American Politics Discussion Thread

[BING_XI_LAO]

I think most people 8 years ago saw that Russia was at least considering this option then. I'm sure his timing has a dozen reasons behind it (pipeline, Covid, after Olympics, before US midterms, ect) Again, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are backed by Russia. Financially, equipment, and most are pretty certain their are Russia special forces involved. Russia WANTS this war. Its not a need, its not a demand that somehow organically grew. Russia has the power to stop. The party with the power is responsible (just as US was responsible for Iraq).

Ukraine also could have gone for negotiations regarding autonomy and independence. It chose to remain in military conflict all this time instead.
And I'm still not sure if you or anyone has explained why a Russian-populated region shouldn't be ruled by Russia? At least now that the Ukraine has defined itself apart from Russia and downgraded the language?

[Mjmd]

When you do you stop history and say "these people are xxx ethnicity and they and wherever they are should be mine forever". When does a history stop and we say "it should be this way forever". Ukraine isn't real because it wasn't that way in year "x". Things should be a way and we should bloodily make it so? At what point does oppression mean a foreign entity gets to go guns blazing in? At some point? Genocide certainly, but where is the line? Financing, arming a rebellion, and sending your troops in to fight it and then saying you are protecting the people rebelling is WELL below the line. Its propaganda. What about the OTHER people who live there? There is no good war, only wars that have to be fought. This one doesn't have to be.

A lot of the west is very lenient on Israel. They cry "we are just defending ourselves" while they take land and then wonder why the Palestinians are angry. Who has the power? Israel clearly. Its important to understand a lot of history is about power.

You obviously have a VERY strong entrenched viewpoint. Nothing we say will matter, so we should probably move on at this point.

Back to betting:
1, 2 or 3 people.

[Charriu]

I think most people 8 years ago saw that Russia was at least considering this option then. I'm sure his timing has a dozen reasons behind it (pipeline, Covid, after Olympics, before US midterms, ect) Again, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are backed by Russia. Financially, equipment, and most are pretty certain their are Russia special forces involved. Russia WANTS this war. Its not a need, its not a demand that somehow organically grew. Russia has the power to stop. The party with the power is responsible (just as US was responsible for Iraq).

And I'm still not sure if you or anyone has explained why a Russian-populated region shouldn't be ruled by Russia?

There are a lot of Italians living in New York. Therefore New York should be ruled by Italy!

[AdrienIer]

I think most people 8 years ago saw that Russia was at least considering this option then. I'm sure his timing has a dozen reasons behind it (pipeline, Covid, after Olympics, before US midterms, ect) Again, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are backed by Russia. Financially, equipment, and most are pretty certain their are Russia special forces involved. Russia WANTS this war. Its not a need, its not a demand that somehow organically grew. Russia has the power to stop. The party with the power is responsible (just as US was responsible for Iraq).

And I'm still not sure if you or anyone has explained why a Russian-populated region shouldn't be ruled by Russia?

There are a lot of Italians living in New York. Therefore New York should be ruled by Italy!

Negociations for Alsace and Moselle too ? They don't abide by the 1905 separation of church and state law (which I find unacceptable personally), so we might as well give them back to you guys.

[AdrienIer]

But your kind only deserves to be put behind bars, not be invited to polite debates.

I totally agree with Adrienler. Being tolerant to the intolerant is the death of tolerance.

No, that just makes you no better than those you claim to oppose.  This is just might-makes-right.

You combat speech you don't like in the marketplace of ideas and free discourse.  Not by banning it.  That just makes you what you seek to destroy.

The people on the "right side of history" are usually those advocating freedom and liberty, not destruction and silence.

I was in the mind to not answer those who'd definitely be on the nazi's side if they were to start armed violence somewhere but I'll make an exception for this post. It's a broad question that's at the heart of european vs north american ideological differences.

First of all, whenever you're debating with someone it means that you're ready to lose a debate with them (not necessarily on the merits of the debate but also on the rhetoric aspect, and of your own skill as a debator). We've seen how that can go in november 1932 (and with the nazi getting less than a third of the votes). So that cannot happen again. It's also a mistake to see all debates as fair : the far right doesn't debate fairly, they bring up absolute lies (it used to be that jews are the root of all problems, now you can see in this very thread a magnificent example with "a third of muslims in France are islamists") and using the fact that most people don't know much about the subject to confuse them.

Secondly I think it's pretty hypocritical of north americans to advocate for total freedom of speech when you're literally not allowed to enter US soil if you admit to being an anarchist (I remember an ESTA form from the late 00s with that question). Also I remember the US right after 9/11 where not supporting various wars was considered treason by pretty much everyone. My family had just arrived there for a year, and we were told by neighbors to put an american flag on our door or people would be angry at us. If that's your definition of freedom and liberty, you can keep it we don't want it here.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Things should be a way and we should bloodily make it so? At what point does oppression mean a foreign entity gets to go guns blazing in? At some point? Genocide certainly, but where is the line? What about the OTHER people who live there? There is no good war, only wars that have to be fought. This one doesn't have to be.

I totally agree, Ukraine shouldn't be using force against the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics! Fortunately Russia has stepped in to the put an end to Ukraine's aggression.

You obviously have a VERY strong entrenched viewpoint. Nothing we say will matter, so we should probably move on at this point.

No U

Back to betting:
1, 2 or 3 people.

I'm going with just moving into the two republics. Can't wait for Taiwan next

[BING_XI_LAO]

There are a lot of Italians living in New York. Therefore New York should be ruled by Italy!

If New York was physically right next to Italy, if the Italians had been there for ages instead of being recent immigrants, and if the US began pursuing anti-Italian policies then why the hell not?

[BING_XI_LAO]

"can't cope with free debate" is probably the worst take you could have on this situation.

I was in the mind to not answer those who'd definitely be on the nazi's side

Quod erat demonstrandum.

the far right doesn't debate fairly, they bring up absolute lies (it used to be that jews are the root of all problems, now you can see in this very thread a magnificent example with "a third of muslims in France are islamists")

You should give me the benefit of the doubt that if I got it wrong, it wasn't on purpose. Failing to give me the benefit of the doubt demonstrates yet another failure of liberals to sustain open and sincere debate. Also, getting passive-aggressive and replying indirectly is an unmanly act of cowardice.

I actually just guessed the "one third" number, but it seems accurate now that I check.
Do you think this poll is wrong? Since you can read French you'll have an easier time sourcing alternative data than me.
https://www.valeursactuelles.com/societe...mmunautes/

If "one-third of French muslims are Islamist" is a Nazi lie then what is the actual figure, why didn't you post your view on it?

and using the fact that most people don't know much about the subject to confuse them.

When I bring up niche stuff like the Nagorno-Karabakh war it's not to confuse people, it's because I have faith in their ability to figure it out using google, if they find it interesting. And because a lot of the argument on this kind of topic is about basic worldview, context and framing, which makes such discursions appropriate.

Also because many liberals are bourgeois snobs, to be honest - I do flex my English a bit to pre-emptively block them from posing as intellectually superior..

[Mjmd]

I for one am done with Bing in this thread. War is not to be taken this lightly.

[Charriu]

But your kind only deserves to be put behind bars, not be invited to polite debates.

I totally agree with Adrienler. Being tolerant to the intolerant is the death of tolerance.

No, that just makes you no better than those you claim to oppose.  This is just might-makes-right.

You combat speech you don't like in the marketplace of ideas and free discourse.  Not by banning it.  That just makes you what you seek to destroy.

The people on the "right side of history" are usually those advocating freedom and liberty, not destruction and silence.

This is what happened in many european countries in the 1920s and 1930s. They were tolerant towards enemies of democracy (facist, communists etc.). In the end that tolerance helped bring down democracy and with that the freedoms and tolerance it should provide. This is not a critic, I'm just curious. How would you have dealt with them in that time period?