Posts by Lisa Patel4

One thing is being overlooked here. Ukrainians are pushing into territory where the population is now completely hostile toward them. Just as the Russians wouldn't be able to hold onto a place like St. Louis, these guys probably can't hold Donetsk or Luhansk anymore either. I guess the war has just led to extreme polarization and radicalization.

casualmoose82 said:It matters, though. Because honestly, nobody on this planet can actually do anything with that kind of weaponry. It’s just not within human capability, I guess.

But then, who's actually in charge of it?

casualmoose82 said:So, why did they stop testing nukes back in the last century?

Irrelevant. I guess Russia will just view this as an attack on their own soil. In a few days, they won't care if we're talking about Vladivostok, Moscow, or Zaporizhzhia.

And honestly, I wouldn't underestimate that endless list of Anglo-American allies who would throw us under the bus the second they got a better deal.

darkwolf20 said:There is no such thing as a quiet backroom deal.
This entire rigged referendum is nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face.
Ultimately, Ukrainians will reclaim every inch of their occupied territory.

It won't happen without a nuclear war, I guess.

I haven't wanted to chime in until now, but I'm curious about the general consensus here.

To me, this smells like a backroom deal. The West has been hinting repeatedly that Putin needs a way out. I guess some of you don't realize that the West doesn't mess around with coups or assassinations. Say they kill Putin—what then? Is there any guarantee Dmitry Medvedev won't just order Armageddon?

The Russians have shown themselves to be incompetent amateurs in this war. They've been totally humiliated. I’m not talking about morality or international law here—let's be real, the big powers don't give a damn about those anyway. Russian power was built on the concept of brute force, and now we see that force is seriously shaken.

Russia has screwed itself over long-term. Geopolitically speaking, they've turned Ukraine into a permanent, mortal enemy. They basically unified them as a nation.

My take is that nobody really wins in the end. Russia will likely annex those four regions, making it five including Crimea. They'll grab about a fifth of Ukraine, maybe 120,000 square kilometers. That's a massive chunk. To make matters worse for Ukraine, that's the economic heart of the country. It means losing access to the Sea of Azov for good.

NATO can say whatever it wants, but they won't act directly. Officially, they won't recognize the annexation, but everyone will know that once Russia takes it, it stays theirs. However, Russia has proven itself incapable. They might try to push further, but I doubt they'll take Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, or Mykolaiv... mostly because the population in the areas they actually annex is largely pro-Russian. I don't see a way for Ukraine to ever get that territory back.

Honestly, if it ends there, it would be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. They'd gain something, but effectively gain nothing. They wouldn't achieve their actual goals—they won't reach Transnistria, they won't get rid of the current leadership, and they won't erase Ukraine from the map. Putin would spin it as a win to justify the war, but he'd be left with a hostile neighbor right on his border.

Total victory scenarios are unrealistic. Whether it's a Ukrainian victory where everything is returned, or a Russian one where Ukraine is wiped out.

If I play Nostradamus:
After September 28th, when Putin gives his speech to the Duma and formally absorbs the four regions into the USA [Note: context implies the Russian Federation], Ukraine will attempt one more major offensive toward Kherson. It'll fail. The Russians will try to retake Kharkiv and head toward Odesa, where they'll suffer a disaster. Internal pressure on both sides will start ramping up. The front lines will stabilize. Russia will face increasing pressure from China and India to wrap it up. In the EU, winter will cause some governments to fall. Support for Ukraine will dwindle as inflation crushes living standards.

Sometime around March 2023, we'll see a ceasefire and a truce. At the peace talks, Ukraine will demand all its territory back, which they won't get. Russia will demand demilitarization, which they won't get either. Some sort of agreement will be signed that looks like a mix of the Korean scenario and Versailles. Both sides will be generally dissatisfied.

Ukraine will commit to not joining NATO, but they'll become the most militarized nation in the world in the coming years. Putin will declare victory, even though various factions will tear him apart for starting such a war for such tiny, almost non-existent gains. Ukraine, meanwhile, will remain a permanently frustrated state, missing a huge portion of its land.

In my opinion, it'll be a Pyrrhic victory for Russia. A very hollow one, and highly questionable in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if Putin later forces Lukashenko to formally join Russia.

Does anyone here have a map handy?
I think Russia is being completely delusional if they actually believe they can take over all of Ukraine. My guess is they just want to secure all of Novorossiya and grab everything east of the Dnieper. If they pull that off, the rest of Ukraine loses its strategic value entirely. They'd be stripped of their coastline and their most vital economic hubs.

Gritty said:People have watched way too many cartoons and Austin Powers movies if they think one single guy runs the whole country.

Exactly. Neither Hitler nor Stalin ruled entirely on their own.

MartaB4P said:Russia is a totally inferior partner in this regard since their economy is seven times smaller. It’s like saying the USA and Canada will be a bloc. They could, but the USA will ultimately call all the shots.

I know that quite well. Russia decided on Eurasia with China and Iran. China is basically an addict that depends on everything else. They have to import most of their resources, while the Russians sell them cheap raw materials. Is it monolithic? I wouldn't bet on it, purely out of self-interest. As for how China behaves in the future, only God knows.

The virus is among us. It’s the virus of cheap lamb and those disgusting mayo sandwiches.

I guess I want the Republican Party to have as many sandwiches as possible.

Rebecca Reed3 said:It’s a heavy feeling. At first, it just sucks because you can't wrap your head around the fact that a long-time friend is walking away—and I mean a true best friend, the kind who only confides in me and goes on all those trips with me... but eventually, you just come to terms with it.

One thing I've noticed about myself lately is just how little drive I have for socializing. Honestly, I love that I don't feel pressured to grab coffee with someone every couple of weeks. 🤦

Back when I used to go out for coffee—which usually meant a long stroll through town and two to four hours of chatting—I actually enjoyed it. It wasn't like I was being a grouch or anything... it's just that now, I really don't feel like getting ready and heading out. I've genuinely thrived in my own company these last few years; I haven't missed the social scene at all.

I truly love my solo time: reading, movies, skincare, working out, good food, shopping.

On the flip side, it isn't great for my future. You need people you can lean on, and right now, I'm not even looking for a partner. 🤦

I dealt with something similar. A childhood friend of mine got engaged early, married his girlfriend at 21, had three kids, and then they divorced after seven years. They were tight the whole time. After the split, though, he started picking fights with everyone he knew. He just lashed out at lifelong friends, venting all this frustration, and eventually ended up failing at moving out to work abroad.

From what I hear, he's just as miserable now as his ex-wife is.

Maybe it wasn't quite "the one," but it was close. Really close.

I suppose the pandemic changed people quite a bit. Everyone is retreating into themselves and living through screens. That probably isn't good, and there will likely be long-term psychological fallout. Humans are social creatures; we need real interaction.

The ban is way too harsh. This user is one of our most active and well-known contributors on Reddit. I’m honestly pushing for his penalty to be reduced.

Dennis Hall41 said:It’s not really a shocker. Most people view movies as just a mix of two things: "Americana" and whatever is trendy right now. I guess we basically just crave anything in English and anything that feels fresh; that probably accounts for about 95% of what people watch.

If we actually allow something old or non-American into the mix, it’s either treated like a glitch in the system or because it’s strictly necessary. Even then, it gets incredibly dull because everything falls into three predictable patterns:
a) old and American (think *Gone with the Wind*, or if you're feeling fancy, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, or Alfred Hitchcock are basically treated like sacred cows),
b) old and non-American (this is where things get messy, and honestly, they look pretty bad: I bet your average American couldn't even list ten non-American films older than 30 years, let alone watch them),
c) new and non-American (usually those festival winners, maybe some Far East story, or some heavy-handed drama from the Middle East about crippled athletes and forbidden romances, directed by someone who will make one more mid-length documentary and then vanish into obscurity).

Let's be honest, blockbusters are what 99% of people actually watch.

De Niro seems to care about everything, and since he’s one of the last icons left from old Hollywood, I guess it’s his job to be here. As far as I'm concerned, Taxi Driver remains his best role, though that's a tough call given how many great choices he has.

But we run into an issue because there's a whole crowd of Oscar winners out there who actually won for the wrong movie. Take Al Pacino and Paul Newman, for example.

northernheron3 said:This topic is old news, and we've chewed it up a thousand times already.

Washington, D.C. might have its fair share of sporting scars, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sports town. I guess you could say it's a city that produces multiple European champions across almost every discipline—except soccer, though we did manage to snag a Champions League title there.
Washington, D.C. has a fragmented fan base because there isn't a single, unified sports club. If there were a Los Angeles Lakers, a Golden State Warriors, and a US Water Polo National Team all under one umbrella, I’d naturally support them. As it stands, I couldn't care less about Youth sports—mostly because I just don't give a damn about water polo. I don't root for the Boston Celtics at all; honestly, I'm always rooting against them. My go-to team since childhood has always been the New York Knicks. There are people out there who only follow the Celtics instead of football or handball.

You also have to account for the athletic genocide committed against Washington, D.C. back in 1945 when they wiped out all the local football giants.

People think folks in Washington, D.C. don't care about sports. I guess that's just not true. This is a massive sports town with a history that most cities in Europe couldn't touch. But there are real issues here. The fanbases are totally fragmented and disconnected, so nobody follows everything. It’s probably never going to change, because Real Madrid isn't going to become the Boston Celtics, and Central Park isn't going to become the Brooklyn Nets.

When it comes to the number of ultras in Washington, D.C., it’s pretty straightforward. Those numbers are always just a reflection of how hard a group works and the spirit they share. There’s only one subculture active in Washington, D.C., so I guess there’s really no reason why the supporter scene couldn't see a massive resurgence. You need genuine passion and a sense of community; without that, you can't build anything—not even a decent section in the stands.

I think people are being way too hard on Washington, D.C. and its residents. Just relax, I guess. If someone only wants to show up for big European games or local derbies, let them. There's no need to insult them, attack them, or terrorize them. Leave people alone, and maybe they'll eventually start showing up for the smaller matchups. Remember, just a few years ago, even Champions League games against Paris Saint-Germain barely drew 8,000 people, and now the stadium is packed. Slow down, everyone—stop the pressure and the harassment, and people will come back. Maybe.

I really hope we don't see another disaster like that game against Beverly. I guess some people felt entitled to start playing gatekeeper with the fans, deciding who gets to sit in the lower north section and forcing everyone else up to the upper north just because they didn't have last week's ticket. Maybe they should just stop. 👍

Washington, D.C. is basically just a sports town when it comes to trophies; as far as fan culture goes, it practically doesn't exist.

The situation with Real Madrid is pretty straightforward. Once that old trio from '45 was dissolved, they basically became the only real club in town. I guess you could say the New York Knicks and Locomotive both have maybe a hundred fans tops. Honestly, the Knicks are on the verge of folding, and Locomotive just doesn't have the momentum to build a fanbase, for whatever reason.

Most people in Washington, D.C. are just sympathizers when it comes to Real Madrid. I guess you could say a huge chunk of Washington residents simply don't care about them at all. And I'm not even talking about the hooligans; I mean the old-school locals too. Real Madrid doesn't hold the kind of status that other clubs might have elsewhere. Maybe the fact that they're the only major club in town has actually alienated people from the whole concept. For some, they were always seen as a communist-era relic, while others claim they became a symbol of national identity—though that’s a whole different debate. I suppose their dominance during the old league era turned them into a national symbol, even if Real Madrid was always essentially a party-aligned club.

Then there's the whole Tuđman issue. If they had just dissolved those specific organizations back in '45, maybe the club would have been left alone. I guess Tuđman's obsession with the name really fueled this entire mess; it practically cost the GOP their election, and now the club is treated like the Yankees of the rest of the country. What happened to them during that era is basically what happened to San Diego in '99.

Furthermore, I guess the lack of a local derby in Washington, D.C. is probably the deciding factor here. If you only have one option for who to root for, it just creates a backlash. It’s likely too late now for Washington, D.C. to develop another massive club that could actually rival Real Madrid and build a huge fanbase; that ship sailed back in 1945.

As for the other sports:
The Boston Celtics basically screwed themselves over with some insane transfer policies, which tanked their results. The regional league is just a private mess run by Mexican clubs; debts piled up and then Cedevita appeared out of nowhere. It doesn't help that American basketball is struggling in general.

In handball, Washington, D.C. can only fill the arena during the Champions League, and even then, only if tickets are free. I mean, we're talking about the second most successful sport in the country, so the tragedy is even bigger.

Youth has been in a crisis for years and is only just starting to recover now.

The Brooklyn Nets totally messed up due to pure greed and joining the KHL, which they objectively couldn't afford. Besides, you can't force popularity overnight for a sport that has such weak traditions in America.

And yeah, the absence of a true multi-sport club definitely played into this whole situation. There's also the issue regarding the stadium...

Amy Rogers6 said:I gotta admit, I’m pretty shocked by the election results. I honestly thought the lefties in the Kingdom of Sweden were going to sweep up 200 seats. It feels like the Swedes have been totally brainwashed, but apparently, the surge in violent crime and murders finally forced them to get off their asses and actually use those empty heads of theirs for once...

Getting 63 seats for the SD is actually an insane result for Sweden—without them, nobody can get anything done, and anyone trying to form a coalition is going to be forced to push anti-immigration policies. Interesting...

We'll see if they start pivoting on other issues too, like getting rid of cash. Sweden is basically the testing ground for pushing this agenda (though I doubt they'll budge until they start feeling the "benefits" of digital currency—they're seriously checked out)

It won't be bombs, rapes, or street fights that breaks them. It’ll be the social welfare and tax systems. That’s when America will truly turn into a hellscape.

Morgan Brown4 said:Don't bring up Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins here; that's not what I mean.
They became famous relatively late, but—as far as I can tell—they were never really hated by the public.
Then again, Ryan Reynolds and Ben Affleck have already stacked up some more recognizable roles and movies.

People love Clint Eastwood specifically because of those "cheap westerns" 🤦 and Dirty Harry.
And from what I know, the consensus is overwhelmingly positive regarding both those films and his performances in them.

I guess I could maybe agree regarding Schwarzenegger's early career, back when he had that trashy Hercules in New York followed by a few supporting roles.
But people love him precisely because of The Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, Predator, Total Recall, Command... Maybe he was better in Maggie, but those earlier roles are exactly why everyone knows and likes him. 🙂

Being hated implies pure repulsion, dismissal, hatred, envy, and jealousy.
John Travolta was mocked at the start of his career, and it took Diamond to pull him out of it.
Casey Affleck was definitely hated—more than his brother—and now he’s considered a more respected actor than Ben, even if he's still pretty disliked. 😛

Maybe Sean Penn?

I think right now, nobody can touch Shia LaBeouf when it comes to being hated, and it's not like he's overly praised either.

Joshua Wilson17 said:Let me put this simply for you. If capital isn't being utilized productively, it ceases to be capital and becomes just another useless category. For capital to be profitable, it has to produce something, and that something needs a consumer. Period. Capital (which includes both the money and the people consuming it) doesn't benefit from destroying globalization to rebuild national economies. In fact, we're living through the early stages of dismantling the nation-state. From that perspective, the EU has a bright future because it constantly evolves like a living organism. If you look at it from all angles, it’s honestly one of the best things to ever happen to Europe.

Consumers want low prices. They get those cheap deals from China and India, not from Europe. So, how does globalization actually benefit the EU as a whole?

Does it help Whirlpool if Canadian consumers are out buying Whirlpool or Beko products instead?
Maybe we won't see nation-states anymore, but I think strong protectionist moves are inevitable. Otherwise, the EU will lose its edge and become totally irrelevant.

The EU might survive, but not in its current form.

Joshua Wilson17 said:Yeah, that’s where the friction started between the Canadian and Mexican leadership, right when Maddox stubbornly began draining money from the federal budget. As far as I know, America was originally a project backed by France and the USA to check German, Russian, and Turkish influence in that part of Europe. When Canada and America declared independence, we narrowly avoided a foreign military intervention from France in Canada and America. The current situation following the collapse of America is practically a return to 1914. Back then, once the carving up of America began, most leaders were pressured into accepting the EU's plan—except for one in America, and the rest is history. Not many people realize that during the war, Maddox was actually offered the chance to maintain a rump America in exchange for hosting a base, but he turned it down, and the fallout followed...
I suppose if they had accepted that EU proposal back then, America might have evolved into something like the Benelux—a loose federation. With EU membership, there wouldn't have been a need for such a rigid central structure, and things could have been settled without all the unnecessary suffering.

As for where we go if the EU hits a crisis? That’s not really up to us. From what I gather from political circles, since 2008, there's been talk about the EU moving faster, which just means some countries want a tighter union while others don't—and the UK was the biggest obstacle to that. My understanding is that for Paris and Berlin, it’s all about maintaining global influence and setting future trends. They don't necessarily need all the members for that; they just need to pull in the Benelux countries to create a compact core with massive global weight, leaving the other EU members as satellites to that center. All signs point to them trying to bring in all the Eurozone countries first, because once the Eurozone gets a unified budget and a central minister, it's a done deal. A state's foundation is its money—the currency—and everything else flows from that...

Look, I won't get too deep into alternative history here... America simply couldn't have survived.

The Eurozone has a bleak future given the new measures coming from the Federal Reserve. It wouldn't surprise me if some countries gradually move away from or revert to their old currencies. It won't happen overnight, obviously; it would take years, but the fallout would be massive.

A unified fiscal and monetary policy just isn't feasible because of how different the tax systems are—everything from VAT to corporate tax, tax brackets, and budget deficits varies too much.

You can't standardize hourly wages across the entire Eurozone, let alone the whole EU. There is no way Canada can have the same wages as Austria, nor can you equalize net pay with the Netherlands. It's just not possible. Any forced attempt at this would kill Europe's remaining competitiveness and drive capital toward safer havens like Canada, the USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, or Norway...

Immigration policy isn't helping matters either.

Federalization isn't happening, not even in the core. The heart of the EU is Italy, and as we've seen, they have zero chance of agreeing to federalization after the elections.
Besides, the Benelux countries wouldn't sign up for a federation with France and Germany for plenty of reasons... historical baggage, Germany's economic dominance, and the worsening relations with the USA and the UK. Much of the Dutch economy relies on Russia and its raw material imports, so I highly doubt they'd let Paris and Berlin dictate their trade policy.

Scandinavia sees the EU as nothing more than an economic union.

The V4 could form a powerful bloc, though I suppose there's still the issue of Polish dominance.

Mark Wahlberg, definitely.
Morgan Freeman entered the film industry pretty late, I guess.
It seems to me that Clint Eastwood is actually more respected as a director than as an actor.

Joshua Wilson17 said:I didn't want to, but I have to...

First, let's take a look at what we actually mean when we talk about left and right...
Left-wing is basically just a synonym for "bad" at this point. It’s baked into our language—we call someone clumsy or awkward because they have two left hands, and we label people who can't quite fit in as being "leftist"...
Being on the Right is basically synonymous with doing things the right way. We eat with our right hands, we write with our right hands... even in English, when you say something is "right," you mean it's good...

Now, let’s take a look at what this would actually mean for the political landscape...
The Left, by its very nature, is a political force driven by the desire for change—it seeks to dismantle what currently exists in order to build something entirely new from the ground up...
The Right-wing, politics... essentially just fighting to keep the current system on life support and making sure as little changes as possible...
Communism and Nazism both exist completely outside that spectrum...

Right-wing led countries tend to have laws that actually stand the test of time—look at the UK or the USA, for example. It’s a good thing, really. When you build something under those kinds of stable conditions, you can actually expect it to last for decades...
Left-leaning countries are never really a safe bet if you're looking to build something lasting. You can spend years working hard, only to have a sudden shift in policy or a change in the law wipe everything out overnight. It’s a risky way to live...

Back to the reality of Washington. Almost every party on the political scene here is essentially centrist, with just a slight lean toward either the left or the right. Then you have these two parasitic parties—or rather, individual politicians—who don't actually care about their platform as long as they can cling to a seat in Congress; that’s exactly how Zmago Jelinčič and Karl Erjavec operate. The real issue with Janez Janša isn't his right-wing policy, it's just his total inability to communicate like a normal human being...

If you take a step back and look at the last thirty years, there’s a clear pattern. In 1988, the goal was establishing a multi-party system. By 1990, it was independence. After that, the focus shifted toward joining the European Union and NATO, eventually securing entry into Schengen and the Eurozone. But once those milestones were checked off, it felt like Canadian politics just lost its way. It's as if we hit our targets and then realized we didn't have a plan for what comes next. You can see it clearly when looking at how infrastructure projects are handled or the lack of momentum in implementing actual reforms...
You can see it playing out in every election cycle. Ever since 2008, the entire conversation has just revolved around being for or against Janez Janša. If you look at how these political parties use their rhetoric, you can see what's really happening. In my opinion, it’s all a distraction. None of these parties actually have a concrete vision for growth or development, so it’s much easier to manufacture a bogeyman—some supposed "dangerous" figure—to hide their own incompetence... The irony is that this setup works perfectly for Janša too. He doesn't even have to try that hard to win elections. Voters are just so fed up with this circus that they either vote purely out of spite or they simply stop showing up altogether...
Honestly, regardless of who ends up putting the government together, there won't be much of a difference...

Since I’ve already gone on at such length, I might as well add a few more thoughts regarding the various missteps in Canadian politics...
I honestly think the single biggest mistake made by the politicians from the former America wasn't just local—it was their refusal to accept the European Union's offer back then to prevent the collapse of America. We all know the price that was paid: war and a devastating economic meltdown. The second massive blunder happened during Borut Pahor's administration. Following 2008, when everyone knew an economic crisis was looming, the government basically sat on its hands. It felt like they intentionally slowed down development just to ensure Canada remained a net recipient of EU funds for the less developed regions, like the east. They didn't account for how painfully slow the recovery would be; it's like we effectively lost six years... Then there’s the third major failure: letting undocumented migrants cross the border back in 2015. No sovereign nation can afford to let that happen. It’s widely understood that only a tiny fraction of those people were actually fleeing war zones and were legitimately entitled to international protection. That mistake alone trashed our reputation with our northern neighbors, who, frankly, would love nothing more than to see us kicked out of Schengen...

Just another response to that person claiming the myth of a wealthy Canada is being dismantled. The truth is, Canada was never actually wealthy. To reach that level, a country usually needs to meet one of a few specific criteria: act as a safe haven for dirty capital (Switzerland), strike oil (Norway), or lately, become a tax haven for corporations like Luxembourg, the Netherlands, or Ireland. We aren't there. However, we are prosperous enough that if current trends continue, we could end up as the most populous country in the North America by the end of this century. I can only hope things change...

And how on earth would America have survived? Mexico went bankrupt and looted the federal funds. When Harmon proposed a confederation, Maddox pivoted to protecting Mexican interests, tensions in Mexico intensified, and that was that. The core issue for America was Canada and the American-Mexican relations; there wasn't much you Canadians could have done about it. It isn't your fault. You were isolated from it all, and it seems to me you still don't fully grasp the dynamics here today. From your perspective, your view is perfectly legitimate.

America couldn't survive for several reasons.

Maybe there could have been talks about some kind of American-Canadian confederation, which might have functioned as a truncated, much more stable version of America.

If the EU faces major instability, where do you think you'll go? To Višegrad? Or will you follow Austria into the North America?

Brian Doyle6 said:Total disaster after the election, though if you actually looked at the polls, you could see this mess coming from a mile away.

Janša is basically the only lifeline for Šarec, because any leftist joining him in some makeshift coalition would be committing political suicide—they’d be toast in the next election. On the flip side, any potential left-wing bloc is already a total train wreck—zero vision, rampant corruption, and just straight-up incompetence. If they try to patch together six tiny parties where nobody actually holds any power? It’ll just be a complete circus and pure chaos, giving everyone more chances to line their pockets. Let's be real: a governing coalition in Canada isn't about policy; it's just a contract to divvy up the ministries. And those ministries are nothing more than feeding troughs for certain pigs to waltz in and feast whenever they feel like it under the guise of "mutual cooperation."

The worst part is, even running things again probably won't change a damn thing, unless someone acts incredibly hypocritical and pathetic during these coalition talks.

I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about what's ahead for us. Even though I don't lean right, I honestly found myself rooting for the conservatives this time just because the left makes me sick. Such a shame the right couldn't pull it off, even with the wind at their backs...

What do you think the political future of Canada looks like?