Russia(gate/bot) Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
The money going to welfare is used to keep the people currently in power, in power.
Where as supporting Ukraine and seeing how powerful our aide is makes us gain money from sales with Poland and more.

Then again, if the MIC makes money that is taxed snf returned to America then it is bad for America...
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
So most of the territory makes sense. But I have a question about Kaliningrad? How is it illegal? I mean the majority is Russian. That land has either been Russian or German. The Germans do not want it that would just be reopening one of the reasons for ww2 there would then be a desire for a land corridor, since that city would be surrounded with polish territory. Poland would be the easiest to take it from a map based standpoint but what is polands claim to that territory they neither historically owned, nor have they a majority ethnic population there.
Poland, they have the best and easiest access to it.

It is a hopped up military base, so the 'ethnic pop' are moot; removing all Russian decended folks to St. Petersberg would be the best option.
 

ATP

Well-known member
No, no. I mean Russians themselves were the ones who gave her that epithet and continued using it. Non-Russians using it is understandable.

Well that aide to Ukraine has resulted in the verified loss of 50% of all operable Russian heavy armor.


Seems like great return on investment to me.


She could be good administrator - but she also killed her husband,and have so many lovers that historians still argue who was father of next tsar.
And,she provoked Bar confereracy in 1768 - and,as a result,must gave about 30% of Poland to prussia ans Austria in partitions,when,before that,she have entire Poland as vassal state.

@King Arts ,East Prussia was once polish vassal state,so we have rights to what remain of it.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Not giving "gibs" is stupid, avoiding it is dumb. People will act in their interest if it's not in the interest of people to vote conservative they want no ammount of chest beating about the virtues of fiscal conservatism, or worshipping the free market will change that.

Populists could at least understand that, but the neo cucks in the uniparty like giving gibs to bussiness and helping the MIC by getting involved in foreign entanglements.

What you fail to realize, is that the Democrats will always offer more.

You cannot win over the 'I want a bigger welfare check!' demographic, not in any meaningful numbers, because any time you promise to support their program, the Dems will just one-up you by promising to support it, and throw more money into the trough while they're at it!

You're ready to bitch about the neocons, yet you're promulgating the exact same kinds of fiscal policies associated with the W. Bush-era 'moderate right.'

'Tax and spend' mentality and redistributionism are antithetical to American conservatism. They're also corrosive to the social fabric, not just economic or fiscal problems. The collapse of the black family, and steady degradation of American families in general, can be directly tied to the perverse incentives of the welfare system. They aren't the only cause, but they're major contributors.

Every time you push 'gibs' and handouts, you are validating leftist ideology, and functionally supporting further electoral wins on their part.

...Not exactly surprising, given how you seem to have completely backwards ideas about just about every field of politics.
 

AmosTrask

Well-known member
She could be good administrator - but she also killed her husband,and have so many lovers that historians still argue who was father of next tsar.
And,she provoked Bar confereracy in 1768 - and,as a result,must gave about 30% of Poland to prussia ans Austria in partitions,when,before that,she have entire Poland as vassal state.

@King Arts ,East Prussia was once polish vassal state,so we have rights to what remain of it.
Peter's anti-Russian, Pro-Prussian policies had already triggered instabilities, revolts that threatened the overthrow of the Russian monarchy. Catherine was a Russian Nationalist and moved to ensure her survival and that of Monarchy. If she hadn't acted first one of the myriad of factions in court would have and executed both her and Peter. Seen in that lens there was only one option unless she fled back to her father's German principality. All Russian control of those territories lost to partition had already evaporated. Ceding them at least gained her time to rebuild and reform Russia without outside intervention.
 
Last edited:

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
You cannot win over the 'I want a bigger welfare check!' demographic, not in any meaningful numbers, because any time you promise to support their program, the Dems will just one-up you by promising to support it, and throw more money into the trough while they're at it!
Oh no, it's quite straightforward to do so. You just have to promise convenience and transparency in welfare. No more cliffs sending people in the red for getting a slight raise, no more applying for a dozen different programs with obtuse details, no more arguing with management for hours. A lot of the ways to get a better "user experience" in welfare are things the Democrats cannot do, because they dictate the removal of complexity and inefficiency that are where the Dems smuggle a lot of their underhanded shenanigans.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Peter's anti-Russian, Pro-Prussian policies had already triggered instabilities, revolts that threatened the overthrow of the Russian monarchy. Catherine was a Russian Nationalist and moved to ensure her survival and that of Monarchy. If she hadn't acted first one of the myriad of factions in court would have and executed both her and Peter. Seen in that lens there was only one option unless she fled back to her father's German principality. All Russian control of those territories lost to partition had already evaporated. Ceding them at least gained her time to rebuild and reform Russia without outside intervention.
Her husband was mad and need to die - but,she still could have less lovers,so we at least knew who was father of next tsar.
And,provoking fighting in Poland was idiocy.She could have entire Poland,but,thanks to her stupidity,she must share with others.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Oh no, it's quite straightforward to do so. You just have to promise convenience and transparency in welfare. No more cliffs sending people in the red for getting a slight raise, no more applying for a dozen different programs with obtuse details, no more arguing with management for hours. A lot of the ways to get a better "user experience" in welfare are things the Democrats cannot do, because they dictate the removal of complexity and inefficiency that are where the Dems smuggle a lot of their underhanded shenanigans.

...And what's to stop the Democrats from promising convenience, transparency, and more money?
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
...And what's to stop the Democrats from promising convenience, transparency, and more money?
The fact that there's no remotely plausible world in which they aren't losing a statistically-significant number of votes from the people inside the welfare system who know perfectly well that this is wholly incompatible with their jobs, especially in the realistic use-case where the Republicans getting a foot in the door with it is what shows the Dems it's a viable message, starting to put on exactly such pressure in truth to highlight that these things mean the welfare programs are losing jobs.

Also the fact that it's relatively specific demands of the "user-interface" of the welfare exactly opposite what the Democrats have constantly done to make room for ever more graft, where it is not money disappearing into a hole, but actual in-your-face paperwork that you were told was going to be removed and yet was not. Promising one thing, then doing the exact opposite where the exact demographic in question sees it, is a very clear risk of immolating voter confidence.

To say nothing of party machinery issues potentially involving multiple election cycles of lag to be very certain the exactly opposite campaign promise to desired policy is pre-planned bullshit rather than an upstart derailing the gravy-train.
 

planefag

A Flying Bundle of Sticks
Can you show me those links, because I feel only idiots "call out" whataboutism. Hypocrisy is always relavent. If you are condemning someone's actions and you yourself are doing similar things then take the plank out of your eye.

"NO U!" was such a constant staple of Communist propaganda, especially by the Soviet Union, that there is an entire fucking Wikipedia article about it.

I will also note that screeching at anyone who evinces basic pattern recognition skills is also a hallmark of collectivism in general.

If they just sold them military equipment I would be all for it. my issue is the gifts coming out of my pocket.
Probably because the welfare is at least (supposedly) spent on American citizens and not foreigners.

The total is nowhere near "fifty billion," because the majority of the money in those funding bills "for Ukraine" was pork, and of the remainder, most of it's being spent on American weapons, so the money is going right back to our own fucking defense contractors. To quote Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, "No one in Republican leadership has called for an end to aid for Ukraine... People on the Republican side are saying, ‘Why do we have to pass a $40 billion package to send $8 billion to Ukraine?’"

Out of curiosity, do you guys bitch and moan elsewhere in the politics forum about every other egregious waste of your taxpayer dollars, that are confiscated from you by gunpoint, through direct taxation and inflation? Or is it only when a small fraction of those dollars generate warheads on vatnik foreheads that you get your panties in a wad? Just curious.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Out of curiosity, do you guys bitch and moan elsewhere in the politics forum about every other egregious waste of your taxpayer dollars, that are confiscated from you by gunpoint, through direct taxation and inflation? Or is it only when a small fraction of those dollars generate warheads on vatnik foreheads that you get your panties in a wad? Just curious.

To be fair to them, I've seen budget-bitching about other things too.

Nothing as much as about this though.

The fact that there's no remotely plausible world in which they aren't losing a statistically-significant number of votes from the people inside the welfare system who know perfectly well that this is wholly incompatible with their jobs, especially in the realistic use-case where the Republicans getting a foot in the door with it is what shows the Dems it's a viable message, starting to put on exactly such pressure in truth to highlight that these things mean the welfare programs are losing jobs.

Also the fact that it's relatively specific demands of the "user-interface" of the welfare exactly opposite what the Democrats have constantly done to make room for ever more graft, where it is not money disappearing into a hole, but actual in-your-face paperwork that you were told was going to be removed and yet was not. Promising one thing, then doing the exact opposite where the exact demographic in question sees it, is a very clear risk of immolating voter confidence.

To say nothing of party machinery issues potentially involving multiple election cycles of lag to be very certain the exactly opposite campaign promise to desired policy is pre-planned bullshit rather than an upstart derailing the gravy-train.

You know, it's funny you say these things, because the Democrat Party's entire modus operandi for the last thirty years (more really, but that's about as far back as my memory goes) has to be make promises, fail to follow through on most of the, have the ones you do fulfill cause egregious damage, repeat.

You do not seem to understand that the Democrat Party is a party built on lying about anything and everything, as often as they possibly can, as aggressively as they possibly can.

Partly because they lie to themselves.


For all of this, the same communities keep voting for them. They've turned parts of Detroit, Chicago, and LA into hellholes, yet the people there keep voting for them. They've ruined urban schooling systems, yet the people there keep voting for them.

Your entire post about reasons that can't work for Democrats, is disproven by the fact that Democrats habitually do exactly those sorts of things, and keep on getting away with it!

This is a big part of why conservatives hate the mainstream media so much.
 

AmosTrask

Well-known member
"NO U!" was such a constant staple of Communist propaganda, especially by the Soviet Union, that there is an entire fucking Wikipedia article about it.

I will also note that screeching at anyone who evinces basic pattern recognition skills is also a hallmark of collectivism in general
There are also multiple tomes on which that short article is cited from. Entire libraries of books on a focused comprehensive study on collectivism and its effects. Also more on how to actually implement them properly to ensure a healthy, wealthy, democratic society. It's actually quite fascinating of a thought experiment. Unfortunately implementation past the village and township level run smack dab into human greed and tribalism.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Can you show me those links, because I feel only idiots "call out" whataboutism. Hypocrisy is always relavent.
Whataboutism is false accusation of hypocrisy. That is literally the whole point.
Most commonly based on the strawman of "I didn't hear you complaining about Y and Z right this moment. therefore you are a hypocrite to complain about X". just because you didn't hear them complain doesn't mean they haven't.

If it is an actual case of hypocrisy then it is not whataboutism.
Sometimes hypocrites falsely claim whataboutism to try to defend themselves.
Other times the whataboutism claim is legit and the person levying the accusation is wrong.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
What you haven't explained is how it makes it unique. As if they wouldn't be stealing that money some other way if this war wasn't happening.
You see, it is because the trad and based and redpilled Russia is being beaten by the horrible woke west that makes it bad.

Of course they would rather it be spent on welfare they can complain about instead if hurting those poor Russians who obviously are being lied about by the media and are completely innocent.
Because Russia is innocent and Ukraine is being defended purely by the global agenda and not every day citizens who dont want to be ruled by russia.

Obviously

Very

Obvious
 

planefag

A Flying Bundle of Sticks
Because Russia is innocent and Ukraine is being defended purely by the global agenda and not every day citizens who dont want to be ruled by russia.

Well, it's one thing to say that the Global Agenda is against Russia... but quite another for them to gloss over how Putin - despite making the West his avowed enemy and committing himself publicly to slaying that supposed dragon - has failed miserably and gotten his ass kicked in the process.

That's the part some people need to dwell on a little more.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well, it's one thing to say that the Global Agenda is against Russia... but quite another for them to gloss over how Putin - despite making the West his avowed enemy and committing himself publicly to slaying that supposed dragon - has failed miserably and gotten his ass kicked in the process.

That's the part some people need to dwell on a little more.

Yeah, Putin is like the guy who everyone thinks is a Chad but then you suddenly discover that he has an extremely weak and limp handshake (and who knows what else ;)) lol! :D

Yeah, np.

I don't know about Democrats, but Far Left activist generally are opposed to helping Ukraine. In fact, even MSM noticed that:

Noam Chomsky is the most prominent Leftist I know of who opposes the aid to Ukraine.

The far-left are Putin's useful idiots. They're against imperialism except when anti-American countries do it. Then it's all good. So, Israeli imperialism = bad 'coz Israel is pro-American but Russian imperialism = good 'coz Russia is anti-American!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top