American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

Its amazing how every conversation we have ends up like this. Its almost as if you are trying to change the topic of conversation! Seriously its almost as if this is some kind of logical fallacy that you constantly do in every argument we have.

LoL. Hello? It is me who always keep to the straight and narrow and not give you wiggle room to go off on the tangent. It is me who say you troll the green guy all over the places and end up talking about nothing. And it is you who always throw these fallacy BS around. I am only giving you a taste of your own medicine. But yea, I should stop that before people lump us together and label me nuts too.

You realize there was also leaked Chinese documentation as well? (Xinjiang Papers is a good google search on) BUT ITS ALL FAKE!!!!.

If it is all fake, it wouldn’t matter if you label it leaked. It doesn’t make the fakes more creditable to anyone capable of critical thought. It’s funny how you claim any source from China is not reliable, but use “leaked” or “sources from China” when it’s convenient.

Yes its a Perun video. He does great work. AND AND AND. SOURCES LISTED. About 30 of them including some from Chinese media.

It doesn’t make the fakes (nor you) more creditable to anyone capable of critical thought.

It doesn't make them morally ok, but it might be the right thing to do for you country.

Hence the evil empire. I already mentioned that a few posts back. Perhaps you should take the time to read what I’ve written and learn from it instead of arguing just for the sake of it.

Charr Babies
We can all be excused for serving our own masters and call it patriotism, but, has it ever occur to you that we might be the evil empire?

I notice you aren't going to address my geopolitical argument vs moral argument

^ Read above
Besides, you are not obligated to engage with what I say just as you have done so. If I have nothing to add or engage you on a topic of your choice under your narrative, I don’t have to. And most of the time I do it to keep you from wandering off on a tangent.

The very existence of NATO, with its founding principle is to threaten the then Soviet Union, now Russia. And let's not beat around the bush: NATO is US expansion. Nothing happens without an okay from the mafia boss. So yes, the US can attack Russia, but why risk a nuclear war when we have pawns to sacrifice?

As to why yada yada Poland and yada yada Finland, I am not an armchair general like yourself. I might have some ideas, but I am not going to pretend I know the ever-changing tactics and strategies of an ongoing war. You are going off on a tangent again.

I say that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is due to US’s NeoColonial Expansion. I don’t remember judging it on geopolitical or moral grounds.

realize your god hero Trump is the one doing the neocolonial talk right?

I just said this on the last post

Charr Babies
Yes, Trump should be on Mt. Rushmore, and I'd like to propose we erect Biden statues across the country too. hopefully they will promote meaningful discussions and education about history, ethics, social justice and genocide. It encourages us to critically evaluate their past and learn from it; and to spit on. What do you think, good idea?

Unlike you, I have no prejudice - Trump or Biden, piss on them both. 
Which part of the “spit on” didnt you get!?!?!? You are showing signs of desperation using this “your god hero Trump “ on me 

Still, REALLY!?!?

[greenline]

Trump's plan for Gaza is actually Good, conceptually. It is firmly dumpstering the one state and two state solutions as unrealistic, because they are. Both Palestinians and Israelis proved themselves unwilling to ever accept it. So, because Israel has proved that it can (slowly) obliterate Hamas, they get to keep the land. Palestinians get to safely move somewhere else. The abused Mediterranean beaches can be cleaned up and made into places people might actually want to visit. I believe Trump can make it happen this time, given how DOGE has annihilated my low expectations in just a couple of weeks.

PS: Russian propaganda guy, Gaza is going to be a dead issue in a year or less, time to start fishing for better talking points

[Charr Babies]

Trump's plan for Gaza is actually Good, conceptually. It is firmly dumpstering the one state and two state solutions as unrealistic, because they are. Both Palestinians and Israelis proved themselves unwilling to ever accept it. So, because Israel has proved that it can (slowly) obliterate Hamas, they get to keep the land. Palestinians get to safely move somewhere else. The abused Mediterranean beaches can be cleaned up and made into places people might actually want to visit. I believe Trump can make it happen this time, given how DOGE has annihilated my low expectations in just a couple of weeks.

PS: Russian propaganda guy, Gaza is going to be a dead issue in a year or less, time to start fishing for better talking points

I can't help it since I am paid by the Russian propaganda machine, as you have exposed me. 

Awesome news that Gaza is going to be a dead issue in a year or less. Will we have world peace in two years? 

I am going to copy the link to this post and and put it on my calendar for next year. Thanks for the good tidings  

Unless you meant the genocide will continue till everyone is dead when you say dead issue

[Mjmd]

Yes the straight and narrow. We clearly have only been only on Ukraine  the topic I first posted about. Like this is an easy fact check, you can go back 4 posts and see you IMMEDIATELY deviated and introduced other subjects. That was YOU not ME. If you want to go back to JUST Ukraine I'm fine with that.

Shockingly I don't trust government state run medias as much as you do. Israel doesn't say its committing genocide, do you believe them? Obviously not (nor should you). Most countries in the moment they are committing genocide shockingly deny it! However, there is plenty of free press western media that does cover that tragedy that you believe on THAT issue, but will happily not other times even if there is good evidence because maybe just maybe you are biased toward Russia and China. But satellite imagery maybe you trust that? https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/map/ ? If you think they are faking that you can always buy your own satellite images although that is a bit costly for the average joe (couple K is my understanding).

You just say "America bad" over and over again. Which isn't false. It doesn't make "others good". This is an easy logical fallacy. If I say Russia was morally wrong to invade Ukraine and your counter argument is "America did all these other bad things", America doing bad things still doesn't make Russia bad thing correct. And as a reminder that is exactly how this argument has gone. 

The existence of NATO is because individually most of the European nations can't stand up to Russia solo. Most of them also don't have nukes. To deter invasion a defensive alliance works pretty well (also to prevent nuclear proliferation). A lot of those states again have GOOD reason to fear Russian invasion and want to avoid that. Again, Russia has nukes and prior to Ukraine invasion had a very powerful and (supposedly) capable army. How much danger was it in? How many nuclear states have suffered from full scale invasions and been defeated by an outside entity? So what was the "threat"? What level of "threat" justifies invading another country (on moral grounds to be clear as geopolitically you can always find "A reason")? Please do answer these. This actual relates to the original argument and these questions are all very relevant.

How much control does the US have over NATO? Some amount of influence certainly. But when we say stupid things (see recent events) its pretty clear we don't control them when they denounce what we say. Do they always vote with us in the UN? No. Do they always obediently do the same things we want to do? No. Again, there objective fact based events where you can look at NATO going against the US, so saying "NATO IS US neo colonial expansion" is shall we say "click baity" at best. Sphere of influence, ya ok, but these are all democracies and could choose which sphere of influence they wanted to be in. They evidently felt that the US was the lesser of the two evils. Morally this sounds better to let countries choose than to have them be invaded and a puppet government installed. And obviously geopolitically its good to have the strongest alliance network to have ever existed even if it has limits and isn't the most controllable.

I mean a lot of people legit think Trump should be on Mt Rushmore and sarcasm is hard to catch over typed word. Also, erecting statues of people is usually NOT a way for meaningful discussions about history. So ya I did miss what you were trying to say with this part. 

Please do answer those questions I asked about above when you inevitably answer. Try to do so in a way that sticks to the question.

[Charr Babies]

Yes the straight and narrow. We clearly have only been only on Ukraine  the topic I first posted about. Like this is an easy fact check, you can go back 4 posts and see you IMMEDIATELY deviated and introduced other subjects. That was YOU not ME. If you want to go back to JUST Ukraine I'm fine with that.

Shockingly I don't trust government state run medias as much as you do. Israel doesn't say its committing genocide, do you believe them? Obviously not (nor should you). Most countries in the moment they are committing genocide shockingly deny it! However, there is plenty of free press western media that does cover that tragedy that you believe on THAT issue, but will happily not other times even if there is good evidence because maybe just maybe you are biased toward Russia and China. But satellite imagery maybe you trust that? https://xjdp.aspi.org.au/map/ ? If you think they are faking that you can always buy your own satellite images although that is a bit costly for the average joe (couple K is my understanding).

You just say "America bad" over and over again. Which isn't false. It doesn't make "others good". This is an easy logical fallacy. If I say Russia was morally wrong to invade Ukraine and your counter argument is "America did all these other bad things", America doing bad things still doesn't make Russia bad thing correct. And as a reminder that is exactly how this argument has gone. 

The existence of NATO is because individually most of the European nations can't stand up to Russia solo. Most of them also don't have nukes. To deter invasion a defensive alliance works pretty well (also to prevent nuclear proliferation). A lot of those states again have GOOD reason to fear Russian invasion and want to avoid that. Again, Russia has nukes and prior to Ukraine invasion had a very powerful and (supposedly) capable army. How much danger was it in? How many nuclear states have suffered from full scale invasions and been defeated by an outside entity? So what was the "threat"? What level of "threat" justifies invading another country (on moral grounds to be clear as geopolitically you can always find "A reason")? Please do answer these. This actual relates to the original argument and these questions are all very relevant.

How much control does the US have over NATO? Some amount of influence certainly. But when we say stupid things (see recent events) its pretty clear we don't control them when they denounce what we say. Do they always vote with us in the UN? No. Do they always obediently do the same things we want to do? No. Again, there objective fact based events where you can look at NATO going against the US, so saying "NATO IS US neo colonial expansion" is shall we say "click baity" at best. Sphere of influence, ya ok, but these are all democracies and could choose which sphere of influence they wanted to be in. They evidently felt that the US was the lesser of the two evils. Morally this sounds better to let countries choose than to have them be invaded and a puppet government installed. And obviously geopolitically its good to have the strongest alliance network to have ever existed even if it has limits and isn't the most controllable.

I mean a lot of people legit think Trump should be on Mt Rushmore and sarcasm is hard to catch over typed word. Also, erecting statues of people is usually NOT a way for meaningful discussions about history. So ya I did miss what you were trying to say with this part. 

Please do answer those questions I asked about above when you inevitably answer. Try to do so in a way that sticks to the question.

TL;DR: I am guessing - The gist of it is that you often go off on tangents and give me a wall of text, trying to steer the conversation under your narrative. 

This is your first post on  this thread

Ah the hypocrisy is back. I didn't miss it. I wonder why Ukraine who got genocided would want to willingly and of its own free will join a defensive alliance against the people who genocided it. You (correctly) call out when the US is being an asshole, but when Russia or China are assholes you go "its totally justified". Countries switching which orbit they are in IS NOT a justification for war. Not when we do, not when others do it. Calling it "US expansion" is definitely some good propaganda at work. Its a bunch of eastern bloc countries who's main commonality is not wanting to be under Russia control again joining a defensive alliance. US influence sure, but its not anywhere close to the subservience of Russian puppet states. But don't worry Trump is working really hard to decrease US influence over NATO. Alliances aren't important (I feel like I have to add a note that this is sarcasm).
My understanding is while Boris Johnson did talk to Ukraine, but Ukrainians were already pretty sure they weren't doing. Basically because the same reasons peace now is hard to achieve. Russia wants Ukraine ripe for another future war (can't join NATO AND they want them de-arm), Ukraine wants security guarantees this won't happen again and to keep its military. Positions need to be close for peace and they aren't.

Right from the start, your twisting words and reality shows your insincerity for a fair conversation.  

I wonder why Ukraine who got genocided would want to willingly and of its own free will join a defensive alliance against the people who genocided it. 

You are the master of twisting words. What a clever twist (Bravos) from “peace negotiation” to “join a defensive alliance against the people who genocided it”
Besides, that is a red herring fallacy. Whether Ukraine wants peace talks or not is irrelevant to why Biden gets to decide IF and how Ukraine can pursue them. There is no end to your logical fallacies, is there?
Jon Stewart THRASHES Biden HYPOCRISY On Israel, Russia 0:20-2:23

Hypocrisy is committing genocide in Gaza while taking time out to accuse genocide in Xinjiang
I am still waiting for your photos of concentration camps you promised that proves genocide in Tibet.
When you concoct some funky calculations and prosecuted Trump for genocide and with more severity than Biden… I think I have said enough
There is substantial evidence and solid arguments that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is to stop US expansion. There are plenty of explainers on youtube, as well in the Carlson interview with Putin. All free to watch.
Why did Biden warn Ukraine about Russia, yet over and over again emphasized that the US would not deploy troops on the ground? Imagine warning your brother that a bully is going to beat him up, while also repeatedly assuring the bully that you won't join in the fight? Provocation, maybe?
The Russia-Ukraine conflict: Same reason why China fought to retain North Korea, same reason why we didn’t let Russia setup in Cuba
Your refusal to acknowledge the facts and instead cling to your own beliefs is a clear example of willful ignorance

And WOW!!! A satellite photo of building proves genocide!? There are also satellite photo of these community housing claiming they see missile silos. Let's just pretend those building in your photos are detention camps, how does it prove genocide. Why are you so gullible. 

You are just wasting my time.





I believe I have answered all your questions in the reply and my subsequent posts. I am not that green guy you can troll all over the places and get him dazed and confused.  

I am satisfy with my answers relevant to my topic.

If you want to talk about the weather go ahead and start your own thread.

[Mjmd]

I was responding to each individual thing YOU brought up.

The first post is just on Ukraine. Do you find it insincere that your next post then introduces other topics? I know you can't actually do an argument on JUST Ukraine so you are trying to distract. I will note you answered 0 of my questions. If you can't win the argument just insult me is a typical move. I'm only surprised it didn't come up sooner.

That site has PLENTY of other evidence you can look through. And prisons are quite a bit different looking than "buildings". Its not like a concentration of prisons in an ethnic area is suspicious at all. Just ignore it and move on. Call them "buildings" and "reeducation camps for their own good". So maybe take a look at said "buildings" before just dismissing the information. Maybe wonder why you instantly are defending this and "doing your normal thorough impartial review of the data".

You answered 0 of my Ukraine related questions. You know the topic the original argument was on. Here they are again numbered so you can easily respond in a more organized fashion.
1) How many nuclear states have suffered from full scale invasions and been defeated by an outside entity?
2) How much / what type of danger was Russia in pre Ukraine invasion? What was the threat?
3) What level of "threat" justifies invading another country (on moral grounds to be clear as geopolitically you can always find "A reason")?

[Charr Babies]

I was responding to each individual thing YOU brought up.

The first post is just on Ukraine. Do you find it insincere that your next post then introduces other topics? I know you can't actually do an argument on JUST Ukraine so you are trying to distract. I will note you answered 0 of my questions. If you can't win the argument just insult me is a typical move. I'm only surprised it didn't come up sooner.

That site has PLENTY of other evidence you can look through. And prisons are quite a bit different looking than "buildings". Its not like a concentration of prisons in an ethnic area is suspicious at all. Just ignore it and move on. Call them "buildings" and "reeducation camps for their own good". So maybe take a look at said "buildings" before just dismissing the information. Maybe wonder why you instantly are defending this and "doing your normal thorough impartial review of the data".

You answered 0 of my Ukraine related questions. You know the topic the original argument was on. Here they are again numbered so you can easily respond in a more organized fashion.
1) How many nuclear states have suffered from full scale invasions and been defeated by an outside entity?
2) How much / what type of danger was Russia in pre Ukraine invasion? What was the threat?
3) What level of "threat" justifies invading another country (on moral grounds to be clear as geopolitically you can always find "A reason")?

1 - Off topic. Nice try.  Irrelevant, when have we been invaded? Who would dare? Not even the Japanese if they knew we can get nukes in time to bomb them, even though that wasn't necessary. But, we are scared shitless of the Russians setting up camp in Cuba
2 - Same threat as we felt about Cuba ( I must have said that hundreds of time)
3 - Depend on which PoS is in charge. There was no threat to the US, we are half a world away, and yet bloody jo try to kill the Palestinian off

I will no long respond to your desperate struggles to win a point in this thread. 

 Don't waste my time

[Mjmd]

1) When has RUSSIA been invaded since they obtained nukes? Are they / were they likely to be invaded by NATO? The simple answer is NO. Again, this is where Putins logic easily falls apart. Nukes = people don't attack you.
2) I mean we thought about it, but we didn't do it. As a reminder tech has come A LONG ways since then. With nuke armed subs it doesn't really matter anymore. I've said this a hundred times too. Also, Russia also had NO proof the US would put nukes in Ukraine. That is far different from actual nukes going into Cuba even if these scenarios were equivalent (which again they aren't).
3) Ya that isn't moral though. Again, you are distracting from the Ukraine Russia war that is the topic; the normal theme with you. Yes people can always find a reason to kill each other, but that doesn't mean we should. This is a serious and hard question. But for purpose of this argument an uncertain threat when you have nukes to protect yourself almost certainly falls WELL below a moral threshold to start a war and start killing people. This really isn't that hard to see.

[darrelljs]

Mjmd, you are supposed to tease trolls, not feed them. It's way more fun, and way less pointless.

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

Mjmd, you are supposed to tease trolls, not feed them.  It's way more fun, and way less pointless.

Darrell

 

At least he shows some signs of brain function, unlike someone
who's bitter but couldn't put 2+2 together to ever construct any valid counterarguments to save his life; resorting to only Cheap Shots.    


Poor Franky