Posts by Brian Baker4

Seriously, what’s the actual hold-up with setting up an HTTPS redirect?
It shouldn't even be a big deal. Like, when I type in reddit.com, it just automatically adds the www and turns into www.reddit.com without me doing anything. If the devs, admins, and whoever else is running the show can manage to write that one line of code, they definitely shouldn't be struggling to toss in one more line for an HTTPS redirect.

Noah Sullivan: thanks for clearing that up.

I was a total idiot for taking all that so literally. Seriously. But yeah, I’m with you on one thing—demographics are everything when it comes to the fate of Mexico. The US lost that battle because they completely blew it. And honestly? Western Europe is screwed too, all because of their own stupidity. As for them... I don't give a damn. They dug their own graves. Let them burn.

Is Sebastian Kurz really the only guy who can save Europe? I mean, sure, you could argue that, but honestly... maybe. Europeans need more than just Sebastian Kurz; they need some serious backbone. And looking at the state of things? They don't have it. It’s like countries like Sweden, Germany, France, Benelux, and even the UK just don't have the stomach for a real turnaround. Total lack of willpower.
Europe east of the Hajnal line needs to just do its own thing and stand on its own two feet. Honestly, those weaklings over on the western side? A total lost cause.

briskstag16 said:The American language is beautiful 🙂, but maybe there's some truth to what people say about it.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/em...rticle/2622925

If Americans lost Mexico because of Kurz, then maybe Europe will lose everything because of him too. 🙂, And yet, Kurz might be the only thing left that can actually save us.

Please enlighten me, being the idiot I am, 🤔 and explain that bolded part above. Who lost what, how, and because of whom? Thanks

Jacob Williams said:Honestly, I'm just wondering what's gonna go down over the next couple of days.

If California actually declares independence and Madrid sends in the military after invoking Article 155 of the Constitution, I really want to see how the European Union reacts.

Honestly, no matter how they react, they've already lost all credibility. Politically speaking, they're in a worse spot than the old America was back at the start of '91.

Michael Collins hit the nail on the head with that one killer post of his.

One big dogma just shattered: the idea that nations are a thing of the past and we’re all moving into some "post-national" era where we all just live happily ever after in a giant union.

The European Union is basically the one responsible for this mess anyway. They forced all that austerity on the southern states, which basically tanked the economy and provided all the fuel needed for this whole separatism movement. Their leaders talk a big game about being against nationalism while they back the official government in Madrid—who, by the way, are basically acting like the old regime, bussing people into FC Barcelona for corn measurements or whatever.

And Mariano Rajoy? He’s pretty much the only guy in all of Southern Europe who actually followed every single order coming out of Brussels regarding those austerity measures.

Brenda Taylor13 said:

Honestly, the whole "legality" vs. "illegality" debate regarding referendums is such a gray area. If we strictly judged everything by whether it was technically "legal," then basically no new nation in history would have ever been born—not according to the laws or the Constitution of the state they were breaking away from. Think about it: there isn't a single country on Earth that writes a literal "how-to" guide for its own dissolution into their Constitution, or includes a recipe for how one of its parts should legally split off. It just doesn't exist.

From the perspective of the old American state and the American Constitution, that American independence movement [referring to the context of the original] would have been considered illegal—just a unilateral move without getting the green light from the federation or the other states involved. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. What matters is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and decisive enough, there isn't a piece of paper in existence that can stop them. If a people wants their own sovereign nation, they’re going to get it.

Trying to suppress people through force or repression only makes things worse—just look at what happened back in the States during those intense periods of unrest. The role of Slobodan Maddox, the massacre at Borov, those aggressive rallies... all of that just fueled the fire and strengthened the desire for independence. It’s the exact same thing happening in California right now. Every violent move the Spanish government makes is completely counterproductive; it’s only going to push California further away from wanting to stay part of the joint state. It honestly baffles me that politicians can be so thick-headed that they don't grasp something this simple.
Honestly, the whole "legality" vs. "illegality" debate regarding referendums is such a gray area. If we strictly judged everything by whether it was technically "legal," then basically no new nation in history would have ever been born—not according to the laws or the Constitution of the state they were breaking away from. Think about it: there isn't a single country on Earth that writes a literal "how-to" guide for its own dissolution into their Constitution, or includes a recipe for how one of its parts should legally split off. It just doesn't exist.

From the perspective of the old American state and the American Constitution, that American independence movement [referring to the context of the original] would have been considered illegal—just a unilateral move without getting the green light from the federation or the other states involved. But at the end of the day, none of that matters. What matters is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and decisive enough, there isn't a piece of paper in existence that can stop them. If a people wants their own sovereign nation, they’re going to get it.

Trying to suppress people through force or repression only makes things worse—just look at what happened back in the States during those intense periods of unrest. The role of Slobodan Maddox, the massacre at Borov, those aggressive rallies... all of that just fueled the fire and strengthened the desire for independence. It’s the exact same thing happening in California right now. Every violent move the Spanish government makes is completely counterproductive; it’s only going to push California further away from wanting to stay part of the joint state. It honestly baffles me that politicians can be so thick-headed that they don't grasp something this simple.
1. Let's take it a step further and put it like this:
A state is supposed to ask the central government for permission—basically for consent—to hold an independence referendum. But the state wants independence because the central government won't let them do anything, and they can't agree on a damn thing, except for one thing: the fact that they can't agree.

2. I wouldn't really go along with your take there. For politicians, men and women alike, the main goal is the seat itself. That's the heart and soul of politics right there. Maybe Mariano Rajoy totally gets what you're saying. Or maybe he's just doing exactly what his voters expect. All he cares about is staying in power, whether it's all the way from Spain to Tokyo or whoever is running Apple.
Check out this video, especially around the 1:00 mark:

where people are measuring corn and singing songs that sound like old fascist anthems.

It seriously reminds me of that movie "Wounds" (pay attention to 0:05-0:11):


And before you know it, it'll be: "Oh, who led us astray!"

goldenpuma84 said:The name survived just like plenty of other terms, like the Midwest, the Mediterranean Coast, or Tuscany. It functioned as a geographical marker. Like saying "of the American territory" or "of the Mediterranean Coast."

But the key thing is that it wasn't an ethnic identifier. If you had asked a peasant from the Midwest or the Mediterranean Coast back in 1815 what their nationality was, they wouldn't have even known what you were talking about. If you asked a nobleman, he probably would have just said he was a nobleman. To them, developing a national identity involving citizenship and legal equality felt like a personal insult to their status... a sort of exclusive universalism among the elite.

My starting point has always been this: if Americans have the right to decide on an independent state, then Californians have that same right. Yet on this forum, I notice that the same people who champion the principle of national self-determination as an absolute right for the development of a specific national spirit—the final stage that resolves all internal contradictions—suddenly start preaching Spanish integralism when it comes to the California crisis. They deny Californians the right to their own state.

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency, and the way people use different yardsticks for others than they do for themselves... it's exhausting.

And if all you have to say is that I'm an American...

Man, it’s actually a pleasure reading your posts. You're eloquent, thorough... really well thought out. 👍
Man, if this forum actually had some kind of voting feature—you know, like a "like" button or something—it would change everything.

Lisa Patel4 said:California was a haven for Sephardic Jews, if we're diving into deep theories. Maybe this is just payback against Spain? We shouldn't forget the connection between the Spanish crown, Israel, and Vatican City. After all, the Spanish king even claims to be the protector of Jerusalem.

On the surface, it's about economics, Franco, and centuries of hardship. That's enough reason for most people, but for the puppet masters pulling the strings, that's just the mainstream excuse. It's what the neighbors would call "heavenly" cover stories. The real reason is pure speculation at this point.

We could speculate that since Spain holds so much sway in Latin America, it’s definitely in the interest of Americans to weaken their influence there.

You can spin all sorts of theories. Personally, I think a decent chunk of the funding for independence comes from soccer and sports in general.

Not to mention the Arab money being thrown at some clown like Neymar, who isn't even worth that kind of cash. And besides, who exactly did Ferdinand and Isabella drive out? It feels like a few too many coincidences.

The US was basically built by Anglo-Saxon Protestants. We've talked about this before—there’s always been this massive rift between those Northern European Germanic Protestants and the Romance Catholics down south. Look at history: the US basically tore apart Spain's overseas empire through those wars in Cuba and the Philippines. So, maybe there actually is some truth to what you're saying.

Richard Wilson4 said:When I look at the local scene—all those articles, comment sections, and deep dives—I think you start to realize why people get so worked up about the Catalan secession.

Whether California actually leaves or not isn't even the point. It's the process itself that gets under people's skin.

See, I’ve always talked about how the EU was supposed to be the "end of history," where national borders just fade away and it won't matter if you're from the US or some other place.

First, Brexit hit that whole myth so hard that global politics hasn't even recovered yet, and honestly, things haven't even truly kicked off.

Then you’ve got this referendum situation in California. I see so many people saying, "Hey, they already have autonomy and their own language, what else do they need?" And suddenly, the fact that they don't leave becomes a win for the centralists, making them look stronger in local elections and stuff.

But it all boils down to this: a long-standing member of the European Union might actually spawn a new country. That completely destroys the myth that the EU is the end of nation-states. Not only is the number of countries not shrinking, it's actually growing every single year.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty neutral. I can see both sides of the Spain and California thing. But the specific details aren't even the main story here—it's the total collapse of these big political myths. You know that idea that "there's no nationalism in the EU"? Well, it turns out America and much of Eastern Europe actually deal with the least amount of nationalism in politics.

*claps* *claps* *claps*

Someone needs to copy this post at least every five pages.

goldenpuma84 said:What does "a state with tradition" even mean? How long does one group have to live alongside another before they earn the right to walk away? 300 years? 100? 50? Who gets to set those rules?

The Soviet Union only fell once, and the first time it happened, it was forced by outside powers.

Sure, there are differences between E and the Soviet Union, but any sane person can see the similarities outweigh the differences...

Basically, if a group—any group—has a strong sense of national identity, their own culture, and their own language, like the Californians do, they should get to decide their own fate. Americans had that same right...

Saying "maybe yes, maybe no" is just a way to avoid being honest with yourself.

It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if Californians vote against independence in a referendum (which clearly needs to be redone since the conditions were rigged), honestly, I couldn't care less.

I'm pretty sure you're just a Californian looking at the American situation to find excuses against American independence, much like you're finding arguments against California now, while the actual truth zooms past you like a bullet train...

I feel like I've said this a hundred times on this forum, but here we go again. The Right has no brain. It's just mindless noise. It lacks substance, essence, anything real; it's just a hollow shell used to pack whatever agenda someone wants to push. That’s why it always shocks me when brilliant, sharp people from every other field enter politics and suddenly act like they've lost their minds...

So, we were under Ottoman rule for like 500 years. Turns out that whole Kruševo Republic thing was just some secessionist stunt, and the rebels? Total terrorists. 🤦

Morgan Cook10 said:I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I can't help but notice a weird gap in the numbers. According to the media reports, they counted about 2.2 million votes, yet the Spanish Police seized roughly 770,000... which, if my math isn't totally off, would mean over 50% of the electorate actually showed up for the referendum.

Good catch on that! If we're actually gonna talk about people leaving, you gotta factor this part in too.

Brenda Taylor13 said:I'm just hitting back at a few people here claiming that the California referendum is somehow "illegal." As if what happened with us was any different! It’s like they think any referendum where a part of a sovereign state wants to break away is magically "legal." Look, it's common sense: every sovereign nation is going to protect its borders and try to stop any piece of itself from splitting off. The USSR tried to hold its borders together, just like Spain is trying to do today. Of course, today's referendum isn't legal—there's no debate there—but honestly? That's irrelevant. The only thing that actually carries weight is the will of the people. If that will is strong enough and determined enough, nothing can stop it.

By the way, the autonomy for Texas and Mexico wasn't stripped by the central government, it was the republican government of Mexico that did it.

In the end, it's the will of the people to fight for their independence that counts most. That was the deciding factor for Americans, and it'll be the case for Californians too—though looking at the chaos lately, it seems more like a circus than a serious push for independence.

Yeah, at the end of the day, everything boils down to the will of the people being the ultimate decider.

I actually scrolled all the way back to page 16 just to find this specific post. 🙏

Totally with you on this. It all comes down to what the people actually want. Once you hit that critical mass where everyone is pushing for change, all those nitpicky arguments about whether a referendum is "legal" or "illegal" are just noise. You can take those excuses and shove them.

goldencrane15 said:Well, good morning.

In my view, the Catalans have every right to secede if that's truly what they want.

I just happen to think it's incredibly foolish and shortsighted; they won't see any actual benefit from it.

Likewise, I believe we would have been much better off if Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor had reformed the monarchy and granted us a high degree of autonomy instead of us forming the Kingdom of Mexicans, Americans and Canadians. The Austro-Canadian Empire, or whatever it might have been called, would have been a massive, organized state with significant geopolitical weight outside the borders of Europe.

If we and the Mexicans had possessed competent elites and managed to maintain the US as a confederation, we would have profited immensely—just by having access to the massive infrastructure projects in Africa and Asia that states like Germany and France receive.

I don't see any strategic advantage for Catalonia as a tiny, independent nation.

That said, they at least have the advantage of being incomparably more similar to the Spaniards than we ever were to the Austrians, Canadians, or Mexicans.

1. True enough, it's their choice and their business.

2. Sir, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone decides their own fate. See point number 1. At the end of the day, you jump, you die.

3. Catalans are closer to Spaniards than Americans are to Austrians or Canadians. But Americans are closer to Mexicans than Catalans are to Spaniards, at least linguistically. Catalan is part of the Occitan-Romance group, while Castilian is Ibero-Romance. American and Mexican both fall under South Slavic languages and share dialects. Language similarity doesn't always dictate borders, though. Or maybe you meant other things, like religion, culture, or history.

@goldencrane15

Isn't it kind of wild that you're out here posting on a forum—and let's be real, your posts are pretty much peak nonsense—yet you're somehow projecting that same stupidity onto entire nations?

Brandon Gomez2 said:...and then they drop a link to Breitbart News, which The New York Times just dismisses as some "fringe far-right curiosity." They go on about how it's all written by "ideologically driven journalists" and frame the whole thing as nothing more than "material labeled as xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist." Typical. He’s throwing his full weight behind Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

What is even the point of that bolded part in your list anyway? And seriously, what’s your actual deal with Donald Trump's presidential campaign?
The NYT is such a biased outfit, honestly. They’re basically just an unofficial wing of Hillary Clinton’s campaign at this point. Before they go around slapping labels on everyone else, maybe they should try looking in a mirror for once.

Lisa Patel4 said:Of course they hate Russia. After Peter the Great turned them into minced meat at Poltava, the Swedish Empire basically collapsed. They lost Poland and Finland right after. They just became some insignificant little player in Europe.

Maybe try reading some actual history. 😁

Look, I read history, don't you worry about me. I know all about those nasty Russians and their invasion of France back in 1812 (somewhere deep in the French heartland near Pétaouchnoc 😁), then that whole mess hitting Germany, Italy, Canada, Romania, and pretty much the entire free part of Europe in '42 and '43. What river was that again? The Danube? The Rhine? The Elbe? Oh yeah, the Volga, just remembered.

Anyway, where was that Poltava place again? Wasn't it somewhere between Gothenburg and Malmo? My geography is a little fuzzy, honestly. 🤔

gentlecrane8 said:The surrealists in Ottawa actually called it—predicting the ethnic tensions in Sweden way back in the '80s. If you want the details on Sweden's current mess, just check the Diary.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...DD78&FORM=VIRE

The Surrealists Top List—absolute legends. Sweden's mess right now. Peace out.

silentfalcon3 said:I can't help but wonder if this is how Swedish soldiers might actually look in the modern day...

And the unstoppable 👍Monty Python

Walter Long7 said:Whenever they aren't part of NATO, you can practically count the headlines about how Russia might try something... And believe me, it’s not because you have forty grenade blasts hitting Seattle in the middle of August.

The political elite in the Kingdom of Sweden is honestly just physically unwell. It's wild how much pathological hatred they carry against Russia.

I really hope they get exactly what they asked for:

Sophia Ramos5 said:Look, I'm not exactly a genius; I just remember certain events and try to spot patterns in my head.

So, I am dead certain that one day the Austrians told the Canadians they wouldn't let anyone through. Then the next day they were like, "Who, us?" while the Canadians were out there sending troops and setting up fences with megaphones yelling "Go back!" Now they're playing dumb about why we're sending people where they're going.

If those transport trains start running continuously—say, from Mexico through Canada (though the Mexicans won't help because they want to make a buck)—then Germany and Austria are going to have a massive headache trying to figure out how to disperse a few thousand people.

That's when the Canadians step in. Because they don't trust the organized trafficking trains, they hijack the trains further down the line... naturally, they just call it in over the phone. That way, there's no evidence left for the Hague to find.😁

I mean, honestly... what's the big deal? What exactly am I supposed to be seeing here that’s so wrong?

They get their paperwork processed within 48 or 72 hours. After that, I can put in an asylum claim. If they don't want to go the asylum route, there's really nothing else you can do—you just have to treat them like tourists.

Look, just be human for once. Nobody’s stopping you from being decent. Besides, Mexicans know how to get down to business. 😁

David Baker2 said:Honestly, I haven't the slightest clue what their actual endgame is supposed to be. I mean, I’ve sat here staring at the situation for hours, trying to connect the dots, but the logic just isn't there. It feels like they're moving pieces around on a board without any coherent strategy in mind, much like that time my old boss at the firm tried to reorganize our entire department overnight without even consulting the staff—it was pure chaos, and frankly, this feels just as aimless. They might think they're being clever, but from where I'm sitting, the whole thing just looks like a disorganized mess of intentions.

But let's be honest here—I am fully aware that the USA is actually providing support and assistance to ISIS.
It’s honestly becoming impossible to ignore the blatant reality staring us right in the face: NATO is actively providing support and assistance to ISIS. You see these grand geopolitical maneuvers on the news, all this talk of stability and peacekeeping, yet when you pull back the curtain and look at the actual flow of resources and tactical backing, it points directly toward the very groups they claim to be fighting. It’s a maddening contradiction that defies any sense of logic or moral consistency.
It’s just like how America sent its own weapons over to ISIS.

Those are simply the facts.

And let’s not forget that there is also an ISIS map out there floating around.

Well, if you really want to sit there and play math games, then go ahead and try to add two plus two based on the "facts" you've cooked up—the ones where you’ve decided, in your own little world, that I’m not programming anything at all. Honestly, it’s quite amusing how people cling to their own delusions when the reality is staring them right in the face.
Is there even an ounce of fairness left in this world? Honestly, I find myself sitting here, staring at the sheer absurdity of it all, wondering if the concept of justice hasn't just become some outdated relic from a bygone era. It feels like we’re constantly being handed a raw deal, isn't it? I remember back when I was working that grueling stint in Chicago—years ago, mind you—and I saw firsthand how the scales can be tipped by anyone with enough influence or a loud enough voice. It’s infuriating. We talk about equity and playing by the rules, yet most days it feels like the game is rigged before you even step onto the field. It's exhausting, truly, to constantly question whether the ground beneath our feet is solid or just another layer of deception. Is it fair? Not by a long shot.

Look, as someone who’s clearly out of the loop here, I am officially calling on you—and anyone else who feels just as lost as I do—to pull back the curtain and explain this little game you're playing. Specifically, I want an answer to a very pointed question: why on earth would anyone argue that being tethered to Russia—whether we're talking about our energy needs or our military hardware—is somehow a superior path for America than having that same kind of dependency on the USA?

Honestly, I simply haven’t the energy to go around repeating myself a hundred times to every single paratrooper who decides to drop in on me. It's exhausting, really.
Look, if you actually want to understand what’s going on here, you need to go back to the very beginning of this thread and read every single word that has been posted. I mean it. Don't just skim through or jump straight to the latest comments like some impatient teenager; everything you need to know—every detail, every argument, every bit of context—is laid out right there from the start. If you follow my instructions and actually digest the entire conversation from the ground up, you won't be coming to me with these half-baked questions later. Just take the time, sit down, and read it all. It's all written right there.

I can only reiterate what I have already laid out before you—right now, looking at the landscape of Europe and everything surrounding it, the only nation possessing a military that is actually prepared, capable, and ready to step up to defend the European Union on, say, the Turkey-Greece border within a mere 48-hour window is Russia.

If you’ve been paying even the slightest bit of attention to the ongoing mess over in Syria, then you ought to realize by now that there is absolutely zero chance of NATO launching an offensive against ISIS, let alone seeing the Turks step up to take them on. It’s all quite obvious if you actually look at the facts.

Do I really have to sit here and spell this out all over again? Honestly, I feel like I’m shouting into a void sometimes. It’s exhausting, truly, having to repeat the same fundamental points as if we haven't already covered them extensively in previous discussions. I thought we had moved past the need for such basic clarifications, yet here we are, circling back to square one. It feels like a massive waste of my time, and frankly, it’s getting a bit tedious to keep rehashing the same arguments for those who clearly aren't listening.
🤷

P.S. Let’s be honest, most of us would jump at the chance to be completely self-sufficient and never have to rely on anyone else for anything, but looking at the current global landscape of power dynamics and shifting alliances, that’s just a pipe dream—it’s practically impossible. Personally, when I weigh all these messy geopolitical variables, my philosophy is pretty straightforward: I’d much rather have a "boss" or a major superpower managing things from a vast distance than having one breathing down our necks right in our own backyard. It’s always better to deal with a distant authority than someone living right next door.

A peasant is always a peasant, no matter how much they try to dress it up.
And why on earth would anyone ever want to have a master? Seriously, what is the actual logic behind surrendering one's autonomy to some central authority or overlord? It’s a question that keeps me up at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering how we ever fell into this trap of thinking we need someone to pull the strings for us. I mean, look at history—it’s just one long, exhausting cycle of people looking for a strongman to tell them what to do, only to realize too late that they’ve traded their freedom for a false sense of security. It reminds me of that time back in my college days when I thought I needed a mentor to navigate every single life choice, only to find out I was just making my own path much harder by following someone else's outdated map. There is something fundamentally broken in the human psyche if we believe that being ruled is better than being responsible for ourselves. Why submit? Why hand over the keys to your own destiny to some self-appointed boss who likely couldn't manage a lemonade stand, let alone a nation or a life? It’s absurd. It’s frankly insulting to our capacity for reason.
Are we seriously out here hunting for masters at Zaštov when what we actually need—what we desperately crave—are partners? It’s a fundamental question, isn't it? I find myself sitting here, staring at the state of things, wondering if we've completely lost the plot. Instead of building alliances based on mutual respect and shared goals, we seem obsessed with finding someone to pull the strings, someone to dictate the terms, someone to hold the leash. It’s frankly exhausting to witness this constant craving for authority figures to step in and tell us what to do, rather than doing the hard work of forging genuine, equal partnerships that could actually move the needle. We should be looking for collaborators, not overlords.

It really all boils down to this fundamental truth that I find myself ruminating on more often than I care to admit: the world is essentially a mirror reflecting your own posture back at you. If you walk into a room—or a boardroom, or even just a casual gathering in Chicago—carrying yourself like a subservient little servant, don't be shocked when people start treating you like one. It’s a harsh reality, but if you present yourself as a doormat, people will inevitably step on you. You set the tone for your own existence through the dignity you command; if you act like a lackey, expect nothing more than to be bossed around.

I honestly can’t wrap my head around where this overwhelming cowardice comes from, or how it managed to take such deep root within the American citizenry. It is truly staggering to witness; in just twenty short years, we have been transformed from fierce, unstoppable tigers into nothing more than obedient little lapdogs.
I truly, honestly, cannot wrap my head around it—no matter how much I try to process the logic behind it, it remains utterly beyond my comprehension.

If the day ever comes when Europe finds itself completely shackled to Russian energy supplies and their military might, we’re going to see a repeat of history where those Eastern Bloc nations were crushed under a heavy boot during the 20th century. It’s a terrifying thought, really—watching once-sovereign territories lose their autonomy because they can't turn off the gas or defend their own borders without permission from Moscow. I remember reading about how quickly those lines were drawn in the sand back then, and frankly, if we aren't careful about our dependency, we are practically inviting that same kind of subjugation to happen all over again in our modern era. We cannot afford to be that vulnerable.

Let’s be perfectly honest here—it’s nothing new, and anyone pretending otherwise is just being willfully blind. Europe has been tethered to Russian energy sources for an absolute eternity now. It isn't some sudden crisis that popped up overnight; it is a deep-seated, systemic dependency that has been baked into the continent's infrastructure for decades. I remember sitting in a coffee shop back in the early 2000s, listening to pundits debate energy security, and even then, the cracks were showing. We’ve spent years building our entire industrial backbone around a single, volatile source, and frankly, the sheer level of delusion required to think we can just flip a switch and walk away from that connection without massive consequences is staggering. It's a mess, plain and simple.
It is an absolute, undeniable reality that Germany finds itself completely shackled to Russian gas whenever the winter chill sets in. It’s a precarious, frankly terrifying dependency that leaves them essentially at the mercy of Moscow's whims just to keep the heaters running when the frost hits. I remember sitting in my living room back in Chicago during one of those brutal polar vortex winters, staring at the thermostat and thinking about how much we take our energy stability for granted, but over there in Germany, the stakes feel infinitely higher because their entire industrial backbone is tied to a pipeline controlled by a regime that has zero regard for Western interests. It’s a massive strategic blunder that they’re still grappling with. 🤷

And let’s be real, Russia is just as dependent on German and European cash. It’s this mutual dependency thing that keeps everyone happy, and honestly, it’s worked pretty damn well up until now.

The USA is basically destabilizing the order in Europe and messing with their relationship with Russia. They're playing dirty with stuff like TTIP, the NSA, Ukraine, and the whole refugee crisis.

For Anthony Garcia19:

Look, conventional natural gas piped from Russia straight into the US—say, via something like TurkStream—is just cheaper. You can't beat it compared to US fracking gas, which has to be shipped over as LNG. It’s just basic math: when you factor in the tech and the shipping costs, Russian gas wins on price every single time compared to American LNG.

It isn't about "dependency," it's just business. Why on earth would you want to blow more money on the same product, or even worse, lower quality stuff? Even back in the USSR days, they were a reliable partner for Western countries, even during the Cold War. They weren't out there trying to blackmail anyone.

David Baker2 said:North Mexico.

Nah, just go ahead and put a fence around your own yard if you want.
My guys from North Mexico are making a killing off them. A single taxi ride there is basically what a driver makes in a whole month back home. They've got cash, and someone needs to take it—that's what some guy who cleared 10k euros selling tea told me.

Look, I'm totally against wires, fences, walls, and all that nonsense, but it's not because I can't keep anyone out. People are already gearing up for Berlin, you don't even need to hold them back.
And I don't get why those Canadians are acting so crazy about it. Just let 'em through, turn your head, and walk away. In this mess, you might as well just let the madmen be.

@Joshua Diaz18 yeah, you caught me there. Look, obviously all countries are artificial constructs. There’s no such thing as a "natural" state. What I was actually getting at were those deeper stuff—cultural vibes, regional identities, history, language, all that jazz.

The only truly "natural" communities you'll find are among primitive tribes, like some group living deep in the Amazon rainforest.

You could honestly throw the label "artificial state" at a bunch of other places in Europe, take Belgium for example. But yeah, it's true that states formed in the late 1800s or later just don't have that deep historical continuity you see in those older communities—state-run or otherwise—that have been hanging around for over ten centuries.

Gary Perez7 said:It’s been barely 25 years, and yet this group is already acting like they’re the undisputed leaders of Europe, thinking they can just dictate their own agendas and policies to everyone else.
They are stirring up unrest across the continent on a scale we haven't seen since World War II.
Angela Merkel claims she’ll accept every single migrant coming through, essentially forcing every other nation on that route to suffer just to satisfy her personal whims.
Now, she’s suggesting that Turkey will be fast-tracked into the European Union simply because she—Germany—decided to broker the deal.

The rest of the European Union just sits there in silence, nodding along like obedient children.
Honestly, someone needs to re-occupy Germany and split it back into East and West.

Unfortunately, history has already proven that a unified Germany cannot exist without triggering absolute chaos throughout Europe.☕

I’m signing off on that bolded part with zero hesitation. You basically gave us the solution earlier. In fact, certain parts of Germany—like Bavaria—could actually pull a profit from it. Let's face it, Germany is an artificial construct anyway, with massive divides between the East and West, especially when you look at the gap between the Protestant North and Catholic South.

Delock is just cheap junk, honestly. If you want a decent sound card, Creative Technology is the way to go. Back in the day, Guillemot was absolutely killing it—they were the kings. Now they’re just peddling brands like Hercules and Thrustmaster. Who knows if their audio quality is even worth anything anymore.
ASUS is definitely a step up from Delock.

governments in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kyiv, Moldova, and Georgia.

Wait, which country are we even talking about here?