ricky2tricky4city
Dimitar Berbatov
That one takes some unpacking
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Putin & Russia
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
For a long time we have had seperation between men and women in a number of ways, for good reason. Changing rooms, toilets, sports, prisons, refuge... that was taken away. If a man decided to identify as a woman. This has resulted in fear, sexual assaults and in the case of tamikka brents getting her skull cracked by a transgender mma fighter.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
How many people have had their heads cracked by a transgender woman in a MMA ring? I have no idea but I'm sure it is not that many. Maybe less than those who have had their heads cracked by their husbands. How many transgender people do you know? I know none personally. There is one in my office that is going for a goth look and she pulls it off rather spectacularly. So yes transgenderism is a complicated issue, around sports in particular, but if doesn't affect 50% of the population as you insinuated. It affects less than a rounding error of diddly squat.
My point is perspective. This issue affects almost no one but still has copious amounts of column inches or the equivalent in podcast minutes. So to my original point, this is a moral panic generated by the right, not the left who could not give a flying fudge about what sex you are or the pronoun you want to be. In the pantheon of things we should really give a fudge about this should not even be in the list.
Michael Hobbes has a good take on moral panics like this if you are interested.
I live in camden. They're all over the place.
I don't care how they identify themselves. Everyone deserves happiness and freedom to express themselves. As long as it doesn't effect another persons happiness or freedom.
Say what you want though it was a part of why the dems lost. Along with immigration and biden being well past his best.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
'They're all over the place.' Sounds like you do care how they identify.
Transgender people and pronouns are not why the dems lost, though I'm not sure how that came into the discussion.
Lost Mango
Neil Sullivan
Nope. All bar one of the expert witnesses have reconsidered.
2 independent panels of leading neonatal doctors have reported against the conviction.
The causes of death have been discredited (air pumped in, insulin injections) and the only 'evidence' was questionable time sheets and door access readings which were meaningless.
The unit was a brickshow and the mortality rate was exceptionally high but that was more likely to be the poor hygiene, the falling apart infrastructure and the chronically overworked, understaffed nursing and support team.
David Davis is a voice being heard on it but it doesn't sound like a conspiracy from what I have followed
Lost Mango
Neil Sullivan
A proper sustained peace is better than war, but appeasement is just opening the door to further conflict down the line.
Keep drinking the kool-aid if you think anything Trump is proposing is sensible.
Lost Mango
Neil Sullivan
It is amazing that those pesky gender signs on female toilets have kept out all the rapists and sexual predators who now can slip by the passive piece of metal glued to the door, disguised as a woman, to do their nefarious worst.
Silly McSilly Face
Anthony Gardner
That's the purpose. Was a deliberately provocative statement to get people thinking and talking rather than just swallowing the sheep narrative that everything Trump says and does = bad.That one takes some unpacking
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Apart from the 'i killed them, i am evil' confession note.
ricky2tricky4city
Dimitar Berbatov
To get people to think about Trump by acting like Trump. Ha ha.
Silly McSilly Face
Anthony Gardner
The below is Trump's proposal:
1) US aid to Ukraine can no longer be provided on an unconditional basis (US aid so far been approx. $60-90 billion a year depending on sources).
2) The conflict's current defined end goal from a continued western support perspective is "until all Russian occuppied territory, including Crimea, is back in Ukrainian control". Trump has basically stated this is unachievable/unrealistic and puts an "indefinite" date on the provision of western support and on the conflict itself.
3) As current western support has not prevented Ukrainian forces from slowly being pushed back, it's led to a gradual escalation in western support in response to Ukrainian pleas for more support and less conditions on support (I.e. being able to use western intelligence, targeting and weaponry to hit targets within Russia). The escalation in western support for Ukraine has so far been matched and exceeded by an escalation in support for Russia by its key allies of China, Iran and North Korea. China in particular has ramped up its military industrial base to huge proportions and they are not only supplying Russis with huge economic and logistics support but since the conflict in Ukraine began, China has almost quadrupled the size of its standing army, air force and navy. For context the Chinese have completed the build of more military vessels in the last 2 years than exist in the entire Royal Navy. China are preparing for war. Whether that is to use the conflict to launch their own invasion of Taiwan or to enter Ukraine/Kursk in support of Russia (or do both), the longer the Ukraine conflict goes on the risks of escalation into a global conflict inexorably increase.
4) Ukraine's progression towards NATO membership was antagonistic, given NATO is traditionally an organisation with the primary purpose of countering Russia and her allies militarily and the proposal would effectively have seen a threat to Russia placed right on her borders and within one of her closest traditional allies. Hence it is not unreasonable for the US to categorically rule out and veto Ukraine's membership of NATO in order to maintain global peace. As a parent of young children I know that peace and getting along with others not only requires compromise with those you don't instinctively get along with, but as a parent, if your kids are unwilling to compromise, sometimes you have to intervene and force the compromise.
5) Enforcing/policing peace in Europe should primarily fall on European powers, and allowing them to continue to underinvest in their own security and rely on the US as a backstop to inadequate defence spending is no longer in US interests.
Which part of it specifically isn't sensible?
Glenda's Legs
Cecil Poynton
I actually think that’s quite disrespectful to a number of posters on this thread who have made reasoned arguments to support their views. Just because not everyone is in agreement with your perspective does not make them sheep.
And somewhat patronising to boot.
1) US aid has spent about $130m (nowhere near your figures) with a large portion of that going directly to US arms manufacturers, so it's going into the US economy.
2) The goal is to get back all of Ukraines land that is in Russian hands, which is the correct goal. That does not mean that Ukraine and Europe doesn't accept a lesser deal, but you don't start out with the lesser deal as your goal.
3) Current western support has not been enough. If Biden had a pair of balls Ukraine would have got enough to beat Russia from the start instead of giving them just enough to stay in the fight. If they were to get all they need then Russian losses would be even bigger and unsustainable (they're getting close to that point already).
Russia aren't getting more from their allies. China was already building up it's military. Naval projects take more than 2-3 years to plan and complete. China are preparing for war because they see that Ukraine isn't getting the full support of the west. If it had done then China would be less willing to invade Taiwan for fear of what the west would do and a possible world war as a result. On a purely economic view point, Taiwan is critical to the west and more important than Ukraine. It is currently the main maufacturer of advanced microchips and the west relies on them.
4) Russias invasion of Ukraine has led to Sweden and Finland entering NATO. So because of Russians actions the NATO border with Russia has increased with the Finland Russia border. It's also strengthened NATO because of Swedens military and defence industry joining. Although the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised for US to leave NATO.
5) Agreed, Europe should be spending enough on it's own defence to not need US support
Silly McSilly Face
Anthony Gardner
I don't think there's a reasoned argument that correctly analyses that every single one of Trump's statements and policies are wrong and (to quote one of the number of posters on this thread) the sooner Trump ends up in a box, the better. There is 100% a dangerous sheep narrative surrounding Trump, which has led to very unreasonable arguments posted by many in mainstream forums such as this one along the lines that it would be morally acceptable to at the very least to wish for an end to Trump's life due to his views and policies and this sheep rhetoric actually led to an attempt to assassinate him just a few months ago.
For context this is the quote that my "disrespectful" post aimed at "reasonably argued views" was in reply to (Grays_1890 referring to Trump and Musk):
"Sooner they all see the inside of a wooden box the sooner the rest of normal humanity can go back to getting anywhere near normality into their lives"
Additional context: these "reasonably argued" views are being exposed in context of Trump's actions in doing everything he can to end a war that has so far claimed an estimated 500K+ human lives in the space of 3 years. I.e. the implication being "wish Trump and Musk would just die so we can all get back to fighting and killing the Russians like all us normal people with morals should want to do"
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face
Anthony Gardner
1) Are you actually suggesting the US has only spent $130 million? The lowest estimate i could find was by an independent think tank stating $119 billion from 2022 to 2024. Official US figures state that $182 billion has been "allocated" up to the end of 2024. Trump has claimed recently that between $200-300 billion is the true figure hes found since coming to office although there is likely a political skew on these figures similar to Labour's "black hole" in finances when they came to power here. Overall I don't think you can say the figures are "nowhere near" my figures. Whichever way you cut it, they're providing sh*t tonnes of funding.
2) So we had that goal at the start and it's clearly unrealistic isn't it? So time to drop down to the secondary goal of preventing any further loss of territory/Russian advance westward, wouldn't you agree?
3) I agree you're possibly right. Trump has claimed that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if he'd been in charge implying (possibly adopting captain hindsight policy) that a stronger initial response was required. That response probably needed to come as soon as Russia amassed 200K soldiers on the border. Unfortunately, the Biden administration thought Putin was bluffing and didn't do anything meaningful in response. I also feel like this initial catastrophic error has characterised the entire subsequent response in terms of a dramatic loss in confidence of our intelligence to be able to accurately decipher Russian intentions - so we've been overly cautious in committing to Ukrainian support for fear of underestimating Russian threat rhetoric again, leading to a drip feed effect. I.e. the initial big error has put us on the back foot from the beginning. But in terms of the "sensibleness" of any current policy, what is done is done. Trump is having to deal with the art of the possible and what sensible policy looks like given the current situation, not what sensible policy should have looked like over the last 3 years.
4) Agreed, that Finland and Sweden joining NATO have been an impact of Russia's invasion that is negative in terms of Russia's foreign policy issues. Don't see how that impacts on the "sensibleness" of Trump's proposals however.
Last edited:
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Thats what always happens though.
1) Yes, they have spent approx 130m, that's coming from plenty of sources. Allocated and spent are two different things.
2) I take it you aren't very good at negotiating. You don't just go in and say we'll accept this, and give you all your demands. You go in looking for everything possible and then get as much above your red lines as is possible. If you just accept Russian demands then you are just kicking the problem down the road. We'll back in 5 years in the same situation. It might not be Ukraine next time, more likely Moldova. Georgia will be annexed. To put a stop to it the bully needs to be put in his place.
3) Give them the weapons now and take restrictions off.
What has Trump achieved? The square root of fudge all so far. All we hear is talks are going well but nothing comes of it. The ceasefire is going well so far. Putin is just playing him and he can't see it.
Silly McSilly Face
Anthony Gardner
1) what sources. BBC factcheck of Donald Trump's $300 billion claim quotes a variety of sources that put spending of between $100 billion and $200 billion, in an article looking to deliberately challenge Trump's exaggerated claims.
2) when you're the "broker" of a deal on behalf of two "sides' part of your job is to get parties away from their own red lines that cross the other party's red lines, particularly when that particular party doesn't have the "hand" to leverage their red lines. Going to your point about what Trump has achieved so far, he's already achieved a huge shift in European allies position of what a "just peace" looks like. Countries like France and UK are now talking about what territorial concessions may be required, rather than steadfastly sticking to "we do everything it takes to take back eastern Ukraine and Crimea". Ukraine has been brought around from "we keep fighting until pre-2014 borders are restored to accepting a ceasefire that freezes current territorial control. When you're representing one side, you first gain concensus support for your own negotiating position before taking it to the "other side". That's what Trump has achieved. He's achieved a concensus on a deal everyone on "out side" is happy to take to the Russians
3) Even if I agreed with your POV (I don't) that's not the reality of what's on the table. US, German, Italian and most other politicians are not supportive of that approach and never have been and France and UK have been the relatively isolated voices calling for tougher action but even then being unwilling to move on those calls without a concensus. Even now France and UK are the only countries willing to put our own military on the ground to protect Ukraine. In that context Trump is saying that Europe's overall position is muddled and they're unwilling as a bloc to put actions in place to match rhetoric, so why should the US continue to finance/back our position.
Last edited:
Glenda's Legs
Cecil Poynton
Not in a “I’m being deliberately provocative to teach you all how to debate properly” way.