allowing US ships in). The long-term consequences of someone else controlling the peninsula were too large to ignore.
    1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. 1
  5366. 1
  5367. 1
  5368. 1
  5369. 1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372.  @ArtisZ  No, it isn't. When comparing us to any alternative European or North American power, there is no question at all. During colonial expansion, Yermak (the Cossack who led the expansion) was more honest to the Natives about the terms of Russian expansion, than the Americans were. When he approached a new region, the deal was. "Ally with us or we'll fight and destroy your Khanate", versus "We'll both sign this treaty and we definitely won't violate it or have different terms in the English-language copy". That's even assuming the Natives the US settlers encountered could even speak English. I suppose that's not the fault of the settlers, as they were expanding into areas so quickly that no one had time to learn both language and serve as interpreter. Still, in the cases where they could translate, the Americans were famous for simply lying. We didn't have a Manifest Destiny, so no "spare the Indian to save the man" ideology. Of course Russification did occur, but it wasn't as intense (I'll get to that) and it was for more practical, "we need to secure this land against a future Mongol attack" reasons. We didn't cut off people's hands for rebelling like the Belgians. We didn't put the Natives through boarding schools, or prevent them (if deported— which both the Americans and Russians did do) from returning. We didn't put them in auctions, or whip them, or sell their children off like cattle, like the Americans did. We didn't mass rape them and erase their former culture entirely, like the Spanish did. The fact that you're still around and identifying as Baltic is evidence of that. We don't force our former colonies to use a version of the ruble, and threaten to coup their governments if they don't, like France still currently does. We didn't forcibly sterilize Native women well into the 1970s in an attempt to genocide them, like Canada did. We took over their land, forced them to pay yasik, or fur tax, and put them into indentured servitude if they couldn't. Not by any means good treatment, but CERTAINLY nothing compared to European colonialism. Not even close. Currently, our Native people have mandatory schooling for everyone in the Native language, and while it isn't up to par with Russian language education, it's— my whole point— better than anything the West has done. Their cultures are largely intact, they have living cultures with internet memes and tv shows and normal things that aren't propped up as show pieces. Just a regular part of everyday life. How bad was Russification if the West is currently able to exploit Native feelings in Russia to try and fracture it? Want to know why that's not possible in the US? Because they're all dead. Don't delude yourself just because your emotions run high. I'm sure your childhood was filled with stories from your grandpa about how bad we are, about how we're barbarians who aren't capable of being a European civilized country. I've heard it all from Polish friends' relatives. From Lithuanians who drank their parents' koolaid. You're all stuck in the past, and it's not even a correct account of events.
    1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393. 1
  5394. 1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397. 1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 1
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406. 1
  5407. 1. Bit of a poor argument--- you realize that, in negotiations, promises are made with the intent of leveraging. The US, by using this as a 'carrot', understood the geopolitical reasons behind Russia's desire to keep American military infrastructure out of its backyard. If nothing else, it proves the US' ill intent: they, knowing full well that expansion would be seen as a destabilizing threat, did so anyway. If non-binding agreements hold no merit in your eyes, then the Budapest Memorandum doesn't matter, either- MoUs are not legally binding and the promises made to Ukraine in exchange for nukes don't warrant any retaliation because no laws were broken. 2. Citation needed. Putin was genuinely trying early on to make Russia Western, being the first to congratulate Bush on his ascension to office and open to western ideas. But, after seeing the illegal invasion of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, he realized that the 'rules-based order' was code for Western dominance. 3. Citation needed, again, And even if it were true, that doesn't make him incorrect. I can almost guarantee that you have a strong opinion about something-- you've researched it, and have reasons to believe it's true. I would not consider that opinion unbiased, either- yet you'd obviously (since you believe it) see it as correct. Certainly no worse than the White House inviting TikTokers to tell them what to say about Ukraine, or the ghost of kiev/pickle grandma stories, which were literal propaganda 4. Yes, it is. The message is clear: this behavior is acceptable. If it isn't, then why hasn't the Eu sanctioned the us economy over its own warcrimes? International law should have no favorites, so why has nothing been done? If the Us isn't made to pay, then why should any other country? Isn't that an unfair outcome? Sounds like "rules for thee, not for me". Until the US starts comitting to the values it claims to abide by, it has no place telling others what to do. Putin's standing at the ICC must be accompanied by Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. They are all guilty of violating the geneva conventions, in various ways. 5. The maidan revolution happened in kiev only... hence the name, maidan (independence square, in kiev). The east of the country was opposed, and the west supported. Not a nationwide consensus, and taken to a vote it (eu integration over russian gas deal) may not have even passed. 6. no disagreements here, except to repeat my other point: that "promise" was as good as the one telling the ussr that nato wouldn't expand, so no one can use it as an argument.
    1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. 1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 1
  5426. 1
  5427. 1
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. 1
  5431. 1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 1
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 1
  5442. 1
  5443. 1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. 1
  5449. 1
  5450. 1
  5451. 1
  5452. 1
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. 1
  5456. 1
  5457. 1
  5458. 1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. 1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. 1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 1
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480. 1
  5481. 1
  5482.  @WUSTASS  Sorry, I meant to say "aren't the real victim". I knew it was sarcastic, I was addressing your point behind the sarcasm. Um... Yes. That's how countries have operated for thousands of years. Only the Mongols and Persians were more culturally tolerant, and look how much they've kept. Polish people often exclaim with pride that Poland was able to occupy Moscow and was very close to assimilating it as a part of the Commonwealth. Then they get mad that Russia did that successfully, but to them? Fuck off, that's hypocritical. Have you ever wondered why, for example, so much of Belarusian and Ukrainian is composed of Polish loanwords? Because of 300+ years of Polonization, especially in Ruthenia (now Ukraine). How do you think the Chinese gained so much land over 1,000s of years? Diplomacy? This is the way of the world, and no matter how recent it was, any country willing to play that game must also accept the consequences when the results happen to be unlucky. Hell, Ukraine and the Baltic countries have progressively banned Russian in schools! The game is still being played right now. As for your point that all of the lands outside the current boundaries were settled that way: Wrong. Odessa was completely barren before the Katherine the Great founded it in 1794. The northern Kazakh steppes were settled by farmers, not Cossacks. And the little part of Belarus that is ethnically Russian? That's been there for hundreds of years, and preceded the Tsardom's expansion in the 1500s.
    1
  5483. 1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492. 1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510.  @mjm3091  Well, I'm glad you at least venture outside of your imagined victory lap. I disagree with your assessment, for multiple reasons. India and especially China are still wearing of aligning with the West for any reason. A limited nuclear engagement, as seen in Japan, would not destroy half the world-- and no country would have a justifiable reason to attack Russia on Ukraine's behalf. There's no international law to do so, and any country firing would receive missiles in kind. Sanctions would be increased, a no-fly zone would be established, maybe NATO would be deployed to Ukraine, but all sides understand: asserting Ukraine's independence is not worth the entire world. Russia would, in short, not be attacked back directly. Regarding China-- the CCP has already agreed on the Amur as its northern border, and controlling all that land is extremely difficult, given their current domestic problems. "Potentially there will be some revolution or country itself may fall apart - no one will try to get hands on Russian territory though. It will eat itself down like USRR did. After being economic pariah, probably will even fall behind Belarus after this." Lol, are you finished with your fevered hateboner-fuelled ramblings? I think not. Russia currently is majority Russian, there are no further lines to divide it along. Only Chechnya and Dagestan, but they will quickly go back to fighting each other, or Georgia, as was in the past. In fact, if we go by ethnicity, northern Kazakhstan is basically Russia. Even if the Russian state somehow falls apart (again, nukes-- so very unlikely), it will just reform itself. It has twice now.
    1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515. 1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 1
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 1
  5522. 1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535. 1
  5536. 1
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545. 1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552. 1
  5553. 1
  5554. 1
  5555.  @Morwenna1220  "And that fear motivated them to conquer, to subjugate and generally to wage war when they had overwhelming numbers and power" How does this make them any different than the West? France still has a stranglehold on West Africa's economy, UK still has colonies and is trying to dissuade Scotland from leaving, US coups a democratic government for breakfast.... yet nobody tries to punish them. Nobody, including you, who claims to care really does, or I would see them in the comments calling Bush a "madman" or "bully" or whatever other silly armchair psychology they come up with. You seem to forget that Russia feels a need to expand... because they were, up until 1945, constantly being attacked! You act like they just decided to wage war for fun one day. Europe was playing the exact same game, don't pretend like Russia is any different. Repeatedly and with great urgency Again, no. Italy and Greece's elections were massively rigged to keep their Communist parties from genuinely participating. Ukraine, as I mentioned, had no interest in joining even in 2008. Only its temporary administration. "Also Russias economic weakness is their own fault" Sounds like you don't know much about the 1990s in Russia. It was not Russia's fault. Russians did not finance Yeltsin's campaign with a $10Billion loan from the IMF. Russians did not launder their own money to London and New York. Russians (even Russian government) did not all want to privatize everything and drain the government of any tax income. It wasn't Russians who rigged the elections in Chechnya. This was all done because of Bush and Clinton. He was elected, but once US presidents realized how much of a spineless drunk he was, they rigged Russia's elections in 1996 and pushed him to privatize everything. "they could have done what China did " They could have, there were many in Russian government who wanted to, but the US economists convinced Yeltsin otherwise. Besides, for that to happen, the USSR would need to still exist. Gorbachev should have started with economic reforms, then political reforms, slowly. "In stead of fooling yourself by thinking they were somehow forced by it" They aren't forced. But, like Ukraine, the US waits for an opportune moment when the government wants to join (regardless of what the people think) and then they legally tie them in.
    1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562. 1
  5563. 1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578. 1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586. 1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607.  @Homer-OJ-Simpson  "Russia didn't stop it and they could have. So how could this be a turning point for Put1n?" It was a turning point because of the outcome. And the steps that the US took to get to that outcome. Libya could have ended in a negotiated settlement, while keeping some semblance of a functioning government intact. Instead the US chose to plunge the country into chaos. It was such a colossal failure that even Obama couldn't hand-wave it away. "My worst mistake was probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya”. Putin, at that point, the aide said, was then convinced that the US didn't just do it once-off in Iraq. In a post-Soviet world, the US felt completely comfortable ruining entire nations just because it could. And it was clear that Russia (given its treatment in the 1990s) was not on the list of countries exempt from the US nation-destroying tactics. "So how is this a western thing if the Arab League also supprorted it? Bet RT news doesn't discuss that." Except they DID discuss that, and you were too lazy to even check. There were articles written WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING: Lavrov pointed out that the UN resolutions on Libya called for measures that would protect civilians in the conflict-torn North African state, “but the result was slightly different, to say the least,” The Arab League wasn't supporting the no-fly zone because they wanted the West to enforce it, in fact quite the opposite. From Al Jazeera in 2011: "The bloc also stressed that it had rejected any “foreign military” intervention in Libya, and Moussa said the no-fly zone must be lifted once the crisis has ended." "Like Russia after ditching communism?" Have you ever wondered why it turned out like that? I mentioned the 1990s already, care to take a guess at which country directed Russia's economic transition to capitalism? Or who helped rig its 1996 elections? Or who helped create the same oligarchs that it loves to criticize now??
    1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616. 1
  5617. 1
  5618.  @blakebrown534  If you're going to write a book, at least use pages. Get rid of the disgusting text block. 1. Stop with the paternalistic bullshit, and don't lecture us on what to do. We did that already, and it failed twice. We killed our own Tsar. The issue is, "standing up to power" never happens in a vacuum, and the West is always sticking its finger into our affairs. Ironically, they were the ones supporting the Whites, the very same side we stood up to. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your 'rousing' speech. 2. Source needed What is this meant to communicate to me? Are you trying to make an emotional appeal, or a logical one? The image is graphic, but ultimately it is just government dissent being silenced, and in that sense it is commonplace. I could just as easily demand the US stop supporting Saudi Arabia and Israel. Compared to being stoned to death or beheaded, a shot in the arm is merciful. But I don't see you focusing on that first, because you are selective with your interventionist stance. 3. We "allow" it because, believe it or not, it is still better than the West's treatment of Russia. That is scarier to us than the current situation. In the 1990s, there was a slim window of opportunity to bring Russia into the Western fold-- help it develop an economy, good trade relations, stable democratic processes. What did we get? Mass privatization, complete collapse of social services, plundering of the country (the money from which the West was all too happy to take), mafia rule in every region of Russia, destruction of industrial capacity and brain drain. 2-3M extra people died in that decade due to lack of healthcare and deaths of despair (mostly alcoholism). Think of the millions of mothers greying prematurely, finding out their husband drank himself to death after losing his Soviet pension. Or that their son died of a drug overdose (the West brought plenty of that, too). Now tell me which is worse. Or better yet, ask someone in Iraq if they appreciate a civil war over Saddam. Now there are 1000 Saddams.
    1
  5619. 1
  5620. 1
  5621.  @gari1633  Dude, you need to edit your text. Split it up into pieces, you can't be that lazy. "Lustration" was not the difference. The other countries (Poland, Baltics) receieved more money per person/per country's economy, and their institutions were allowed to transition more slowly. What is so hard to understand here? Also, the US didn't rug Poland or Estonia's election to keep a drunkard President in power. How is that our fault, and how would "Lustration" solve that?! I cannot speak to the efficiency of the Soviet system, since it worked fine for my family, and I don't see why everyone should be forced to compete. Why? So maybe one day you will get great healthcare, once the market becomes advanced enough... or, you could just give everybody coverage now. The rails is a stupid argument, since Russia's rail gauge is from Tsarist times. It has nothing to do with communist ideology-- in fact, it is a little more efficient, since freight is able to carry more per railcar. "Going both ways was unacceptable, because it would reveal advantages of a later" Then what is ukraine afraid of? If one system is obviously better, then why not do both? According to you, the first one will naturally fail. By the way, when it comes to public services, European countries run things like Soviets. Healthcare is not for-profit, neither is transport or most education. So I am not sure what specific things you're talking about. _"it’s not true that your former government haven’t enjoyed enormous subsidies from germans for agreeing to allow Germany’s unification or from Clinton to liberalise the economy," This is hilarious. You think East Germany (the only one required to pay reparations for WWII, West Germany was never told to...) could finance the rebuilding of the entire USSR?? There were no "subsidies" in exchange for unification, in fact the only promise made was that NATO infrastructure would not move past Germany, and that promise was quickly broken. "we both know were these money went " Then why did you just say that we "benefitted from subsidies"?!? In one breath yo say the West helped us, in another breath you say no help arrived. I wasn't commenting about rule of law generally, but property law, which is what your original point was talking about. Privatization ensured that property laws were respected, at least for oligarchs and Western companies. This is precisely the problem- the West shouldn't have taken oligarchs' money. It was stolen from ordinary Russian citizens and they knew it. "You know perfectly well that initial economical shock came from the spenditure of soviet-afgan war, chernobyl and low oil prices and inefficiency of the system" Now you're just pulling things out of your ass. All of those factors were present prior to the collapse, and were the baseline-- things only got worse as other things added on. Could you explain how Chernobyl affected the economy, too?
    1
  5622. 1
  5623. 1
  5624. 1
  5625. 1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 1
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 1
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 1
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. 1
  5657. 1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. 1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682. 1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703.  @notubist  No, you're wrong. I'm not taking shit from someone who can't spell Louis correctly. You admitted to me being correct about oil but made an excuse for it. Same with steel— Carnegie Steel's monopoly had fallen to 50% of US production from competition with Bethlehem Steel. That's still half of the entire market. It took decades for anything substantial to change, and by the way the only reason was because Kennedy forced them to reverse their price gouging after WWII— but in the meantime, countless people (especially black convicts) were underpaid for their work. This is precisely the type of thing government intervention is good for. Limiting exploitation. "ISPs are regulated by the government"— that's my POINT. Can you give me the specific reason why Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox haven't merged? They've tried to before, but you seem to think it's because the market just magically regulates itself. Mind telling me what's stopping them from doing what their shareholders would profit from them doing? Pharma suing other companies isn't an example of big government actively taking a role. Even if they didn't take sides, even if we lived in a libertarian country, companies could still sue new companies out of the market. We'd still need courts, this practice wouldn't change. Or they'd just use predatory pricing, which requires no government involvement and is anti-competitive. The only thing that could stop those big pharma companies from turning into monopolies (especially with products that have inelastic demand like insulin)? Care to take a guess?
    1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707. 1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. How, realistically, do you see any "small companies" setting up their own internet infrastructure? I hope you realize fiber optic cables cost literally millions of dollars per mile to install. I'm not even talking about a city, where dense sewage and water systems have to be taken into account and often make new installations impossible. The U.S. government knows this, and gave grants to the few major ISPs in the '90s and early '00s https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/broadbandgrants/comments/61BF.pdf (that is an entire book, primary sources are at the very bottom) to update their cables from copper to fiber optic. It was much cheaper than expecting multi-million dollar companies to appear out of nowhere and install their own, especially because the technology was more expensive at the time. Did they go ahead and upgrade? Of course not! (The U.S. still uses copper). The icing on the cake is, no new companies are legally allowed to directly compete in an area where these massive companies exist, courtesy of ISP lobbying. So, when net neutrality is repealed, what do you think will happen? Nothing! Comcast, Cox, and Frontier have already raised their prices across the board, and no one will be there to engage in the "free market." And even if small companies were able to intervene, what difference would that make? Out of genuine curiosity, I'd like to know specifically how you see Net Neutrality as a hindrance to competition. I'm not even trying to be a bitch, I really want to know what you think, because I can't understand it. If you could, please explain it to me step by step, how repealing NN would increase diversity of options for a consumer. Thanks.
    1
  5718. I can see why you'd think that, but I don't think that it's fair at all to charge companies extra for more bandwidth. The monetary relationship between the three entities- ISP, Media Company, and Consumer is already established: --You, the consumer, pay the ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T) a monthly fee, so their cables can be maintained, their company staffed; etc. I will remind you again that the U.S. government gave the ISPs BILLIONS of dollars to update their cables- with fiber optic, there is room for millions of people to have a minimum of 1 Gbps download speeds, MORE than enough for Netflix and any other streaming and online services to compete. --You, the consumer, also pay the company (Netflix) for access to their service. --The companies should not have to pay ISPs extra, because that is literally extortion, which is illegal: In 2014, Verizon demanded Netflix pay extra for something that you already paid the ISP for (monthly subscription to Verizon and access to websites). Thankfully, Netflix didn't pass the price to the consumer- you- but it can't be that generous forever. Until Netflix paid up, their video quality was throttled. https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/ Also, I don't know how old you are, but you must be either very old or very young, because it is extremely naive to think that cable companies (you know, for-profit organizations?) wouldn't jump at a chance to increase their earnings. In fact, it's so naive and dumb, that it's already not true: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/ So yes, repealing NN *does ^^^ cost people money for no good reason, and it has literally created a cable package system for people living in most of the U.S. I only hope you live somewhere with AT&T, because they are biding their time. Also, I didn't ask you to read the whole article. I said primary sources were at the bottom. Something tells me you didn't even bother to look at the first page, because then you'd know that it wasn't about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You really need to think more about what you believe, because from where I'm standing, it's not fleshed out, and it's all bullshit.
    1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737. 1
  5738. 1
  5739. 1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755. 1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 1
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. 1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770. 1
  5771. 1
  5772. 1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. 1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. 1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. 1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. 1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. 1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. 1
  5840. 1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847.  @eiko4252  Okay— 1) The Middle East is across an ocean. The US goes out of its way to project influence there, Russia can't just leave Eastern Europe, that's where the country is. 2) Even if I granted you that comparison, why hasn't the US been punished then for Iraq and Afghanistan? Why didn't the democracy-loving EU sanction them? Do they only sanction when it's a country they don't personally like? On the other side of the equation— why was Russia punished? If the West is clearly fine with atrocities like Iraq. About Yeltsin— 1) That was a domestic action, so it doesn't threaten NATO anyway. My question still remains, why did it keep existing and accepting new members (it doesn't have to) even with a pro-US Russian President? 2) The US supported the Parliament-dissolving President! So much for loving democracy!! If they're fine supporting someone like that, then why do they hate Putin, who at least pretends to hold the elections?? Why the double standard?? Most importantly— the US helped to rig the 1996 elections in Yeltsin's favor. Again, so much for supporting Ukraine because it cares about democracy "everywhere"! They literally paid off TV stations to help get him elected with a 6% approval rating, and then he went on to get involved in Georgia. The US didn't do anything then, so they don't even care about Russia invading another country. So why now? I'll tell you why. It's because the US doesn't care about democracy, or human rights, or freedom. They care about natural resources. Yeltsin privatized state assets and sold Russian minerals and timber to the West for cheap. Ukraine was ready to do the same. It's all about money.
    1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. 1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. 1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. 1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884. 1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. ​ @surfboy344  Sure. The US' current economic power (not just reserve currency status but trade relationships in general) relies on the imposition of force onto countries that don't comply. Whenever a Latin American country tries to sever itself from the US' influence, it gets coup'ed. If they cannot do that, they sanction it. See: Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan. Moreover, many of its current 'allied' countries were brought into its fold by force (propping up dictators in South Korea, Iran, Chile, Egypt, rigging elections in Italy and Greece, etc). This goes all the way back to the US popping a nerve at the mere thought of Edo Period Japan simply... refusing to trade with them. For some reason this infuriated the Americans to the extent that they sent Matthew Perry to force its markets open by gunboat. Those countries (minus Iran, and to a lesser extent Russia post-Yeltsin) are now all strong trading partners even though US presence was met at some point with fierce domestic opposition in all those cases. More specifically, the defense industry has tens of thousands of jobs in every state and the arms industry brings in billions to the US economy each year. And finally, more broadly speaking an iron grip on the world with a massive military gives passive economic benefits. Which country is really going to oppose or do economic warfare with the US? Only China so far. Everyone else falls in line, because they know running afoul of the US will make them destabilize or destroy your country, legally or illegally. Only the aforementioned countries (Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan, now Russia) have had both the balls to do it and avoided being coup'ed. Every other government was overthrown or coerced into a trading "partnership".
    1
  5897. 1
  5898.  @gabigabi7743  Again, quality over quantity. Even assuming what you said is true (it isn't; Russia comes in at #4 behind US, India, and China-- it has 7.46% of all arable land. The US is the one with 10%), quality of land matters. Russia is placed at a higher latitude on the globe. So even though it has all that arable land, most of it is only usable only 3 months out of the whole year. The US, India, and China all have more arable land, it none of it is ever frozen at all. Most of it is usable 9 months out of the year. So their land can produce 2-3x as much food, despite having roughly the same amount as Russia's. "Stop war mongering" We will stop "warmongering" when our geography is secure. Do you wonder why China is aggressive with Taiwan? It is because that little island could cut off China's only access to the Pacific Ocean! And it is allied with a country that wants to keep rising superpowers in check! If America convinces Taiwan to naval blockade, hundreds of millions of Chinese could be homeless within months. India and US have long, un-blockable coastlines- this is why they are both less aggressive at sea- they face no threats to their naval economy. They're not governed better, they're just lucky to be placed where they are. Quality over quantity. I agree Russia could make use of its natural resources, but what use are they if their movement is at the whim of Turkey and the EU? If Turkey wants to shut down 100% of Russia's exports to Europe, all they need to do is block the Bosporus. Do you understand how dangerous that is? That makes Russia's economy extremely fragile, even more than it already is. This is also part of the reason why Russia exports oil and software tech. Neither can be blocked by sea.
    1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902. 1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921. 1
  5922. 1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. 1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951. 1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957.  @MarceloAbans  sorry for text block- read if you want I'm well aware of the fact that history is repeating- or, at least, rhyming. You mentioned books, but Socrates hated even those, saying kids' memories would be ruined by them, and more generally "what's wrong with kids these days" etc. I'm not oblivious to those facts. Fear of what's new is nothing new. But I'm simply speaking from experience- books don't have variable feedback (unpredictable rewards, like a slot machine: people come keep posting because likes give you an ego boost)- the TV isn't something you interact with, nor can it be programmed to better keep you personally glued to the screen. Sites can. There are genuine, novel differences between the internet and all other previous media. And I'm only worried because I'm speaking from experience. Though I think the predisposition to addiction is inherited, there was at least a chance you'd never encounter a casino, or drink to cope with pain, or gamble (in the past). Now, if your genetics fated you to get easily addicted, it's only a matter of time before you start using a computer or phone. And because, unlike books or tv, both the content and structure of the internet are constantly changing, it's increasingly difficult to teach young people (like me- again, speaking firsthand here) how to manage the lightning pace of information and not get drowned in it. -Because by the time the next generation comes along, we might be in internet 3.0 on VR, and I no one over 30 will know what the fuck is really going on.
    1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. 1
  5967. 1
  5968. 1
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. 1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. 1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995.  @simongold2739  Lol, I'm not convinced that that's your pfp. You sound more like a middle-aged man from the South. Give it up Cletus, I know you're there in front of the screen! (username checks out lol) Also, to entertain the gibberish you spouted: You're wrong. China's bureaucracy is enormous, especially because they have over 3x as many people as the United States. Corruption is rampant there, too. And even if it wasn't, your logic stops short of finding any real solution. If the government were small, what would stop Amazon from taking over every industry and then pricing things however it wants? What would stop Martin Shkreli from bringing insulin prices to $800+ per pen? What would stop companies from knowingly lending to people that didn't make enough to pay off the interest rates they advertised, causing a housing crash of 2008? Why are all conservatives so naive? You understand perfectly well that people are inherently self-interested, but suddenly when a company is formed, everyone is altruistic and prefers to spend its money to create new products, instead of taking the easy way and pocketing its income? Give me a fucking break. Even Apple hoardes its money offshore. Government needs to be bigger than companies. Otherwise, we'll slip back into the 1920's, with a few wealthy men working their employees to literal death and crushing any new business ventures because the government is too small to force them to stop. P.S. I need a source for your claim that teacher's unions are the biggest contributors. As of 2018, it was the Chamber of Commerce with the largest dollar amount.
    1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000. 1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. 1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. 1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. 1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071.  @kacperolkusz3985  You didn't just say that Poland and Russia are different and distant from each other— you ascribed ill-intention to Russian society as a whole. You called it purely hateful and purely spiteful. Again, despite the fact that you apparently don't have any connection to the country. It's especially shameful if you've taken time to study the culture, and come away with nothing but hatred yourself. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I've seen the glee that lights up some Polaks' eyes when they describe almost controlling Russia under Władysław III Waza. Your country doesn't want a peaceful existence, they want power and revenge, ironically a very spiteful thing. Multiple Polaks I've spoken to hold similar views— that Russians are sub-human, Asiatic, unable to form a society. No, I'm not lying. Sabotage isn't unique to Russia; if you think that your allies (and Poland itself) doesn't engage in it, then you're too naive to have this conversation. I don't know why you brought that up, so I'd like an explanation. The framing of Russia as uniquely ill-intentioned is simply incorrect. As for the Chechen War— I'm talking about the Second one. Several thousand Chechen troops invaded Dagestan in August 1999, and declared a jihad on Moscow. That's how the war started. Given how anti-Islam Polish people are, I'd at least expect you to sympathize with that. But I suspect you hate Russia even more than you hate threats to Christianity. Anyways— the first Chechen War was largely unprovoked, although mass ethnic cleansing of Russians isn't exactly something to sit by and let happen either. Regardless of whether or not you think it's justified, it warranted a response. The Chechens won the first war, and they could have kept to themselves. But no, they had to invade Russia. The Dagestanis weren't interested in joining their Transcaucasian Caliphate, and they were reabsorbed into Russia as punishment for trying to establish an Islamic State.
    1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110. 1
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 1
  6120. Lots of mistakes in your comment. First of all, it is an American fault that democracy wasn't installed. Washington DC sent their own economic advisors and political advisors to Moscow in 1991 to guide the new government policy. They were the ones who told Yeltsin's government what to do, so how is it "not their fault"? I can't say much about the second paragraph since it is all your opinion, but I can say this: Ukraine doesn't have a Gagarin, a Gogol (he was ukrainian, but all of his work is about Rus, so you will have to share him with us), a Bolshoi Theater, a Tetris, a Tchaikovsky, anything like that. Even if we use the ukrainian nationalist idea ("Russia only started in the 18th century!!"), it is still older than Germany, Italy, and the US. And in that time, it has produced a very distinct culture that is known worldwide. I don't know how it is the slavic soul since, after the Mongol invasion, Kiev was abandoned for centuries. It only started to rebuild and grow population under the Russian empire, when it was industrializing. Kiev is important not for anything it has on its own (what is kiev famous for? everyone knows Red Square, Lenin, St Basil), but only because of its relation to Russia. Before Russian invasion, Westerners only knew Kiev as a cheap vacation spot. You also ignore Novgorod, and its old traditions which exist to this day. The veche was older than the one in kiev, and novgorod was the founding city of rus. Same with Pskov veche. And then even in Imperial Russia, Zemskiy Sobor. And the original Boyar Duma under Peter I. Several forms of democracy. So I don't know what you mean when you say "ukraine did have democracy before unlike Russia". Both did. Not sure what makes Pozner "shady", could you give specific examples? Is it just because you don't agree with him? This isn't a "mistake', but it is your opinion presented as if it was fact. And the last part is the biggest problem. The West and countries who ally with can never acknowledge Russia to be a real country, because they would need to accept psychologically that there is a big neighbor right next to them, and that's scary. Even after the complete chaos of the 1990s, the mafias, the privatization, the oligarchs sending money earned by ordinary Russians to London and New York.... after all that pain and suffering, there are still ukrainian trying to make people forget or pretend it never happened. "made many mistakes"... what an insult. They destroyed Russian economy and life. You understand what it feels like to suffer, so why do you want us to? Why do you refuse to accept that Russia is a country and not just an evil? If the West treated us better in 1990s, if Yeltsin wasn't supported by Clinton... maybe Russia would be less aggressive now. But the West proved that it cannot ever be trusted. We gave it a chance to help, and they only hurt.
    1
  6121.  @stephenjenkins7971  "The US sent ADVISORS to Yeltsin, not governors or anything like that; ultimately the US couldn't do anything that Russia itself didn't want" Thank you for making it obvious you don't understand the history of that period. Yes, the US sent aDvIsOrs- but they effectively dictated Russia's new economic policy because, in case you forgot, there were no capitalists or free market economists to summon domestically! Russia, unlike China, had been truly stripped of any generational and institutional knowledge of how capitalism functioned. The US advisors, Harvard educated and working closely with the US Treasury, were all Russia had. " The US suggested for example that via privatization that Russia diversify its economy to multiple sectors and utilize the money garnered from that in other projects" No, it didn't. The main goals suggested by the US government officials and economists, for Russia were as follows (laid out by Jeffrey Sachs, 1 of the 4 Harvard economists): -Immediate price liberalization -Immediate tightening of money supply and subsidies to firms -Strong safety nets (e.g. the health care system) -Large-scale and timely foreign assistance -Commercialization of its enterprises by turning them into corporations with state ownership -Privatization quick but transparent and law-based -Large natural resource companies remain in state hands to ensure the Russian government received revenue. Nowhere in there was diversification or lateral expansion mentioned. The main goal was to get Russia's valuable assets out of the hands of state ownership and into private hands (which American companies stood to benefit massively from). It is a miracle the 7th point was followed, as the Soviet gas industries were almost privatized as well. Lukoil was a potential domino effect. "The US did not for a second expect the utter corruption in the process where massive sectors of the economy were sold for literal pennies leading to the oligarchs" Again, wrong. They became aware of that very early on, yet continued to give unconditional support to yeltsin. It was the economists, working at the same time with the US government, who created the privatization scheme to begin with. They pushed Yeltsin's team to give everyone a share of a state-owned firms. At the same time, they financed all this (since they had just sold all their assets) by printing more money, inflating the currency. The people, left with less money than before, sold off those shares (especially since, again- no societal knowledge of capitalism- they didn't know what they were meant to do with these coupons). The people who bought up those shares would become the oligarchs. The loans-for-shares scheme only accelerated this process- sham public auctions for the remaining companies were already decided- those oligarchs secretly agreed with Yeltsin to buy those shares, in exchange for money (to counter the hyperinflation they had caused themselves). "The US could not control or stop that" This is the problem. All of the previous behavior and enabling a drunkard to sell off everything could be forgivable, if the West had just been unaware of the consequences, and worked to fix them. But, instead... Clinton helped to rig the 1996 Russian Presidential election. By that time, his approval rating was around 6%, even lower than Stalin's. Clinton and his administration fought very hard to keep him in power- I remember the quote "I want this guy to win so bad, it hurts". He convinced the IMF to give Russia a $10B loan and funneled it into Yeltsin's campaign. The US also helped rig the election outright- 1M pro-Yeltsin Chechen votes in 1995, in the middle of the Chechen War? There were only 500K registered voters. The OSCE leader knew this, but was pressured to stay silent by the US. This is unforgivable, and 2016 was only a small repayment of their gift. "Kyiv is the origin of the Kyivan Rus" *Rus. The name 'Kyivan Rus' was invented in Russia in the 19th century (so, Kievan Rus). It was never describing a separate country or state, but a period in Russian history. Like Renaissance Italy, Victorian England, Kievan Rus. You ignored what I said. The only reason Kiev has that importance is because Russian Empire valued it. If not, it would have chosen another city to industrialize closer to the East. It was largely undeveloped until the industrial period, it never recovered from the Mongol invasion while Moscow and Novgorod did. Lvov too, but for a different reason (Poland, not Russia, invested in it). It also isn't the origin of the Kievan Rus- it existed before the Rus state, as a Slavic tribal settlement. The origin of Rus is Novgorod, its founding city. That is literally where Rurik started the country. "Idk anything about Pozner so whatever." So why did you bring it up, if you have no facts to show that you're right? Don't present your opinions like they're fact, add "in my opinion" or "I think" somwhere. "Bruh, what realm of existence do you live in where the West didn't acknowledge Russia as a country? If anything the West bent itself into pretzels for Russia trying to justify their actions" I live in the real world- the West condemned Russia for anything it did, while either doing the same things itself or continuing to partner with the US even as it did much worse things. How can, for example, the UK condemn Russia when it participated in the bombing of Iraqi civilians? If it believes that Russia broke a universal law, then it needs to apply it to itself. If it won't, then the law is not universal, and there is no reason Russia should follow it. The US caused this whole situation- see the last paragraphs- and kept trying to stop Russia's economic development. They blocked the sale of German car company Opel to Russia (remember about that "diversification" you were talking about? Wasn't the US recommending that??), and trying to block Nord Stream I and Turk Stream. "effectively what the Germans wanted of the Soviets in WWII" I don't agree with Russia's rhetoric in the war or the conflict itself, but this isn't the narrative it used. "Don't blame the West for Russia's actions." ...Bruh. You want me to write another book? There's even more that the US did. "even during Yeltsin, the so-called "puppet" of the West, he tried very hard to convince Clinton to split Europe between the US and Russia " That was during the end of his second Presidency, and even if it was at the very beginning, it doesn't matter. He allowed NATO to expand its jurisdiction eastwards. How is that imperialism? "the fundamental issue of Russian imperialism would remain a massive issue from which the likes of Poland and the Baltics; the closest victims of Russian imperialism, would never accept Russia." This is the fundamental problem. Russia isn't just doing it for prestige; it's for security. Poland understands this very well, its also flat, indefensible land and only gained security recently, when part of a bloc. But this doesn't erase the geographical realities, and it's still apparent for Russia, who would never be accepted into NATO (under "interoperability", Russia would be forced to only buy and use weapons from Lockheed and Raytheon, making them dependent on a faraway country- with a history of backstabbing- for its security). Until the US is kicked out of Europe, I see no possibility for stability in Europe. The potential for attack should be treated as attack, see Cuban Missile crisis if you think it's just Russian paranoia.
    1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. 1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. 1
  6147. 1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151. 1
  6152. 1
  6153. 1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 1
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. 1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. 1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. 1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. 1
  6195. 1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 1
  6202. 1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. 1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229.  @martinsriber7760  1) Yes, it does. Are you really that ignorant of history? There are Kurdish groups illegally occupying Syrian territory- right now, as we speak. It has split the country in two. The mere fact that Panama as a country even exists- conveniently having given the rights to the Panama Canal to the Americans for decades- is a product of the US' intervention in Colombian affairs. There were serious propositions and desires around the time of the Spanish-American War to fully annex Cuba, as Hawai'i sadly would be. Guantanamo Bay is still under US control, despite the US-backed Batista government being out of power and eliminated for decades. Where you get this naive, optimistic view of the US' activities, I don't know. Look to any US involvement after 1950, you will see photos identical to Ukraine-- yet no Western countries ever stop trade with, or denounces the US. I wonder why.... 2) All of those were off-limits, too, until the US kept expanding despite Sec. of State James Baker proposing an exchange to Gorbachev, where, if Germany gets to be re-unified, NATO jurisdiction would not expand past Germany, at all. Ukraine is 'off limits' for the exact same reason: getting surrounded by an organization specifically dedicated to encircling and economically and politically strangling you, is not a position any government would take. Clearly, it wasn't one Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, etc, took- yet they seem not to apply that understanding to anyone else. Self-centered to their very core. 3) Only France and UK develop their own- the other few countries just engage in a sharing program, making their use and freedom of modification restricted. The only country that could truly withstand a European nuclear conflict is the US, who is more than happy to spectate from behind the Atlantic. Russia and Europe both know their proximity forces them to be pragmatic. The US has no such needs. This is why it is not Ukraine that changes anything, but it represents more of the same- US expanding its hegemony, and all the problems that come with it. "that is its damn problem" I expect zero response from the US, then, if Russia ever decides to re-enact the Cuban missile crisis. If you think the US might object, could you explain why? After all, your side should agree: Cuba is a sovereign nation, it's just defending itself, if the US is afraid that is its own damn problem.
    1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. 1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. 1
  6241. 1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. 1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272. 1
  6273. 1
  6274. 1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308.  @hejiranyc  I find it strange that you mention not needing to kill yourself to succeed, when that's precisely what American capitalism's loudest cheerleaders--- (Gary Vaynerchuk, Casey Neistat, every Silicon Valley success story, MSNBC, Forbes regularly air stories about saving up $100,000s by not eating out at all for years, etc.) ---are most proud of. And your experience, especially as the child of business owners (most businesses fail, and no, yours didn't succeed because your parents worked the hardest- isn't that what you said didn't need to be done?), is very different to most of the US. Most immigrants have to, assuming your metaphor, kill themselves to make ends meet. Ever seen people working a contracting job, or construction, or farm labor? It's not a "middle path" by any means. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but your perspective on the economic mobility in the US is, well, given your age, not surprising but still disappointing. Oh, and about foreigners wanting to move to the US-- doesn't reflect what it's like at all. My parents thought life would be great here, too- but circumstances didn't line up despite hard work, and 2008 was the death blow. It's a brilliant piece of marketing- the US has made itself synonymous with "the place where you can have a new life", and in some ways that's true. But overall, the pace of life here is much faster than in most of the world (outside of East Asia), and there's little enjoyment outside of work. The entertainment you do get is corporatized (few non-business attractions outside of parks), and the general quality of life here is... meh. But by the time that immigrant realizes all this, it's too late. They have a job, family, and can't really leave. So the US benefits from their labor, and keeps pumping out the message: come one, come all! To ensnare new migrants. Even younger Iraqis fall for it, do they not realize they'd be helping the country that prompted them to want to leave in the first place?
    1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339.  @Lasse65  "I can very well tell the difference" Then why did you talk about Sweden, and imply that I was too? Why didn't you just point out the fact that they were similar from the start and go from there? You're not making a good case here, I still have reason to believe that you have the comprehension skills of a goldfish. Just admit you made a mistake lol, swallow your enormous pride. "Regardless of whether NATO pressured Finland or not, it is Finland's business... not NATO or Russia". Apparently you have the attention span of a goldfish, too. Are you hearing yourself? If it's only Finland's business, then the first part of your sentence is wrong! You're saying that its somehow only Finland's business even if NATO also pressured them? Well then it's not. It's either Finland's business, and neither can influence Finland's choice, or it isn't just Finland's business, and both NATO and Russia have free reign to influence all they want! The issue is you seem to be excusing NATO's behavior. So which is it? "I couldn't care less if Russia feels threatened" Ah, the selfish approach. Then why are you opposed to what Russia is doing right now? They're acting in their own interests, just like Sweden is. "Wants the protection of NATO IF we get involved in a war" You don't seem to understand the dynamic here. Russia is only expanding because the US is doing so, too. You might not care whether Russia feels threatened, but not even you can be so delusional and try to say that it doesn't actually feel that way. It does, and that is the reason for its aggressiveness. Disband NATO, and this will all be over in an instant. The presence of the US is inherently threatening (again, they are an imperialist countty with a long track record of destroying other countries) and Russia is rightfully weary of them getting closer to Russian borders. As someone who lives near a formerly imperial country, and Sweden itself being a former Empire, I would think you'd understand Russia's concerns. Same with China. Why control the Malacca Straits? Why invade Taiwan? Because of fear of the US trying to blockade them or invade them (something which, again, they have done many times before in nearby countries). You have the problem backwards. If Russia and China feel secure that the US will not attack them, they will feel no desire to expand. They do it to pre-emptively starve off a US attack. I did write "Letting the US closer to Russian borders"— NATO expanded first, not Russia. After the USSR collapsed, there was no reason to keep NATO around. Yet they stayed, and Russia felt threatened, so it decided to fortify against it. Also, land is zero-sum. Even if Russia goers closer to NATO, NATO now has a longer distance to travel to Moscow. The two parties don't exist in a vacuum. The reason I brought up those crimes by the US wasn't to discuss their legality. Are you slow? I was giving examples of past crimes that motivated Russia to prevent itself from becoming like them. My point was that all of those examples, legal or illegal, were what convinced Russia that the US could not be trusted even in a world without the USSR. All of those places (minus Syria, in the west) are shitholes, courtesy of the US and its NATO allies. This is why your organization must be disbanded. It has so far brought nothing but misery onto innocent nations.
    1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. 1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. 1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. 1
  6401. 1
  6402. 1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409.  @craigkdillon  While I agree that Russia could have used American hegemony as a once-in-history opportunity to spur its manufacturing and bring its momentum up to speed with the rest of the West, you're forgetting one thing: Free trade doesn't trump geography. Russia's ports, and cargo transit to other countries, might be guaranteed by the US. But that doesn't stop those same ports from bring frozen 9 months out of the year. Congress recently passed a budget resolution on icebreakers, costing $1B each. Imagine Russia trying to build a fleet to trade year-round, it would make their goods uncompetitive. When Russia was first independent, it was dealing with enormous capital flight and money laundering, due in part to the Americans whom they wrre apparently meant to trust. Add to that an invasion into Dagestan in 1999 (this is why Russia invaded Chechnya, btw) and collapsing oil prices, left Russia with little opportunity to take advantage of this economic situation. It was only after Putin came to power and used rising oil prices to his advantage that Russia became a 'threat' again. So you portray it as just Russia not doing the right thing, when there was no one single moment where they could do that. ..Maybe 2012? Even then, Russia's ability to project power in the Black Sea- and defend against Turkey, who was more than willing to bend NATO rules- was threatened by the expiry of the Crimea naval base. So, in a sense, Russia just needs better circumstances. Atm, all of its trade routes are implicitly threatened.
    1
  6410.  @craigkdillon  I agree with lots of what you said, but you have several oversights in your analysis. Firstly, while nations are what threaten other nations, you seem to separate them from geography like the two are in different bubbles. There is significant overlap between geography and how likely a nation is to be threatening to another. Egypt could be more diplomatic and trade with Ethiopia... but that will not change the fact that Ethiopia contains the source of the Blue Nile, and is a threat to Egypitan interests because it wants to dam the river. In terms of eastern Europe, yes of course their living standards have skyrocketed. But this all relies on a trade bloc. Central and eastern European goods are now competitive because there are no tariffs in the EU, and because they can make use of Spanish, French, Dutch etc. ports, since they're landlocked without them. And if the EU is torn apart by competing interests, between the Western countries and Poland's Międzymorze idea? Then we are back to the default: geography. In fact, the current system doesn't transcend the boundaries placed by geography, it heavily relies on them. Why is the US able to maintain a global order to 'free' other nations from their poor geography? Precisely because theirs happens to be perfect. It all comes back to that. The choice between "empire vs. free trade" wasn't created in a vacuum. To that point, your analysis also seems to rely on the Bretton-Woods (free trade) system... existing forever? To suggest that international agreements don't last forever isn't exactly crazy, especially when this one relies on America maintaining its economy and military for the next several thousand years. I can't say exactly what will change, but this system will not last. Maybe it is a climate crisis that makes most of the US unlivable, maybe it is an isolationist political movement, maybe it is social upheaval, maybe it is overcrowding of world powers and shrinking of the need, or even desire, for the US to guarantee everyone's security, but this cannot last. The way I see it is this: through a metaphor- governments can certainly work out all the little details, but the larger brushstrokes are determined by geography. The Pentagon doesn't need to spend enormous amounts on a land led army, like Russia or India, or navy, like China. Their budget was historically put to domestic policies because they were afforded that opportunity... being surrounded by oceans. Government is the spark, but geography is the gunpowder.
    1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. 1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. 1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425. 1
  6426. 1
  6427. 1
  6428. 1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 1
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439. 1
  6440. 1
  6441. 1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. 1
  6449. 1
  6450. 1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455. 1
  6456. 1
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. 1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. 1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. 1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. 1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492. 1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. 1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526. 1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532. 1
  6533. 1
  6534. 1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1