Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
your "logic" is stupid. people signed up for an app they liked. Then it started changing and they started leaving. Just because 100% of their users didn't immediately leave the app doesn't mean they like the direction Musk is taking it in. You are assuming that the choice is binary. Either they leave the second musk took over, or they must love the direction musk is taking it. That is some extremely childish thinking.
P2) Small number of users leaving due to freedom of speech will not make site shut down
no, running out of money is going to make them shut down. They are losing TONS of money since most of their advertisers wont spend money to advertise there any more.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Agree, half the country is way too extreme.
i mean one half is responsible for an attack on the capitol in an attempt to overturn an election by force. So it's pretty clear which half it is.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Hey buddy, isn't that what the income tax is supposed to pay for?'
pay for what exactly? My quick search on this topic indicated it was aimed at stopping people from finding loopholes around the capitol gains taxes by moving them out of state before selling them. If you want to treat capitol gains as normal income and have it taxed that way, I would be totally on board for that.
So what is it, the people who stay haven't truly given back to California for its benevolence yet?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
What assets can you move out and not have local capitol gains tax apply to you?
I didn't write the law. I did a quick search to see what the point of this law is. My quick research said that in california there is a loophole that allows rich assholes to avoid the local capitol gains tax (which is higher than in other states) by moving out of california before selling the assets. why would you even care about this? The only way this kind of thing could affect you is if you had hundreds of millions of dollars.
None. There is no such loophole. You buy stock in Japan you have to report it on your federal and state taxes, moving to Iowa doesn't help.
ok. but the taxes in california are higher than in other states, according to my quick search. So they are dodging california taxes by moving out of state temporarily, selling the assets, then coming back. With an "exit tax" this would no longer work since they'd have to pay anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If twitter has 300 million users and has free speech, then people want free speech. Twitter has 300 million users and has free speech. People want free speech.
lol, 300 million people started using a product with moderation. The product changed and dropped the moderation and users started leaving. This is REALLY simple. If the change was popular, user numbers would be going up, not down. The fact that they are going down proves the change is not popular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
oh, I was quoting best korea. I don't know how it replied to you. Maybe I mis-clicked. sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Slainte
300 million users stayed.
they've lost millions of users since Elon bought it. And more are leaving all the time. So even by your logic, the old moderated system had more users and was more popular than Elon's version.
Most people want free speech. Most people stayed on Twitter. If most people stayed on twitter, then most people want free speech.
you aren't making any sense. A platform gained hundreds of millions of users while using restrictions. It stopped using those restrictions and their users started to drop. And you think that means people want that? That's silly. If "free speech" is what they wanted, they wouldn't have been on twitter in the 1st place, they would have been on one of those "free speech" apps.
Please think of actual arguments next time.
coming from someone who doesn't make any sense, that's funny.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wasn't using an excuse. I was using an example. That both have absolutely no evidence. So there is no reason to put any stock in them whatsoever. If evidence is presented then maybe they are worth talking about. But for now, both are meaningless rumor.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did I not say we don't know?
ok, we also don't know if Donald Trump murderers puppies for fun, but I don't bring that up and it has the same level of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have already reminded you that twitter has 300 million users.
and since becoming a "free speech" site, it has been losing users. It gained those users while it hard lots of speech moderators. Thus proving you wrong that "Free speech is popular" on social media sites. Most people don't want that.
You already admitted multiple times that sites can respect free speech and still exist.
sure. they don't get many users and get propped up by right wing billionaires. But failed businesses can be propped up by rich people for as long as they are willing to lose money. It doesn't mean they are popular or a good idea.
You felt the need to respond with bunch of insults like a 4 year old. I wont be playing that game.
I didn't insult you. I honestly question how old you are. Several of your answers have made statements that are just silly on the face of them. The kind of thing a 12 year old might think.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess we have to wait till October 2024 to find out then.
i'm not certain what you are referring to. The 2024 election?
We don't know if Biden was getting a 10% cut for the big guy.
i don't know why you buy into these baseless rumors when there is no evidence. Republicans have been trying to pin this (and anything else they can think of) on Joe Biden for years and have so far come up with absolutely no evidence of any anything. Just lots of baseless rumors.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
It is shocking that given the option rich people will pay less tax. Maybe California should threaten other states if they dont raise taxes to match theirs. .
Rich people all over the country don't want to pay their fair share. That's why they have been getting richer but average salaries have been declining (when compared to inflation) for decades. They are happy to play each state against each other in their quest to rob us all blind. I don't begrudge a state attempting to actually make them support the state they leech off of. Whether this specific measure is a good plan, I have no idea. But in general, raising taxes on the rich is a good plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sorry, you are not making any sense. First you conceded that there is lots of them, that lots of people value free speech.
you misunderstand. there are lots of them because lots of rightwing losers need a safe place to go and cry after they get removed from (or just made fun of on) mainstream social media. So they go and make their own. But they are not poplar. They appeal to a small group of people, but then they get bored of sitting in a right wing echo chamber and the site dies. so there are lots of them, but not because they are popular. Just because rightwing losers get hurt feelings and need a safe space.
What is this rambling? Twitter is a free speech site. Twitter has 300 million users. Therefore, free speech site has 300 million users.
are you being willfully ignorant? Twitter is not a free speech site, it never has been. The current owner claims it is, but how and why that is a lie is a separate conversation. But until Musk bought it, it had rigorous moderation. And under the previous owners it built up hundreds of millions of users. Then musk bought and started it's slide into a cesspool and the users are dropping. so it becoming "a free speech site" has only hurt it's popularity.
Also, any law can be improved if too many sites dodge it. Maybe some small, unnoticable site would be able to dodge it, but such site would be reported by citizen report. Therefore, Any site violating the law would be punished.
I don't think you are thinking this through. Are you claiming that a law would be passed that requires all websites to remove all content moderation? Because if so, that is laughably stupid. And probably wildly illegal. And if it is not going to target all websites, than it will always be possible for a website to say it is something else. Ex we aren't a social media site, we are site to share recipes, we just also have social aspects.
I believe we already explained that caling for violence isnt free speech.
ok. now we are getting somewhere. you just admitted you don't want free speech. You want to limit what people can say. Free speech would be being allowed to say anything you want. If you are putting limits on what they can say, that isn't completely free speech. So you objection isn't that you want free speech, you just want to be able to control what the limits to free speech should be.
Well, then go to North Korea. North Korea has lots of limits on freedom, if limits on freedom is what you prefer. The only limit to freedom of speech should be call to violence.
lol all societies have limits to literally every freedom. There is no such thing as a freedom without limits in any country on the planet.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What if it's a recording of Biden?
it isn't. no one is even claiming that it is. They claim that an informant (That they haven't heard from in 3 years) said he heard that some foreign oligarch (that no one has had heard from and don't know where he is) said he had tapes. There is literally no evidence. It is a claim. And when the claim was made, a trump appointee was in charge of the justice department. And they decided the claim was a waste of time.
And even the underlying claim makes no sense. The prosecutor that Biden helped to have removed was renowned for corruption. He had shut down investigations of Burisma(and other rich people and companies). He was almost certainly on Burisma's payroll. Additionally, Biden didn't decide to go and do this. He was only the VP, which has no power. The Obama administration wanted him gone, biden was just the one asked to do it. So the accusation is that Burisma paid biden (who didn't make the decision in the 1st place) to get rid of a prosecutor who was protecting Burisma from investigation. That is stupid.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I googled it. The argument is 2 things. but to be clear, it only applies to people who make 30 million per year or more.
1) since the state has invested heavily in your success (tax breaks, incentives etc), they don't want people who used california's resources to build their wealth to just move it elsewhere after leaching off them.
2) to crack down on a tax loophole. Apparently they have a higher capitol gains tax than other states. So rich people move their assets out of california before selling it to avoid the capitol gains tax. This would help to prevent that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
You can't be both, so they have to choose one.
what? most utilities are private companies.
This is why I'm a voluntaryist. Nobody should be forced against their will to live by someone else's rules.
how does this make any sense in this context? You are arguing that platforms shouldn't be allowed to censor speech. But I don't want to have to interact with nazis etc. So you either restrict nazi's "right" to spread hate and violence, or you restrict my rights.
and no one is forcing anyone to "live by" social media rules. If you don't like them, go to a social media platform that allows that bullshit. There are mutliple at this point. at least until they go bankrupt. but new ones will pop up.
do I think there should be better rules for what kind of restrictions they can put in place? sure I would be fine with that. But there absolutely have to restrictions, or any social media platform is doomed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
First you said they would all bankrupt, now you say there is lots of them. Please, make up your mind in the next comment.
There are, and they will. The current batch of them are not the 1st. They probably wont be the last. Every time some right wing prick with money gets butt hurt they think that they need their own social media site. They all end up the same way. But with enough money behind it they can last a few years.
Twitter has over 300 million users.
and pretty much every one of those users signed up while they were still a normal social media site. Now that they are becoming a cesspool, they are bleeding users and especially money.
This is an assumption, since you assume that it would be possible to get around the law.
I also assume the sun will rise tomorrow. It has a similar level of certainty. No law is perfect. There are always flaws, there are always loopholes. People will find them.
If you believe that variety of opinions is good, then you believe that free speech is good.
lol are you 12? If I like free speech I have to be ok with nazi's calling for mass murder? What a childish argument.
If not, then you prefer profit over free speech.
no, I prefer a functioning society. And all freedoms have limits. Every. single. one. without exception.
Besides, free speech wouldnt include call to violence.
ok, you must be 12. Because anyone older than that would know that right wing loons calls for violence every couple of seconds.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trillions of dollars in corporate welfare is not enough? Color me surprised.
agreed. One of the few things both parties agree on is raining as much money as possible on the rich and corporations. And no matter how much they do, it is never enough.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not the Democrats not allowing it, it's the corporate lobbies flexing their muscle. How do you even begin to fight that.
I don't think that's true. Corporate lobbies think he isn't business friendly enough. They want an even bigger corporate sellout. They would be happy to dump him and get someone like joe manchin as president.
Appeasement is definitely not working.
agreed. I would very much like to see biden face a real primary. But he is still WAY better than trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
As I said, plenty of people value free speech, therefore sites that allow free speech would have plenty of people, as people who value free speech go to sites that have free speech.
there are lots of those sites. Truth social, frank speech etc. They have tiny user bases because they only appeal to right wing loons.
Twitter has lots of users, by the way.
absolutely true. And when did it get those users? When it had a robust moderation team. They are now losing users as musk strips away that moderation and allowing the crazies to spread their nonsense.
I suggest you read the argument. I said "If all sites were forced to respect free speech". There, I had to repeat myself there because you didnt read my argument properly.
oh no, i read it. But that would kill traditional social media sites. "normal" people would leave them because they'd be toxic shit holes. And then they'd lose all their revenue because no advertiser is going to pay to advertise on some toxic shithole.
Some new website would presumably pop up that does something similar but isn't a "social media website" to get around the laws. Bottom line, no one but right wing loons, assholes and criminals want to be on a social media platform full of nazis, anti-semites and right wing loons.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe, but that's still pretty sad. It's the corrupt AFL leadership that is preventing an actual pro union president from getting a chance.
I mean, at this point it is pretty clear that the democrats are not going to allow an actual primary. Better to endorse the inevitable winner of both the primary and election than to refuse to and accomplish nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe, but they still have a ton of users, around 350 million, although that number is declining a few percentage points a year.
and? their user base is declining, and it is no longer a safe place to advertise. That is a dying brand. If you can't make enough money to turn a profit, your company is dying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I disagree that they would go bankrupt, since there are plenty of people who value free speech. People who value free speech would be on the sites that value free speech. Plenty of people would be on sites that value free speech. Sites that value free speech would not go bankrupt.
sources for that? There are a whole bunch of "free speech" social media sites and they are not very popular. They basically just cater to right assholes and/or criminals. All the actual popular social media sites have lots of rules on what you can and can't say. Twitter recently cut alot of it's moderation and it's revenue is down like 60%. They are probably headed for bankruptcy unless they change course.
If all sites were forced to respect free speech, then all people on the internet would have to use sites that respect freedom of speech. Therefore, those sites would still have users.
no, you'd probably just see those sites die. People would move on to something else. If you just want to share photos of your kids, you don't want to have to see someone posting about murdering government officials. If you did have to see that, you wouldn't post things there.
It always makes me laugh how right wing people love capitalism, right up to the moment it doesn't benefit them. Then they want the government to step in and regulate those evil companies. lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe, but their stock valuation today is near the same as when Musk bought it for a pretty high price. Near 54 dollars a share.
umm, what are you talking about? Twitter isn't listed on a stock exchange. So it has no publicly available stock price. I think you are looking at the stock price from when Elon bought it.
The reported value of twitter shares has fallen massively since elon bought it.
Can't exactly do a victory lap over this. Cutting useless worker liabilities can counter the loss in revenue.
not even close. They have lost the majority of their revenue. The firings can't come close to making up for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If free speech is going to be sacrificed for profit, then profit is more valued than free speech.
you seem to be confused. Free speech only applies to the government. It has nothing to do with private corporations. A company can ban you from talking about whatever they want inside their business. That's capitalism.
Since social media is the main communication place, it makes sense to desire free speech over profit in the main communication place.
I can see where you are coming from, but no you are wrong. If you had truly free speech on social media, they would go bankrupt. Virtually no one actually wants truly free speech on there. I don't want to see/hear some KKK member or anti-semite spew hate. I wouldn't use a platform that made me see that. And no advertiser wants their add popping up next to a call for genocide. Twitter is a good example of this. They cut their moderation, allowed hate to spread further and faster than ever, and their revenue is down like 60%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
So would you be OK banning books that r dangerous or for the same reasons u support banning conservatives on twitter?
not really. I mean, for some very extreme examples maybe. If you write a book a book calling for the extermination of an entire ethnic group, I'd be ok with that book being banned. But for the more mundane evil rightwing assholes spew I don't think there is a reason to ban the book. The main reason is reach. In order to be exposed to that crap in a book, you have to choose to go buy the book. In order to be exposed to that crap on social media, you just have to have an account on that social media site. You can't choose to not see it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
-you can say Fire if there is a fire.
true. But if there isn't, then your speech is a crime. Thus confirming that this is an example where free speech is limited.
-Women's advocacy teaches women to yell fire instead of rape since people don't react to claims of rape.
that is true. Because most police aren't going to charge a victim of sexual assault over this. But is a crime they could be charged with (in the right circumstances).
Similarly if you say Biden is corrupt publicly and tending toward authoritarianism, and he is, then you are justified and not an actual insurrectionist (which is a word that is getting fast overused like racist use to be).
no he's not. He hasn't done anything "authoritarian" that multiple other presidents (including trump) didn't also do. And what "treason" is would certainly be tricky one to define.
We have functioning tort laws to discourage actual harmful speech without arbitrary government intervention. I trust courts and juries over bought and paid for politicians.
There are already laws that limit free speech. This isn't some new concept i'm suggesting. It is how the law works right now. You do not, and have never had, completely free speech.
I get that, but the ratioing, the likes and dislikes, seem to have a way for many of the social media platforms to self-regulate what is acceptable.
what social media platform has ever made that work?
I particularly like the community guidelines and community notes on Twitter to push back on corporate propaganda narratives. Outsourcing the role of "light censorship" to the users themselves.
I'm guessing you mean since musk took over? Twitter has been going downhill hard since then. Filling up with right wing trolls, people calling for violence, antisemitism etc. The idea that users can do "light censorship" as a replacement for moderators is a joke. And twitter is steadily declining and likely headed for bankruptcy unless something changes. Their revenues are down like 60% since musk took over. The value of the company has fallen by half.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think so. Biden has given a lot of people reasons to hate him.
no. not really. People don't love him by any means. They wish they had another candidate. But they don't hate him like they did hilary. And certainly not like they hate trump.
-Multiple broken promises especially regarding student debt
true. But those paying attention will know that these were blocked by the republicans, the courts (which were stacked by the republicans) or by Manchin. For those not paying attention, it's really no different than any other politician.
-Afghanistan
you mean the withdrawal that was negotiated and organized by trump's administrations? and let's face it, that is not something that most people care about.
-Spiking the rail strikers
I agree that is bad. But Biden is, overall, pro union. so if you care about unions then biden is a much better candidate than trump.
-Immigration apathy
The kind of person that this is the deciding factor was never going to vote for the democrats anyway. But Biden has continued most of Trump's policies on imigration anyway. So it's pretty silly to say "apathy".
-and now weaponizing the DOJ
lol, biden doesn't have anything to do with trump being investigated for his crimes.
It's very likely Trump will get a good portion of the Biden haters.
I think you have it backwards. The people who will hate biden for these things, are people who already hated the democrats and/or loved trump. None of those things you mentioned really change anything. It still comes down to "do you want trump to be president". And Trump is hated. Trump will lose to a bag of potatoes.
Biden can't just hang out and chill in his basement this time around and expect to win.
sadly, he really can.
Created:
Posted in:
There are reasonable limits on all freedoms, including speech. For example if you go into a crowded theater and shout "FIRE!!", you will be arrested. It is a crime to use speech in that way.
For the most part, people should be allowed to use free speech online, but within limits. There are certainly people who I would say cross the line and should have their speech restricted. I would say if you advocate for genocide, treason, mass violence etc you should be banned.
But frankly, it's all moot. Since these are private companies, they can moderate their platform however they want. And trying to legislate them not to would end with them going bankrupt. No one wants to hang around in a space full of KKK members, or anti semites etc. Without the ability to regulate speech on their platform, any social media site is doomed to failure.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I watched an MSNBC show that had a Harris poll saying 49% of independents think the charges are politically motivated.
couple of things
1) that doesn't really mean much. You can think that there was a political motivation, and also think he is guilty.
2) it's still a little early for any good polling on the issue to be done.
This isn't how Biden is going to win re election.
no, biden is going to win either way. Trump is even less popular now than when he lost last time. This election will be another case of "do you like trump?". And the majority of americans do not like him and do not want him to be president.
And we haven't even gotten charges from the georgia case yet. Those are coming too. And those are likely to be even more damning that these ones. And these ones are already extremely serious.
*Edit* I don't see the exact poll you are referring to, but I found a similar one where 47% said they were politically motivated. And in it 63% of independents called the charges somewhat or very serious. So presumably a large number of independent voters believe they are politically motivated, and also serious.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I am not right wing at all.
anyone who thinks that Trump being indicted helps his electoral chances is only listening to right wing "news". I have no idea where else you could get that kind of idea. His favorability polls have been getting worse, not better. Most people don't like their president being a criminal. And it is basically indisputable that Trump is a criminal at this point. The only people who do so are people who are stuck in a right wing bubble.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
a source that says the FBI turned the evidence over to the Senate Committees on the Judiciary.
again, you seem to be missing my point. There is no evidence. No reporting I have seen claims there is. Some guy said an oligarch had tapes of something. This was an unsubstantiated rumor. There is no evidence. No one has seen the tapes. No one can say they even exist. That's my whole point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If that happens, it's likely he will win the election. Why would you want this.
I think you might be in a rightwing bubble. Being charged with a crime invigorated his base. But those people were going to vote for him anyway. This will absolutely boost him in the primary. But being an accused criminal, let alone a convicted one, does not increase his popularity with the rest of country. If you live in a right wing bubble I can see how you would think this is making him more popular. That is not the case though.
Here's a wild thought, how about primarying corrupt Biden and getting a president that actually represents you instead of picking the biggest loser between Biden and Trump?
I would love that. Sadly, the democratic establishment are dead set on a coronation for biden so we are stuck with 4 more years of him.
They also don't like sitting presidents bragging about how they can jail their political opposition before an election.
that has never happened. And biden has nothing to do with the investigation or with any decision for jailing trump. so every part of what you just said was wrong.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So no source. Gotcha.
no source for what exactly? My point was that there is 0 evidence for any part of the allegation and you replied with "no source". That doesn't make any sense. How would I supply a source for the fact that there is no evidence? Since it doesn't exist, how would I do that?
And Biden isn't any better than Trump.
What? Trump and his familiy actually took millions and millions of dollars from countries that are rivals of the US. That is indisputable fact. There is no evidence biden has done anything similar. Just accusations without a shred of evidence to back them up.
Meet the new Trump, same as the old Trump.
there has never been a single politician like trump.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Best.Korea
I mean, trump already committed a number of crimes on his 1st term as president. And that was when he had advisors trying to keep him under control and when he still had to worry about winning a 2nd term. Without those limitations, there is no telling what he would do now. He has already pardoned his allies. He promises to pardon people I would consider traitors (the jan 6th rioters), he tried to overthrow a democratic election, the list goes on and on. A 2nd term would be extremely bad.
And if trump wants to use that as a bargaining chip, I suppose that is up to him. Personally, I hope he goes to prison before the election and rots in there till he dies.
If they dont want Trump to run for president, that just means they know he will win if he does.
seems highly unlikely. Trump is even more unpopular than when he lost last time. He isn't likely to do any better. While being indicted might play well with his base, the rest of the country doesn't like electing men who brag about committing crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol come on now.
Specifically a source that says the FBI turned the evidence over to the Senate Committees on the Judiciary.
someone said that some foreign oligarch somewhere had tapes of something. No one has seen these tapes. There is no evidence they exist. And the person who allegedly has the tapes cannot be found. If you went to the FBI and said that biden kills puppies for fun, that would be the same level of evidence these allegations have.
Even more importantly, these accusations were made while trump was president. Which means trump appointees were in charge of the justice department when they decided that there was no evidence this was true. So even trump's hand picked people didn't think this was true.
Bottom line, there is absolutely no evidence the biden did anything. And even the underlying accusation doesn't make sense.
And if you really care this much, perhaps you should look at the actual cases of trump and his family take bribes from foreign governments, like Saudi Arabia, china etc. There is actual evidence for those, unlike this unsubstantiated rumor.
Created:
History would suggest that the party that holds the government hostage and tries to trigger a crisis, is the one that is punished for it. The republicans want to try to stay relevant so every time a democrat is in power they pull this bullshit. But they will have to fold at some point, tanking the economy is not in their (or their rich donor's) best interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
media corporations received diminishing returns after Trump lost in 2020 in addition to the detrimental lockdown economy.
Trump was more of a blip. All traditional media is dying, from CNN to Fox etc. Trump created a spike in interest because he was a lunatic and alot of people wanted to know what the idiot was going to do next. But he was blip on a long downward trend. There's simply too many places to get information these days and less and less people trust traditional media. They will continue to survive for awhile yet. But the average age of a consumer of that kind of news is like 60.
Those outlets overproduced anti-Trumpism and didn't predict the market was going to dry up after he was no longer president.
oh I think they are all well aware. They used trump to generate interest (left and right wing media alike). And I think they all knew that without him there would be a down swing. You can see them flailing trying to stay relevant, it's not going to work.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What specifically are you asserting Biden lied about?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not at all. I am saying there are many progressives that say we shouldn't continue to fund the killing if sending more money delays real peace talks and depletes funds that Americans need.
This doesn't really make any sense. There is no way for peace talks to work at the moment. Russia thinks it is entitled to steal large swaths of Ukraine. Ukraine isn't going to agree to that. Even if the US did cut them off entirely and leave them to die, the conflict would be at best a frozen conflict waiting for it to spark up again. Much more likely, the conflict would continue with bombings and gorilla style attacks for years to come. The only way for there to be peace is for russia to leave Ukraine. And they aren't going to agree to that until they are forced out.
Ukraine is already destroyed from the 2014-present civil war, there isn't much left to save. Reconstruction should be pursued at this point. Concessions made. Killings ended, corruption staved off.
Peace isn't possible as long as russia is still occupying Ukraine. Even if they are forced to accept some style of deal, the war will go on in other means. And at some point, the war would re-start when russia decided it wants more of Ukraine (which they have repeatedly said isn't a real country).
Russia failed to advance past the Donbas. They won't try it again.
They got to the outskirts of Kiev. They still occupy large chunks of Zaporizhzhia and Kerson Oblasts, which they have officially announced are part of Russia. These are not part of the Donbass, but Russia says it is theirs. So saying they won't try to go past Donbass, when they are still going beyond donbass right now is a bit nonsensical.
However, Ukraine has made it clear they want the Donbas back. That isn't going to happen either.
why wouldn't it? Russia just has to lose.
USA is literally funding an endless stalemate to the tune of billions of dollars enriching a massive amount of corrupt people in the USA, Ukraine and Russia...and Americans are paying for all of that. And we are asked to care based on a massive amount of lies about "saving the world"
this is an incredibly short sighted take. Even if we leave out how it is the right thing to do and focus solely on the direct benefit to the US. Russia has made it clear that 1) they want their empire back, and 2) they want a multipolar world where they and the Chinese are equal to the US in power and influence.
These are both terrible things for the US. the Russian empire included multiple members of NATO. The only way for them to get what they want, is to take it from NATO. Which means, at some point, when the US is distracted (like by a Chinese invasion of Taiwan) russia is going to come for "their" land. So conflict with russia is inevitable as long as they think this way. It is MUCH cheaper to have Ukraine fight them than for the US to do it directly. It costs pennies on the dollar compared to the alternative.
2) the US benefits massively from being the worlds only super power. From having the Dollar as the world's reserve currency, to being able to use soft power to get it's way in countless ways. In a world where Russia and China are legitimate rivals to the US, this power is lost. And the costs of that are incalculable.
We did the EXACT same thing in Iraq, and people are just as gullible today as they were in the Bush years.
this is absolutely nothing like Iraq. The US invaded iraq, installed a puppet state with no support from the people, then spent decades fighting insurgents. Ukraine has a democratically elected government that is incredibly popular. They are unified in their defense of their homeland.
If the price of saving one arbitrary corrupt Democracy is this, then a corrupt democracy like that most assuredly isn't worth saving.
lol what? The Ukrainian government certainly has corruption issues, but so does the US government. Saying you should leave the Ukrainian people to be massacred because they have corruption very similar to American corruption, is insane.
Ukraine will never be an American colony, no matter how many billions we toss at it.
no one is suggesting they would be, or should be. What they are is a free democratic state being invaded by an imperialist dictatorship. They can be a strong US ally to contain russian aggression. That is incredibly valuable.
Will the real progressives please stand up for America while there is an America left.
Why would progressives want to leave innocent people to be conquered by their imperialist neighbors? Especially when preventing it so useful and valuable?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's the whole point. The US can arbitrarily choose which types of Democracy to support and which revolts to support.
This doesn't even make sense. Donbass never had a democracy. They had a bunch of thugs impose their views on people with violence and hid behind their sham vote. Just like russia did with Crimea.
But what's not a moot point is that many progressives would rather see Americans being taken care of rather than choosing to support corruption under the lie of a false dichotomy.
again I don't see the how that is connected. Are you saying progressives would rather see Ukrainians massacred? I don't think that is true. And if the point is to not spend the money, you don't save anything by leaving Ukraine to die. Because as I just explained, Russia has made it clear it wants it's empire back. So conflict is going to happen. You might be able to put it off a few years by leaving Ukraine to die, but it's going to happen either way. This way, we get to help a democracy to survive and the cost is WAY lower since Ukraine is doing the fighting. It is Win Win.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There was a referendum held in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in May 2014.
lol, not really. Armed thugs printed off some papers, collected them and said "yep we win". It was not an actual referendum. There was no oversight.
here are some quotes from the wiki on that "referendum". bottom line, it was a sham done by force
The Donetsk regional education superintendent informed reporters that they were forced under threat of death to organise polling stations in the schools.
Two official electoral commissioners were kidnapped by separatists prior to the vote.
Donetsk and Luhansk residents living in Russia were able to cast their votes in Moscow.
The separatist groups claimed that the majority of voters supported independence, with some reports suggesting a turnout of over 70%. Ukraine and NATO quite literally threw democracy out the window by refusing to recognize the will of the people of the Donbass.
but there was no legitimate vote. there was a sham with no oversight. they could claim the results were whatever they wanted.
Here's some more evidence as to the current corruption in Kiev and why the Donbas won't surrender to such a corrupt regime.
This article says he took money meant to buy fuel, and he bought fuel. He just didn't do it from the source the Americans wanted him to. I don't deny that there is corruption in Ukraine. But to say that there is less corruption in Russia is a joke so it's kind of a moot point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I refuted all of your points with evidence, and you come back with.... nothing. Your personal opinion is that it is about oil, so you ignore all the other inforamtion, including the statements by the russian government and putin himself.
And nothing to say about any of your other disproven assertions? Like that Donbass was majority russian?
One of them who was buying oil from the Russians and we blew up that pipeline.
1) I don't see how that is related. 2) there is no evidence of that.
At least for that NATO member, oil is more important than "containing expansion" or whatever cover reason you think applies to describe yet another war for oil.
you know what's more important than oil? Russian tanks invading poland or Lithuania. And Russia has already said they want that land back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Jesus, I knew he was a complete bigot and an asshole, but a pedophile, bigot asshole.... And one who has the nerve to try about how bad it is for being punished for abusing children.
It isn't surprising he thinks that torturing children is ok. that's how he likes to spend his free time.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok what about the 2022 census?
2 things:
1) this is now territory occupied by the russians. They have banned publishing lots of statistics and the ones they do release look awfully tampered with. So any stats that exist now can't really be trusted
2) after years of russian funded and armed rebel groups, many civilians fled the area. So the demographics have likely shifted. But if mexico invaded texas, deported or killed any white people, then said "hey, I don't see any non-mexicans, so this is rightfully mexico". Would you accept that legally, texas is mexican now? Any rational person would look and this and see that russians were a minority, until they started killing the non-russians.
So a forced displacement of an entire culture based on the language they speak. Ok just so we are clear.
no one said anything about a forced displacement. They were allowed to stay and be ukranian citizens. They were allowed to leave and be russian citizens. I believe they even were allowed to stay and be dual citizens. No one was going to make them leave. But the russians paid a bunch of ethnic russian, ukranian citizens to turn traitor. And even though they were the minority in the entire region, insist that they had the right to take the whole thing over and hand it to russia. And they did so, because russia paid them to do it
you are quoting the stat for the city of doentsk, not the Oblast (state). they were the largest group (by 2%) in that specific city. In the whole Oblast, they made up 39% and Ukranians were 56.9%
The entire war is over who is going to control the Donbas.
nope. The russians used them as an excuse. But many Government officials and official news media have repeatedly claimed the Ukranians aren't a real people, they are just russians. Russia intended to annex all, or at least most of Ukraine. Donbas was just an excuse to invade.
We helped greatly to incite the Euro rebellion to overthrow democracy in 2014 in Ukraine as a drastic measure to stop the Donbas from declaring independence. So it's extremely relevant to note that Donetsk is much more culturally Russian than Ukraine.
I'm not sure any part of that made sense. The people overthrew their own russian puppet government because it refused to listen to them and went back on their word at the last minute. And I already showed you that the entire donbass region was majority Ukrainian, not russian.
What are the Ukrainians going to do to all those people living there NOW if the US helps them win that Civil War?
They have already said, anyone living there who was living there before the russian occupation began will be welcome to stay. Anyone who moved there after the russian invasion began and therefore does not have Ukranian citizenship, will have to leave.
What do you think is going to happen to all those ethnic Russians?
i'm sure their ukranian neighbors won't be very fond of them. but the Ukranian government has already said what their policy is. It isn't genocide. That is Russia's plan for the area.
Here is a VERY good example for being anti war while also being anti Russian.
how is this either of those those things? It is the US trying to keep the war as a relatively low intensity war. The US government doesn't really want Ukraine or Russia to win, they want the 2 sides to deplete each other.
At some point you have to ask just how much we are going to pay to support Zelensky. Is nuclear war really worth that strip of the Donbas?
For America, it isn't about Donbass. It's about containing Russian imperial expansion. They have made it clear their goal is to rebuild the russian empire. They've waged multiple wars in the last decade or 2 to this end. If the invasion of Ukraine is successful, and to be clear success means annexing alot more than donbass, then they will move on to their next target. And there are multiple NATO members that used to be part of the USSR and/or the russian empire. America has nothing to gain by selling out Ukraine. It just delays a confrontation. If Russia thinks it can redraw the map of Europe by force, then war is inevitable. Much better to beat them here than in Warsaw or Vilnius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex.Wrong. The word gay is inseparable from gay sex.
what? that is insane. Maybe you can't think of a gay man without thinking about having sex with him, but that's all you. Most of us don't do that.
Doesnt mean that we should teach kids to be gay. The gay indoctrination is not protected by any law. Plus, the laws are irrelevant if they arent good.
no one is suggesting to teach them to "be gay". I am suggesting they need to be taught that it is ok to be gay, since they may be gay, members of their family may be gay. They need to learn to accept themselves and their family and friends. The same way they should be taught to accept black people (or any other race or group).
Yes, it is. "It is ok" is your opinion which you try to force on children. Children disagree with it, thats why you are supporting your gay indoctrination in the first place. Get it?
so teaching children not to hate other based on their identity is "indoctrination"?
By your logic, yes. You were the one who said we shouldnt teach kids about sex, but should teach them about "two daddies". So yes, your logic is nonsense that doesnt have any connection to the real world.
parenting and sex are two entirely different things. it is possible for an A sexual person to adopt a child. You can be a parent without ever having sex. So saying that talking about a child having 2 daddies and that being ok is somehow talking about sex is insane.
You cant teach kids about what parents are without implying sex, because parents = sex. Then of course, you blame me because your logic is so dumb that it has no basis in any reality
lol so if a teach says anything about momies and/or daddies they should be sued right? I mean they are implying sex. and you say my logic is dumb. You want to ban mentions of parenthood to children.
No. You can. Thats why we are trying to prevent you from infecting children.
this is long since been debunked as bullshit. Sexual attraction isn't a behavior you can control.
No. It is your behavior that you can surpress. If you cant surpress it, but you feel the need to spread it, you are then just poisoning our society. The death penalty would cure you from being gay in any case.
ok, i'm just going to stop answering you now. Anyone who would advocate murdering people because you don't like who they are is a complete asshole. You are no different from the people who used to lynch black people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He wasted a ton of that BBB bill on corporate welfare as well. Bernie Sanders would never have allowed that status quo.
Oh I agree. The bill they finally passed got gutted by manchin and Sinema. They ripped out most of the actual positive stuff and left in the corporate welfare. They are both corrupt assholes.
People who voted for Biden over Sanders deserve the world they sold out to.
Yeah, the DNC and democratic establishment worked hard to push biden once it became apparent none of their other favorites (Buttigieg, kamela etc) had any chance of beating Bernie. We'll never know if he would have accomplished more or not. He still would have had to contend with people like Manchin. So unless him being the presidential candidate got 2 more senate seats, it still seems unlikely he would have been able to get everything he would have wanted. But at least he would have tried, Biden just rolled over and gave Manchin what he wanted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Literally anything that could be regarded as sexual instruction, yes. But that's been an academic policy for many schools before it was ever considered a State law.
But a state law is very different from a school policy. A school can decide if someone was out of line or not in the specifics of what they said or did, just like any other employer. Making a state law that is super vague and empowers anyone to sue a teacher over what they teach is very different. You could decide you think teaching about evolution is "inappropriate". You could decide that teaching about black history is "inappropriate". And this law gives you the power to sue over whatever thing you want. So now teachers are in a position where they must self censor and not teach anything that anyone could possibly consider "inappropriate" (which the right randomly changes it's mind on regularly) or risk getting sued.
This law isn't designed to protect children. It is designed to empower bigots to sue teachers who dare to teach children information they don't like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I actually agree with you regarding Biden keeping the status quo
He did try to do some positive stuff, like build back better, student debt etc. But right wing assholes managed to block much of it, like manchin and Sinema. no, right wing is too generous for them, they are just straight up corporate sellouts doing intentionally shitty things because it makes them money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all.So its inappropriate to teach them about gays.
no, of course not. There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex.
So you spread your ideology on them? Thats not education. Thats indoctrination
being gay is a legally protected class. teaching children it is ok to be themselves isn't indoctrination.
. Plus, you cant say "two daddies" without implying gay sex. Children figure it out by age 9, and they start thinking that its okay to be gay.
lol so if I say you have parents, you assume I mean "you have two people who like to fuck each other"? The inside of your brain must we a weird place. by that logic it should be illegal for children to know parents exist because it implies sex.
I have no idea why you feel the need to spread your diseases to children.
it isn't a disease. You can't catch "gay". It is a part of you. Your obession with crushing people who don't identify the exact way you do is highly disturbing. I assume you are a christian based on your hateful rhetoric. Jesus would be ashamed of you. 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. '
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all.
and so he passed a bill that gave parents the right to sue teachers for teaching children about anything the parent doesn't like. the bill doesn't say they can't teach about sex. it says they can't teach anything "age inappropriate", but then lets any parent decide what that means so that literally anything could be viewed as inappropriate.
Created: