In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Oh, I understand why they would believe in Trump, I understand why someone would vote for Trump (aside from abject partisanship or stupidity) but I almost never hear people SAY IT, I hear them fire off asinine platitudes and catch phrases. I understand that people who have historically relied on jobs that are now not there due to automation/globalization wanting to favor a candidate who appears to favor themselves. Donald Trump is an opportunistic and highly compulsive liar, but I even understand that not fully counting against him because of the way his opponent's honesty-levels were viewed. My views of the common American idiot stem from their abandonment of any REASON for voting like they do other than, "well, shit, thats the one my side put up, lets say the slogan five or six times and y'know its all good, right?" Or the notion that "well, hes wacky and says outrageous things, surely I must vote for him!"
This insane partisanship just irritates me, the immediate "Us vs. Them" mentally that makes discourse a fucking nightmare. I was born in Florida, raised for 12 years, and moved to Virginia, raised for 5 years, and then I went to college in Rhode Island. For those first 17 years I have seen most sides of the political spectrum (save far-leftism) that the US tends to offer. The 4 years in Rhode Island showed off the far left. I have known many people who have strong beliefs and actually want to engage in discourse with others without shouting them down. I have also seen a number of unfathomable jackasses who want nothing more than to antagonize the other side and feel as if they've won. I hate that attitude. At school people were unsufferably SJW (and I mean this in the way that people use SJW that Plansix would deny existed entirely) I knew super right wing lunatics who seemed almost bloodthirsty in their desire to murder anything that happened to walk across their line of sight on their land. These people lived to drink the tears of the opposing side, the right wing nuts would live for the time to throw down "Special Snowflakes" and the SJWs lived for the moment to drop the "Privilege" bomb. Forget the idea that they were using privilege in a constructive way, they were using it to shame the opposing side and discredit them as being from an oppressor class. The nut jobs would just counter, "we're the oppressor class" YOU'RE the oppressor class! You're oppressing US!" and the circle would go on and on and on and nothing ever happened to change anyones mind because their minds had already been made up, this person was from the opposing side and they were wrong and would never be anything but wrong.
I've grown more liberal as I've aged but I made a concerted effort to at least understand where the opposition is coming from, to at least try and understand their point of view and why they believe what they believe, but some people just don't seem to BELIEVE in anything other than some sort of weird community thats set against some other weird community and suddenly their lives revolve around conflict with that other side and they won't be budged in any capacity.
This all aside, I want to say that even though I think many of these people are fuckin' idiots, I don't think they're often BAD people, and I'd go so far as to say many of them are GOOD people who kind hearts, but a kind heart doesn't do much when you're dumb enough to just follow whoever and whatever is wearing a hat with a particular color you're fond of.
I'm ranting so hard, I'm sorry. <3
And since my internet died and the page refreshed and I got to read Liquid'Drone's post, I shall amend this post before it is posted in traditional posting fashion. Post.
In my ideal world, the fight would get so dirty and everyone would hate both sides with such a passion that somehow some way the majority of the House and Senate would be replaced with new, young blood. Is that likely? No, I don't really think so, but I don't actually see any solution forward when people simply have to say, "well this supports the other side, so its FAKE NEWS!" to discredit something in it's entirety. How do you have functional discourse when noone can be informed, noone trusts themselves or others to be informed, and all information is a lie? What do you fucking DO in that situation? I feel like the only change we're going to get is a shift to even bolder and bolder liars, willing to promise more and more without ever having to worry about the veracity of their claims coming to bite them in the ass.
And I'll end my post with the fact that I'm a poor half-Puerto Rican dude who hasnt been able to afford to go to the doctor or dentist or afford glasses in 10, 12, and 4 years respectively! So this comes from that perspective. Although I've never thought I've had to kill myself, I live in chronic irritation at trying to pay for myself and some of my family in this fuckin' country. :D
EDIT: SOMEONE QUEUE UP WEIRD AL'S TACKY! Since we're talking about Trump and his horrendous taste in decor.
On January 21 2017 10:48 On_Slaught wrote: Victim number one: style. The new gold curtains in the Oval Office are ugly as sin. I forget who said it but they were right. Trump is like a poor man's version of a rich person.
Oh and there is a blatant typo on that Melania blurb on the White House website.
Trump is the definition of the noveau riche. Of all rich people he is basically the chubby kid on the soccer team that's been picked last. When people said that "he is just like us" I actually thought that it makes sense. He really is exactly like his voters, just about a million times richer which for some reason has never affected his beliefs in any way.
I'm gonna say, i just don't understand american politics. You guys managed to elect G.W.Bush TWICE, even after the disaster in iraq already started you reelected him.
And now you have managed to elect an even worse president. Republicans in general and Trump in particular did so much incredibly insane stuff in the last few years that would make them completely unelectable in any sane country. Shutting down the government. But that was more than a month ago, so people forgot. Blocking a supreme court nomination for a whole year. (Granted, part of this is because your system is just so horrifically broken that it actually allows that sort of thing to happen) Completely ignoring facts and just flying by by bullshitting.
And i already know that you are going to reelect him. Because that is what you do. You do a stupid thing, and then you double down on it.
If you don't find a way to fix your system to prevent this shit from happening, and educating the stupid half of your population that keeps on electing complete morons into government, facts will at some point catch up to you, and it won't be fun. I just hope that you don't drag the rest of the world down with you.
I no longer have any faith in the american nation to do even the most basic sensible action. A large part of your population is just completely and abhorrently alien to me. Religion over Science, Bullshit over Information, Legal bribes are fine, privatized prisons are a good idea, a free market healthcare system works, guns everywhere make people saver, money is speech, tax cuts for the rich solve every problem, global warming is fake. I just simply have no idea how anyone can hold all of those positions. I have a hard time imagining how anyone can hold a single one of them. It just simply makes absolutely no sense to me.
That's it folks, first LBGT removed, any mention of Climate Change removed, and now the white house is promoting Melania jewelry line.
Are those 3 things actually true? I've heard it in passing from a few friends but I haven't had the time to fact-check it yet.
most of the website got wiped/transferred so well the first two are technically true the vast majority of the site is gone. think all thats up are his priorities
On January 21 2017 10:30 RealityIsKing wrote: We have always known that many anti Trump people are violent.
Especially by their way of namecalling and labeling everybody that proves them wrong into an absurd level which is why people are against fake news these days that the media establishment does these days.
It will be especially interesting how this unfolds.
At least be civilized.
Many people, regardless of their political affiliation, are violent.
Many people, regardless of their political affiliation, call others names.
zambrah -> rant away, we've all had our times to rant.
humans are a tribalistic people. counteracting the tribalistic tendencies of humans is one of the goals. but it's hard, since you're literally going against human nature. sometimes you just have to try to get the tribes to get along well enough, or make them all feel like part of a larger tribe. The fewer external threats you have, the harder it is to keep united.
I'm a bit surprised you can't afford glasses though, I mean, cheap glasses can be gotten for a pretty low price. they're of course not the highest quality, and the frames might be a bit ugly, but they're cheap. Not sure if your problem is not having a new updated prescription (and the costs of an appointment to get one), or in the cost of the glasses themselves.
one thing to do is to try teaching more wisdom in schools.
I've been watching this talk by Harper (former Canadian Prime Minister) about his view on the state of the world. Specifically he talks about the populist movement, how it's enabled by the information age, how the stagnant middle class is affected, how Canada hasn't felt its effects. I haven't finished but it's pretty neat.
Its that larger tribe that people seem to have forgotten, the "American" tribe, so to speak. The idea that the lack of some sort of unifying threat against the US causes us to turn in on ourselves is frightening and frighteningly plausible. Though its worth noting that the US has had it's share of outside enemies to consider, terrorism, China, Russia, hell the government itself. Seems like since Vietnam enemies have begun to have a relation to partisanship, an enemy is only perceived as such by one half of the divide. I honestly just don't know where the US goes that makes the future have a positive outlook. Donald Trump sure as shit doesn't inspire confidence in me. The institutions that lead to his ability to win the election don't look to be going anywhere before his next election, or the next or the next really. I don't know how the US CAN change when we get to a point in partisanship is to elect someone to repeal what the other person just did, are we going to go into a loop where the next president invalidates the previous one in a never ending cycle, "he was so bad, he did this this and this, I'm gonna repeal that and do that that and that!" and the next one goes, "he was so bad, he did this this and this, I'm gonna repeal that and do that that and that!" I dunno, maybe I'm just in a fatalistic mood. I also still can't claim to be a political, economic, or social expert, so maybe something is more obvious to the more pertinently educated amongst us.
And I'm pretty poor, and the only job I could get around this fuckin hell hole is at Home Depot (fuck Home Depot customers), which only pays 10 per hour, and bills eat that up real quick, especially since I try and eat healthy so that I can put off the whole like, doctor thing.
EDIT: I really wish there was a way to promote unity. I don't think I'd be able to be as empathetic as I am without having grown up around people of diverse ethnic and political backgrounds, and I know for a fact some communities (lookin' at you, Culpeper, Virginia) are so insular (downright inbred if I'm allowed to be bitter) in their views that they create a horrifying echo chamber where the only way to be heard is to say the loudest thing in a louder, meaner way.
The other side are people, they have lives, fears, loves, they have things they cherish. Finding the commonality in humanity is something I think we sorely need in this country. I may disagree with some of my colleagues and I will maintain that they are sometimes grotesquely uneducated but they're not bad people, they strive to do the best they can for themselves and the people they care about and I think we can almost all get behind that to a certain extent.
On January 21 2017 10:58 Simberto wrote: I'm gonna say, i just don't understand american politics. You guys managed to elect G.W.Bush TWICE, even after the disaster in iraq already started you reelected him.
And now you have managed to elect an even worse president. Republicans in general and Trump in particular did so much incredibly insane stuff in the last few years that would make them completely unelectable in any sane country. Shutting down the government. But that was more than a month ago, so people forgot. Blocking a supreme court nomination for a whole year. (Granted, part of this is because your system is just so horrifically broken that it actually allows that sort of thing to happen) Completely ignoring facts and just flying by by bullshitting.
And i already know that you are going to reelect him. Because that is what you do. You do a stupid thing, and then you double down on it.
If you don't find a way to fix your system to prevent this shit from happening, and educating the stupid half of your population that keeps on electing complete morons into government, facts will at some point catch up to you, and it won't be fun. I just hope that you don't drag the rest of the world down with you.
I no longer have any faith in the american nation to do even the most basic sensible action. A large part of your population is just completely and abhorrently alien to me. Religion over Science, Bullshit over Information, Legal bribes are fine, privatized prisons are a good idea, a free market healthcare system works, guns everywhere make people saver, money is speech, tax cuts for the rich solve every problem, global warming is fake. I just simply have no idea how anyone can hold all of those positions. I have a hard time imagining how anyone can hold a single one of them. It just simply makes absolutely no sense to me.
I'm in the same boat, America seems to be unable to join the rest of the developed world due to the sheer ignorance and gullibility of half its voting base and the general corruption on both sides of politics. It's going to get way more ugly at some point when the weight of incompetence and corruption lead to further, more widespread, collapses in basic infrastructure and quality of life.
It lacks truly existential threats; the soviet threat kinda was. The problem with being the biggest guy on the block is there's noone to truly be afraid of though. It's not uncommon for places with a lack of external enemies to develop more internal ones.
terrorism isn't really a threat, it's a nuisance. the levels in the US are far too low to cause any real damage directly (only through our reactions to them). russia, is growing again, but it's only threat to the US is a nuclear war, their conventional forces aren't up to anything big. china likewise, and china lacks the naval power to project force outside their land border. the gov't itself of course isn't an outside enemy.
you can get glasses for under $20 if you get cheap ones.
responding to your edits: there are ways to promote unity, if people choose to take them. also some ways to try to do so as a government, or as a society. but alot depends on the actions that regular people take, on average. and sometimes changes in the underlying parameters of a situation cause things to spread in an unfortunate way; it's a part of how many things change as technology grows.
sadly most people learn a few words for wisdom and then use them without adequately understanding them; so they hear about the echo chamber problem but always say it's the other side having it, and don't appreciate they have it themselves. better education on wisdom would probably help with this.
I dont understand how the "Golden Rule" didnt sink in harder when people were kids I STILL live my life by that shit.
And while I agree that the US faces no real existential threats, the US people seem to think of Russia, and China, and terrorism as existential threats (correct or no) the thought of China usurping the US' position as King o' the Hill, terrorism via mass shootings, Russia's covert government action. I don't dispute that these threats are overblown I get the feeling the public takes these threats as they're shown, overblown.
Is this because the US Gov't perceives these threats in a more accurate manner and thus doesn't see the existential threat? Noone telling their people to cooperate because theres no need in increased sympathy for the other side?
Is it because the US people just aren't as susceptible to external threats that aren't truly and immediately cataclysmic?
Is it because the US people see the other side as an existential threat to the United States that they know/hope to know?
I honestly don't know, but I don't believe we're going to see a true existential threat that isn't some sort of civil war.
And at this point I'm not invested in getting glasses, I CAN SEE FIIIIINE! Sure I'm "legally blind" but my "legally blind" is still significantly better than some people I know who have glasses!
If I were in charge, I'd make sure we could at least get $20 glasses for everyone who needs them.
re: threats, it's that some of the people don't see them as threats; and/or that some believe they're not existential threats, and the best way to deal with the actual threat is through communication, trade, and diplomacy.
the number of people who incorrectly view them as existential threats isn't high enough to create unity. The US gov't itself certainly normally has a much better sense of the actual threat level of things. despite its frequent screwups, it's still generally far more knowledgeable and sensible than people in general are.
some people in the US do see the other side in the US as an existential threat, or a sub-existential but very major threat, the subjugating kind.
and on ethics, most people's education didn't push the golden rule so thoroughly as to override the other rules they were taught. and people generally copy what they were raised with; which can include copying to say the golden rule is good, but also copying the behavior wherein it's not actually followed. and of course the golden rule itself, while pretty good, does have cases wherein it fails, depending on how you apply it.
1. Golden Rule, do unto others, etc. etc. encourages me to think at least slightly more deeply about how I treat others, if I was in their situation how would I feel?
2. No Skin Off My Arse encourages me to do small good things for people so long as they don't "take skin off my arse," or that is to say, sufficiently cause detriment to me. ie. holding doors open, being generally courteous, if someone needs a quarter and I have one and I dont strictly need it etc. etc.
3. You can't take care of others 'til you take care of yourself, Put Yourself First live life remembering that you are the most important part of your own life. I think this is important for my number 1, because I have to assume others will act in this same way, which is not necessarily bad. But primarily, take care of your mental and physical health before anyone else 'cause ain't noone else gonna do it for ye.
I really don't see the difficulty some people have with empathy, which is an interesting form of a lack of empathy on my part? I dunno, I haven't experienced their backgrounds, I was a very dissatisfied child so I broke away from the values I felt were trying to be enforced (I still have like 0 respect for a Family-First attitude, half of my family is incompetent jackassery and I have no respect for them) I suppose most other people would probably be more susceptible to adopting their family's direct beliefs.
It's fun to muse on these things, at least partially because I get to use the word "muse" which will get me laughed at at work.
EDIT: To make this more relevant, do you think there would be an agreed upon set of values that Americans typically grow up with? I know that the idea of "working hard to achieve social mobility" was something that I've cherished since I could appreciate it, for example.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: It's fostering deeper ties where it can. Russia's attention is also in Asia thanks to massive sanctions.
Partially true, but that's an incomplete description of what's happening. The "pivot" to Asia has been in the works for a long time, and it's not really as a result of "desperation because Russia has no allies" but because this has been the goal for a while. The deals that Russia made with China after sanctions? Those were being negotiated for many years before. And the goals of a more Asia-centric policy aren't likely to subside because the will for sanctions is fading - Russia has said before that even if there is a thaw with the US, the current ties with China are non-negotiable. To put it quite simply, Russia has much more to gain from an Asia focus than an East Europe focus. Though it would certainly welcome closer ties with certain European nations who want to be closer to Russia - Moldova and Bulgaria are probably the most recent examples - they are ultimately simply not as important right now as developing Siberia and the ties with nations around it.
Note that deeper ties does not mean alliances here. One can easily argue that China is Russia's Mexico in some ways, and the Far East is being developed in an act of desperation. Source I should have called you out on this before, but this conversation trail did not warrant an Asia discussion at all. Originally, I argued that Russia wastes a lot of money propping up phantom states. It also pays loads of money to a more and more autonomous and terrifying Chechnya while it has crises such as AIDS epidemics , budget deficits, low life expectancy and the list goes on.. If financial reasons were not sufficient to deter them from attacking Ukraine, why would an upkeep of a million people hurt them if they could get away with a slap on the hand? The advantage of the dissolution of NATO is obvious, as you indirectly hinted at in previous conversations, and later in this very post. Removing NATO as a perceived threat is a priority to Russia, threatening NATO has been at least a objective for them..
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Most countries have a net negative opinion of Russia Source
Yes, in the aftermath of a country doing something other countries don't like, people tend to have a sharply negative opinion of them. You might notice that this entire poll is quite largely biased to Western-friendly nations, where it goes without saying that in 2015 people would view Russia unfavorably. In the aftermath of Iraq, people weren't fond of the US, and in the aftermath of Syria, people saw the US as the biggest threat to world peace. The perception that Russia hacked the election in the US has had a net positive effect on its favorability in the US, for that matter. And I'd say that polled now, those numbers would be rather different. Surprise surprise, people tend to be unhappy when nations do something controversial.
a) Your link had a Taylor Swift GIF in it, it also links to RT as a source. To be fair, it also references Gallup, but I was unable to verify the poll, since none was linked in the article. Even if you verify this poll, however there is little to talk about, my main argument that an increasingly imperialist Russia has extremely little to lose in a transactionalist deal for European instability is not disproven in any way.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: and a suddenly protectionist US
There is nothing sudden about the US becoming protectionist. The US has become more and more protectionist ever since Iraq. In fact, Obama was elected largely because of his support for withdrawing from Iraq and for "not being the world's policemen." Yes, Obama sort of went back on that and returned to a bit more active a role in FP - but the trend has been there and Trump is merely a continuation. By no means is it "suddenly" protectionist - it has been a trend for a while. Trump is just a manifestation.
Isolationism and protectionism are quite different things, but both amount to the same thing, a decreased stability in the world, and more countries looking into nukes, with less stabilization mechanisms. As for the suddenly part, are you serious? This is not even in the ball park of expected behaviour from the US, as far as the international community is concerned. You are normalizing Trump while a large part of the world remains terrified. He is breaking political convention left and right, and when Obama can be seen as correcting Bush's overly aggressive course, Trump brings the US back into a far earlier political paradigm, if his current statements carry any weight.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Europe is one of the few regions calling them out on their actions, so weakening them would be a benefit in and of itself.
This much is true, in a way. This is a US thread rather than a Russia thread, so I will not debate who is right or wrong and simply say that it is true that Europe (not all of Europe but certainly the EU as a bloc consensus) is opposed to what Russia is doing and is willing (albeit reluctantly) to have sanctions. In such a situation, it would make sense for Russia to support movements that oppose the current status quo in favor of a more pro-Russian group. Though why you think it's a bad thing to want a more friendly government, or for your opposition to be in a weaker position, is a mystery.
This is the part that will spring to mind whenever Legallord speaks of morals or benefits in the future. I am appalled by the apparent horrifying cynicism of the comparison of some of the largest advances in human life quality and rights under the EU, and the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin. As for the point, I am glad you agree that a weaker more divided EU would be better for Russia, and hence beneficial to them.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Eastern Ukraine is not currently occupied out of strategic concerns but much rather to weaken the position of Ukraine.
Eastern Ukraine isn't occupied. It's in the middle of a civil war that started in the aftermath of an unpopular, but democratically elected leader, being forcefully removed from office. Whether or not Russia helped out there, the core of the rebellion is indeed Ukrainians. The reason that it's not under the Ukrainian government's control is because they were defeated in battle, something which should not be surprising given how incompetent the Ukrainian military is and was. And for that matter, Western Ukrainians are none too happy with their government as well. Maybe it's just a bad government?
The "core of the rebellion" could not have withstood the Ukrainian military before Russian intervention. In fact, they made significant headway until they were mysteriously pushed back by a huge influx of new weaponry and troops. The rebellion has forces occupying it with the stated goal to unite themselves with Russia, who do include Russian nationals (proportion unknown), some of whom are quite likely to be Russian professional soldiers, not much after Crimea was, by your own admission, occupied/annexed using a nearly identical strategy. It has at least elements of Russian occupation of parts of a sovereign state, but maintains technical deniability for people seeking to defend these actions. I have yet to see a credible non-Russian source claim otherwise. The quality of government has little to do with this, so I take your argument as distraction at best and demagoguery at worst. I am willing to assume the whole range as a result of previous experience.
How this relates to the point of Russian expansionism/desire to remake the USSR however, is dependent on specifics like what exactly took place, and not obfuscating the facts. It's another clue to understanding Russian actions and a reason to be wary. Eastern Ukraine is of little strategic value, and you did not dispute that. Deterrence in non-strategically important regions serves the purpose of avoiding a similar scenario, and arguing against deterrence in the case of the Baltics ignores the case study of Novorossia, as well as those of the Georgian phantom states (or that of Transnistria, arguably).
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: The very idea of an empire is not that of gaining economically, but expanding power, while reducing the power of others. Think of the Red Line scenario in Syria (The NATO treaty), except now in regards to Europe, and Trump backing out. Massive gain, right there. Reversing that would take decades, during which Russia could blackmail Central Asia at will.
Kind of a baseless assertion, I don't think there's anything I need to say. You are prescribing motive without justification.
The formerly listed precedent of beneficial invasion/occupation is the justification for assigning potential motives. The deterrence force that is deployed to the Baltic region seems to point towards similar motives being assigned by other actors. The lack of perceived base is a result of your bias.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: As for the consensus, that's a rather dubious claim, especially unsourced
Hard to provide a source, given that it's not exactly a very simple thing to show. But nevertheless, it is true that rebuilding the USSR exactly as it was would be kind of a massive waste of money. There simply isn't that much gain to be had from doing that because while it was better to have the USSR than not, once you've moved past it. This is part of why Putin's United Russia won out over the Communist Party - they had a plan for the future that was more feasible than just "go back to what used to be there." There are absolutely nationalists who want to focus on Europe, but that's a minority.
Since we have already established that wasting money does not appear to be a concern to Russia, the first part does not seem to be an argument. The second part assumes that Russia has a representational legislature with free elections and parties that are independent from one-another. For a context, United Russia has won every parliamentary election since 1999, most of them with absolute majorities, in controlled environment elections.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: considering the massive military exercise right next to my border in 2017
Simple rule of thumb: you piss off the massive military power right next to your border, and they will respond unkindly. Bring foreign troops into your country that are hostile to that military, and expect that they will respond in kind. Build a missile base in your country, and don't be surprised if said country puts a stash of nukes on your border. Attempt to foster better relations, and you will have less of that. Hell, even Georgia has realized, a decade later, that trying to solve shit with Russia by trying to force the issue will only end in getting smacked. They gave up on that and things have mostly taken a turn for the better in that relationship. Perhaps Estonia should do the same and learn to realize that if you have a neighbor that could destroy you if they so desire without batting an eye, that you should be nice to them.
What is your basis for claiming that Estonia pissed Russia off? Especially to the degree where military exercises involving uses of tactical nuclear weapons are carried out next to a non-aggressive countries border? If we take your own country as an example, if Mexico or Canada did the same thing as Estonia did, would such exercises be a reasonable countermeasure? I reject this "might makes right" rationale in any case, since it is not a sustainable goal. The time for 20-th century geopolitics is over, either through cooperation or as a result of a nuclear holocaust.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: military parades with pictures of Stalin
Nothing wrong with military parades - and Stalin is an important (if not uncontroversial) part of Russian history. What's the problem here?
If Germany started doing Nazi Germany style parades with pictures of Hitler, would that be a problem? I see a major problem. This is a case where a comparison to Nazi Germany is entirely justified, since no other regime really compares, and we are talking about a recidivism to a totalitarian empire.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: the change of the national anthem to include the soviet melody in it
Why is that a problem?
Following the previous example - Would it be a problem if Germany replaced it's anthem with the Horst-Wessel Lied melody? By itself, arguably already. But unfortunately, this is not the only data point that I listed in my non-exhaustive list of USSR recidivism.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century...
Oh, this tired old quote. We all could do with a bit of context. I'm going to just link his entire speech here. + Show Spoiler +
Also, this Politifact article is actually pretty decent for describing the statement - and a few things I was talking about regarding Ukraine and a European empire.
The youtube video is something you can't expect me to watch. If you have a context to establish, at least write a TLDR version. The claim by itself is noteworthy, however, since it's in such stark contrast to what Germany or Japan or Italy, for that matter, have done. Imagine Germany saying something like that? Given how calculating Putin is with literally everything else he says, you can't say with certainty it wasn't at least party for internal consumption within Russia?
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Oh, and of course this, from your own RT:
"Your own RT" It's not mine, I don't read it. I am aware of its existence and think it has its purpose. Certainly not "my RT" though.
You were literally the only one in the pages I have read linking it as a source for an argument (including the very post I am replying to), and so far the only one I've seen defending it. Labeling will do my argument no good, but you did not exactly do your credibility any favors, especially seeing how you are often mirroring their not very common talking points.
When researchers asked the public if they would like the Soviet Union to be restored, 58 percent replied in the affirmative, with 14 percent saying they considered such project quite realistic at the moment. Forty-four percent view the restoration of the USSR as unfeasible, even though preferable. Thirty-one percent said they would not be happy if events took such a turn, while 10 percent could not give a simple answer to the question.
That's a hell of a question though. It didn't ask, "should we get all those nations that used to be in the USSR and take them back" to which you'd probably get a "no." Would Russians prefer the way the world was during the Soviet Union to the way it is now? I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Though "there is no simple answer" is the "correct" response because that is definitely a loaded question.
You just straw-manned RT, I think. You assumed the motives of the respondents, considering these same respondents were OK with annexing Crimea and bombing Chechnya to rubble. Cultural relativity would make me assume that you are less likely to understand a culture you don't regularly experience. Hence, I find it hard to take your unsubstantiated opinion seriously. Admittedly, I was not part of the survey, nor did I see the exact question in Russian. However, that statistic is definitely not the minority you make it out to be.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Russia has no right to tell countries what defensive alliances it's formerly occupied people can and cannot form.
But it absolutely does have the right to be less friendly to nations that are less friendly to Russia.
False equivalency. Estonia operates within strict accordance to International Law. Russia regularly breaks it in regards toEstonia.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: It being personal for me does not exactly disprove my points.
No, but it does make "omg u just dont get us cuz u just don't know" assertions quite stupid. You would do well to acknowledge that not everyone hates Russia as much as you do - and that that isn't a bad thing.
Another lovely mischaracterization! I am engaging in political activism through debate, and I represent a valid set of opinions with their own virtues and flaws. You assert, without sources, at least as much as I do, and frankly, you would do well to acknowledge that liberal political philosophy did not just disappear overnight.
As for your assessments of "stupid" I notice that you have used the word on 230 occasions in this forum alone. That means every 30 posts or so. And you have been called out on that repeatedly. That description from your mouth is close to meaningless.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Your biases are as less plain than mine, but you are lenient towards Russia with reckless disregard of the concerns of the allies of the United States. These have been voiced at the highest levels of governments, and are partly representative of the concerns of people in your own legislature.
There are people in the government who say stuff that I disagree with. It may, perhaps, come as a surprise, that the US has its own perception of which politicians we do and do not agree with. Other politicians, for example, have said that NATO is obsolete, that you lot aren't paying your fair share and we don't have to defend you, and that Russia is a country we should get along with.
As for allies, the US has a lot of those. Some are more important than others, and some are friendlier to Russia than others. Some of those allies say Israel is a dangerous threat. That certain politicians (John McCain is probably your biggest "pal" here) say that Russia is a huge threat is often little more than trying to find an enemy to support further spending on military matters. We have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives - that one of them says something isn't really as significant as you make it sound. And they all serve the US first and foremost - not whatever other country is counting on support from the US. Estonians don't elect our government, nor does any other country that isn't the US.
You are welcome to disagree. Nor did I make any claim that Estonians elect your government. I just echoed prominent voices that share my concerns. These are prominent voices that also have the interests of the United States as a country at heart, and that you choose to ignore in favor of Russia of all places. My hope is that there are Americans who value the unity we have shared above short-term interests.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Sources, please.
Sources for the fact that I've read academic works, some of which came out of Estonia? The source is myself. Sources for what I actually read? There's not much benefit to "give me all the things you ever read" so I will decline. I will simply say that it's idiotic to simply presume that the only reason anyone disagrees with you is because they just don't know - especially when the topic simply wasn't really about those other countries.
But I will simply say that the so-called "academic" work coming out of certain nations (most notably the Baltics) have an obsession with hating Russia that borders on farcical. They essentially assume the worst possible interpretations of anything Russia does, ascribe evil, evil motives, and inject their opinion in ways that simply isn't very suitable for the standard of objectivity that is to be expected from academic writing. And hopefully it isn't surprising that people might disagree with you even if they know where you're coming from. So your assertion here is simply laughable.
My presumption was that your vague descriptions of Baltic academic writing should require some sort of proof that you have, in fact, a representative selection of these writings, and that if you complain about quality, you should probably at least source what you are criticizing. From my standpoint, you are laughably cynical, and biased towards Russia, but that does not invalidate your arguments by itself. However, there's this saying about stones and glasshouses.
some people have low empathy because they were born that way. as with many things in people there's a distribution; i'm not sure if it's been proven to be a full normal distribution in the technical sense (or how you'd measure that), but there's quite a distribution and some people hvae low empathy. Also, some people haven't met enough of the "other". exposure and knowing some personally tends to lessen the dim view. that's why people living in more diverse areas tend to be more tolerant of diversity iirc. of course, sometimes there's grievances and group identity conflicts which prevent that from happening, and a cycle of back and forth that builds over time.
it's certainly pretty common for children to adopt their parent's beliefs.
in terms of political attitude, some of it is an outgrowth of trait's people are born with (not genetic though); most of it is still learned of course, especially the particulars of what "side" they're on.
some religions have a lot of exceptions to where the golden rule might otherwise apply. as of course some non-religious ethical systems do.
many americans like the value work hard to achieve social mobility. iirc some places in europe actually have better social mobility on average. america has some nice exceptional cases of individuals improving alot, but on average it doesn't work as well as some other places.
I'm sure you could find a set of value americans agree upon if you state it broadly and refuse to get into the specifics. but once you get into specifics there's a lot of things you can dispute over. and people don't often make a show of the large points they agree on, so you don't hear about that much.
and of course, most people's understanding of ethical philosophy is rather poor. I confidently claim most couldn't explain the difference between deontological or consequentialist approaches.
Two comments. One, that odd site that links a Gallup poll, I linked for drawing up the map to be a nice graphic. I should have known that the first thing you would strike at would be the fact that there was an almost irrelevant RT link there. It's the map that mattered.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century...
Oh, this tired old quote. We all could do with a bit of context. I'm going to just link his entire speech here. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTvswwU5Eco
Also, this Politifact article is actually pretty decent for describing the statement - and a few things I was talking about regarding Ukraine and a European empire.
The youtube video is something you can't expect me to watch. If you have a context to establish, at least write a TLDR version. The claim by itself is noteworthy, however, since it's in such stark contrast to what Germany or Japan or Italy, for that matter, have done. Imagine Germany saying something like that? Given how calculating Putin is with literally everything else he says, you can't say with certainty it wasn't at least party for internal consumption within Russia?
So this kind of gets at why I don't see any productive discussion on any topic Russia with you and why I'm not going to do this again. "Hey, Putin said X!" "Kind of, but X was said in a context that isn't really that troubling. Here's the 10 minute speech where the quote came from." "You can't expect me to watch that! Besides, can you imagine someone else saying X? Even the thought of X being said makes my blood boil. Can you imagine someone else saying X? USSR is evil, how can X possibly be said?!?"
On January 21 2017 10:58 Simberto wrote: I'm gonna say, i just don't understand american politics. You guys managed to elect G.W.Bush TWICE, even after the disaster in iraq already started you reelected him.
And now you have managed to elect an even worse president. Republicans in general and Trump in particular did so much incredibly insane stuff in the last few years that would make them completely unelectable in any sane country. Shutting down the government. But that was more than a month ago, so people forgot. Blocking a supreme court nomination for a whole year. (Granted, part of this is because your system is just so horrifically broken that it actually allows that sort of thing to happen) Completely ignoring facts and just flying by by bullshitting.
And i already know that you are going to reelect him. Because that is what you do. You do a stupid thing, and then you double down on it.
If you don't find a way to fix your system to prevent this shit from happening, and educating the stupid half of your population that keeps on electing complete morons into government, facts will at some point catch up to you, and it won't be fun. I just hope that you don't drag the rest of the world down with you.
I no longer have any faith in the american nation to do even the most basic sensible action. A large part of your population is just completely and abhorrently alien to me. Religion over Science, Bullshit over Information, Legal bribes are fine, privatized prisons are a good idea, a free market healthcare system works, guns everywhere make people saver, money is speech, tax cuts for the rich solve every problem, global warming is fake. I just simply have no idea how anyone can hold all of those positions. I have a hard time imagining how anyone can hold a single one of them. It just simply makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Germans elected a man, twice, that literally cashed out his political position for Russian Oil money. It's a few years before you regret Merkel, but you will. And badly.
The failure in the structure, approach (and likely outright sabotage) of the occupation of Iraq didn't start to really become an issue until late-2005 to early-2006. So over a year after the 2004 election. The US economy also didn't have to pay for the Greenspan Housing Bubble until 2005. (It was a rolling burst over 2 years; it didn't slaughter the financial markets until 2008.) So George W. Bush was a sitting president that had won 2 wars running for re-election. Is that really surprising he won?
Also, John Kerry ran a terribly stupid campaign. YouTube his DNC acceptance entrance & first few minutes of the speech. Aside from being very cringe-inducing, also realize he was an anti-war protester who openly denounced the Men he served with. He was a terrible candidate to run in 2004. (It doesn't help he's been terrible at every political position he's been in.)
As for 2016, Hillary was the worst retail politician to get a nomination in maybe 200 years. And 200 years ago, candidates didn't campaign themselves. Her positions are available to the highest bidder, minus one or two things she actually believes in, just make sure the check clears. Her campaign was built around raising large amounts of money from LA & NYC donors looking for future favors, with the policies being the down-stream rewards for the major cities.
US Economic data doesn't correlate to the older sets because of a bifurcation among the population. Parts of the country, LA, San Fran and NYC have done great lately, but it's come at the very direct cost to middle section of the country. Foreign manufacturing is great for the Coastal importers and the Finance folks, but that comes at the jobs of those living in the rest of the country. That's why Trump won. Hillary directly threatened to kill the entire coal industry, while in West Virginia, and she promptly lost the state by 16% more than Obama lost it.
So, it's neither stupid nor unreasonable to expect that Trump would win. That the Media was so insanely in the tank has a lot more to do with them than anything to do with Trump. Hillary never had a prayer in anything close to an honest race, so the current power structure invented whatever they could to try to hurt Trump.
As for your list about the States (skipping over whether we care a damn about your opinion), is that the best exaggerated talking points you can come up? Weak.
On January 21 2017 13:05 LegalLord wrote: Two comments. One, that odd site that links a Gallup poll, I linked for drawing up the map to be a nice graphic. I should have known that the first thing you would strike at would be the fact that there was an almost irrelevant RT link there. It's the map that mattered.
On January 21 2017 01:50 mustaju wrote: Putin claiming the dissolution of the USSR being the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century...
Oh, this tired old quote. We all could do with a bit of context. I'm going to just link his entire speech here. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTvswwU5Eco
Also, this Politifact article is actually pretty decent for describing the statement - and a few things I was talking about regarding Ukraine and a European empire.
The youtube video is something you can't expect me to watch. If you have a context to establish, at least write a TLDR version. The claim by itself is noteworthy, however, since it's in such stark contrast to what Germany or Japan or Italy, for that matter, have done. Imagine Germany saying something like that? Given how calculating Putin is with literally everything else he says, you can't say with certainty it wasn't at least party for internal consumption within Russia?
So this kind of gets at why I don't see any productive discussion on any topic Russia with you and why I'm not going to do this again. "Hey, Putin said X!" "Kind of, but X was said in a context that isn't really that troubling. Here's the 10 minute speech where the quote came from." "You can't expect me to watch that! Besides, can you imagine someone else saying X? Even the thought of X being said makes my blood boil. Can you imagine someone else saying X? USSR is evil, how can X possibly be said?!?"
I tire of it, and I'm done with this.
1)I took issue with there not being an actual linked poll. Because I could not verify the poll, and because RT is not exactly above linking BS, (especially related to the US), it's worth calling out. 2) It's 10 minutes long, I spent a significant amount of time addressing the rest of the points in your swamp of contradictions. You could have at least given a basic answer that does not depend on knowing what Putin really feels in his heart. You are asking people to ignore the context in which the person certainly knew it was said in. That's a lot to ask. 3. "I'm done with this" is used 45 times, and mostly without addressing most of the content or assigning validity to the opposing argument. While not "stupid", I would ask you to refrain from being toxic to discussions in the future.
On January 21 2017 10:58 Simberto wrote: I'm gonna say, i just don't understand american politics. You guys managed to elect G.W.Bush TWICE, even after the disaster in iraq already started you reelected him.
And now you have managed to elect an even worse president. Republicans in general and Trump in particular did so much incredibly insane stuff in the last few years that would make them completely unelectable in any sane country. Shutting down the government. But that was more than a month ago, so people forgot. Blocking a supreme court nomination for a whole year. (Granted, part of this is because your system is just so horrifically broken that it actually allows that sort of thing to happen) Completely ignoring facts and just flying by by bullshitting.
And i already know that you are going to reelect him. Because that is what you do. You do a stupid thing, and then you double down on it.
If you don't find a way to fix your system to prevent this shit from happening, and educating the stupid half of your population that keeps on electing complete morons into government, facts will at some point catch up to you, and it won't be fun. I just hope that you don't drag the rest of the world down with you.
I no longer have any faith in the american nation to do even the most basic sensible action. A large part of your population is just completely and abhorrently alien to me. Religion over Science, Bullshit over Information, Legal bribes are fine, privatized prisons are a good idea, a free market healthcare system works, guns everywhere make people saver, money is speech, tax cuts for the rich solve every problem, global warming is fake. I just simply have no idea how anyone can hold all of those positions. I have a hard time imagining how anyone can hold a single one of them. It just simply makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Germans elected a man, twice, that literally cashed out his political position for Russian Oil money. It's a few years before you regret Merkel, but you will. And badly.
The failure in the structure, approach (and likely outright sabotage) of the occupation of Iraq didn't start to really become an issue until late-2005 to early-2006. So over a year after the 2004 election. The US economy also didn't have to pay for the Greenspan Housing Bubble until 2005. (It was a rolling burst over 2 years; it didn't slaughter the financial markets until 2008.) So George W. Bush was a sitting president that had won 2 wars running for re-election. Is that really surprising he won?
Also, John Kerry ran a terribly stupid campaign. YouTube his DNC acceptance entrance & first few minutes of the speech. Aside from being very cringe-inducing, also realize he was an anti-war protester who openly denounced the Men he served with. He was a terrible candidate to run in 2004. (It doesn't help he's been terrible at every political position he's been in.)
As for 2016, Hillary was the worst retail politician to get a nomination in maybe 200 years. And 200 years ago, candidates didn't campaign themselves. Her positions are available to the highest bidder, minus one or two things she actually believes in, just make sure the check clears. Her campaign was built around raising large amounts of money from LA & NYC donors looking for future favors, with the policies being the down-stream rewards for the major cities.
US Economic data doesn't correlate to the older sets because of a bifurcation among the population. Parts of the country, LA, San Fran and NYC have done great lately, but it's come at the very direct cost to middle section of the country. Foreign manufacturing is great for the Coastal importers and the Finance folks, but that comes at the jobs of those living in the rest of the country. That's why Trump won. Hillary directly threatened to kill the entire coal industry, while in West Virginia, and she promptly lost the state by 16% more than Obama lost it.
So, it's neither stupid nor unreasonable to expect that Trump would win. That the Media was so insanely in the tank has a lot more to do with them than anything to do with Trump. Hillary never had a prayer in anything close to an honest race, so the current power structure invented whatever they could to try to hurt Trump.
As for your list about the States (skipping over whether we care a damn about your opinion), is that the best exaggerated talking points you can come up? Weak.
It seems to be a common trend that when Democrats run people who the country doesn't like - Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton - they have a good chance of losing. And when they do, most of Europe thinks the US crazy.
Our left is your right and our right is your far right. Get used to it. Besides, I hear that Europe's own far right has been doing well lately.
EPT
