The Russia-Ukraine Situation

[Glurin]

You're just flailing about wildly now. But lets get at least one thing straight here.

So what on your earlier list do you think is most indicative of political instability?

All of it. It's good that you've recognized political instability as an aspect of weakness, but you're still trying to narrow down abstract concepts to one specific action, event or person. For example, maybe the election of a senile old fart who can barely manage to string a coherent sentence together with help from a teleprompter as president was the trigger that made Putin think now is the time. But it would hardly be the one and only reason in and of itself for Putin to think the U.S., or any other nation for that matter, had become too weak to oppose him.

 

[snickersnack]

You're just flailing about wildly now. But lets get at least one thing straight here.


All of it. It's good that you've recognized political instability as an aspect of weakness, but you're still trying to narrow down abstract concepts to one specific action, event or person. For example, maybe the election of a senile old fart who can barely manage to string a coherent sentence together with help from a teleprompter as president was the trigger that made Putin think now is the time. But it would hardly be the one and only reason in and of itself for Putin to think the U.S., or any other nation for that matter, had become too weak to oppose him.

Hmmmmm. That wasn't on your list.

 

[Noodle]

 

[Noodle]

That's really all you need to know about the neo-fascist death cult that calls itself the Republican Party.

 

[Flan]

You're just flailing about wildly now. But lets get at least one thing straight here.


All of it. It's good that you've recognized political instability as an aspect of weakness, but you're still trying to narrow down abstract concepts to one specific action, event or person. For example, maybe the election of a senile old fart who can barely manage to string a coherent sentence together with help from a teleprompter as president was the trigger that made Putin think now is the time. But it would hardly be the one and only reason in and of itself for Putin to think the U.S., or any other nation for that matter, had become too weak to oppose him.

Do you want a hamberder with your covfefe? TFG was such a master of the English language.

 

[snickersnack]

You're silly. You're choosing again to argue with me about something that I don't care about.

@Glurin You know, I was thinking about this today, and I started to doubt it. I reread the thread, and I couldn't find where you had clearly done something similar. My apologies; you have them.

 

[Talga Vasternich]

That's really all you need to know about the neo-fascist death cult that calls itself the Republican Party.

Intentionally skewed, misleading chart for the win!
Unless an administration official is charged with a crime for acts while in office, it’s not always easy to identify which indictments can be connected to a presidential administration; some administration officials have been indicted for acts in the private sector, some indicted people were involved in presidential campaigns but didn’t work in the administration, etc.
Your claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians. One man, Paul Manafort had a total of 48 charges against him (for tax and bank fraud - nothing relating to his duties in the administration, btw). But ultimately he faced 25 charges: He went on trial for 18 and was found guilty of 8 of them, then faced 7 more charges, of which he pleaded guilty to two.
That being said...
Thanks for helping be a shining example of the topic of political polarization.
Both Republicans and Democrats are awful. Pointing fingers at one or the other goes a long way towards reinforcing the concept of weakness through division.

 

[snickersnack]

Intentionally skewed, misleading chart for the win!
Unless an administration official is charged with a crime for acts while in office, it’s not always easy to identify which indictments can be connected to a presidential administration; some administration officials have been indicted for acts in the private sector, some indicted people were involved in presidential campaigns but didn’t work in the administration, etc.
Your claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians. One man, Paul Manafort had a total of 48 charges against him. But ultimately he faced 25 charges: He went on trial for 18 and was found guilty of 8 of them, then faced 7 more charges, of which he pleaded guilty to two.
That being said...
Thanks for helping be a shining example of the topic of political polarization.

Can you post an accurate chart?

Both Republicans and Democrats are awful. Pointing fingers at one or the other goes a long way towards reinforcing the concept of weakness through division.

To be clear, though, the elected officials are just the avatars of the people*. I think the division lies pretty deep, but not so deep that it can't be fixed.

Does mass media influence people or does it just give them what they want? YES.

Edit: * well, the people and the moneyed interests...

 

[Talga Vasternich]

Can you post an accurate chart?

Nope.
Well, I likely could, but have no desire to do so. The research into criminal activity performed by individuals in specific administrations is a fool's errand since an overwhelmingly large majority of actual criminal activity is covered up to protect the guilty, with an occasional sacrifice to make people believe they're policing themselves.

To be clear, though, the elected officials are just the avatars of the people*. I think the division lies pretty deep, but not so deep that it can't be fixed.

Does mass media influence people or does it just give them what they want? YES.

Edit: * well, the people and the moneyed interests...

The way this has been working for decades is that the elected officials, by way of the wealthy, set the course for the people, not the other way around.
These divisions cannot be fixed as they are useful tools for the rich and powerful to keep the general populace un-united.
Getting back to the thread, does anyone really think that, before the massing of Russian troops at the Ukraine border, the average Russian cared one bit about the Ukraine? Now they're dying so the oligarchs can make more money.

 

[Glurin]

Getting back to the thread, does anyone really think that, before the massing of Russian troops at the Ukraine border, the average Russian cared one bit about the Ukraine?

Doubt it. And even if they did, I doubt they'd really know why they should or what should really be done about it. That's usually the way it goes with most countries.

 

[Noodle]

Intentionally skewed, misleading chart for the win!
Unless an administration official is charged with a crime for acts while in office, it’s not always easy to identify which indictments can be connected to a presidential administration; some administration officials have been indicted for acts in the private sector, some indicted people were involved in presidential campaigns but didn’t work in the administration, etc.
Your claim exaggerates the number of indictments under Trump, in particular, by counting the number of criminal charges filed, rather than the number of people indicted; and it includes the indictments of people who are not part of his administration, such as 25 Russians. One man, Paul Manafort had a total of 48 charges against him (for tax and bank fraud - nothing relating to his duties in the administration, btw). But ultimately he faced 25 charges: He went on trial for 18 and was found guilty of 8 of them, then faced 7 more charges, of which he pleaded guilty to two.
That being said...
Thanks for helping be a shining example of the topic of political polarization.
Both Republicans and Democrats are awful. Pointing fingers at one or the other goes a long way towards reinforcing the concept of weakness through division.

Assuming a false moral equivalency between outright xenophobia and alarm over said xenophobia is incredibly naive and pedantic.

 

[snickersnack]

The way this has been working for decades is that the elected officials, by way of the wealthy, set the course for the people, not the other way around.
These divisions cannot be fixed as they are useful tools for the rich and powerful to keep the general populace un-united.

I think it's more accurate to say that they will not be fixed than it is to say that they cannot be fixed. Most likely, they won't be fixed in my lifetime, but cannot? That sounds like certainty based on partial information. From your perspective, I probably sound naive, ofc.

I won't derail further.

 

[superdave]

Yeah! **** Zelensky for not wearing his war suit! Every leader should have a war suit when in the middle of a war that hundreds of civilians and soliders are dying in! Someone get that bitch an Armani!!

If I roll my eyes any harder, in gonna see the inside of my skull.

His 80's Adidas track suit was at the cleaners.

 

[snickersnack]

Some interesting reading: https://www.investopedia.com/articl...kes-its-money-and-why-it-doesnt-make-more.asp

An alert reader might notice that US defense spending is roughly half of Russia's GDP.

 

[Glurin]

An alert reader might notice that US defense spending is roughly half of Russia's GDP.

In and of itself though, having a very large defense budget isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a very good thing and one of the only things government actually should be doing. However, like most other issues, there's still lots of room for cuts because the problem isn't really in how much is being spent but rather where it's going. For example, why the **** are we spending over $1,000 per item for an airplane part that we could probably get around the corner at any run of the mill machine shop for thirty bucks retail? Oh, you're going to pull the old "it's a precision instrument" bit? Ok then, a specialty machine shop for fifty bucks retail.

It should also be noted for anyone who didn't bother looking that the article is about how Russia's GDP is far below it's potential, and is in fact lower than the GDP of several much smaller nations with far fewer resources.

 

[snickersnack]

In and of itself though, having a very large defense budget isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a very good thing and one of the only things government actually should be doing. However, like most other issues, there's still lots of room for cuts because the problem isn't really in how much is being spent but rather where it's going. For example, why the **** are we spending over $1,000 per item for an airplane part that we could probably get around the corner at any run of the mill machine shop for thirty bucks retail? Oh, you're going to pull the old "it's a precision instrument" bit? Ok then, a specialty machine shop for fifty bucks retail.

It should also be noted for anyone who didn't bother looking that the article is about how Russia's GDP is far below it's potential, and is in fact lower than the GDP of several much smaller nations with far fewer resources.

I didn't mean to imply that the US defense budget is too high, nor necessarily that Russia's GDP is too low (which it kind of is, as you pointed out), but rather that the disparity is stark. I think that simple fact is pretty interesting.

 

[krischan]

Our small thank-you for the mediation of a new member.

Your NATO marketing team.

 

[snickersnack]

Our small thank-you for the mediation of a new member.

Your NATO marketing team.

Unfortunately, admission to NATO requires unanimous consent, right?

I'm thinking about Turkey and Hungary...

 

[superdave]

Unfortunately, admission to NATO requires unanimous consent, right?

I'm thinking about Turkey and Hungary...

Kick both out and let Sweden and Finland in.

 

[krischan]

The NATO treaty doesn't have a passage about kicking out member states, but, all the others could leave NATO and start a new alliance.