Posts by rowdyraven112

amberjackal68 said:It certainly is... especially once you start listing out how many "free multi-party elections" actually happened during the 80s. I am not the one to blame because the results of those first truly free elections turned out to be the Republican Party winning with 205 seats against the Democratic Party + KNS + Socialist Party taking 133. 😛

As I recall, people were voting for members of Congress back then too, but they weren't career politicians. They were regular people with actual jobs. Before the '74 Constitution, Congress had five councils; after that, just two. Historically, under every constitution from 1947 to 1990, it was labeled the highest state authority in the US... and they elected these so-called "delegates" through free democratic elections. I say free and democratic because they truly were, but the reality is most people were in the KP, so only those specific candidates ever made the cut. ☕
By the way, those delegates worked at companies and just got paid time off to attend sessions. They weren't full-time politicians. ☕
I agree that Congress wasn't anywhere near the supreme authority back then since all the real decisions happened at the CKSKH level. But if anyone wants to claim there were no elections, they either don't know history or don't care to learn it. Luckily, everything is documented. ☕

Since 1953, Congress has consisted of two houses: the Republic Council and the Manufacturers Council.
The new structure of Congress, by introducing the Manufacturers Council, was meant to emphasize Congress as the representative body of the working people. With two houses—the Republic Council elected by all citizens and the Manufacturers Council elected by workers—it was supposed to more accurately reflect the political and social forces and their balance within society.

Enough? Sure, there wasn't multi-party competition then, but looking at parties today, there isn't much difference anyway. Danijel Spajić says he can't agree with Katarina Peović in 99.9% of cases, yet their party platforms are basically 70% identical. ☕

Right... multi-partyism... what even is that? Something you eat?

Nathan Thomas12 said:Ever since February 24th, people have been openly saying sanctions have a long-term impact. Which part of that simple sentence is confusing you? :nezna:
I haven't seen anyone throwing around "short-term" figures of 30% anywhere. Maybe you read that on some other forum, because it definitely wasn't here. :nezna:
Here are the facts: Russia had a 5% GDP deficit in the first month. That could potentially hit 60% of GDP by year-end. It took us 30 years to rack up debt like that, and we're a corrupt mess at that.

I have. More than once. Especially when people were insisting Russia was headed for bankruptcy by September of last year. And don't even get me started on the supposed ammo shortages or their inability to launch offensives.

The reality is this will drag on. Why? Because the official stance from the weak EU bureaucracy is to wrap this up by training soldiers who finished their drills on American training grounds. Give them some spears, bows, and arrows and they'll chase the Russians all the way back to Siberia. ☕

Nathan Thomas12 said:And just like you predicted, Europe froze solid over the winter.
Guess the proverbial fox couldn't get to the chicken coop after all.

Europe got lucky with the weather. Period. There was a debate on this forum about the Jeep a while back, and the Greens absolutely tore that vehicle apart.

I still think the car is top-tier. ☕

Carl Lee27 said:Yeah, I mean, storage levels aren't depleting nearly as fast as they used to, you know? If I recall correctly, Germany has even been managing to pump some supplies back into their storage facilities over the last few days, right in the middle of winter! But, obviously, everything hinges on whether we get a mild winter or a brutal one. Those prices can absolutely skyrocket in an instant if a massive cold snap hits Europe—or even the US, for that matter.

The European Union is getting a free pass thanks to this unseasonable warmth. Yesterday was New Year's Eve and you could practically walk around in short sleeves. Most people seem fine with it, but not me. Anyone who thinks this weather is normal needs to seriously question their IQ.

It’s climate change, plain and simple. Another headache that isn't top of mind right now, but it’ll catch up to everyone eventually. Personally? I'd rather we just struggle with high gas prices and debt than deal with this.

analogmarlin4 said:Is there any way for Russia to take on more sanctions that would actually make a dent?

What a question. Of course they can. A total blockade and complete isolation from the rest of the world. Honestly? I'm all for it if some idiot actually pulls the trigger on a nuke. At that point, the clock starts ticking in our favor because I'm betting on a military coup. Still skeptical about how democracy holds up under that kind of pressure.

Gerald Torres84 said:And what is the lesson here?
If you possess nuclear weapons, guard them and don't let anyone take them... if you don't have them, build them as soon as possible so you don't become easy prey one day.
I suspect that following this whole mess with Russia, the number of nuclear powers in the world will begin to increase.

Exactly. That’s why Iran wants them. Since when do they not have the right? Look at India and Pakistan—they did the same thing.

Jamie Watson4 said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_security_assurances
Both China and France provided security assurances for Ukraine through separate documents. That statement from the Chinese government back on December 4, 1994, didn't actually demand mandatory consultations if issues arose—it only called for "fair consultations." Encyclopedia site👋en.wikipedia.org

So, independence and sovereignty are respected, but they also hold back on threats and economic pressure. What were those US sanctions against Belarus when they signed a military pact with Russia if not a threat? ☕.

It was signed ages ago. Nobody cares about it anymore—not even 5% of people. Some get their independence guaranteed by force, while others just endure massacres and oppression because they lack the weapons to fight back. It all comes down to whether you fall within the sphere of interest of a major superpower.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Don't you think that if these massive military powers actually collapsed, we'd just be heading straight into an era of total chaos? I mean, looking back at history, that's basically always been the pattern. It’s not like the Chinese or Americans are exactly innocent either, but let's be real... I'd much rather have an American looking out for me than a Russian or a Chinese one, I guess.

So now you're thinking like me. I agree on the facts: we need major powers. Otherwise, someone like Orban or Meloni could actually try to act on those territorial claims they bark about during campaigns. As it stands, they know it stays just as campaign rhetoric. Then the news networks blow it up into a scandal. It's unnecessary.
The problem arises when dictators within those big military states lose their minds. Imagine an American Putin sitting in the White House. Suddenly, "being under Americans" doesn't sound so great. Sure, there are democratic mechanisms in place, but we've already seen how easily a mob can storm the Capitol.

The situation at the front is so messy you can't predict more than an hour ahead. One thing is certain: Putin will try to seize the initiative with fresh troops. But if he fails and the Ukrainians strengthen significantly, I fear this ends with two or three nuclear bombs. I don't think they'll be standard 100-kilotonners; likely much weaker.
After that, anything short of a total blockade of Russia would be a mistake. If we have to fill the Bosporus with rubble, so be it. We are underestimating the Russians. Stalin ran the exact same playbook when Germany invaded Russia. He called on the church to rally the people to fight. Putin is doing the same thing, just in a different era.

LinaK described the trends best: 25% of Ukrainians might surrender, 25% won't fight, and 25% will fight like hell, which is why they were attacked like devils. But in reality, 25% of a 10 million population capable of fighting is more than enough. Looking at history, we started with less than 10%. It's a similar story in Russia. That's why I say: never underestimate the Russians.

Carl Hernandez3 said:Check this out—if they’ve officially annexed those regions, then three of them currently have "occupiers" inside their borders
In one instance, they even have an "occupied capital" under their control
When do they actually plan on resolving this?

When I pointed out how seriously we should take Lazarov's claim that Russia can't lose this militarily, or Lavrov's statement about Russia having a legitimate right to use nuclear weapons to defend its sovereignty, I was branded a spreader of Putinism.

That link explaining how NATO might use conventional weapons to strike Russian territory where a nuke was launched was eye-opening. Honestly, we really need to question the IQ of people falling for that kind of nonsense.

Total isolation of Russia? Yes. Economic and military threats against the smaller players supporting Russia? Yes. Military action against those disobedient smaller states? Absolutely. Beyond that, I'm not making any more guesses.

Linda Collins3 said:Honestly, if all the other pipelines got blown up too, nobody would even look at the U.S., so your theory just doesn't hold water.

Why wouldn't we think of Americans? When that drone went down in Washington, D.C., everyone immediately blamed Russia. Only the few sane people actually looked at a 1,500-kilometer radius from the center before realizing it wasn't them.

You're surrounded by people who have every reason to want Nord Stream 2 dead. At the end of the day, we're looking at a planned, precision sabotage in international waters.

Speaking of being planned and precise—most people on this forum call the Russian Army "incompetent." So, how exactly does an incompetent army pull off a hit like this? ☕.

hollowdriver13 said:What's gotten into him?

Does he even have the authority to call for a referendum that affects the whole European Union?

Honestly, trying to swim against the current like this is a bold move, if not a pretty reckless one. He seems to kick into high gear every single time Russia takes another hit on the front lines.
They try to paint him as some kind of economic wizard saving the HU economy (even though, let's be real, they're in a way bigger mess than most of the rest of the EU thanks to him), so why should he care about a measly $7.5 billion when things are supposedly going so great? Or is he actually sweating the possibility of a total budget collapse, meaning he still needs that cash from the very EU he keeps trashing? ☕

If Putin follows through on his threat and drops a nuke, I honestly believe even that totalitarian would be completely exposed.☕

Brenda Murphy3 said:Nah, right now it just means we aren't touching Russian supply until they finally crush that Russian trash and the regime in The White House... which you seem to be rooting for so damn hard.

Man, give me a break. The West has always been way smarter than you autocrat-worshipping trolls. It's pretty obvious even now that the bureaucrats in DC are infinitely sharper than those little guys running things over in The White House and tiny little Vladik...😁

So, oil from any other totalitarian regime is perfectly fine then? ☕
I'll take the second part as sarcasm, since one Son is apparently acting like a D.C. bureaucrat himself. ☕

hiddeneagle98 said:I swear on my life, I'm not going to attack Ukraine! And if I do attack it...

I'm going to drop the nuke, I swear to God! _________

Fill in the blank.

Looking back at what Lavrov said—he claimed Russia was just defending its interests... then they invaded.

Now he's saying they have the right to use limited nuclear strikes if anyone attacks Russian territory. And according to their own laws, once they annex parts of Ukraine, that becomes Russian soil. So... why bother predicting anything? Just get some fresh air. This whole thing has already gone way too far.☕

Arthur Miller7 said:And wait, it gets even weirder—Wang actually sat down with his Polish counterpart Zbigniew Rau and basically said Beijing is praying this whole war fire burns itself out ASAP. Then, for the first time since the Russian invasion kicked off, he met with his Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba and went, "Hey, we totally respect the territorial integrity of every nation." Yeah, including Ukraine. Get this: back in 2013—yeah, way back when that pro-Russian guy Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots—Beijing and Kyiv actually signed an agreement where the PRC promised to protect Ukraine if they ever faced a nuclear attack.

Does Beijing respect the territorial integrity of Tibet? What about Mexico? And don't even get me started on Western Sahara... there's plenty of examples there. ☕

I'd love to know if Israelis have ever claimed to respect everyone's territorial integrity.

Saying something just to gain political leverage is about as meaningful as saying Safet Pašić is dating Vesna Zmijanac. ☕

Kimberly Perez82 said:I realize some people here are incredibly sensitive about this topic, which explains the outbursts, but so far, besides one single forum member, nobody has actually attempted to answer the core question: how do we stop an irrational individual who has 6,000 nuclear warheads at his disposal? Aside from the compromise I mentioned earlier, I don't see any other path forward, and I might be 100% wrong—truly, I would love to hear better solutions. But please, suggest solutions that won't drive the entire world into a nuclear catastrophe. For instance, suggesting we defeat the military Putin at any cost is out of the question, because we all know exactly how that scenario would likely conclude. I assume that isn't anyone's goal, and the US is clearly aware of that, given how extremely cautious their reactions have been. So, let’s hear them. What are your proposals?

This issue didn't just pop up this year, nor did it start back in 2014. This problem was baked in long ago, right after WWII, when the USA allowed the USSR to churn out nuclear warheads like they were cans of beans in a grocery store. We've been dealing with this escalating tension for years, and now we've reached the absolute peak. And while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that several of the leading politicians within the USSR were actually Ukrainian.

Interesting... The USA allowed the USSR to mass-produce nuclear warheads. 🤦
So now the USSR is responsible for all the world's evil? Come to think of it, maybe Hitler was Russian too. Should we start questioning the origins of every dictator installed by so-called Western democracy? ☕

crimsoncyclist71 said:Quote:>

rowdyraven112 says: The guy said one weapon wouldn't matter much to the world. We're getting closer to understanding why Putin will eventually pull the nuclear trigger. ☕ Add Zaharov’s claim that "people have to realize Russia cannot afford to lose this" and you've got all the variables needed to solve the equation. When it happens or where in Ukraine it lands is hard to say, but my guess is a few days after the US media starts reporting something like "Putin is dropping a nuke on this specific date." ☕ Personally, I find it fascinating how most people on this forum think the USA and NATO will retaliate in kind, risking the total collapse of Northern Hemisphere civilization. Give me one good reason to be that relaxed. ☕

Nah. It makes much more sense that they won't do anything at all once a madman actually uses a nuclear weapon. 👍

So according to you, we should all just pack our bags and move to Africa? Please. You think after a massive volley of 1,000 nukes hits Russia, they’re just going to sit there quietly sipping vodka? ☕

Why didn't we think of that back in February? ☕

fadedjackal8 said:Wait, are you actually seriously considering executing prisoners as an option?

The Ukrainians have shown time and again since this war started that that's just not how they roll—so maybe leave them out of your theories.

There are videos out there from both sides showing war crimes—executions and the killing of prisoners. Where exactly are you getting this idea that Ukraine has "proven" themselves more than anyone else? On the flip side, the Russians have their own footage showing how they treat Ukrainian prisoners and whether they actually follow the Geneva Convention.
It’s all the same. The rules say you can't use POWs for propaganda, but let's be real—both sides have been doing it constantly.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to handle the ballast by using hull SS methods. Why not?

Nobody actually knows what’s happening on the ground. Real facts? Nonexistent. Instead, we just get served whatever narrative the politicians want us to swallow to shape our opinions. That's it. ☕

gentlerider7 said:I mean, let's get our facts straight—a real nuclear winter only happens if the entire American and Russian arsenals are dumped on major cities in one massive, terrifying burst.

The guy said one bomb wouldn't even matter for the world. We're getting closer to understanding why Putin will pull the nuclear trigger. ☕
Add Zaharov's claim that "people have to realize Russia cannot lose this" and you've got all the variables and the solution to the equation.
When will it happen? Where in Ukraine? Hard to say. But my guess? It’ll be a few days after the Americans announce something like, "Putin is dropping a nuke on this specific date." ☕

Personally, I find it fascinating how most people on these forums think America and NATO are going to retaliate in kind and risk the total annihilation of Northern Hemisphere civilization. Give me one good reason why. Just one.☕

bluemason3 said:Since Europe lacks its own significant domestic nuclear capabilities (like England or France) and relies on American hardware (think Germany, Turkey, Belgium, or Italy), we can't even talk about the direct involvement of the US through NATO without 🤣

Ignorance is Bliss. ☕

Rachel Richardson said:Oh, so I suppose it’s fine if the Russ die?
We're looking at ethnic cleansing on both sides here...

The kind of person who thinks that's acceptable—someone who would actually pull the trigger on a nuclear strike if they knew no one could strike back.

Fine. Let's say he drops one. Or two. They don't even need to be massive—maybe 10 kilotons? Enough to level most of Washington, D.C. Who’s going to react? Who’s going to retaliate? And who wants to gamble with the total collapse of civilization in the Northern Hemisphere?

It's funny how everyone just ignores that famous line from Zakharov about how "Europe is wrong to think Russia can lose this." People ignored it too much. That’s exactly why we’re in this mess. ☕