HeloDude

The US in a nuclear war with Russia to defend Ukraine? Have you guys lost your minds? I’m mostly with Brick on this one (usually am)—no US city or American overseas base (ie Ramstein) is worth Kyiv. It’s bad enough that we’re still a member of a Cold War treaty (when the Cold War is over) in which we agreed that an attack on one certain country is automatically seen as an attack on all members (alliances for no other reason can be dangerous…WW1 anyone?), but now we’re literally saying that potentially more than a million American lives should be on the table if a million Ukrainian lives are taken? I would love to see Biden get on stage and say those very words…the support for Ukraine will quickly change. Like it or not, Putin is a bad dude and seems capable of just about anything, and he commands a force that is not some 3rd world country of goat herders or some rich oil nation of slackers in the Middle East. If we go to war with Russia then this will be the first of its kind since the 1940s and of the nuclear age. Why so many would be eager to see it happen to defend Ukraine is beyond me—nuke or no nuke hitting Ukraine. And as for potential genocide, yeah, it’s horrible, but now we care about it when Russia is the aggressor? I don’t recall seeing too many on here wanting to go to war with China or Turkey over their atrocities…what about Myanmar, are we going to war with them? At some point you have to stop being the world’s policemen. I don’t know how the Ukraine/Russia thing ends, but I’m for whatever outcome that is best for the US. Hopefully that involves Ukraine staying strong and Russia finally pulling back and realizing that it was a mistake and then that’s that (more/less); but hope is not a strategy. The more realistic best scenario is for Russia and Ukraine to “negotiate” (I know, it’s a crappy word when you’re invaded) and Ukraine allows some of the pro-Russia eastern areas to break away and Russia pulls out its troops and most (if not all) the sanctions are lifted and things quiet down that way. And then as for Russia, in terms of their internal politics, time will tell. Again, what does Putin want? You can’t say he gets nothing unless you’re willing to deal with the consequences of him not giving up and potentially being even more dangerous than he already is…and then what happens? If we’re willing to have “peace” discussions with the Taliban, then we have to be willing to do the same with one of the most powerful countries in the world. Hopefully this will alleviate the need for nukes to be a legitimate concern. Watching/reading the msm (yes, even Fox News), you would think that the Ukraine story is the most important thing affecting Americans right now…I’m much more concerned with our economy. But for the left, this is a good distraction and allows someone else (Putin) to take the blame for our woes. And who doesn’t love a good war on tv? Fox viewers and the neo-cons love it. Thanks for tuning into my rambling, flame away.

I have no clue what’s going to happen next year, much less of a clue as to what will happen in 5 years. Its funny how you use the words “critical thinking” and yet originally sought to discount my original post today by suggesting that since they’re invaded by Putin that my point was irrelevant. Critical thinking means that you can look at both points at the same time and without emotion. As far as the media, Ukraine/Russia is consuming well more than half of the news cycle so I think it’s a valid discussion point. And the vast majority of the news has Ukraine out to be some model of freedom and democracy all because they’re being invaded by Russia. Your argument was basically to overlook my points because Ukraine is a lot better than the aggressors, but I appreciate you clarifying afterwards. However I disagree that banning political parties that a president disagrees with is necessary, and it’s as far from democracy as you can get. Oh, and I’m personally anti-Russia, but I’m “jury is still out” (at best) when it comes to Ukraine. If the whole point of supporting Ukraine is to help weaken Russia and that this will benefit the average US citizen, then it’s a valid argument to be made as proxy wars have been part of international politics since lord only knows. But that’s not the argument that is being made by the president, Congress, the media/elites, etc.

Putin is a very bad dude and clearly an aggressor. And Ukraine is not some bastion of freedom and democracy that the media portrays them to be…even if they are fighting for their survival. Two different things can be true at the same time. But never turn a blind eye to the enemy of your enemy just because.

This doesn’t really sound like much of a “democracy” to me. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/zelensky-suspends-opposition-parties-in-ukraine-with-russia-ties/

When the MSM right away comes out to discredit the Hunter Laptop story as misinformation/Russian propaganda, and big tech tech sensors anything related to the story…only to 1.5 years admit that it was true, then you have to ask yourself “why”? https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/the-times-finally-admits-hunter-bidens-laptop-is-real/

So if Zelensky is an honest leader, then why didn’t the Dems trust him in 2019? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-president-says-no-blackmail-in-phone-call-with-trump

Iran is claiming responsibility for the attack. https://apnews.com/article/iran-missile-attack-erbil-iraq-us-consulate-7a4ea6281fe6191a4e4b640c58c7fd49

The government will rarely ever be successful in “taking something away from you” that you already own. That being said, they’ll raise taxes on gas to dissuade you from owning it. Or your state will raise the cost of renewing your tags but will give a large discount on EV tags. Also, the government will require new gas cars to be able to get current gas mileage + a new X miles to the gallon in 5 years. On and on. They’ll just make it more difficult for you to keep your vehicle and will incentivize you to buy a new EV with taxpayer money (“cash for clunkers” anyone??), or most likely, future taxpayer’s money. And just like I was against cash for clunkers, I was against the auto bailout as well. But there’s no way the government was going to let those union jobs fail. None of this will be done to directly help people, rather it will be done in the name of “fighting climate change”…and yet the elites will still have whatever they want to drive, their private jets, etc because they can afford it. As for the infrastructure piece, we can definitely argue that one—I’m all for new nuclear power plants, but the left in recent times hasn’t been as for it, so that’s not helping. Also, the GOP says they’re for it, but doesn’t really do much to get it done. But are vehicles infrastructure? Do EV’s cause any significant benefit to reducing wear/tear on roads?

Dude, you can’t discuss EV’s and oil/gas vehicles and how one is better/worse and how one is going away/not going away without discussing the politics because it’s far from a free market. And worse, when I asked you why it was then needed for the government to interfere (incentives for EV’s and stricter regulation for oil and gas vehicles), your response is that humans aren’t good at making their own decisions. I have no doubt that technology will evolve/improve our lives since that has been going on since the beginning of humanity. However this notion that “humans can’t make their own decisions” means that the technology currently is not ready to stand on its own merit. The government is once again trying to pick winners and losers, and so your argument of how great something currently is doesn’t hold water because if it was then people would naturally be attracted to it without the interference. That all being said, I’m excited to see what the future brings wrt electric vehicles and when oil/gas engines have lost their place, then so be it. But let’s not pretend that this is happening on its own.

Solid post—thanks for the info.

I sometimes wonder if they actually believe what they’re saying.

Not interested when your response is “well, I know better than other people and that’s why”. And if EVs use different roads than what gasoline cars use, please let me know!

So you don’t trust people to make their own decisions and thus believe that decisions need to be made for them…as long as you like those decisions. Spoken like a true progressive and/or elitist. If EVs were so great they would sell themselves without taxpayer incentives. The left has sold out to the environmentalists and the Dems are now trying to spin their policies as actually being for fossil fuels even though you can’t swing a dead cat without easily finding evidence to the contrary.

So then why the need to provide monetary incentives for the electric car industry and only have further restrictive regulations on oil and traditional vehicles? I don’t recall the government making VCRs more restrictive to make the way for DVD players?

Oh supply vs demand always reigns supreme. But…it’s almost as if restrictive regulations also have a strong part in the game when it comes to production/prices. Hell, one of the leading contenders for the Dem’s 2020 nominee said he was against all new fracking and wanted to rapidly end existing fracking. Oh and he’s now the Transportation Secretary.

So your post was intentionally misleading. It’s almost as if the left is suddenly trying to make the argument that Biden and his policies are better for oil production than Trump was during his term. I guess that’s what happens when you have high inflation/gas soon to be over $5 a gallon and you’re trying to tell the American people that your policies are actually good for energy prices even though Biden and the left are literally on record saying how they want to drastically reduce fossil fuel production. I know you want to say this has nothing to do with politics, but the truth is that this has everything to do with politics. The high inflation wasn’t an accident…and originally the left was saying it was a good thing and not to worry because it was “transitory”. But hey, just go buy an electric car if you don’t like the high gas prices… https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/buttigieg-slammed-for-urging-electric-car-buying-to-counter-gas-prices/

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022? I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

How it started… https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-energy-sec-granholm-laughs-boosting-oil-hilarious How it’s going… https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/granholm-energy-executives-produce-more-russia-ukraine But yeah, it’s all Russia’s fault.

Paper from Stanford written in 2018 says about 10 years. No time like the present to start. https://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/park-k2/

7.9% inflation and the House (with a majority of Republicans in favor) just passed a $1.5 trillion spending bill for just 6 or so months of federal spending. But yeah…it’s all about Russia/Ukraine, or something. Clearly things need to be a lot more painful here in the US before enough people agree that we need to stop the bleeding/adjust course.

If big blue hasn’t gotten it by now, they’re never going to get it. Stay in or get out…just do what’s best for you and your family and don’t expect a whole lot of positive changes.

I’m literally quoting the President… https://www.foxnews.com/media/biden-excoriated-twitter-insinuating-blocks-legislation-jim-crow-2-0

I’m much more concerned that you’re saying such positive things about a Nav… I kid I kid…but seriously 😉

Really? Progressives literally think that requiring an ID to vote is “Jim Crow 2.0”.