And after the USSR collapsed, there was a real hope that we could integrate Russia into the Western system. But ultimately we could never have that because Russia is the main antagonist for Europe.
Without Russia as a threat there is very little reason for EU to bow down to American supremacy. So instead of NATO getting smaller after Russia became a shell of its former self, the alliance got bigger.
That doesn’t happen. Name 1 trans man that has won a sporting event over a biological male.
And yes, I do think that trans men should not have access to male “safe spaces”, if such a thing exists. I didn’t mention trans men because it’s not an issue. Women’s sports exist exactly because biological women can’t compete with biological men on a physical level.
Biological women beating biological men more than a tiny fraction of a percent of the time in any physical related sports? Yes, I can be sure of that. That’s literally why womens sports exists in the first place - because it would be unfair for them to compete with men.
Did you know that the NFL isn’t a male football league? It’s actually open to all sexes. Women can play in the NFL. There has never been a woman make an NFL team. Same with many big sporting leagues. One woman, Lauren Silberman, actually got a tryout as a kicker a few years back:
That’s not a physical sport where you’re literally competing against other people. That’s an individual sport, one that women tend to have an advantage in.
They’re not lying. Domestic issues, as in lining their pockets. Cutting their taxes and the rich. Getting bribe money. You know. Domestic issues. How is sending money to Ukraine benefitting them? It’s not. Domestic issues are more important.
You know. Domestic issues like whatever the fuck “wokeism” is. Hearing the goddamn speaker of the house say “wokeism” over and over is so fucking cringe. It’s all theater for the base.
However, when the Dems did recently control the House, they managed to pass the infrastructure act, and the inflation reduction act, two huge pieces of domestic legislation.
When the Rs had the House, Senate, and White House from 2016-18, they refused to pass any kind of infrastructure act, despite that being one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign. The only thing they really did was pass a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that raised taxes in the middle class and increased the deficit.
😂 Here in Australia I’m what you’d consider left leaning. I’m all for gay marriage, equal rights, anti-war, and so on. I’ve literally never voted “far right” or “conservative”. Not once in my 20+ years of voting.
But sure, pretend that the democrats aren’t left wing because….reasons.
Btw the second you accuse others of being brainwashed just because you disagree with them, you’re the extreme one in the conversation.
I don’t believe as single word you said in your first paragraph
They should do everything they can to stop fighting ASAP including a surrender to the Russian forces if necessary
Go fuck yourself tankie.
Tens of thousands of taxes from any individual or family does not go towards the war supplies being sent to Ukraine. Unless you’re a multimillionaire - which you are not.
If Republicans gain control of the US government I doubt they’ll stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Their ties with US weapons manufacturers run too deep. They’ll just pretend they supported Ukraine all along.
That imo is very different from the left who sees arms shipments just leading to more death and destruction than would occur otherwise.
So the republicans will keep sending guns, while the democrats are the ones that are already sending all the guns and money, yet the left are against it because it leads to death and destruction? What?
I’m not sure what’s confusing about this. Republicans don’t stand for anything. Why would you believe them when in comes to Ukraine? They’re just lying in order to score political points and differentiate themselves from democrats.
The left on the other hand is principled regardless of whether or not you agree with their rationale. It’s not like any leftists wants more death and destruction. They just think that ending weapons shipments is more likely to reduce the chaos and suffering.
A government that intervenes to stop a strike on the side of a monopoly corporation because the workers are vital to the economy is not left wing. Rainbow corporatocracy is still corporatocracy and your attempt to erase 3/4ths of the political spectrum by charwcterizing neoliberalism as “left” is laughable.
send “all the money”? That alone tells me you have no understanding of American aid to Ukraine, both in scale and in nature. It’s neither “all” nor is it “money” - the Americans sent old military hardware for the most part, and the monetary value is barely a drop in the bucket compared just to their yearly military expenditure that they’d spend regardless. Actual monetary support is much more of a EU thing anyways.
But sure keep whining about centre-right policies of the USA and the EU, calling them “far-left”. Actual far-left people tend to not supportive of sending aid to Ukraine.
We’re sending old military equipment to Ukraine, and that equipment was specifically made in case we have to fight Russia one day. So it’s pretty much being used for its original intent.
homeless criminal hell holes that at are places like San Francisco and LA.
Have you ever been to either city? Because that is not in any way a fair description. Anyway, don’t people like you usually use Chicago for this sort of aspersion?
People are literally just walking out of stores with stolen goods at will. People are doing drugs on the streets out in the open. People are breaking into cars in broad daylight.
Are these things not happening despite all the video evidence and new articles about it happening?
Go look at where and how that money is being spent. I think you will find that the vast majority of it isn’t leaving America. American businesses who already do business with the American government will do a little bit more, sending consumables and other assets to Ukraine. From an economic standpoint this is little different than a 10% increase in the American military budget, with the bonus of no expectation that it will be the new baseline going forward.
No, just pointing out that even though the military support is going to Ukraine, the economic benefits are still primarily American, which belies the excuse for why they don’t want to support Ukraine.
Reread my original comment. And this is probably the last thing you want to cut. Leaving allies twisting in the wind when you pushed for nuclear deproliferation with the assurance you would help protect them from their enemies (Russia in particular) will cost America far more that $100 billion.
As a general rule, when governments make deals with other countries and don’t do what they say, it tends to sour their negotiations with other countries. And that backwater country is the seventh largest exporter worldwide of a staple crop (it used to sell more before a certain war started). Now, America probably doesn’t import much wheat from Ukraine, but there’s a funny thing about globally traded commodities…
Giving a trillion dollars to businesses with no oversight is also a ridiculous expendititure, but also 10 times more than this and happily supported by the Republicans. Or the tens of trillions spent in the Middle East over the last couple decades. This relatively minor expense is cheap political good will with a massive ROI.
Giving a trillion dollars to businesses with no oversight is also a ridiculous expendititure, but also 10 times more than this and happily supported by the Republicans.
That’s not funding a proxy war though. Kinda different.
Sometimes the only options are war or capitulation. I guess if Ukraine had just stopped…existing…next to Russia this could have all been avoided. How foolish of them.
Those aren’t the options available to America though. America wouldn’t be “capitulating” by not sending $100bil along with weapons and military vehicles to ukraine.
Gaetz said they should focus on domestic issues instead, like republicans care about domestic issues
He also said Russia should join NATO. He’s a smart one!
Does he not know that NATO was created to counter the threat of the USSR?
deleted by creator
54% of American adults read below a 6th grade comprehension level.
So there’s a good chance the answer is ‘No’.
And after the USSR collapsed, there was a real hope that we could integrate Russia into the Western system. But ultimately we could never have that because Russia is the main antagonist for Europe.
Without Russia as a threat there is very little reason for EU to bow down to American supremacy. So instead of NATO getting smaller after Russia became a shell of its former self, the alliance got bigger.
In 1991, Russia told NATO it wanted to join.
Yeah that’s what their propaganda says. In fact there was never any application, or even a serious discussion about it.
I am now picturing a drunk Boris Yeltsin saying that to Bush senior followed by “I love you man”
I wonder if circumstances were entirely different in 1991. Probably not.
Ribbit
Is forcing women to give birth a domestic issue?
Yes tax cuts for the wealthy
Oh and don’t forget about oppressing women. That’s a huge domestic priority for them!
Who are the ones fighting for biological men to be allowed to win all the women’s sports, scholarships, awards, and use women’s safe spaces again?
Removed by mod
Are you just as worried about biological women possibly winning men’s sports, scholarships, awards and using men’s safe spaces?
Because you didn’t mention that…
That doesn’t happen. Name 1 trans man that has won a sporting event over a biological male.
And yes, I do think that trans men should not have access to male “safe spaces”, if such a thing exists. I didn’t mention trans men because it’s not an issue. Women’s sports exist exactly because biological women can’t compete with biological men on a physical level.
Removed by mod
Name one trans woman who has beaten all the biological women in a sporting event.
You’re not serious are you?
Austin Killips ( https://www.bbc.com/sport/cycling/65456752 )
Na Hwa-rin ( https://www.ibtimes.com/trans-cyclist-wins-female-race-prove-biological-men-are-physically-superior-women-3705095 )
Emily Bridges, Lilly Chant ( https://reduxx.info/biological-males-take-top-2-spots-in-inclusive-womens-cycling-division/ )
Lia Thomas ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/sports/lia-thomas-swimmer-wins.html )
Do you need more? That was literally just recent cycling results and 1 swimmer.
Here is an article with 23 trans women who have won national or international championships against biological women:
https://www.outsports.com/trans/2022/3/1/22948400/transgender-trans-athlete-championship-national-world-title
So it will never be an issue? Can you be sure of that?
Why are you using single anecdote examples as if they’re universal?
Biological women beating biological men more than a tiny fraction of a percent of the time in any physical related sports? Yes, I can be sure of that. That’s literally why womens sports exists in the first place - because it would be unfair for them to compete with men.
Did you know that the NFL isn’t a male football league? It’s actually open to all sexes. Women can play in the NFL. There has never been a woman make an NFL team. Same with many big sporting leagues. One woman, Lauren Silberman, actually got a tryout as a kicker a few years back:
https://thefootballusa.com/female-players-in-nfl
Want to see how it went?
https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2013/story/_/id/9010658/female-kicker-injures-quadriceps-just-two-kicks-tryout
I see, so as long as it’s only a fraction of a percent of the time, it’s okay.
Well, that’s true in women’s sports as well.
Here’s one: https://uclaclubsports.com/news/2019/5/1/for-the-love-of-the-sport-wren-exley-wins-male-athlete-of-the-year-at-gymnastics-nationals.aspx
That’s not a physical sport where you’re literally competing against other people. That’s an individual sport, one that women tend to have an advantage in.
So? Same with running, swimming, and cycling
Nobody?
They’re not lying. Domestic issues, as in lining their pockets. Cutting their taxes and the rich. Getting bribe money. You know. Domestic issues. How is sending money to Ukraine benefitting them? It’s not. Domestic issues are more important.
You know. Domestic issues like whatever the fuck “wokeism” is. Hearing the goddamn speaker of the house say “wokeism” over and over is so fucking cringe. It’s all theater for the base.
Nationalists only have domestic issues. Their xenophobia prevents them from caring to interact with anything beyond their borders except to fight it.
TBF he is brain dead
Removed by mod
Republicans control the House.
However, when the Dems did recently control the House, they managed to pass the infrastructure act, and the inflation reduction act, two huge pieces of domestic legislation.
When the Rs had the House, Senate, and White House from 2016-18, they refused to pass any kind of infrastructure act, despite that being one of the cornerstones of the Trump campaign. The only thing they really did was pass a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that raised taxes in the middle class and increased the deficit.
Now that you mention it, what ever happened to infrastructure week that Trump promised back in 2017?
Same thing that happened with every Trump promise that would have made positive social change, they were lies.
deleted by creator
😂 Here in Australia I’m what you’d consider left leaning. I’m all for gay marriage, equal rights, anti-war, and so on. I’ve literally never voted “far right” or “conservative”. Not once in my 20+ years of voting.
But sure, pretend that the democrats aren’t left wing because….reasons.
Btw the second you accuse others of being brainwashed just because you disagree with them, you’re the extreme one in the conversation.
deleted by creator
I’m just curious - would you have been in favor of cutting aid to Ukraine? If so, this is the best confirmation of horseshoe theory I’ve ever seen.
deleted by creator
I didn’t call you conservative
I don’t believe as single word you said in your first paragraph
Go fuck yourself tankie.
Tens of thousands of taxes from any individual or family does not go towards the war supplies being sent to Ukraine. Unless you’re a multimillionaire - which you are not.
deleted by creator
If Republicans gain control of the US government I doubt they’ll stop sending weapons to Ukraine. Their ties with US weapons manufacturers run too deep. They’ll just pretend they supported Ukraine all along.
That imo is very different from the left who sees arms shipments just leading to more death and destruction than would occur otherwise.
So the republicans will keep sending guns, while the democrats are the ones that are already sending all the guns and money, yet the left are against it because it leads to death and destruction? What?
I’m not sure what’s confusing about this. Republicans don’t stand for anything. Why would you believe them when in comes to Ukraine? They’re just lying in order to score political points and differentiate themselves from democrats.
The left on the other hand is principled regardless of whether or not you agree with their rationale. It’s not like any leftists wants more death and destruction. They just think that ending weapons shipments is more likely to reduce the chaos and suffering.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
A government that intervenes to stop a strike on the side of a monopoly corporation because the workers are vital to the economy is not left wing. Rainbow corporatocracy is still corporatocracy and your attempt to erase 3/4ths of the political spectrum by charwcterizing neoliberalism as “left” is laughable.
Kinda? I mean at least by European standards Democrats are kinda conservative. Not necessarily right wing, but also not left.
send “all the money”? That alone tells me you have no understanding of American aid to Ukraine, both in scale and in nature. It’s neither “all” nor is it “money” - the Americans sent old military hardware for the most part, and the monetary value is barely a drop in the bucket compared just to their yearly military expenditure that they’d spend regardless. Actual monetary support is much more of a EU thing anyways.
But sure keep whining about centre-right policies of the USA and the EU, calling them “far-left”. Actual far-left people tend to not supportive of sending aid to Ukraine.
We’re sending old military equipment to Ukraine, and that equipment was specifically made in case we have to fight Russia one day. So it’s pretty much being used for its original intent.
So because we already waste tons of money, it’s wrong to want to stop wasting money?
It’s kind of crazy to see someone who clearly loves their own voice, but clearly doesn’t understand what the fuck they’re talking about.
Back to the kiddie pool, Nazi.
Please follow rule 3
You’re… Probably right. Glad you guys are on top of this.
Removed by mod
Have you ever been to either city? Because that is not in any way a fair description. Anyway, don’t people like you usually use Chicago for this sort of aspersion?
Nah, that’s for when they want to mix some anti-black racist dogwhistling in, too.
It’s common Republican lingo to refer to California, and anywhere wherein, as a “hellhole”.
Despite never having set foot in California, or they’d realize how much of a shithole the place they live in is in comparison.
deleted by creator
People are literally just walking out of stores with stolen goods at will. People are doing drugs on the streets out in the open. People are breaking into cars in broad daylight.
Are these things not happening despite all the video evidence and new articles about it happening?
Got it. You’ve never actually been there. Maybe don’t base all the things you know about a city from YouTube videos.
Go look at where and how that money is being spent. I think you will find that the vast majority of it isn’t leaving America. American businesses who already do business with the American government will do a little bit more, sending consumables and other assets to Ukraine. From an economic standpoint this is little different than a 10% increase in the American military budget, with the bonus of no expectation that it will be the new baseline going forward.
Removed by mod
No, just pointing out that even though the military support is going to Ukraine, the economic benefits are still primarily American, which belies the excuse for why they don’t want to support Ukraine.
If you consider further bloating military spending to be a benefit, sure
Reread my original comment. And this is probably the last thing you want to cut. Leaving allies twisting in the wind when you pushed for nuclear deproliferation with the assurance you would help protect them from their enemies (Russia in particular) will cost America far more that $100 billion.
Do elaborate on how some backwater eastern Europe shithole would cost us hundreds of billions as a inept paper tiger wastes resources on it.
As a general rule, when governments make deals with other countries and don’t do what they say, it tends to sour their negotiations with other countries. And that backwater country is the seventh largest exporter worldwide of a staple crop (it used to sell more before a certain war started). Now, America probably doesn’t import much wheat from Ukraine, but there’s a funny thing about globally traded commodities…
A 10% increase on the biggest part of your budget by far is a ridiculous increase.
Giving a trillion dollars to businesses with no oversight is also a ridiculous expendititure, but also 10 times more than this and happily supported by the Republicans. Or the tens of trillions spent in the Middle East over the last couple decades. This relatively minor expense is cheap political good will with a massive ROI.
That’s not funding a proxy war though. Kinda different.
Sometimes the only options are war or capitulation. I guess if Ukraine had just stopped…existing…next to Russia this could have all been avoided. How foolish of them.
Those aren’t the options available to America though. America wouldn’t be “capitulating” by not sending $100bil along with weapons and military vehicles to ukraine.
Removed by mod