Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
Biden: C-
Trump: D-
Obama: B-
Bush: D
Clinton: B
Bush: C-
Reagan: D+
Carter: C-
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually he explicitly claimed it after Computer Nerd asked if he was it and when I asked him to describe his role and theme PM he continued to double down on the lie.
I wasn't sure which posts you were referring to, so I looked back. Posts #38 and #70 kind of fit the first if you squint, and I can't find where you asked him to describe his role and he actively described Krav Maga. Please direct me to that.
Post #38:
I took it to mean the entire book of Genesis. I think the word is flexible though
Doesn't say anything about Krav Maga. He doesn't confirm or deny CN's theory.
Post #70:
Before that post I thought computernerd was just being antitown by openly theorizing about my character, because scum would be more likely to do that in PM, but his self consciousness is concerning.
This is attacking the theorizing, not whether he was correct or not.
I'm really not seeing your perspective on this, dude. If you have evidence that he confirmed being Krav Maga and then backpedaled, then present it. Don't just say it happened.
As for your follow-up, I already said that his reply to you regarding the second theme split being more likely correct doesn't make sense. I'm arguing that that alone is not reason enough for me to lynch him over CN. Simple as that.
Is is supposed to mean that we know the Torah verses off by heart to the extent we'd recall a metaphorical wrestling with God that is somehow to be taken as a real martial art? It did imply Judaism and based on other things he said, it strongly seemed he was hinting at Krav Maga. It's a completely sensible conclusion.
I agree that it makes some sense if you squint hard enough. I disagree that it's the most sensible conclusion one could make. As soon as he started referring to Bible verses, wrestling became a pretty prominent option. Krav Maga doesn't exist in the Bible, but sure, Israelis use it so the referencing the Bible has some tenuous connection. Honestly, this comes off more as you being upset that your interpretation of his soft claim wasn't correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Vader
@Mharman
@That2User
Alright, we're limited on time and we're still pretty far apart on a decision, and like RM, I don't want to see this DP go by without a lynch.
Unless something dramatic changes, I think it's safe to say that our decision is between Incel and ComputerNerd. Much as RM chides me for spending time examining other plausible theme splits, he's also the only one who seems absolutely convinced by his view of what that split is. I'm willing to consider other options, and have even said that I scum read Incel (not sure why RM decided to ignore my previous post where I stated that), even if I think it's unlikely that these two are on a scum team. I do believe that eliminating either of them would implicate the other, particularly since Incel was quick to hop on the ComputerNerd wagon. I'm not sure why ComputerNerd hasn't suggested an alternate target yet, but it makes it more difficult to gain any information about him by lynching Incel.
In general, I'm seeing some reason to lynch Wylted that's largely based on a single post he made early in the DP (behaviorally, he seems consistent with his previous play), and more reason to lynch ComputerNerd based on a wider set of possible theme splits. RM seems stuck on his view, but I don't think the rest of us should be.
That2User, I'm not sure why you are deciding to vote Incel. Which of RM's arguments has you convinced? He seems to have been convinced that Incel was soft claiming Krav Maga for reasons I honestly don't understand since Incel's soft claim had everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with being Israeli. RM made that leap by himself, but he's blaming it on Incel. It's nice to see you making a choice, but it would be better if you were actually stating your position rather than just agreeing with RM for no stated reason.
Mharman, I'm not sure why you're so hesitant to put up a vote, but in general it looks like you're finding more reasons not to vote.
Earth, you should still be making some kind of call on this. I understand if you don't have a good idea of the theme split, but just sitting out the vote and occasionally chiming in accomplishes nothing.
Supa, be nice if you could jump in here anytime. You seemed suspicious of RM, but the choice is largely between these two now.
Created:
Posted in:
Just realized I included Judo without it being claimed. Just to clarify, no, I am not Judo. Just stuck in my head for some reason. So remove that bit about Aikito and Judo being similar, it doesn’t apply here.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, based on what we know so far (and to be clear: I am still opposed to pursuing the remainder of character claims in his DP), I'd say we have some reasonable options for the theme split. I really don't buy RM's framing of that split, whether it's balance oriented or mental vs physical martial arts, that just doesn't break down as cleanly as he seems to believe it does. Alternatively, I've suggested that it could be geographic. The Asian vs. non-Asian divide that Earth provided might work with this set, but it gets complicated when you include Sambo, a Russian martial art. Defining that as solidly Asian or European seems arbitrary. If it's country-specific, that would depend on how we define the origins of Karate, since they came from the Okinawa archipelago. That could fit with China or Japan, though it was independent at the time so that's not an easy call, though I'd say it goes towards Japan because it was imported to that country first. That would place Aikido and Karate (CN and That2) as scum.
However, as I mentioned earlier, I'm also considering the option that it's common disciplines vs. uncommon disciplines. Karate, Wrestling, Kung Fu, Judo and Sambo are all relatively common disciplines from what I've read. Aikido not so much. It seems much safer than the other claims given so far, and most closely related to Judo, each being a throwing style. Again, this points to ComputerNerd being an outlier.
As for my reads on everyone else (I've already given my reads on the rest), I'm neutral on Earth and Supa. They haven't contributed enough for me to read them. I townread RM and Pie, since they're largely following their town metas and RM's insistence on his theme split just reads very townie to me. Mharman suddenly deciding to give his character claim makes me question the slight townread I had on him up to this point based on the back-and-forth with Incel, which sets him in neutral territory for me right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Alright... I really don't get it. I'm reading through your reasons for pushing so hard on this vision of what the theme split is, and it honestly just looks like you're getting caught up in the phrasing that Luna sent you for your role and how it works rather than anything about the theme split at large. I thought your initial post about the theme split came from some specific information Luna gave you in your PM directly attributing to the theme split, but it seems that you're inferring a lot from very little here.
That being said, we're actually thinking along similar lines about who we're sussing despite coming at it from markedly different angles. I also noted Incel's response to you in post #22 doesn't make any sense now that we know his character claim:
If your theme split is correct than out of the 2 scenarios you mentioned, the second potential scum team you mentioned is correct.
I'm unclear why he said this if he is wrestling, since that is in the scum pool in both scenarios. I'm reticent to vote for Incel given my history playing with him as Wylted, however, as I almost always feel like I'm reading him wrong. He often latches onto what he considers to be minor scum tells, which he did this game with Mharman, and makes definitive statements without much in the way of support or reasoning. That doesn't justify declaring this early and then obviously going back on it later, and I'd still consider a lynch on him, but he's not my top choice at the moment.
Personally, I'm leaning toward lynching ComputerNerd at the moment. I think Pie makes a good point about his behavior being rather distinct this game, and the Aikido claim sticks out like a sore thumb to me. All the claims that I've seen so far, including all of those you discussed early on, are common disciplines in MMA. I haven't seen Aikido listed as common, it's probably the rarest of the claims we've seen so far, and it looks a bit safe to me.
As for what I said about That2User earlier, look back at when I said it. At that point, That2 had only posted once, and it was to say that they were self-defense. That2 only announced that they were Karate later, which I'll grant you does fist into the game's theme. It was strange for That2 to go only that far in posting their character and then delay the actual character claim until later, which still sticks out to me, but not as much as either Incel's or ComputerNerd's behaviors.
Anyway, any further posting from me will have to wait until after work. For now, my vote goes on ComputerNerd.
VTL ComputerNerd
Created:
Posted in:
Alright... so another long day... made longer by a certain thread post that is still being discussed... but hey, I'd rather stay focused on Mafia for now, so let's put that behind us for the moment.
I still have questions about how RM is determining the theme and none of his posts since I posted last night have helped answer them. The balance angle may have something to it, but it seems a bit overcomplicated to me and a somewhat tortured way to distinguish between martial arts. I'm no expert in this (like, seriously, at all), so I may just not know enough to be able to parse through pages and pages about each of these martial arts, but I don't see the obvious distinctions on a balance level between the styles that RM is discussing as potentially scum and the others common to MMA. Maybe I'm just missing something. Regardless, at this point, we already know everything but the full claim from RM and it's kind of absurd that we're stuck waiting for him to explain all this on Saturday when he's already gone this far.
Personally, I'm considering the angle that it may have more to do with regions or countries of origin, though at present we have too few to make a call about where most of the martial arts are grouped. That might still have some overlap with RM's proposed split, but not entirely. I'm also considering how long these have been around, though that's more of a stretch at this point.
I'm getting a couple of soft claims that I'm not going to draw attention to, as well as this weird claim from That2User in their first and only post. Self-defense just doesn't fit with what we've expected in terms of martial arts, especially given that it's not really a separate style. I'm in agreement with Pie that this needs to be elucidated, and a full claim seems warranted after dropping that and leaving.
Created:
Posted in:
It's late and it's been a long day, so I'll keep my thoughts brief tonight.
I don't know the text of RM's PM, though it is possible that it reveals something important about the theme split. Nonetheless, there seems to be some tension regarding which martial arts would fall into the scum camp based on his analysis, which Incel claims to have narrowed down to just one set of possibilities based on his PM. The theory seems a bit complicated and its plausibility relies on their having some information that has yet to be fully clarified, but at minimum it's worth considering. That being said, I'm not supporting a mass claim of any sort at this stage. Seen too many times where that strategy backfired.
When I spoke to your ancestors in the burning bush and referred to myself as "I am", what do you think I meant?
Doesn't seem pertinent to this game and I'm not interested in engaging with... whatever this is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you regarding the changes in my experience with groggers, though we tended to use more of the tin and plastic versions at my old synagogue. They still made a racket. I'm old enough now that there would probably come a point where I couldn't sit in that roar of sound. I like the idea of using boxes of pasta in their place, put them to good use and then donate them to an even better use!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Happy Purim to you as well!
Personally, I was always fond of the groggers, even if the sound was extremely grating (for good reason) on the ears, though it was always the hamantaschen and the Purim carnivals that I enjoyed the most. Not to speak ill of Megilla readings, of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
From a plant’s point of view, there are lots of toxic gases. I did my PhD in plant pathology, dude. Oxygen is still low on the totem pole and they have an awful lot of ways to address its toxicity. You’re still wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your argument amounts to "too much oxygen will kill you," which is a point that applies to basically everything.
Up to 60% of our bodies are composed of water, but if you drink too much water, it can be actively harmful or even deadly. A good deal of our atmosphere is water vapor.
Nitrogen is the gas that is present at the highest concentrations in our atmosphere. We breathe it in all the time at higher concentrations than oxygen. However, unlike with CO2, if you drink pure nitrogen, your body doesn't recognize that what it's taking isn't breathable oxygen. You'll die apparently breathing normally.
In fact, most of the gasses in the atmosphere would be toxic at high concentrations. Argon, which is present at 0.9%, would asphyxiate you in the same way that nitrogen would because they are both inert gases. So would methane. Inhaling either CO2 or nitrous oxide at high concentrations, since neither are inert, can also stop a person from breathing but does so much more violently, causing a person's throat to spasm.
All of these, at high concentrations, will kill you much faster than pure oxygen. So if oxygen is the most toxic gas in the atmosphere, I have to ask: by what metric? The evidence you've provided of oxidation and free radicals are much slower means of harm and our bodies have active mechanisms to address them. If we were anaerobic organisms, I might agree with you, but we're obligate aerobes. We're built for an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
But I know all of this is pointless because I know that this post was just made to rile people up over an absurd claim that you have no intention of seriously defending.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Clearly, GP feels no responsibility to his thesis or making any good faith reply to your arguments. When GP loses an argument, which is always, he just changes the subject.
Yeah, trying to hold him to a stance he's taken seems near impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
…you realize that by saying that, you’re proving my point that people pick up news after it comes out, right? No, I didn’t see this five days ago. I saw it three days ago, when it received wider reporting from news outlets. I don’t know what you think suddenly makes a story “no longer newsworthy,” but the point here is that it affects perception of the president and his actions. If it does that, which it will, then it still matters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t think it’s possible to accurately estimate how many people know about a relatively new news story, but even assuming you’re right, it’s not the last news story that will come out on this topic, it’s not the last opportunity for people to become aware of it, and last I checked, opponents of the president are quick to make a big deal out of decisions like this, so it’s likely to be revisited again and again over the course of the midterms. Don’t know how many people you suspect will miss that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm really just tired of this argument that Biden can effectively cover up practically anything he does. He couldn't even send someone to visit Venezuela without the reason for it becoming patently obvious and widely reported in the media. If you want to pretend that he could get through a massive shift in energy policy by enriching two countries who are clearly on our shit list and come away with the public being none the wiser, then so be it, but I sincerely do not buy it.
I've got mixed feelings about Biden's energy policies, by the by, though I don't think they've been all that great so far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, then we're not going to agree on much. Didn't think we would to start, but this is just beyond me. I'll end off here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The media has peddled worse and the people have believed worse. Remember when they said a Russian prostitute peed on Trump lol.And that’s the problem. The media is willing to go to any level to defend Biden. All their owners are Democrats or literally in bed with Democrats. It’s actually atrocious. Media talks about fake news, well they’re the ones who started it. They only have themselves to blame.
Dude, honestly, you believe this shit? I can't fathom a world in which Biden gets away with this kind of behavior unscathed. Comparing it to a rumor about Trump having a Russian prostitute pee on him is just absurd because a) that didn't have any support whatsoever, b) that was entirely personal, and c) it didn't involve a massive investment on the part of the US government in a hostile foreign source of oil for no obvious reason. You can claim that the media would cover for him, but the evidence would necessarily be available to every member of Congress, many of whom would have every incentive to leak it. If you honestly believe that the media could give him sufficient cover for this, then I'm just baffled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I disagree. Under Trump, the price would never have gone above 3 bucks as a national average even with this supply shock. In fact, from a business perspective, it would increase investments in oil production domestically because of the massive profits involved. It would be relatively easy to control the price under Trump. But Biden as he stated, abolished new permits for fracking and drilling. Zero investments from a business perspective.There’s a massive difference between being reliant on a nation for a few months compared to practically forever.Also you’re not accounting for the fact that Americans are still going to be suffering for a few months, while the negotiations take place. It’s not like the deal will be done in a day.
To support that argument, I'd like to see some evidence that the amount of drilling would have increased to levels near or over the amount we took in from Russia. Again, I'm not arguing that Biden's decision to stop issuing permits for fracking or drilling was beneficial for oil prices. I'm arguing that there was always going to be a substantial gap between the increase we could feasibly achieve within the US and the amount we take in from Russia. Saying that it would eventually increase investments in oil production domestically doesn't modify that - you're still talking about months or years for those new investments to bear fruit, and it's unclear that any amount of investment in domestic production would entirely cover for Russian oil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They won't. In fact they could spin it as a humanitarian effort. Lord knows how much spin got traction with Obama's policies in Ukraine.
...They would spin... a very large-scale purchase of oil... from Iran and Venezuela... as a humanitarian effort? And you honestly think people would buy that shit, especially given that half the country was already actively opposed to Biden shortly after he was elected? Can't help but notice that you ignored the rest of the absurdities inherent to your scenario, but this takes the cake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The problem isn’t that he could buy Venezuelan/Iranian oil in the short term. The problem is he has to do it in the long term. Why? Because he refuses to produce domestically. He believes that Americans should shell out 56,000 to buy an electric car. You don’t pick and choose with radical dictators.Essentially he’s he’s either facing off against a lion or cliff even though there’s a helicopter with a rope right above him.
Not going to disagree that refusing to increase domestic production contributed to this problem, though I think claiming that his doing so would have solved for this entirely is a different story. Biden would have had to find means to either bring down oil usage in this country or obtain oil from external sources regardless, so I think the long-term issue is non-unique. The only difference is degree.
Created:
Posted in:
Let’s not pretend that Biden has full control over Congress just because there are 50 Democrats, but for a second, let’s just consider the scenario you’re presenting:
Biden, with no obvious reasons for doing so, decides to end a decades long embargo with Venezuela and Iran. Just out of the blue.
He then decides to do everything under the table, setting up a deal with these two countries with active support from at least 50 members of Congress. None of the other members, who would be actively seeing Biden do this for no clear reason, would leak this to the public. Somehow, this will yield a media blackout in an age where there are a multitude of options and opportunities for people to leak sensitive information like this, and much as Ukraine wasn’t of interest to much of the public under Obama, Iran at least has always been a topic of interest to the public. Keeping activities there quiet is an absurd task.
So, to sum up, you wanted Biden to have incredible foresight, predicting the events that are unfolding, respond to it months ahead of time with activities that would burn what little political capital he has left and threaten to damage his reputation still further if the public found out. Do I have that right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
GP, we’re talking about reversing decades of policy with two countries. If they had done this under the radar without consulting Congress, there would have been hell to pay over it, and I’m not convinced he could because this is economic policy. You can pursue an agreement only if the investment is clearly there to be spent. Congress holds the purse strings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
most countries could see the writing on the wall, so they would always have us over a barrel.I see what you did there...
Glad you appreciated that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, though, you’re talking about a strategy that would have very clearly weakened his political position in the US and abroad with no obvious reason for doing it. It’s unpopular now when we have an obvious benefit for doing it. I don’t know how he could possibly have rallied support for it several months ago with no obvious benefit in pursuing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, I don’t see how this would have been possible. Biden predicted the war would happen a good deal ahead of time, but by then, most countries could see the writing on the wall, so they would always have us over a barrel. Trying to initiate these kinds of relationships take time, likely months, to hash out meaning that even if they weren’t that perceptive, war would have broken out during the negotiations.
So what you’re really saying is that Biden should have initiated these talks well before there was any chance of an invasion, which I’m sure would have gone over like a lead balloon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
NATO
Do you mean invading a NATO country?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s pretty clear what Biden should’ve/should do: ban Russian imports of oils and produce domestically. Not ban Russian imports and then go to Iran or Venezuela to get oil
Alright, at least this is a clear stance on what the US should do. Given that producing more oil domestically would obviously come with delays in the process of ramping up production (usually in the timeline of at least several months), this isn't really a short term solution to the problem of limited resources. It indicates that he should have pushed for more drilling early in his administration, which I'll grant you would have been beneficial, but it's not a solution to rising gas prices now. I have my issues with trying to get oil from Iran or Venezuela as well, though at this point, addressing the short-term pain of limited oil supplies while keeping up the ban on Russian oil requires either getting it from another country or waiting out the delay. I see problems with both, though refusing to ban Russian oil would have incurred its own problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So, let me get this straight then: are you arguing that by retreating, we enhance "the threat of retribution"? Are you arguing that by removing sanctions, we enhance "the threat of retribution"? For that matter, what would Russia have to do to earn said retribution, in your estimation? Where would you set the line they could not cross?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you don't understand what I am saying, and maybe that's my fault.My point is that EU seems to care little about the Hatfield and McCoy relationship between the USA and Russia, so when Russia seeks to absorb a buffer nation like Ukraine, it's not going to respond with the same vigor as Biden will. And objectively if you look at the actions of the EU and discard the rhetoric, this seems plain and obvious. NATO doesn't share the same security interests of America. If they do, their actions sure do not support it.
Well, at least you're clarifying why you hold your stance, even if I'm still unclear what you think the US should actually do. I'm not going to engage with the specifics of what you have against the EU and NATO. You're inferring their stances from what you perceive, and I don't see you justifying that beyond assertion. To the extent that they have a complicated relationship with Russia, I agree, since they are generally far more reliant on Russian oil to keep their economies running. None of this tells me what the US should do in response to Ukraine, nor do you at any point say that the US should act, so clearly your stance remains the same: the US should do nothing regardless of what the EU does. If you think there is something that the EU could do that should trigger US action against Russia, please, clarify. I haven't seen you provide that argument.
I disagree. We can defend ourselves from provocative cyber attacks without getting into a cold war with Russia. Deterrence and providence is a better and wiser foreign policy than retribution and punishment. If Russia was an actual threat to the EU leadership, they certainly don't act like it, so I call bullshit that this is the case.
Now you're just responding to points I never made, and kind of making my point for me. Deterring action requires a response. Your argument is that we should remove ourselves from the conflict, which necessarily means we are removing pressure that would deter future efforts on the part of the Russians. What you're talking about deterring here is cyber attacks, which is another issue entirely and isn't the main concern here. We can both deter cyber attacks and respond to the fact of Russia's very real invasion of a neighboring country. It seems like your concept of deterrence extends only to protecting ourselves, though doing so does nothing to check Russia's aggression against other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your response is that the US should never act, regardless of what the EU does, which is a response of sorts to my question, but it’s also entirely untenable as a course for US foreign policy right now. I thought you recognized that when you said this was a no-win situation for Biden, but clearly not. Instead of engaging with reality as it stands, you seem more interested in getting frustrated with how we got here and with how the EU feels about it. We can’t affect what they do. We can affect what we do.
Do you believe Biden cares more about what is going on in Ukraine than the collective EU leadership?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That would explain quite a bit of how he's engaging with me. And here I thought this whole thread was started on the basis that buying oil from Putin was bad. Guess I should've known better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Responding with "let Europe deal with it" doesn't address the question you quoted because I asked when we, as in the US, should act. Responding that Europe should be doing something doesn't give me your brink scenario, unless your point is that you have no brink and Europe should just deal with everything regardless of how bad it gets. If that's your point, then there's little sense in continuing this conversation because at this point you're just basically arguing that the US should never intervene, which I think is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned because it looks like you're arguing what should have been done a long time ago rather than what should be done now. You can grouse all you want about what Europe should be doing and the position that the US has continually put itself in for decades, but they are where they are and there are consequences for ignoring that reality. I said that your initial response was nonsensical because you responded in the past tense to a question about what the US should be doing now or in the future, but it's clear that you're only focused on the past at this point, so there's not much point in continuing this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We’re talking about Biden’s actions in the present, dude. That’s what you made this thread about, I’m sticking to it. If you want to talk history of oil dependence, that’s a whole other story and it goes back much further than Biden, but I’ll be happy to decry it. Doing so has no bearing on my position here.
I got that you had a problem with Putin because you’ve been saying that Biden’s been very friendly with him and you’ve apparently got more than a few problems with Biden. Was I incorrect about that, and if so, were you actually arguing that being friendly with Putin is a net positive?
Considering we are not starting a war with Russia, I don’t really get your framing of this. It is cost prohibitive, but I think that kind of comes with the territory. Arguing that Russia has already won so we should just roll over and pretend that nothing happened for the sake of ensuring we don’t take costly actions seems incredibly short-sighted. At what point do we take a stand against Russia? How many countries should they roll through before we decide it’s worth our time to respond in some way that actually harms them on some level? Because what you’re proposing would basically tell them that the US is completely fine with their taking over a neighboring sovereign nation and killing a great deal of people. When does that become our problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
GP, you started off this discussion by chastising Biden for doing something that you thought helped Putin. When you found out he wasn’t doing that anymore, you refocused to another reason why Biden’s decision would be ineffective, but that doesn’t erase what this thread was about: your position was and hopefully still is that helping Putin is bad.
So when you say that you’ve presented an actual plan and strategy, I have some trouble with that because it’s a plan and strategy that cedes ground (a whole country) to Putin on the basis that defending it causes other problems. I’m not denying that it does, but those only matter more if you stop prioritizing Putin as a problem. More specifically, they only matter more if you say that buddying with Putin is fine as long as we mitigate the harms against the US. Is that your position? That it’s fine to buddy Putin so long as doing so is cost effective for the US?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Diplomacy is a fickle thing. There are degrees to "buddying" since we got caught with our pants down, the only practical choice we had was to find an alternative supplier to replace Russia BEFORE we cut Russia off.
That's... not at all responsive to the point I was making. Now you're talking about improving what Biden actually did, not the idea you presented. If you want to talk degrees, I'd say you don't get any more "buddying" than basically telling Putin that he can invade Ukraine unmolested.
I'm also not sure how you'd execute this. How long do you think it would take to find an alternate source of oil that could afford to provide it at a similar amount for a similar rate? In a perfect world with far more time to make this kind of decision and actively engage with several other countries to increase their oil exports to the US, I could see this working, but not in this one.
Doing it now is 100 percent an empty symbolic gesture.
Doing it now, as a means of stopping the invasion of Ukraine, is ineffective. On that we agree. Doing it now, as a means of punishing Russia for its actions and ensuring that they can't continue to fund their war efforts and subsequent occupation long-term, is a different story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I didn't see this when I checked earlier, so I'll address it now.
Pull another Afghanistan. Withdraw from Ukraine and cede the indefensible territory. We made this outcome inevitable with bad decisions a year ago just like we did with Afghanistan.
I don't think this is a workable option in any way, shape or form, especially considering that your whole point is that Biden was helping Putin out. Your response would be to cede a whole country to Putin. If Biden did this, how is it not beneficial to Putin? Or is your argument that there is no way to prevent Putin from winning out in the end, so we should just buddy him as much as possible to get out of this mess?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What beef do you have with someone condemning a person who, with his actions, directly led to this no-win scenario?I'm really curious.Who would you blame for the current no-win situation? Don't let me guess.
That's... an interesting response. You're clearly not understanding what I'm getting at.
You're not choosing to condemn Biden for the actions that precipitated a no-win scenario. If you were, you'd be talking about what precipitated the set of circumstances that led to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which, last I checked, is not the focus of this thread.
You're condemning Biden for the actions he took after the no-win scenario was already in effect, i.e. there was nothing that Biden could have done that would have led to a positive result in your estimation. No choice he could have made at this point would have received your blessing. All choices are bad. Yet, you condemn a specific choice, and when he decides to change, you just shift your condemnation.
That's why I responded to you here. That's why I agreed with what Disc said. It doesn't seem like your goal here was to set the record straight on what Biden should have done. Your goal here was to condemn him for a decision that was going to yield negative results regardless of what it was. Maybe that wasn't the result of bitterness over the election, but it's still bitter and it's still pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
To bitch about whatever Biden does because of bitterness from him beating Trump in the election.My doctor calls it BDS.
You're not wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden backed himself into a no-win situation a year ago. We are just seeing the results in real time now.Americans are now paying for a war they didn't start at the pump, whether they agreed to it or not.
That's... not really an answer to my question. You're condemning Biden's choice. You've condemned both possible avenues. If you think that what he did a year ago created a no-win situation, then why are you condemning a choice you decided would be bad regardless of what it was? Why take the time to post this if you're really just mad at what he did beforehand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I sincerely have to ask:
What do you believe Biden should have done?
As Oro pointed out, the thesis for your original argument was that Biden was buddying up to Putin by continuing to buy oil from Russia, so continuing to buy oil from Russia is not a position you would support.
The thesis for your new argument is that refusing to buy Russian oil drives said oil towards other countries like China. Setting aside the fact that that still requires massive changes to how Russia does trade, including redirecting a great deal of its oil shipping, and setting aside the fact that China likely won't purchase all the oil that the US currently gets from Russia (and any increases would necessarily need to be negotiated, during which Russia is in a dry spell), that means that you also oppose a ban on Russian oil.
Indulge me. What is the correct course of action in your estimation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
WF is completely unreadable btw lol.
GG, and I'll take that as a compliment.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, caught up on everything, and given that I had my reservations about Earth already, I'm onboard for lynching him at this point. He seems like the best option, though I'm not really impressed with any of the options at the moment.
VTL Earth
I'm also a little unsure when it comes to what Badger should do, though I'd lean towards having him use his ability to confirm himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Mafia are playing the odds game. It's best for town to claim even without activity. It pressures the claims to happen and so that hesitation doesn't occurThis WF quote sticks out like a pimple
I don't agree, and it's strange that you say that after having agreed with my initial analysis during this DP. Pressuring claims could lead to some other PR claims, but I think that does more harm to town than it does to scum, not to mention that everyone could theoretically claim vanilla and, given the odds, it's entirely possible that the vast majority of them would be vanilla.
I honestly can't understand why you'd make this argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm willing to lynch Earth, just give me a second to catch up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I’m in the middle of my workday and I forgot to cover everyone.
Supa does seem to be a bit more agreeable this game and contributing rather minimally, but the latter isn’t unusual. I’d say he’s null to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Claims? Why should I care about 'getting claims'? people could lie and say they have a town role.
That is, quite literally, what I said in my very first post in this DP.
I feel like if you were town you would read the DP to try to figure out who is town and who is scum. The fact that you are not seems odd.
At the time that I last posted before I responded to you, there weren't a lot of posts to go off of behaviorally. I can give you some reads now because there are more posts to work with, though they're weak reads, as were the reads I had in the first DP of the last game. Right now, based on what I've read from both of you, I'm reading both you and Badger as town. The type of scum hunting I'm seeing from both of you plays into your metas. Earth is a tougher read and seems to just be rolling with what other people are saying, but he has a history of bandwagoning, so it's hard to call it. I'd put Pie in the slightly town pile, though his contributions are minimal. Oro would also lean town. GP is null because he's just doing what he always does. Mikal is null because he's completely inactive.
For now, my vote stays on Mikal and, personally, I'd rather lynch someone who is completely inactive at this stage than lynch based on a gut response to Earth's bandwagoning.
Created: