Banzai

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/its-bad-for-our-relationship-australia-slams-donald-trumps-tariff-move/news-story/cd4c18090b040beab5eed528c669ec7f Spin it. What is your guys’s talk radio telling you to think?

It’s funny that you first start by lecturing people about how ridiculous it is to care about something that’s happening. Then your next post you lecture people on how ridiculous it is to believe the thing you just argued they shouldn’t care about happening could even be real. Do you see how your arguments aren’t even remotely connected? Btw, I am asking this rhetorically, I already know your 3 paragraph response.

Hes right about finding efficiencies! Of course we need the planned $4.5T tax cuts while trimming just $1.5T in spending (it only adds a ton to the deficit, but I’ve been told to support this by Truth, so I obey). I especially support things like cuts to IRS staff - who return 5-6 times ROI for every dollar spent. Why collect billions in unpaid taxes when we can just complain about the deficit (which we are increasing) instead? This plan is flawless, checkmate libs.

Imagine being “on the team” that has to pretend the Enola Gay is offensive. Sounds very snowflake-ish, doesn’t it?

It’s not that hard. Many people on this forum have been exposed to literally near constant pro Russia propaganda for the past few years. This is just the natural result of that reality.

Let’s just admit that it’s not entirely straightforward. Belief 1: Ukrainian people don’t matter to the US Stance A - we should stop funding them, it’s a waste of money Stance B - we should use them as a meat grinder for our benefit Belief 2: Ukrainian people are important and their lives should be protected Stance A - We should go for peace ASAP at any cost Stance B - we should support their fight at any cost I acknowledge that your guys’s position isn’t just black and white morally. But I’m in the camp of fighting the Russians for the same reason my dad and grandad fought them. You can argue under either stance for either thing. But I want America to be in charge, and I don’t want to throw away the world order we have built to our advantage.

I said if needed. I do think there are acceptable ways to establish no fly zones or air superiority that don’t all out escalate to the apocalypse. But these are hypotheticals. Right now all that’s needed is some money and a Ukrainian nation that is willing to fight to hold back a huge adversary to the first world.

I didn’t use ChatGPT or another LLM ffs. I personally would be more resistant to providing ground troops. But I would commit a lot of the Air Force, including my pink body if they’ll let me. If you establish real air superiority you won’t need those troops. But if your question is the hypothetical where we wait until they exhaust all Ukrainian troops, then i wouldn’t probably support American ground troops.

I googled common fallacies and that provided me a list - generated by AI 🤖- that you fell into handily. (Literally I just listed like 12 I thought might apply, found examples in what you wrote, and got rid of the excess in the exact format of the google response). Does that count? AI did not write the response - I do not have ChatGPT. But if you’re saying I can use that to cut down next time, that’s sick; gotta get it. I’m happy to return to the argument at hand now.

@gearhog You make it too easy. You getting mad you’re on the ropes? I am literally entirely avoiding anything personal because I am highly critical when other people get into personal appeals to emotion. And not to mention you've already said you are waiting for the conversation to pivot to the “you’re a nazi” portion of the argument. I’m gonna just stick to what you say and call you out. To answer your question, yes. I would personally would fly a fifth gen fighter jet into combat to defend the American world order if necessary. That includes Russia or China or any of our adversaries.

@gearhog Your response relies on a collection of logical fallacies rather than substantive argument. First, your Texas reference commits the fallacy of false equivalence. Comparing 1840s annexation to a 2022 invasion in the modern international order is like comparing medieval trial-by-combat to modern courts. Your ABM Treaty example is a false analogy. The US followed legal withdrawal procedures with proper notice, while Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum it signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament. You then pivot to the genetic fallacy, dismissing Ukrainian agency by attributing their resistance solely to "US meddling" rather than addressing Ukrainians' own repeatedly expressed desire for sovereignty in multiple elections. Your nuclear deterrence argument creates a strawman. My point was about the inconsistency in your position, not a claim Russia would invade NATO. Most revealing is your framing of Ukrainian resistance as "feeding into the meat grinder" - a classic appeal to emotion that denies Ukrainians' agency. By this logic, any smaller nation should surrender to avoid bloodshed when invaded by a larger power. Your numerous assumptions about what I "really believe" and what I "would do" are textbook ad hominem attacks, constructing an imaginary opponent rather than engaging with the actual argument. You conclude with another fallacy - false dilemma - suggesting the only options are complete Ukrainian surrender or nuclear war, ignoring the many other possible resolutions. When arguments fail, your closing meme resorts to mockery - the last refuge when facts aren't on your side. The core issue remains: a sovereign nation was invaded under false pretenses. Supporting Ukraine's defense isn't "virtue signaling" - it's upholding the fundamental principle that borders shouldn't be changed by force.

I find it remarkable that you'd quote Putin's own carefully crafted rhetoric as evidence against the Chamberlain analogy, when it actually strengthens the parallel. The statement you've bolded - "we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia" - mirrors almost exactly the justification Hitler used for annexing the Sudetenland. He too spoke of protecting ethnic Germans from being "used against" Germany. When Putin speaks of "historical territories," he's referring to what are now internationally recognized sovereign nations. This is obviously a dangerous concept. By this same logic, Mongolia could claim large parts of Russia as its "historical territory" from the Mongol Empire, or Turkey could claim much of Eastern Europe from Ottoman times. History doesn't confer permanent ownership rights. You've shared Putin's eloquent bs about "respecting" Ukraine, but his words stand in stark contrast to his actions. He has annexed Crimea, fueled separatist movements, launched a full-scale invasion, targeted civilian infrastructure, and even orchestrated the transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. These aren't the actions of someone who "respects Ukrainian traditions" or desires "to see their country free." They're the actions of someone who fundamentally questions Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation. The Chamberlain analogy is apt precisely because both situations involve an authoritarian leader using historical and ethnic justifications for territorial expansion while simultaneously claiming peaceful intentions. Chamberlain made the grave error of trusting Hitler's rhetoric over his demonstrated pattern of behavior - exactly what you are doing (and suggesting we do) with Putin. History provides us with valuable patterns to recognize. Ignoring these patterns doesn't make one more reasonable or logical - it makes one willfully blind to established historical lessons that have been paid for in blood.

Here’s a response for ya: Your characterization of Putin's Russia is astoundingly naive. Putin has explicitly stated his belief that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe," and has systematically dismantled international agreements when they no longer suit him. But sure, he's just a pragmatic businessman selling gas. Russia "barely pushed a few dozen miles into Ukraine"? Perhaps because Ukraine fiercely defended itself with Western support - precisely the response Chamberlain failed to organize against Hitler's early aggressions. Without that support, Kyiv would have fallen in days, as your "pragmatic" Putin expected. Your dismissal of nuclear deterrence is particularly amusing. If nuclear weapons make invasion impossible, why did Russia invade Ukraine at all? Why did they annex Crimea? Your own argument collapses under basic scrutiny. I'm not "hyperventilating" about imaginary scenarios - I'm observing actual events that have already happened. Russia has already invaded a sovereign nation. They've already annexed territory. They've already threatened other neighbors. These aren't hypotheticals; they're recent history. The true emotional reasoning is believing that an authoritarian who has repeatedly used military force to achieve political aims will suddenly become satisfied and peaceful if we just let him have what he wants this time. Your "reason and logic" look suspiciously like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-intellectual garb. But please, continue explaining how appeasement will work wonderfully this time, unlike literally every other time in history it's been tried.

Oh but he never said that Bashi.

Oh yeah, give me those talking points harder. You don’t like historical analogies and then go on an ad hominem? That’s minus 1 point, not looking good for you right now.

Again, let’s discuss if Neville Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement has any similarities to the foreign policy decisions occurring now. And then let’s get into what we can learn from how that played out. Finally let’s see how your stance makes sense in these contexts. Since we are being very intellectual here, let’s christen this debate with a relevant quote: ”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” I expect no fallacies or grammatical errors.

Hey buddy, you’re the one now being difficult. Why is it so hard to engage in intellectual discussion?

Here ya go

I made a case about Neville that you conveniently ignored. Let’s start there big guy.

It’s fun watching the military members of this forum - who I am 100% certain trained to fight the Russians (because they have moral and political views opposite of the US and have for about 75 years) - start gargling and regurgitating Russia is our friend propaganda. Do as you’re told, guys. Yes, yes, sow division between western allies, push for the dissolution of NATO, Russia is the oppressed one here, Ukraine started the war. Might want to look up Neville Chamberlain and start learning from history before you doom yourself to the wrong side of it.

Took a pic of @gearhog and @BashiChuni hanging at the convention

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-halts-cyber-operations-against-044500299.html How do you spin this one?

On the left is what was “released,” on the right is what has been in the public sphere the last eight years. And here are some of the totally unscripted twitter comments from the influencers that for some reason were chosen to receive the files.

I have seen no evidence they have released anything near transparency. Understand that some sects of the media are going to tell you they did, but I am highly skeptical of it actually happening.