But you still have to pay back your student loans and pay a small fortune for healthcare because fuck you.
American pays mores per capita for healthcare than most countries with a single payer system.
You’d actually save money if you changed.
I get your point, but I’m not sure if that’s true. Americans in general are very unhealthy. I think that might explain why it’s more expensive at least somewhat.
Do you not see the chicken-or-egg situation here? They’re more unhealthy because of bad healthcare. That (bad) healthcare is more expensive because they’re more unhealthy.
Moreover, much of the reason the healthcare is so expensive is because of insurance overhead, for-profit middlemen (including hospitals, private equity owning doctors offices, etc), massive prescription medication markups because people can’t go without medication, and other inefficiencies in the system. Even with an unhealthy population, it doesn’t need to be nearly as expensive as it is.
I see it. It makes sense. I just don’t know if it’d initially be cheaper. I still think it’s the right thing to do, but it might take a generation for the savings to start happening.
The second best time to plant a tree
Two have basically nothing to do with each other.
We are still the richest nation in the world. 2.3 billion sounds like a lot, but its nothing to the us gov, it’s nothing to the defense budget alone, and it is actively wrecking the military capabilities of one of our top geopolitical rivals.
I’m not going to pretend to understand the intricacies of the Russia/Ukraine situation, but I know this is peanuts compared to what it could cost us, and we don’t even have boots on the ground. This is the deal of a century.
Be mad at the corrupt piece of shit republicans forcing you to go into crippling debt for healthcare and education, not the innocent Ukrainians fighting for their lives and democracy.
The good thing about a 2-party system is that you can always point to the other party as to why things are the way they are. :)
You think that’s enough? Or do we still need to give them more money?
(Let’s take note that the citizens are still poor, and Ukraine is still losing, reportedly still being outgunned as well)
Uhh, wat? Ukraine is currently regaining territory from Russia, how are they losing?
Fucking tankies.
How much money do you want to bet? You seem confident and it seems like you read your news about the topic.
Idk where you got this from, but Ukraine won in Kyiv, Kherson and Kharkiv. Currently the front moves very slowly towards Russia. No, the offensive isn‘t a huge success and I would even consider it a failure, but the fact that Ukraine can even start an offensive is proving that the weapon deliveries are working.
I wouldn’t call it anything yet, Ukrainians haven’t even used the bulk of their fresh troops and equipment.
But why tho. This could be just propaganda. Hopefully not.
No doubt it’s complicated, but some key factors are
- Availability of ammunition (cluster munitions may help here)
- Destroying artillery before advancing (the daily numbers have been looking good)
- Removing mines before advancing
- Disabling logistics (e.g. strikes on bridges, warehouses)
- Waiting for a lucky opportunity
It doesn’t cost them much to do things slowly, but keeping the Kremlin on its toes and embarrassed is good. The longer Ukraine holds on, the more equipment they get, like F-16s, Abrams, and ATACMS.
Anyone know the total in lethal aid sent this year? I know last year it exceeded the entire Russian military budget.
Russia sits on a big ass stock of equipment. Of course Ukraine needs more in aid than Russia budgets to keep their stuff working.
Meanwhile we are giving Almost 4billion/yr to Israel.
I mean, it’s an apartheid state killing and looting brown people, so that’s typical US foreign policy.
One of the best uses of my tax dollars in my entire lifetime.
And one of the worst uses of the 2 brain cells you have left. Your tax dollars are the driving force for war and misery across the globe for decades now, the only difference is that your government isn’t hiding it anymore, because they know now that you zombies will give all your money for some entertainment on the news after shooting up a school.
if you want to call attention to the fucked up shit that the USA and NATO has done in the last couple of decades, comparing it with supplying weapons to a democracy to defend itself against an invading bunch of fascist war criminals is definitely NOT helping your case
edit: I have been informed that Ukraine isn’t perfect, and that therefor the invasion and the long list of war crimes perpetrated by the invaders are justified
A democracy that recently announced that it postponed elections, a year after declaring the opposition parties as illegal.
You know that postponing elections during a war is : a, fucking logical, because how to fuck are you going to get a representative vote if half of the country has fled or is on the frontline and b, their constitution says there can’t be elections during martial law. source Every fucking pro Russian troll arguments in this thread need to be ousted here before this place gets to be a Russian troll pit as well.
Just the reply I was expecting, thanks for walking right into the trap where you conveniently failed to even mention the opposition part.
And I’m the troll.
Edit:
Even Foreign Policy isn’t as one-sided as you are in their portrayal of the situation:
Concern over the decision to postpone Ukraine’s elections has come from both Ukraine’s friends and foes. […] On the other hand, PACE President Tiny Kox said that while he recognizes the enormity of the struggle Ukraine faces, the country must uphold its obligations under international agreements to hold elections. “It is up to [Ukraine] how to solve this challenge,” he told a Council of Europe summit in May, adding that “there will be no complaints against Ukraine if the elections are not ideal. But if you do not hold elections, then everyone will have questions about you … without elections, democracy is impossible.”
Unless PACE is also just a Russian troll. 🤡
But indeed, elections during war/state of emergency are unconstitutional and highly impractible. Still funny you dodged the opposition point I made.
Untill you give me a source that states that the opposition isn’t able to function, I’m going to treat that part of your argument as blatant misinformation.
It’s crazy how some people can have such strong opinions about this conflict while being so uninformed at the same time.
At least you’re open about your complete lack of awareness of this war. It’s shocking you’re even participating in this discussion though. The arrogance of offloading basic research of topics from a year ago to someone else to prove that I’m not spreading misinformation is quite something though.
Ukraine has had to take extraordinary measures to fight Russia’s invasion. Among them, the government has consolidated the country’s television outlets and dissolved rival political parties.
Source is NPR: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
Die mad, fash.
It is all reflection.
Why is the continuation of this war any better than the continuation of any war?
How is this different from someone saying “let’s just give Hitler Poland”
Are you saying the Ukrainians should stop fighting? Is that what you would do if someone invaded your home?
This rhetoric reminds of the German military’s questioning when pacifists refused mandatory military service. “You say you’re against violence but what if someone threatened your family and you had a gun?” Great intellectual company you’re keeping here.
How does mandatory military service relate to helping to fund another country from an invading force?
Should the other European nations not fight against the Nazis when they invaded other countries in order to not ‘prolong’ the war?
I’m comparing rhetorics. Read the post I was replying to and then mine again, please.
However it’s not rhetoric. It’s cold hard history. Allowing a fascist dictator to invade a sovereign country led to WW2.
A lot of people are propagandized as fuck (and I do not mean that as an insult on their intelligence or anyting, good propaganda works really well, even on smart people) and I don’t think most of these comments would survive if the posters spent a bit more time thinking about what they’re actually saying.
Obviously I don’t know everyone’s political histories. But most people around me IRL who supported the idea of going into Iraq and Afghanistan (they were kind of blurred into one conflict) said, ‘never again’ and have been quite anti-war ever since.
A few of those backtracked and said, ‘well, maybe one more time’ when it came to Libya. Then afterwards, they said, ‘we really mean “never again” this time’.
But Ukraine has sent almost everyone into a frenzy for war. I had assumed that after Iraq, especially—which exposed the depth of lying that NATO is willing to sink to—that nobody would believe NATO’s version of the truth again. How naive I was.
I wouldn’t even mind if they (not necessarily Jaysyn, whom I don’t know) still disbelieved Russia’s narrative. In fact, I’d welcome it. A little healthy skepticism would lead to far better politics. All I see is skepticism against Russia but total faith in NATO. Where has critical thinking gone?
To disbelieve Russia’s narrative only to accept NATO’s? Wtf did I miss? I don’t think gullibility covers it. As you say, it must be constant and clever propaganda. I suppose they have the money for it, considering how much they have to gain if they can beat the drum of war.
Edit: grammar
I’m in the same boat as you are. What has me really shocked is how my European friends are in full “support the troops” mode now. What’s really surprising is how all their arguments almost always follow the same simplistic dualist thinking (“so you think Ukraine should just give up?”, “but it’s a democracy”, “but pUtLeR will take Poland next”, “you’re just spurting Russian propaganda”) and how people basically ignore all of your arguments just to call you a supporter of an “evil imperialist terror regime”.
I wish people would’ve learned their lesson by abandoning the media that’s obviously been lying to everyone for the past decades.
What’s striking about it is how they have no comebacks, they have no arguments at all expect name-calling. You can show them all the evidence in the world and they’ll just call you names.
Simple minded morons.Normies.Nah, no need for name calling. It’s just effective propaganda and it works best on normies.
Who doesn’t like their tax dollars being spent on killing people instead of socialist stuff like healthcare, education, social workers and government services that actually serve citizens.
So, in your mind, helping to prevent civilians from dying in a war zone and stopping countries being taken over by foreign powers to be exploited is not a worthy humanitarian effort?
European countries are taking somewhat decent care of Ukrainian refugees, which can’t be said for refugees that aren’t white skinned.
And did you just collate military equipment with a humanitarian effort or am misreading that?
I’m in full support of any real humanitarian aid possible: Support their wounded and sick, support their people with basic needs (generators/energy, food, water, clothing, temporary housing, psych support etc).
Sometimes I’m really surprised at some of these questions you people come up with.
Edit: Typo.
The main difference between Ukrainian refugees and what we usually get is that Ukrainians are, without exception, well-educated enough to start working right away, and not just in unskilled low-income jobs. Compare that with, say, Somalis with virtually no education, and not even able to sit through a class because they never got accustomed to as kids, then competing with natives for a very limited number of those low-income jobs. That’s why Ukrainians get working permits straight away while we’d rather pay welfare for the Somalis until they’re ready.
I don’t know what it is with Seppos and making everything about race. There’s actual fucking issues with integrating people from non-developed countries that are completely absent in the case of Ukraine. Ukraine may be piss-poor, yes, but its fundamentals are solid, quite a bit better than Romania and Bulgaria even I’d say and those are EU members.
EDIT: While PISA numbers are to be taken with a whole salt shaker as measuring good education is notoriously difficult (see “teach the test”) Ukraine outranks Greece across the disciplines. More or less head-to head with Italy.
I was talking about the way they were treated, not which refugee is the better worker drone.
Ukrainians don’t burn their passports and refuse to aid in their identification, if that’s what you’re alluding to because that’s the kind of stuff gets you shitcanned in the “You can stay in a camp with full board and meagre pocket money and leave the country at any time but forget starting a life here” way, as the only reason to do that is if you don’t actually qualify for refugee status or asylum. But, again, nothing to do with race.
Your basically proving my point, I rest my case.
Europe has taken in millions of non-white refugees and taken great care of them. How many have Russia and china taken in? India? Brazil?
Look it up. I’m not your personal researcher, sorry. I’m happy to provide sources to backup claims I’ve brought up myself.
I never compared Europe to other nations in terms of harboring refugees and I didn’t even imply that Europe hasn’t been taking in refugees. I wish you’d spend a bit more time reading and understanding what people are writing instead of just coming up with cheap rhetorical or whataboutism questions.
My point is people to want to go there. They want to go to Europe because they’ll have good opportunities and be treated relatively well.
The USA could afford what’s being provided to Ukraine and socialized benefits. But chooses not to because of some dumb reason or another.
This is the answer. It isn’t a zero sum game.
It’s more the hypocrisy of some people. The ones who cheer for a huge defense/foreign aid budget year after year no matter who it’s for, and then leave bitchy comments on FB about student loan forgiveness being “unfair” because it uses their tax dollars.
I mean, yeah, they have the biggest money printer on the planet, so they could’ve socialized almost everything for their citizens if it didn’t go all into their black budgets, military, bribery and foreign meddling instead, but here they are, 32T in debt, double the debt from 10 years ago, ~100k of debt per person. If that’s not a failed state, I don’t know what is.
Why would countries just ignore global authoritarian threats
To be global authoritarian you have to be the wealthiest and most powerful. And currently there is only one government and its army that takes this title.
What is a “global authoritarian”?
Yo, mate! Your words! I copied them from your post…
Yes and do you understand what they mean?
authoritarian threats
This is a meaningless term used in this way. Every state is authoritarian, by definition. The only “state” that isn’t authoritarian is anarchy, and that’s only not an authoritarian state because it’s not a state. Use more accurate terms if you want to make a point.
Countries are ignoring global authoritarian threats, by ignoring themselves, but that’s probably not the point you were trying to make.
rejection of political plurality,
Like when so much money is funnelled into US politics that only two capitalist ‘parties’ are able to compete, and they have almost identical policies except for some window dressing?
the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo,
Like when the republicans block democrat legislation, even though the democrats are in power?
and reductions in the rule of law,
What happened to Roe v Wade and how?
separation of powers,
Like when the previous POTUS secures a GOP majority on the Supreme Court, which the current POTUS can’t change?
and democratic voting.
Like suppressing votes by criminalising being black and requiring voter ID?
The problem with the term ‘authoritarian’ is that it’s either meaningless and applies to everybody or nobody and is used as a weak rhetorical device, or it’s given some theoretical basis and it applies to every state and is used to shed light on state relations. Either way, it’s not a coherent criticism in an of itself.
criminalizing being black
Not much fun or use “debating” someone who says this kind of thing.
Yeah, that was a whole lot of pathetic whataboutism, wasn’t it?
First time in my lifetime I’ve seen the US military might truly used for something good.
Before-the-events, did you think the same about Libya, Afghanistan, or Iraq?
No.
Why not? What’s different about this one?
For one thing, this is a violent land grab. For another, this the effort and will of what… 50 countries? Vs about five: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela. And those 50 countries are on average much more democratic than Russia and it’s allies.
You’ve been brainwashed. The world stands with Russia on this and is opposed to America’s war in Ukraine. The most provoked war in living memory.
No, the world really doesn’t stand with Russia, if you have any understanding of international relations you would see that. Even the countries that have voted to support Russia are represented by relatively authoritarian governments.
Me too. I’ve opposed every US war that occured in my 50 year life except this one.
when you’re on the side of the US state department, you’ve done something wrong
Yup.
And you’re not suspicious at all, as to why that’s the case?
Hold on just a minute while I base my worldview on YouTube…
