What's new

The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread

bama is not inactive in politics today. He bought a $12M dive near Washington DC so he could operate as a sort of spider in his web of influence. Neither is Hillary really off the radar. They are very committed to their ideals of globalism and the interests they serve
What’s a globalist?

What’s wrong with globalism?

Aren’t we seeing the advantages right now with having allies?

How does one stop or end globalism when intercontinental trade and immigration have been happening for thousands of years?
 
I don't know how to make an angel outta Putin, but Hillary and Obama are just as bad. Not to mention Xi.
Hillary was never a head of state. Why are we comparing her to Putin, Obama, and Xi? And why are we comparing Obama to Putin and Xi? This is weird
 
What’s a globalist?

What’s wrong with globalism?

Aren’t we seeing the advantages right now with having allies?

How does one stop or end globalism when intercontinental trade and immigration have been happening for thousands of years?
I've never really understood the ultimate issue with globalism.

I mean I get it in one sense, that there is a power structure in the U.S. built for the benefit of a certain demographic and in a globalized world those people wouldn't be artificially benefitting from that system.

I also understand the notion that people have in American exceptionalism and that globalism wouldn't allow that to exist.

I also understand that many people seem to think the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, so it would amount to sacrilege if we allowed any law to supersede it.

But mostly the people who use the word globalism seem to push the narrative that globalism is the same as the abolishment of individual rights.

I think all of those ideas are flawed and I think globalism is an evolutionary process that in fact will provide for human rights and individual rights for all humans, which is a thing I'm strongly in favor of. I think it could be the most powerful force against fascism and oppression.

I'm not saying give me any old sort of globalized government and/or economic system (which would never be communism anyway), but the idea isn't one I dismiss out of hand.
 
It’s telling how certain people keep bringing up Hillary Clinton. That woman will be dead for 50 years and Fox News addicts will still be blaming her for something.
 
I've never really understood the ultimate issue with globalism.

I mean I get it in one sense, that there is a power structure in the U.S. built for the benefit of a certain demographic and in a globalized world those people wouldn't be artificially benefitting from that system.

I also understand the notion that people have in American exceptionalism and that globalism wouldn't allow that to exist.

I also understand that many people seem to think the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, so it would amount to sacrilege if we allowed any law to supersede it.

But mostly the people who use the word globalism seem to push the narrative that globalism is the same as the abolishment of individual rights.

I think all of those ideas are flawed and I think globalism is an evolutionary process that in fact will provide for human rights and individual rights for all humans, which is a thing I'm strongly in favor of. I think it could be the most powerful force against fascism and oppression.

I'm not saying give me any old sort of globalized government and/or economic system (which would never be communism anyway), but the idea isn't one I dismiss out of hand.
Good post.

Whenever I see people whine about globalism, all I picture are unemployed 40 year old dudes living in their parent’s basements whining about immigrants and Jews.

You’re not getting rid of international trade, communication, or alliances. Nor should we want to. Countries that can produce cheap stuff for consume rations (like us) is a good thing. If we were forced to make our own stuff then our purchasing power would plummet.
 
It seems like people are ignoring that gas had risen a fair amount, and was still rising, before the issues with Russia happened.

It is, in my opinion, frustrating that we have options at home that could have helped with the supply issues far before this ever happened, but they were shut down. If you want to pay more to shut down Russia, why not pay for oil that comes from here, where we can create jobs, and business? But to act like all of this is happening because of Russia, well, there’s a fair amount of gaslighting going on there. Fuel was on the rise before this ever started with Russia.

In regards to electric, I’m glad it’s an option for some, and hope they continue to develop it. I don’t see any way in my lifetime that it develops enough to eliminate oil/fuel based vehicles. It simply isn’t feasible for anything that needs power and distance, i.e, semis, tractors, any kind of heavy equipment. Just for a personal example, it wouldn’t be very efficient to have a tractor shut down for a few hours while it needs to recharge when I’m very limited on time anyways. And as far as I know, there’s nothing that would create 500+ hp and last more than a few hours. That just ain’t gonna work. For commuters and city people it’s fine, for those of us who still have to travel long distances to get places, and deal with weather + mountain passes, not super realistic.

Look at a country like Australia, some people have a regular 200km round trip to work. People who work 9 to 5 in Melbourne can often spend an hour and a half in their cars commuting to and from work. On top of that is shipping, most freight is moved in this country by truck, rail would be a better solution but the infrastructure doesn't exist and in a country this size its expensive to build.

In terms of farm equipment I agree, tractors are a significant expense for small farmers. Replacing them with electric equipment will not be viable for a lot of people.
 
I've never really understood the ultimate issue with globalism.

I mean I get it in one sense, that there is a power structure in the U.S. built for the benefit of a certain demographic and in a globalized world those people wouldn't be artificially benefitting from that system.

I also understand the notion that people have in American exceptionalism and that globalism wouldn't allow that to exist.

I also understand that many people seem to think the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, so it would amount to sacrilege if we allowed any law to supersede it.

But mostly the people who use the word globalism seem to push the narrative that globalism is the same as the abolishment of individual rights.

I think all of those ideas are flawed and I think globalism is an evolutionary process that in fact will provide for human rights and individual rights for all humans, which is a thing I'm strongly in favor of. I think it could be the most powerful force against fascism and oppression.

I'm not saying give me any old sort of globalized government and/or economic system (which would never be communism anyway), but the idea isn't one I dismiss out of hand.

You really wanna live next door to me? I sure as **** dont wanna live next to babe.
 
Good post.

Whenever I see people whine about globalism, all I picture are unemployed 40 year old dudes living in their parent’s basements whining about immigrants and Jews.

You’re not getting rid of international trade, communication, or alliances. Nor should we want to. Countries that can produce cheap stuff for consume rations (like us) is a good thing. If we were forced to make our own stuff then our purchasing power would plummet.

Dont you make cheap stuff in your prison industrial complex?
 
One brow said that the oil that we would be getting from keystone, we are already getting through other methods. So if the keystone was completed and up and running it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever maybe?
You misunderstood that. We are getting oil from the keystone, but not as much per day as the pipeline would allow.
 
You misunderstood that. We are getting oil from the keystone, but not as much per day as the pipeline would allow.

You’re leaving out key facts that kill you argument.

Yes, Keystone has been fully operational since 2010.

The Keystone XL shortcut has not been permitted, upheld by a Supreme Court ruling in 2020. Even if permitted, it’s expected completion date was 2030. This shortcut would be used for tar sand oil, to the Gulf, and shipped mostly to China. None of the oil is used to make gasoline due to the quality.

We’re the largest producer of oil on the planet. This argument is dumb.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Dont you make cheap stuff in your prison industrial complex?
That is wrong and it needs to end. I’ve been a big proponent of law enforcement and prison reform.

However, this isn’t the same thing as free market economies and globalism.
 
Copy-paste and browser translation (and some minor corrections-explanations by me) of FB post of Teet Kalmus:

‎Today's summary (10.03). Igor Taro writes about events on the front very thoroughly, I will not dwell on all these things.‎
‎Solovyov, the russian's first prodigy (Solovyov is the one of the main Russian Russia-will-grow-large-and-other-countries-suck guy nad owner of some villas near lake Como), wrote a rather long text about the Ukrainian army. What could you find there? Since 2014, the Ukrainian army has been preparing for a defensive war against Russia. The military operates according to NATO standards, the technical park has been modernized, the troops are mobile and well managed. The Ukrainian army is the third largest in Europe after Russia and Turkey. Incredible rebirth in human storytelling.‎
‎As you can see, all arrogance has disappeared and reality has arrived. Now let's add here the modern military equipment from the West and that's the mess in the house. Ukraine has been using technology from the West since 2014 to intercept all communications, and because of the Russian army's failed crypto-communications project, the military calls each other on regular mobile phones. It turns out that the drivers of fuel trucks do not dare to do their job, because the probability of getting killed is very high. Fear is also everywhere else, because the Russian army was absolutely not prepared for a situation where the opponent has modern weapons. According to one Ukrainian military source, they simply cannot destroy all Russian technology so quickly, because a very large amount of it has been assembled in Ukraine, but they are constantly dealing with it and they still have a lot of surprises in store.‎
‎The greatest achievement of the Russian army so far has been their world-class PR - all sorts of cartoons of weapons without analogues, a TV channel, goods with army insignia in stores, etc. No one in the military leadership expected Russia to go to war against a well-prepared large army. They went to hit the hat, Kharkiv should have been conquered in two days, Kiev with three, according to today's knowledge. In essence, all the landings made failed, the elite units have not justified the hopes and expectations placed on them. A very inappropriate time was chosen for the invasion, because the time of road degradation reached Ukrina. Technology is falling apart, tanks are not starting. Logistics are not working. The 60-kilometre-long column is a logistical disaster. Encrypted communications don't work. Due to the cold wave that reached northern Ukraine, it is necessary to spend the night in tanks in this column at a temperature of more than -10 degrees. In constant fear that it might be attacked. What combat morality are we talking about in this context?‎
‎Around Kiev, the Russian army has gathered everything possible - the Kadõrovs (Chechen regional leader), Wagners, Rusgvardia, units of the Russian army. It is not out of the question that they will make another desperate attempt to attack, but it will be very deadly for Russia, because the defenders are well equipped, motivated and supported by the whole city. The missiles are running low, and Putin is said to have scolded Shoigu for spending 8 very expensive missiles on the destruction of vinnitsa airfield, which is completely pointless in military terms at the moment. There is nothing that can replace them quickly, because Russia was able to produce 2 Kalibr-type rakes a week before the war. Carpet bombing from planes is problematic because they can be shot down. There remains a variant of cannons to shoot into the city. As they do in Mariupol, because that's all they can do. In the name of spreading the so-called Ruskii Mir, mainly Russians are killed. Knowingly, cruelly, the Russians kill russians first and foremost, because they cannot do anything else in the given situation – they cannot conquer cities, the Ukrainian army cannot be destroyed. War crimes remain.‎
‎It should come to every ordinary brother in Russia that for every life in Ukraine destroyed, they will have to pay for later. All destroyed buildings and infrastructure objects must be paid for by them. Each subsequent day of this beastliness is equal to an additional year to the time during which Russia is not considered a normal country. We know how hard it is to build something, but how easy it is to destroy everything.‎
‎Putin insists on victory, victory and victory once again, but his military has nothing left to add much. It is true that there are weapons of mass destruction, but Ukraine is not Syria, after the use of chemical weapons, Russia would no longer be able to escape embarrassment, never. After the use of tactical nuclear weapons, too. What are the options left? They are no longer under the right conditions for Ukraine after the end of the war. During these two weeks, the whole world was able to make sure that Ukraine no longer needed NATO, they could do it themselves if all the weapons were modernized. Ukraine can calmly abandon its aspirations for NATO, because now NATO has a lot to learn from them.‎
‎If at the beginning of the war there was a lot of talk about the Kremlin's attempts to kill Zelensky, now it would give the opposite effect to what he wanted, because after killing him he would become a legend, a martyr. He's already everything Putin isn't. Above all, he is a human being, with a capital letter. This possible killing would make no difference to the ukrainian fight, but russia's own image would become even more horrifying, even though it is already terrible.‎
‎Ukraine has chosen a defence warfare tactic, part of which is the destruction of senior Russian military personnel - generals, colonels, sub-colonels, and this is done very successfully, because the Russian army quite often uses unprotected communications for communication. Russia, in turn, is trying to cause the Ukrainians suffering by carrying out war crimes, so that they will give up. But no one wants that Putin's Russia there anymore, there's only terrible anger and rage. And Ukrainians should not be angered, especially if they are defending their homeland.‎
‎So much for the economy, according to the calculations of Russia's own economic people, the quality of life there is rapidly declining to the level that was 1995. In addition, closure, pariah status, loss of the entire quality of life so far. From Europe, the spoiled scrubs of sanctioned people who somehow want to live in that terrible West, like oligarchs, are also sent home from Europe. It's okay, now they can "enjoy" life in a new reality. Homeland is calling. Welcome back home!‎
‎Credit to Ukraine!‎
 
Isn’t it a bit odd how Fox News consistently is providing cover for Putin? Last night Hannity and Tucker tried to spew lies that Putin’s invasion was justified because Ukraine was developing bio/chem weapons. This reporter blows it up by telling viewers that the labs were Soviet labs and that the west was working with Ukraine to dismantle them. But watch this clip and you can see the narrative Hannity is desperately trying to push. I don’t think he expected this much push back from this reporter. She probably won’t be invited back again.

Why is Fox News predisposed to defend Putin?



Tucker takes it a step further, America funded these biolabs so therefore Putin is totally justified. He even accuses America of “failing to cover up” these Bio labs. Why is Tucker doing this?



Remember, Ingraham called Zelensky “pathetic” when the invasion first happened. Why would she do that?

 
Last edited:
Look at a country like Australia, some people have a regular 200km round trip to work. People who work 9 to 5 in Melbourne can often spend an hour and a half in their cars commuting to and from work.
This is a problem built upon the decisions of the city of Melbourne to make it more attractive to drive over an hour to commute rather than live in the city, and to not have good public transportation. It's a decision by the citizens to live this way as well. They made their decisions betting on low gas prices; I'm not inclined to bail them out.

On top of that is shipping, most freight is moved in this country by truck, rail would be a better solution but the infrastructure doesn't exist and in a country this size its expensive to build.

In terms of farm equipment I agree, tractors are a significant expense for small farmers. Replacing them with electric equipment will not be viable for a lot of people.
I agree more that the industrial uses of petroleum will persist, but there the costs will be passed on to consumers.
 

The federal government has been issuing oil and gas drilling permits more willingly than it did during President Donald Trump’s first three years in office, and it could be issuing even more if the oil and gas industry weren’t leaving many current leases undeveloped.


In fiscal year 2021, 98 percent of drilling permit applications were approved. So far this year, 96 percent of permit applications have been approved. During fiscal year 2020, the last year of the Trump administration, the approval rate was 94 percent. In terms of raw numbers, more drilling permits were approved during Biden’s first year in office than in any of Trump’s first three years.




Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
people who use the word globalism seem to push the narrative that globalism is the same as the abolishment of individual rights.
It is the abolishment of the power of the individual. Take school boards as an example of a local seat of power. Parents can show up to face those making the decisions, can realistically run for office themselves, and as such they have a greater voice. If school boards were abolished and all control was at the federal level by administrators appointed by the President then local parents would effectively have zero input over local decisions. Globalism is removing the seat of power one step further than federal to seat the power internationally.

Maybe a global government ruling on all issues from afar is the answer and maybe it is a recipe for civil war. Maybe a mix where some things are decided internationally, some federally, some on the province level, and some on the neighborhood level is the answer. Where to draw the line of where power is located is in a nutshell the issue with globalism but in having that debate we should not be so naive as to believe giving control over to a global government would mean the end of exploitation, oppression or discrimination. That is rainbow-unicorn talk.
 
It is the abolishment of the power of the individual. Take school boards as an example of a local seat of power. Parents can show up to face those making the decisions, can realistically run for office themselves, and as such they have a greater voice. If school boards were abolished and all control was at the federal level by administrators appointed by the President then local parents would effectively have zero input over local decisions. Globalism is removing the seat of power one step further than federal to seat the power internationally.

Maybe a global government ruling on all issues from afar is the answer and maybe it is a recipe for civil war. Maybe a mix where some things are decided internationally, some federally, some on the province level, and some on the neighborhood level is the answer. Where to draw the line of where power is located is in a nutshell the issue with globalism but in having that debate we should not be so naive as to believe giving control over to a global government would mean the end of exploitation, oppression or discrimination. That is rainbow-unicorn talk.
You don't know any of this. You're imagining a boogeyman and saying that's what globalism is. There is nothing that says that's what globalism has to be. Nothing inherent in globalism is incompatible with individual rights.
 
You don't know any of this. You're imagining a boogeyman and saying that's what globalism is. There is nothing that says that's what globalism has to be. Nothing inherent in globalism is incompatible with individual rights.
...and nothing in globalism is more conducive to individual rights but globalism necessarily dilutes local power with individual power being the most local and most diluted. The ultimate question of globalism is: Do you trust your friends and neighbors with power more or less than you trust a distant bureaucrat you will never meet and is more of an idea to you than an actual person you can hold responsible? Idealists love globalism because real people can never measure up to an ideal and so the distant ideal wins. Those who yearn for responsibility are less likely to be globalists because they want some measure of control and globalism is antithetical to that desire.
 
Top