Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KB
Posts
0
Comments
340
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Nah, this just goes to a lower court who hands it off to a special master who then redraws the lines with zero input from their legislature: It’s if they try and ignore that is where we get into the fun “federal executive flexes it’s genitals at a state” and runs the election. Probably a long con, but the Republicans are going to lose at least one seat, and the special master may find a way to make them lose two.

  • If you ever feel like you’re about to deal with a cop on your iPhone, mash the side button. 5x on the side button forces it into “ask for a passcode” mode. It’s emergency mode, but emergency mode forces you to out in a passcode to do anything other than show medical ID, turn off the phone (still trackable), or dial emergency services.

  • The “loose definition” redtea came up with is bonkers.

    Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the 'international' courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You're making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

    I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can't have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there's not much left for us to discuss.

    The nutbag’s definition of NATO includes Russia.

  • Additionally, as you say, words have meanings. When people criticise NATO it is as a stand-in for the imperialist world order. It includes the IMF, World Bank, the WTO, the 'international' courts and rules, and all their elements and capitalist lackeys. You're making a semantic argument, which misses the crucial point: that NATO and its member states are concerned only with the wealth and power of their bourgeoisie, regardless of Russia.

    I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have an agenda, that we can't have world peace until there are no more imperialists, which includes and is often, in ordinary language, represented by NATO. If you interpret that as support for Russia, there's not much left for us to discuss.

    Your position literally is the NATO is all the imperial capitalists in the world, and somehow Russia is not involved in either of those definitions and deserves to be apologized for. It’s internally inconsistent and is shill behavior.

    You have an agenda, and it’s pro imperialist, as long as the imperialist is not the US. Congrats; If you were in the US, you’re dumb enough that you’d be shilling for Trump because “He’s gonna drain the swamp!”

  • You keep skipping parts of the history. You bring up that Viktor Yanukovych’s removal was illegal and not that the court’s removal of the 2004 amendments were, themselves, illegal. (Somehow the people who were supposed to implement the constitution were above it?) or that the president went against the Legislature’s will by denying the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, which again, they had a right to write and approve the treaty…

  • Yes, and that’s exactly the point I was making about Russia’s reasons. The NATO already had troops in all of the Baltics following the invasion of Crimea. (Look up Operation Atlantic Resolve) Every single US troop there was already closer to Moscow than any potential Ukrainian base could ever possibly hope to be.

  • When you’re a country on the other side of the world and you’re trying to put troops in place to surround a country you’ve arbitrarily decided is your “enemy” then that’s a clear, open threat.

    The US already had bases closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than Ukraine! As soon as Russia invaded Crimea, the US stationed a shitload of troops in the Baltic states that are part of NATO. Every part of Ukraine's further from Russia's center of power as compared to the deployments of Operation Atlantic Resolve.

    There's not a damn thing that Ukraine would do to benefit the US militarily other than securing non-Russian nuclear plants to provide power to the EU. Russia is going after a war of retribution and hydrocarbon imperialism for leaving it's sphere of influence.

  • I’m only summarising what the US military is saying.

    You're only summarizing what the US Military Industrial Complex is saying, which isn't the US Military. National Defense Industrial Association != US Military, again going back to the "NATO is whatever I define it as" that you keep insisting.

    Mark Milley is the mouthpiece of the US Military as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he's not mincing words: Russia will lose militarily in Ukraine. It will take time and blood, but the US is responsible for 34% of the world's military industrial output and claiming

    It’s DIB is not set up for wars against industrialised countries that are determined to fight back.

    Is not reality. We've only faced off once, and the Battle of Khasham did not go well for the "industrialized country determined to fight back"

  • Oh look, the “NATO is anything I don’t like” Russian apologist tankie guy is back at pulling out fake shit out of their ass.

    The US is the second largest manufacturer on the planet, and insources its military production.

    Ukraine is complaining that we can’t send them Soviet era military structure compatible weaponry. The US had largely phased out “dig a trench and use artillery to make a breakthrough” back in the late 80s, because we could attain air superiority against Soviet tech.

  • That’s been a big chunk of the political landscape. The Republicans and the Catholics are not natural bedfellows and campaigning on Abortion has been how they pulled a ton of them to the right. If the Republicans lose the Catholic vote, they will not win for 50 years, especially since they have been counting on Hispanic anti-abortion votes to cover what they lost on the white college educated elite in the long term.