Trump supporters, how do you square this?

PCHawk said:
It's so funny how you completely forgot the last umpteen times our military tried to invade another country. Do you think someone in Russia at some point typed up your exact post about us trying to kick Afghanistan's ass?
Click to expand...
LOL.

If the US really wanted to destroy Afghanistan it would have been done in short order with cruise missiles, bombs, and jets. There's no need to invade and occupy. You destroy all military targets and communications systems. We could have done that in Afghanistan easily. We did it to Iraq.

We could remotely reduce Russia's air, land, and sea equipment into smoking holes real quick. Who's talking about an invasion for god's sake? No one needs or wants to send people in there to live and occupy Russia. You destroy their ability to attack other countries.

What, are you thinking it's like 1944 D-Day type shit? It's 2024, these wars will get fought from control rooms in the United States and on ships far out of the reach of anyone trying to fight back.
 
PCHawk said:
So we are actively preventing the war from being over? We agree on that one. Once the war ends the money laundering stops. And you said that one in your post just now. I'm just agreeing with it. I'm starting to wonder if you're saying the exact same thing as me, just in a different way.
Click to expand...
Give Ukraine the green light to use HIMARS across the border and this thing is done. Will Russia flip out and do something dumb? Maybe.

Will it be effective? No.

At this point if it happens that Ukraine gets the go ahead to light Russia up, I don't necessarily agree that Putin's general soldiers will follow nuclear orders anyway. At that point they'd know it was guaranteed suicide and I think Putin and Medvedev suspiciously fall out of window. Accidentally of course.

Once shit gets real and buildings in Moscow and St Petersburg start exploding with no effective way of defending themselves, do we really thing Igor and Vlad are going to follow orders to press the big red button? I don't think so, especially when said ICBMs have been sitting in the ground for 50 years with no one checking the oil.
 
PCHawk said:
It's so funny how you completely forgot the last umpteen times our military tried to invade another country. Do you think someone in Russia at some point typed up your exact post about us trying to kick Afghanistan's ass?

The issue with Mexico is how fast a nuke would hit us from right next door compared to across the world. It would give us no time to retaliate. If what you are saying is true, why did we make such a big deal of Russia bringing missiles to Cuba? If Russia decides ending civilization is the better option than losing, our military won't stop it buddy. All we can do is kill them too.
Click to expand...
Mexico knows they'd cease to exist as soon as the first one left the ground. You're assuming they'd even do that in the first place which is pretty ludicrous. What makes you think the Mexican populace has seen anything from Russia that makes them warm and fuzzy about being defended by them? Honest question. And what are they going to do with us afterwards?
 
Fryowa said:
You gave a response earlier of, "We have our own problems here, f*ck 'em and let them fight their own battles."

We didn't get this great country built with that attitude. We got it by talking those immigrants with nothing to lose into the country and helping them thrive. Imagine where we'd be if we had the, "F*ck 'em, we have our own problems here" attitude when people were coming across the Atlantic in the early 18th and 19th centuries.

Other countries built this one into what it is today and we have duty to help the rest of the world from shit stains like Russia and Putin.
Click to expand...
When I said that I was talking about Ukraine. Not immigrants.
 
Fryowa said:
Mexico knows they'd cease to exist as soon as the first one left the ground. You're assuming they'd even do that in the first place which is pretty ludicrous. What makes you think the Mexican populace has seen anything from Russia that makes them warm and fuzzy about being defended by them? Honest question. And what are they going to do with us afterwards?
Click to expand...
Ha have you been day drinking? You're the one who brought up a hypothetical Mexico deal. I just said the US would have serious issues with a deal like that because it could end with Russian weapons right next door. I'm not sure how you can possibly say we would be fine with it because we are too strong to care about that threat.
 
Fryowa said:
Give Ukraine the green light to use HIMARS across the border and this thing is done. Will Russia flip out and do something dumb? Maybe.

Will it be effective? No.

At this point if it happens that Ukraine gets the go ahead to light Russia up, I don't necessarily agree that Putin's general soldiers will follow nuclear orders anyway. At that point they'd know it was guaranteed suicide and I think Putin and Medvedev suspiciously fall out of window. Accidentally of course.

Once shit gets real and buildings in Moscow and St Petersburg start exploding with no effective way of defending themselves, do we really thing Igor and Vlad are going to follow orders to press the big red button? I don't think so, especially when said ICBMs have been sitting in the ground for 50 years with no one checking the oil.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there's a good chance it's a bluff or they wouldn't follow orders. But just so I know we're on the same page, you realize if it's not a bluff, it would basically be the end of life on earth right?
 
PCHawk said:
Ha have you been day drinking? You're the one who brought up a hypothetical Mexico deal. I just said the US would have serious issues with a deal like that because it could end with Russian weapons right next door. I'm not sure how you can possibly say we would be fine with it because we are too strong to care about that threat.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's no threat. If I'm reading your stuff correctly you brought up the ridiculous odea of nukes and Mexico, not me...

All I said was your ludicrous stance that it's ok for Russia to attack Ukraine because they felt threatened by NATO talks was dumb. Which it is. I said it would be akin to saying it'd be ok to attack Mexico if they said they were thinking about joining up with Russia's version of NATO which is BRICS.

The gaslighting here is astounding.
 
Fryowa said:
It's defenseless people who need our help. Same/same.
Click to expand...
Those two things are the same in that sense. It just doesn't make sense for you to bring up immigrants coming into the country as a rebuttal to me saying Russia taking a small chunk of land in Ukraine isn't worth bankrupting our country.

You know what else is sad? Homeless vets. People who can't afford food for their kids. Drug addicts that need help. Single broke mothers. The money we sent to Ukraine to help get Ukrainians killed could have done a lot of good here.
 
PCHawk said:
I agree with you that there's a good chance it's a bluff or they wouldn't follow orders. But just so I know we're on the same page, you realize if it's not a bluff, it would basically be the end of life on earth right?
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. It'd change a lot of places, but it's not the end of life on earth as we know it.
 
PCHawk said:
Those two things are the same in that sense. It just doesn't make sense for you to bring up immigrants coming into the country as a rebuttal to me saying Russia taking a small chunk of land in Ukraine isn't worth bankrupting our country.

You know what else is sad? Homeless vets. People who can't afford food for their kids. Drug addicts that need help. Single broke mothers. The money we sent to Ukraine to help get Ukrainians killed could have done a lot of good here.
Click to expand...
None of those people, sad as their situations may be, are getting missiles shot at them indiscriminately for no reason.

The immigrant thing is because this country was built by people from all different countries who were given general safety and freedom. Yep there's a lot of rough stuff that went along with it I admit. But at the same time we can't just say, "Well, it's 2024 now, you're on your own cause this is 'Murica now."

If you think we can, tell me when that transition happened please...

There were lots of people with problems in the US when we went into WW2. Was that dumb to go help Europe and China defend themselves then? If so what's different now?
 
Fryowa said:
I'm saying it's no threat. If I'm reading your stuff correctly you brought up the ridiculous odea of nukes and Mexico, not me...

All I said was your ludicrous stance that it's ok for Russia to attack Ukraine because they felt threatened by NATO talks was dumb. Which it is. I said it would be akin to saying it'd be ok to attack Mexico if they said they were thinking about joining up with Russia's version of NATO which is BRICS.

The gaslighting here is astounding.
Click to expand...
And I've already corrected you that I don't think it would be ok. It's not about what I think. I haven't even given my opinion on what I think. I did say that it makes sense that a country would want to attack in that situation. Then I also said in a hypothetical that you invented, the US would probably also attack. Again. That wouldn't be "ok" either. But it would probably happen.

We would say to Mexico "under no circumstances can you join BRICS". Then if they said "F you we are joining anyway" I'd say there's a pretty good chance we would invade. Do you see the difference between me laying out what happened (or what would happen in a hypothetical) and me giving my opinion on what I think should happen?
 
PCHawk said:
We would say to Mexico "under no circumstances can you join BRICS". Then if they said "F you we are joining anyway" I'd say there's a pretty good chance we would invade
Click to expand...
Strongly disagree. Not a credible threat.
 
Fryowa said:
None of those people, sad as their situations may be, are getting missiles shot at them indiscriminately for no reason.

The immigrant thing is because this country was built by people from all different countries who were given general safety and freedom. Yep there's a lot of rough stuff that went along with it I admit. But at the same time we can't just say, "Well, it's 2024 now, you're on your own cause this is 'Murica now."

If you think we can, tell me when that transition happened please...

There were lots of people with problems in the US when we went into WW2. Was that dumb to go help Europe and China defend themselves then? If so what's different now?
Click to expand...
The difference is , if you remember my original post, I said I don't care if it's over a small chunk of land. I do care if it's Putin trying to pull a Hitler. If they say "we want this area of land and that's the end of it" and they keep their word, I don't think that's a battle we need to get involved in. Borders move all the time without the US interfering.

Now we might have to make it known that we're gunna F some shit up if they try to keep moving. Or better yet, try to threaten them to begin with so they back down before they invade. (Remember how scary our military threat is) But instead we let them invade without a single conversation between Biden and Putin. No diplomacy. Just let them invade and start sending cash while Ukrainians die. Our half ass help has hurt Ukraine worse than if we did nothing. You basically eluded to that in another post.
 
PCHawk said:
Do you think Hitler made it so far because his speech wasn't silenced earlier or because he silenced his critics speech? I think throughout history, the side trying to silence speech were the bad guys.

Part of me thinks you're right about the guardrails in place. The other part of me thinks it's still possible if you corrupt those guardrails over decades. In my option, it's more likely that the corruption's goal is to destroy America than it is to take over the world.
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump has been silenced? Or any other right-wing personality? Fox is the most popular cable news station in the world. The Top 20 list of political podcasts is littered with right-wing content. One of the largest social media platforms in the world is run by someone who has endorsed Trump, spent 100s of millions of dollars supporting Trump super PACs, and is running Trump's ground game in swing states. If there is much silencing going on, it doesn't seem to be working.

True examples of silencing include things like book bans (which both sides have occasionally done throughout history, but the right has taken a particular shine to recently), or the government (i.e., FEC) threatening to pull broadcast licenses for content they don't like (which Trump has proposed), or political figures describing the free press as the "enemy of the people" (something Trump has done more times than you can count).

The press is broken right now. There are a bunch of reasons for that, we don't need to go into all of them. But even in its broken state, the press always has been, and still is, protection from government overreach. All authoritarians have to convince the populace that the free press is the enemy, so they have carte blanche to do whatever heinous shit they want without people uprising. I have seen some on the left trying to control/influence/delegitimize what the free press says: e.g., relative to Biden's decline or Trump's craziness. They justify this by stating Trump is a uniquely dangerous threat, so everyone needs to be all in on stopping him, the ends justify the means. I don't buy that shit at all...because as soon as you go down that road, you are giving permission to the other side to do the same stuff.

To summarize, I don't think either side has a monopoly on trying to silence dissent, but I definitely wouldn't say the right is being silenced in an uneven way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top