circuscritic @ circuscritic @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

981

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's NOT just about what Russia wants...

This is the type of plan that hawks in the west would draw up because THEY want the casus belli to justify deploying combat troops.

That's my point. Those risks are intentionally high, because that's what they want.

And no, that's not okay. Russia has no chance to win a conventional conflict against the West, period.

What do you think they'll do to avoid that crushing defeat by NATO forces right on their border, and within their occupied territory?

You're misunderstanding where my concerns are placed, and why.

Imagine a Russian cruise missile volley hits the mess hall, or barracks, and kills 30-50 Americans.

How do you think an American administration would respond?

How will the Russians respond to the Americans response?

What rung of escalation ladder do we end up at?

What happens when another strike kills 15 UK troops the following week?

How will the UK respond?

How will the Russians respond to that?

How much further until the last rung?

Yes, we both agree that Ukraine needs support, and much more then they're getting.

But I don't think you're fully appreciating the risks associated with deploying active duty NATO troops to Ukraine.

It's wrong precisely because Taiwan is a client state...

They have thousands*. Although due to the high cost and difficulty of maintaining them over decades, it's quite possible that only hundreds will actually detonate once they reach their targets.

Which is still enough to cause a nuclear winter.

*Thousands of warheads, but many of those will be MIRV, so a single ICBM can impact multiple locations.

You know what doesn't convince people to rethink how they view America, or empire?

Arbitrarily inserting comments like that into topics where they're disconnected and off topic.

Wait a minute...are you a DoD contractor whose mission it is to make any critic of America look whiney and detached from reality?

Dear god, no...just no.

I wish the West would arm Ukraine with squadrons of 4.5 gen airframes, fully stocked and layered air defense systems, hundreds of Abrams/Leopard II's, and setup massive training facilities in bordering NATO counties.

However, putting NATO troops in theatre is such an absurd escalatory risk that I refuse to believe it's not intentionally designed to prompt a full scale military intervention.

Training troops isn't a huge escalation, nor is Estonian trainers getting blown up (bad as that would be). But if this policy moves forward, it's only a matter of time before a dozen, or more, American or British trainers get blown up, and that could very easily ignite that powder keg into something that can't be contained, because the hawks won't want it to be.

That kind of defeats the purpose of "help the Ukrainians defeat Russia in Ukraine, to prevent a wider war".

Because it went from being a novel decentralized payment method, into a speculative asset, and finally a Wall Street commodity.

Yes, I know there are projects where that core ethos is still relatively intact, but those aren't what come to mind whenever people publicly discusses "crypto".

It's possible they think that, but it's not something that is made clear through their comments here, at least not to me. But that's mostly because they're very poorly written, like I said, only partially intelligible.

No, he's saying that national Democracts leverage the black community for votes, and in exchange, repeatedly screw them over - when they manage to remember they exist outside of election cycles.

At least, that's how I read his comment. It is only partially intelligible.

You're technically correct, but only because the DNC drinks from the same neoliberal Kool Aid. The apparatus is now mostly run from their bloated privatized consultant class (campaign consultants, media firms, polling outfits, etc.).

Of which, I'm sorry to say, I have spent time both employed by personally, as well as many years in close proximity to, outside of my own direct professional engagement.

I love how, on Lemmy, you think that it's more likely that I'm actually a deep cover foreign asset, then a citizen who's happened to have worked in the disgustingly large multi-billion dollar campaign industry.

But please, tell me more about how your intimate knowledge of our body politic is more nuanced and insightful then mine.

You call me angry and disgruntled, but your political philosophy is "I'll compromise on literally anything, as long as I'm told it's for the greater good".

Trump would be awful, but he's not the end of the line of awful candidates and I'd rather take my chances with a DNC that is responsive to it's base, and not it's donors. That can't happen unless they fear their base will pull support, which is why they've trained them to always compromise.

Isn't it funny though, that the compromise only works in one direction: to the right and for the benefit of the donor class.

As opposed to you, and the others like you, who are demanding that anyone who voices dissent and discontent must still vote for Biden, and to do otherwise means we're actually a combination of Trump supporting tankies who run socket puppet accounts for Russia, who really want the country to continue sliding towards fascim.

So yeah, I understand your position just fine.

That's because full auto rifles*, are typically seen as wasting limited ammunition. A modern military unit isn't likely to encounter a bunched together group of 30-50 soft targets where a full auto rifle would be most effective...unlike a mass shooter indiscriminately targeting a crowded concert.

*Rifles, not machine guns. I'm well aware of the utility of squad machine gunners, talking guns, etc.

I don't know about your locality, but I've never lived in a state where a Presidential general election ballot doesn't have a whole lot of other races and ballot initiatives on it...

I don't see how my not supporting Biden, or the establishment DNC candidates, somehow prevents me from voting for school bonds, local progressive grassroots candidates, or any other measures and races on the ballot this year.

So...good for you, vote your conscience, and I'll vote mine.

What super secret strategy? I've laid out my very simple belief on the matter, repeatedly, and on a public forum.

If my vote isn't a big deal, than why are you devoting so much time trying to convince me otherwise?

I never said don't vote. I've said I won't support the establishment DNC, or Biden, but that I will continue to support progressive/left candidates who would be beholden to voters, and not special interests/machine politics.

Compromise to what end? That is what you're not understanding. When in the last 30 years has that not lead to us being worse off?

I get it, you're happy to manage our decline into a full blown neoliberal gilded age 2.0 hellscape, on the off chance that it helps to staves off full blown fascism. I'm not judging you for making that choice, but I do disagree with it.

I don't see how the unending shifting of the Democratic party to the right, just to remain slightly to the left the GOP, doesn't end up with the exact situation you're trying to fend off.

So, as I said, I'm going to use the only voice I have, my vote, to support the only viable path that might prevent the outcome that you claim you're trying to avoid, but really, are just easing into a bit more gently.

I'm guessing you would have/did vote for him though. Good luck with your strategy of not even playing the same game

....what? No, seriously, I'm usually pretty good at deciphering gibberish, but I think I need some clarification here....

I understand the part where you're calling me a Bernie voter, and intending that as insult.

But I'm not clear on the part about me not playing the same game as a sitting senator, and former presidential candidate... because of course I'm not...

Am I supposed to be? If so, how?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/23/biden-primaries-unchallenged/

Yes, they effectively rigged the Presidential primary this cycle for Biden. It wasn't really a secret, was widely covered, and if you aren't aware of that, I don't think you're informed enough to even have this conversation.

I genuinely don't care if you believe me. It wasn't an appeal to authority to get you to change your mind. It was in response to your patronizing "I used to be like you" schtick.

I never said don't vote, not once. I haven't even appealed to others to follow my lead in not supporting Biden.

I have laid out some of my reasons for not supporting Biden, and that is what you find so offensive.

"The lesser of two evils" game will never end. That is the fire, that is how we got Trump in the first place. Continuing to breath life into the existing DNC isn't going to put it out, it's just going to fan the flames.

Wake up and smell smoke.

Well, considering that he lost then, and then lost again the same way 4 years later, he's not really the benchmark of effective political strategy that you're acting like he is.

You mean vote in the Presidential primary that the DNC cancelled this year?

Or did you mean, ignore that they cancelled it, and just vote for Biden like a good little lemming?

Don't be so hysterical. Trump is bad, and I'm under no illusion what another term of his would be like, but he's far too stupid and petty to "end democracy", the Democrats are doing fine at doing that themselves.

I'm not some young radical. I've been through many cycles, and I've worked on more campaigns then most of people have voted in.

And yes, I've worked inside the DNC apparatus and been around contemporary Democratic machine politics nearly my entire life. I have a pretty good idea of what these people are like, because I've known a whole lot of them.

Vote for whoever you want.

My responses were directed at people commenting, unprompted, about how anyone who doesn't support Biden, or buy into his campaign messaging, are either closeted Trump supporters, tankies, or (my personal favorite) foreign socket puppet accounts i.e. Russian bots.

Because obviously they can't be lifelong Democrats who are fed up with current Democratic establishment and see the threat they pose if left unchanged - precisely because we NEED an actual strong leftwing workers party to stand against the GOP.

So, again, you do whatever your conscience tells you.

If your comfortable with a Democratic party that is already fully run by neoliberals, crushes leftists, and only moves further to the right each election, then keep supporting them. That's on you.

Myself, I am going to see which option the Democrats are MOST concerned with i.e. uncommitted vs blank vs a specific 3rd party candidate.

I will also continue to support most of my local and statewide progressive candidates, because I do care, and I'm not whatever fantasy the Biden supporters have concocted so they can dismiss people like me without giving these idea any real thought.

You realize that courting the right, and destroying the left, has been the current Democratic party establishments playbook for quite a while already....right?

That was actually part of the Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy. But don't take my word for it, go read up on their well documented belief that they could give up on rural and bluecollar democrats, and replace them with "moderate GOP voters" from the suburbs.

Hint: it didn't work.

So.... you're counterpoint is that if I don't support them, they'll just keep doing what they're already doing?

I disagree. They're behave like that because they can. Because despite their base despising their donor first agenda, the base still turns out for them, more or less.

The only way to correct that, is to retrain them on who's needs they need to be responsive to. Absent becoming a billionaire who supports the 99%, the only way is to not support them, and be vocal about why.