USA has a president, that takes care and rules for all states.
Here Germany rules for Germany, they dont care about my country.
In fact Germany doesnt want my country too strong too, as that would mean having to share some political power with us.
That's their politics.
You asking us to follow Germany politics, its like asking mexicans to follow Trump leadership, and we both know Trump is not really mexican advocate

Why do you even need fossil fuels for energy? Sun is free, wind is free, you can also cut some trees from time to time, they grow quickly (but dont chop too much and too quickly please!)
In Europe we do most our energy renewable, and we arent done with changes yet, its definitely possible to do it.
Europe is environment friendly, how about reducing USA impact on global warming? Why dont you guys use more public transport, smaller cars, less AC in the summer, more renewables energy?

Inflation is all over the world. Its not an easy calculation: how much money is a single human life worth? Economy got hit, but many people survived that would die otherwise. Moral victory over money.

Downscale from the world power, to the country that stays on their own "little island" and is not interested what's going on in the world outside its borders and its direct neighbours.

From the Wikipedia:
the report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion"[10][11][12] but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts.[13][14][15] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[16] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American"

Honestly i was surprised when i saw US elections propaganda on "polish" pro-russian party social medias, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Its like "all soviet hands onboard", every single vote counts. And its possible few polish people who read them, also have vote rights. so that makes sense to spam there.

The debate is lively !!

But he *is* doing something about it. Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine (twice), Belorussia (puppet).

Bob's *talking points.* I'm tired of the talking points. cRiMeA vOtEd FoR aNnExAtIoN? FOH 8 yEaRs Of WaR aGaInSt ThE dOnBaS? FOH tRoOp BuIlDuPs SiGnAlInG iNvAsIoN? FOH

Bob is a fucking muppet.

Here you go Santara



It says : "Eit years!" Can be used instead of trying to prove something to a clinic case individual bringing all the Donbass sh*t

You and me both, mate.



First, I'm only removing your post from the "quote" because it's not needed, just the post stamp. Just a quick addressing of a few points:

1. The President does not make or take care of rules for all states. Congress writes laws, and federal laws are constrained by the Constitution itself, which enumerates all rights not outlined in it to the states. This is part of why Roe is likely to be overturned. Even when it comes to enforcement, unless it hits federal jurisdiction, the President has no standing. The President is not king or ruler. We have a completely different form of government than that. If you've learned nothing from fellers such as DeSantis or Abbot, it should be that when it comes down to it, a governor has more power than the President within the state the Governor serves, unless the President is willing to bring in an overwhelming force of federal agents. That would be tantamount to the federal government declaring war on the state and would more than likely lead to a civil war. This is part of why during all the riots spanning from 2016 through 2021, Trump only ever offered Federal assistance, and did not press the point to states and cities who declined. Essentially, all states have their own laws, all states have their own treasuries, all states have their own budgets, all states have their own police, their own governors and mayors for their cities, their own Congresses. Point blank, in the American system as it was designed, the Federal government was never meant or intended to grow to the size it is, yet even as large as it is, it still isn't enough to "rule". In many ways, they attempted to model the EU after the American Federal Government. They failed, horribly, then rigged it in favor of Germany and France, but hey, at least an attempt was made.

2. You cannot power a nation of 350 million people with only "green" energy. Fossil fuels, especially natural gas, have been a godsend. The carbon footprint of burning wood is higher than not only natural gas and nuclear but... Wait for it... Even coal is more efficient in heating your home, cooking your steak, or whatever. Whether it's a gas furnace or an electric heater, you will produce far more heat with far less CO2 emissions. Further, wood burning for heat or energy emits far more CO and poly carbons and other poisons than our current methods of burning gas or coal for energy. The bottom line is that Europe did exceedingly well in energy for quite a while due to an over-abundance of Nuclear power plants. Those plants, especially in France and Germany, which both used to be net exporters of energy, have mostly been shut down, with another being decommissioned each year. With no new plans for replacements, Europe is seeing some of the same outages that California has been seeing, for many of the same reasons. Turns out Europeans don't like it when the lights, heat/AC, internet, etc. goes out any more than Americans do. While you have your green sources, to say they provide any form of majority is laughable. "Green" sources of energy in the EU account for 23.1% of your energy production. While that's slightly higher than America's 20.1%, it's not by much. Now that Biden has ended American Energy Independence, we're no longer producing more than we use, so we can't be relied upon as a supplier, and the EU has turned to three primary sources: Norway, Russia, and the Middle East. By making Russia an enemy, the EU is alienating the #2 producer of Natural Gas on the planet, their cheapest reliable source of energy, and removing the idea of pipeline-delivery, the only carbon neutral form of trasportation, which also happens to result in far fewer natural disasters (spills) than any ship, train, plain, or truck. I could go on for hours, but point blank, we use fossil fuels because the energy generated by renewable/green energy sources is only enough to power approximately 20% of the first world. If you included the entire global population you're looking at a drop to below 8%, and it'd be even lower yet, if more of the third world had the infrastructure that allowed homes to use electricity in the first place. So, why use fossil fuels? Because for now, outside of global deforestation, it's the only viable option. If somebody could come up with a solution that doesn't have the meltdown risks of nuclear (the greenest energy on the planet), they'd become an overnight trillionaire. Note: The energy expenditures required, not just in the production of, but mining for the elements, etc. for say wind and solar is so high, solar panels and wind turbines are very nearly a net zero. What does that mean? It means that they require nearly as much energy to create as they ultimately provide, and their production causes nearly as much carbon emission as you save by using them. They aren't particularly "green" and it gets worse. The moment you start relying on unreliable sources, such as wind or sun (wind calms, night happens), you need to start looking at batteries. And there you have the same issue as electric vehicles. The kind of deep charge battery you need to power a house, or a business, or a city, for just so overnight, is almost always going to be a form of lithium batter. The interesting thing about lithium batters is that environmentally, they're one of the dirtiest forms of batteries to produce, with the worst mining practices. Lithium mines are the #1 preventable disaster on the planet. Even worse? There's not enough lithium to meet our needs. There are demands that all petroleum-based vehicles be removed, every goes electric, right? Well, that doesn't work. As it turns out, with current day methods, there is enough obtainable lithium on our planet to replace approximately 12% of the vehicles actively on the road. If you're now supposed to be powering homes and businesses utilizing green power as well... Ugh. I mean, we can discuss this some other time, in it's own thread. Bottom line? If you're asking "why fossil fuels?" then you clearly aren't an environmentalist, because you don't have even the most base-line level of knowledge about what you're talking about.

3. There is zero evidence that the complete disruption of international logistics resulting from covid response saved a single person's life. Indeed, there have already been tens of millions who've starved in the third world. That number is expected to rise to hundreds of millions. And it's not just food. Food supplies, medical supplies, basic shit that should never have been impacted. Why was it impacted? Well, it's easy to say, "Yeah, farmers of course need to farm!" The problem is, what if the farmer just happens to need to utilize packaging materials that are provided by a "non-essential" factory? The factory is shut down. Do you think farmers just happen to have all the packaging, processing needs, etc. for 2 years worth of crops held in reserve? That's simply not how any of that works. Inflation is not a result of any war. It's a result of a massive increase in the money supply, paired with a massive reduction in product supply, yet a relatively stable overall demand. Gas (vehicle fuel, petrol, whatever you want to call it) is certainly under more demand than this time last year, due to lifted lockdowns and such, but compared to this time in 2019, there is less than half the travel, which, by all indications, is most likely due to a combination of record lows in workforce participation combined with a majority shift from catering to local business to ordering via primarily Amazon. Now, when I talk of workplace participation, it's a strange number. In reality, we currently have a lower percentage of the working age population working than any time since the Great Depression. The media will tell you that it's the worst that you've seen since the 70's, but that indicates two different numbers. If you take workforce participation as a percentage of the overall population, they are right. If you take workforce participation as a percentage of the working eligible population, I am right. The difference had to do with the advent of women entering the workforce en masse. At any rate, once again, no evidence that anyone was saved by covid response. Far from it, the lockdowns didn't help at all, masks didn't help, and vaccines don't work. So yeah, strange point you have there.

4. The United States is not "a little island". We are a massive fucking nation that most Europeans can't even fucking imagine. Imagine driving 144KMph all fucking day. Seriously all day, and not even getting from one side of Texas to another. Or to put it in another light, the route from NYC to LA is 4,489.1 km. Now, imagine the idea that 20% of the roads on that trip are falling apart, the federal government is taking over a quarter of the GDP of the nation to waste on stupid shit like supporting Ukraine, and there just happens to be 6,582,216.96 KM worth of roads in the US. Now, with the federal government already spending a quarter of the GDP, just how much can the state tax it's own citizens for it's own needs without beggering the citizen? This has led to the question of, "What would happen if the trillions spent during the Afghanistan war were used to nation build in Alaska?" Answer? Alaska would be the greatest fucking state in the nation, an absolute paradise, as long as the federal government had nothing to do with managing the money or how it was used to rebuild Alaska. Likewise, what would happen if the hundreds of billions being poured into Ukraine were instead spent on the Roadways of the US? How many inner city schools could find that they have grants large enough to completely renovate the buildings? I mean, to build a K-12 school that caters to 2K students only runs ~3 million to 5 million range. Fun to think, huh? So if we take the latest 40b package, that's 8,000+ brand new schools. Aren't teachers unions even now complaining that they "can't hold in class sessions because old school, bad airflow"? Seems that can be resolved. Instead we're funding murder. Sounds fun. Moving on...

5. I read the Mueller Report. Did you? Perhaps you should. The danger in attempting to quote a Wiki article is obvious: They can use bullshit like op-eds as their sources. Here's a fun one. If there's a Mueller Report, that details 100% the entire investigation, why does a wiki article about that report quote anything other than the report itself? Since I believe you do indeed have a curious mind, here, for you: https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

6. Is it possible that maybe you're attributing things to Russia that Russia didn't do? Let's attack this from a different angle: During the Trump Presidency, the US was fully energy independent. Not only did we produce as much raw crude, raw natural gas, and raw coal than we use, but we produced quite a lot more. We also had all the refineries needed to not only refine all of our raw fuels, we had enough that we could still purchase Canadian, Russian, and limited amounts of Middle Eastern as well. We were refining it all, then we were turning around and selling fully processed, ready to use, clean natural gas and petroleum and it's by-products to Europe for cheaper than anyone else even could, We also sold our excess coal to China, and that has not stopped. It has slowed down, because coal mining has yet again been heavily sanctioned by Washington, which is fucking bullshit. At any rate, when Biden took the US off the market as a net exporter of energy, Europe lost. Big time. There were a couple Nordic nations that did win though, as they listened back in the day, and set up their economies based on refining. They're doing fine. But overall, a good portion of Europe's energy issues and reliance on Russia wouldn't have occurred if Biden hadn't entered office. The issues certainly wouldn't have occurred in the US. Now, forgetting any and every other thing you think you know about Trump, that by itself would be enough that most first world nations would prefer him as president than Biden.

Any rate, good chat.

LMFAO

I must thank you for posting the mueller report. i had not read it. its very long, but appears to be heavily redacted. will try to read it over the weekend.

Georgia shot at Russia first provoking a military reaction, after being prodded to do so by NATO.

Chechnya was overrun by CIA-backed terrorists of the wahabbi orientation and were brutalizing the locals, had carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Russia and generally had to be removed.

Belarus was friendlier with the west until the CIA tried a color revolution and Lukashenko responded by moving into closer ties with Russia.

Ukraine like Chechnya is also overrun by terrorists, only instead of radical islamists they are hardcore neo-nazi's.

Crimea did vote for annexation in a >90% margin.

Ukraine bombed shot and shelled the Donbass daily for 8 years and refused peace.

All these things are true. Sorry you don't like to deal with reality.

I invite anyone to pick any one of the above statements and attempt to debate both sides with chopstickz777. if you dont want to refute all of them, just pick one.

I will pick the first one.

you state: Georgia shot at Russia first, provoking a military reaction, after being prodded to do so by NATO. Is this a metaphorical statement or a literal statement. i.e. did Georgian forces attack/shoot at Russian forces. is this your position?

what precise action "shot at Russia" are you referring to here ? To my mind Russia did not want Georgia in Nato (a sentiment I can understand) thus i dont understand, what i would call a pretext, re: shot at Nato. further: shooting at Russia (literally) would never be at the behest of Nato, noting Nato did not have their back (since they were not in Nato). I am seeking honest and open debate here.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 2 2022 09:38am