Moonbox
-
Posts
9,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
23 hours ago, User said:
LOL, ah yes, me quoting exactly what you said repeatedly is a "ubiquitous smoke-screen!"
Actually quoting what I said is fine. Making up what I'm saying is your problem. When you try to make the debate about what you want my point to be, rather than what I'm telling you it is, you're just arguing with yourself.
On 3/5/2025 at 11:31 AM, User said:You tried to claim it was a substitute for any other security guarantees.
Can you provide the quote where I said that? No, because It doesn't exist. Even when you're engaging in these useless word games, you're still making shit up. 🤡👌
23 hours ago, User said:Just like Taiwan, we have an economic reason to see that they stay independent and we have no formal relationship with them or formal military obligation to them... but everyone knows we are essentially backing them.
"Backing them" doesn't mean the US will sail the 7th fleet into the Straits of Taiwan and support them in the event of an invasion. No, what's really stopping China from invading is that taking an armed-to-the-teeth mountain fortress with 1,000,000 reservists via amphibious assault would be a bloodbath - juice not worth the squeeze.
23 hours ago, User said:Even now, you repeatedly avoid the actual point I am making here, that Trumps withdrawal of support was completely in response to Zelensky's public comments.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying that it's deluded MAGA clownworld nonsense.
As expected, and as we're seeing, everything Trump has done thus far has weakened Ukraine's position and strengthened Russia's. That's the reality. That's a fact, and you're left coping and rationalizing about how Trump "just wants peace". You sound just like Nationalist now. 🤣
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, User said:
Except, revenues are up. They continued to go up, even after the tax cuts.
Nominally, yes, and I'm sure that helps you wrap yourself in your comfy Trumpian fantasy. Relatively speaking, adjusted for inflation and GDP growth, federal revenue is down, while expenses have grown with a growing (and aging) population.
Four years from now, when the tax cuts have blown up US deficits further, when the goofy tariffs don't pay for anything and Elon's clown parade at DOGE don't deliver anywhere near the cuts they say they will, you'll still be blaming Biden! 🤣
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, User said:
Now you hide behind the term "clarification" when you continue to dishonestly ignore what you originally said and just act like you didn't say that or falsely accuse me of characterizing it incorrectly.
No, it's just you throwing up your ubiquitous smoke-screens - your pedantic deflection and obfuscation because you can't actually debate the subject matter. Instead of arguing the actual point, you want to argue about my verbiage. It's pathetic, and just further highlights your lack of intellectual credibility.
2 hours ago, User said:Yes, it is. Pointing out that we would be economic partners and invested is an argument.
A retarded one, yes. That's the point. Economic "partnerships" are not security guarantees in any way shape or form. Russia has offered the same to Trump, highlighting how the USA can get mineral access to Ukraine with or without future Ukrainian sovereignty.
2 hours ago, User said:No, that is Zelensky's doing. As I have already explained previously.
Now that Trump has shown his true colors and is making life easy for Putin, you've come full circle and are now repeating Nationalist's reasoning. I don't think anyone here is surprised how quickly your convictions on Ukraine evaporated once your Orange Messiah started pissing all over them. 🤡🤡🤡
-
21 minutes ago, User said:
That was not your original claim. Once again, you continue evolving your argument, moving those goal posts.
As usual, the only argument you can provide is insisting on a dumb straw-man. Your characterization of my claim is completely bogus, and as usual, even after clarification, you can't move on and actually argue the point. It's just deflect, deflect and obfuscate with you, every time.
21 minutes ago, User said:The partnership with Ukraine would in fact be a form of security, as we would be invested with them and economic partners.
This isn't an argument. This is just repeating the retarded claim. Economic partnership provides no security guarantee, just like Chinese investment in Mariupol didn't prevent that city from getting flattened.
25 minutes ago, User said:This is your strawman, not mine.
Donald Trump's "negotiating for peace" so far has amounted to nothing more than weakening Ukraine's position. He's done Putin nothing but favors, and that isn't strawman. 🤡
-
3 hours ago, cannuck said:
The US is $37 trillion in debt - a debt that has to be serviced by a very broken economy. Wall Street speculators have taken over the government and economy and pay next to nothing in tax for the trillions they pocket.
By broken, you mean the strongest in the world?
That's not what's broken. It's their government and their politics that are. There are two sides to finance: revenue and expenditure. US news media and politicians have been able to delude their voters into the myth of trickle-down economics for the last ~40 years, and the results have been predictable. Trump's 2017 tax cuts led to record-low (non recession) revenues, and he's about to compound the problem and make it far worse. The rich have become far richer, the middle-class has been squeezed, and US federal finances are a looming disaster.
This is self-inflected pain.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, User said:
Yes, as I explained, the US mineral rights deal was not the only thing on the table. It was one step. You tried to claim it was a substitute for any other security guarantees.
LOL nope! The context is that Ukraine didn't want to sign a deal with no security guarantees, and the Trumpian Circus tried to claim that getting mineral rights were somehow American security guarantees.
Your typically useless and pedantic deflections over verbiage don't address the absurdity of those claims, or the fact that you can't actually offer an argument about it!
23 hours ago, User said:As I said, Putin is negotiating with Trump to bring about peace, so Trump is doing just that. The point is a peace deal, not to antagonize Putin pointlessly.
Because if history has taught us anything, the best way to negotiate with bullying dictators is to strengthen their position and hobble their opponents, right!? Those fumes you're huffing? I want some too! 🤣👌
-
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:
History always repeats itself in Canada, this is trump 2.0 and we are still talking about building pipelines terminals and diversifying our trade...and the next President like trump we will still be talking about the same topics....Much like car insurance nobody wants to pay for it, but once you wreck your car your glad you have it...
Yes these investments will be expensive, nothing like the pandemic....but they will create jobs and tax revenue, which we need unlike that high speed rail everyone has been going on about....
True enough. Trudeau came in with a mandate and promise to expand infrastructure and get the debt under control. Instead, he waffled on any hard choices and expanded the public service by...whatever dumb percent it ended up being.
-
38 minutes ago, myata said:
Like what is the purpose of them being there? What would it be, in a dictatorship, some sort of a pet council?
That's how it works. When you're a minority in opposition, you don't have much sway. Until some of the cowards and sycophants in the Republican House start pushing back, the Democrats have zero power. That's not likely going to happen until the consequences of the Orange Blob's circus percolate through.
-
7 minutes ago, User said:
Again, this is a different argument, if it amounts to any type of security guarantee. I already explained exactly how it is one. You are just saying "nah huh!" is not an argument.
You didn't explain anything of the sort. European troops positioned in Ukraine would be a European security guarantee, and have nothing to do with US mineral rights in Ukraine.
18 minutes ago, User said:1-Yes, he made a dumb social media post he has backed away from.
It's telling that you frame it like that. You understand it was dumb/wrong, but you minimize it as if it doesn't matter. In reality, this is a huge propaganda win for Putin, one that will be played and replayed in Russia for as long as this war goes on. It wasn't just a dumb accident.
20 minutes ago, User said:At this moment, I don't see Putin telling Trump to go pound sand. So... why would Trump be doing anything other than continuing negotiations with them?
Why would Putin tell Trump to pound sand? Everything Trump's done so far has helped him. Trump gift-wrapped an enormous moral and propaganda victory, legitimizing his actions on the world stage while at the same time yanking the support Ukraine needs to stand up to him. Putin couldn't have a better friend than that! 🤣👌
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, CdnFox said:
It's kind of an odd question. Why would you think the tariffs would help us in the first place?
Everyone is at least a little partisan.
Many are very partisan.
Some are hyper-partisan, and are almost always on-brand with whatever slurp they consoom.
Finally, there are the truly deluded - the witless cultists that will believe and justify almost literally anything coming from their chieftain.
I suspect robo is talking about the last, and there are many of them even in Canada. For what it's worth, I don't think that describes you.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, myata said:
Anyone noticed that something is off with congressional public Democrats these days too? Is that how you defend freedom and democracy from raising tyranny, insanity and chaos? Definitely not. Not a chance.
I'm not sure what else you're expecting? They've just had their politics, agendas and their status rejected in favor of the Orange Blob the American public didn't even really like the first time around.
They've a lot of shit to figure out.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, User said:
The mineral rights deal is a type of security guarantee, no where did Trump or his administration claim, as you said, that it was a substitute for any other meaningful security guarantees.
It's not any type of security guarantee, and the fact that Trump and his administration are proposing otherwise is farcical. Uselessly reaching with more of your limp word games doesn't change the above, nor the fact that (as usual) you don't actually have an argument to make about it! 🙃
18 hours ago, User said:Let me know when you have a point.
That was the point. You weren't making one. "Trump has said many things?" Okay. We're talking about the retarded, outright lies he's been telling, and the only thing we can get back from you is "that was stupid but...(here's how I cope with the cognitive dissonance)".
At any rate, it is pretty funny watching you scrambling for these goofy answers, realizing in your subconscious that everything Trump has done so far in his search for peace has helped Russia and hurt Ukraine's ability to defend itself.
He's now:
1) Declared Ukraine started the war, and that Zelensky is a dictator, thus handing Putin a massive propaganda win.
2) He's halted military aid.
3) He's halted intelligence sharing
just a start.
What steps has he taken against Russia? 😆
-
17 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
If we were smart, we would not put an import tariff on things we need, like food.
True enough, and I don't think we will? I hope not? I really like fresh fruit...
17 hours ago, ExFlyer said:There was never a need to search for export markets because the US was buying all we had (or almost all we had).
Yes, time to search now and the result of that is the Americans that used to rely on us will have to got hunting for new places to get their goods.
The frightening thing here is that even if companies and governments see the need to start spending on new export terminals at ports etc, these would extremely expensive and take years to come online. Worse, however, is that tariffs can be dropped at any time, erasing the need for these investments after costs are sunk.
Rough stuff.
-
15 hours ago, eyeball said:
Every single penny the government spends is politicized.
Yes, but a publicly funded broadcaster delivers information. When the service itself is politicized, it's a different kind of argument. Cancer treatment, for example, doesn't care what your political leanings are and has no comment for it.
15 hours ago, eyeball said:Are you seriously suggesting the news about the government or the information it puts out will be less politicized and more transparent and trustworthy when it's online?
No? I'm saying that cable/broadcast TV is dying, and quickly, so efforts are better spent focusing on where the audience has gone.
15 hours ago, eyeball said:And again I ask what about the event of a national emergency? There's no utility at all in having a public broadcaster - your grievances towards it are just to strong to overcome with any rationale?
First, I don't think I've joined the calls to dismantle the CBC, have I? Second, lots of places don't have public broadcasters and they handle emergencies just fine.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, User said:
No, you did not show me who said what you claimed at all.
My claim is that Zelensky didn't sign because of a lack of security guarantees, and that Trump and his sycophants are comically out there trying to spin a mineral rights deal as a security guarantee. Your limp word games are yet another of your deep intellectual dishonesty - something you complain about ad nauseum on this forum.
40 minutes ago, User said:Stating he backed off is simply a fact.
The air has oxygen in it is also a fact. Congratulations on using words.
41 minutes ago, User said:He has said many things, you ignore all the rest.
"He has said many things." 🤣
Congratulations on using words again.
-
11 minutes ago, User said:
Pointing out the fact that the mineral agreement would also be a security guarantee in its own way is just that.
What sort of silliness are you playing at here? First you question who said it, then when you're shown, you go back and try to argue the exact point I was mocking in the first place?
A mineral agreement is in no way, shape or form even remotely a kind of security guarantee for Ukraine. It's absurd to even suggest it is, and for a long list of reasons.21 minutes ago, User said:I think those comments were stupid and confined to a dumb truth social post Trump has since backed off of as well as others in the administration in later comments.
What a comfy fantasy world you live in. When the Orange Buffoon makes yet another deeply stupid and destructive comment that contrasts with your viewpoint on Ukraine, your brain glosses over and makes excuses for it. "He didn't mean it. He backed off...etc etc etc".
It doesn't matter. He said it. He meant it. It's being played and repeated in Russia to Putin's delight.
-
16 minutes ago, User said:
That is not what was presented at all.
"They also understand that this agreement that was supposed to be signed today was supposed to be an agreement that binds America economically to Ukraine, which, to me, as I’ve explained and I think the President alluded to today, is a security guarantee in its own way because we’re involved; it’s now us, it’s our interests." - Senator Marco Rubio
https://www.state.gov/secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-with-kaitlan-collins-of-cnn/
WhOoPs?
19 minutes ago, User said:No, he used the funding as leverage, I thought my comments followed yours well enough, apparently not.
Okay fair. So what about his Putin propaganda echoing? Where's your comment on that??? Is this more of MAGA's pick-and-choose what Trump meant and didn't, as it suits you? 🙃
-
6 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
What exactly are our Canadian tariffs on American imports? What products??? I hope it is not on products we really need, like fruits and vegetables.
If it's smart, it will just be targeted to hurt specifically Republican areas, on goods that are easily replaceable. Nobody needs Bourbon or JD, for example.
I think we're probably limited in what damage we can do with our own tariffs. The greater impact on Americans will be consumer prices as all of their inputs from Canada become substantially more expensive. Meanwhile, much of what Canada actually trades is raw materials, which trade openly on the global markets and only need proper export channels.
If nothing else, hopefully this encourages Canada to diversify its export markets and trading relationships.
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, Nationalist said:
Rootin' for Putin? Lol.
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, User said:
Who said they would?
Trump, Vance, Marco Rubio among others.
26 minutes ago, User said:Trump has backed off that.
Trump used that as leverage to get Zelensky to the table for peace... and guess who came back today?
Publicly validating Putin's propaganda is leverage!? 🤣🤣🤣
Military aid being contingent on a deal is leverage. Openly providing justification for Putin's war efforts accomplishes nothing but emboldening and strengthening Russia.
Trump "backing off" on that is just useless, deluded coping on your part - the sort of mental gymnastics you do to rationalize how little your convictions count for when they conflict with what's going on in the MAGA cult.
-
On 3/1/2025 at 10:30 AM, xul said:
This is the basic logic which makes Trump behaving like what we have seen now.
It may be his logic, it doesn't mean it's good logic.
As you already mentioned, Trump's tariff efforts on China have failed, and they'll similarly fail on Mexico and Canada. Some jobs may come back, and some of them may actually be important to come back (like a domestic steel industry, or microchips etc), but more jobs will be lost on account of US supply chains being less efficient overall.
It may hurt more for Canada than it will for the US, but nobody is "winning" from the exchange. Donald Trump's fixation on tariffs demonstrates a profound ignorance (or disregard) of how economies actually work, and we'll see that manifest in years of economic pain.
Meanwhile, the US loses willing partners against China, who will be more than happy to strike deals with similarly affected nations. If China is the real adversary, then this is the US biting its nose to spite its face.
-
37 minutes ago, eyeball said:
If almost nobody is watching where's the basis for all the moral panic over political propagandizing and the capacity to influence voters?
A few things:
1) Fewer people are watching, despite the budget increasing.
2) Traditional network TV news is in deep decline, substituted for online media.
3) This doesn't have much to do with taxpayers subsidizing a politicized public broadcaster.
-
15 hours ago, User said:
As predicted? Show me your prediction where Trump has been trying to end this war with a peace deal and investments in Ukraine. That is not throwing Ukraine under the bus.
A peace deal with no security guarantees, with a Russian adversary who's demonstrated nothing they sign is worth the paper it's written on? What's that worth to Ukraine? Nothing.
The idea that American "mineral rights" somehow substitute for actually meaningful security guarantees is a funny magic trick that Republicans are trying to convince the world of.
15 hours ago, User said:The only thing predictable is your inability to engage in fact-based discussion. Its just empty rhetoric.
Did Trump not come out and say that Zelensky is a dictator and that Ukraine started the war? Did he not just halt aid to Ukraine, as we predicted?
The idea that you're interested in a fact-based discussion is farcical considering the mental backflips you're doing to try justifying the above.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:1. If not evidence, then what happened to convince you things had changed?
I first started noticing the politicization of the CBC in the mid 2000's. At some point leading up to the Harper days, I remember it getting scolded by the Ombudsman for left-leaning bias. I can't find articles for it that far back, but it's been a slow-burn. It's not just leadership either. Over time, the leadership influences hiring and that culture ends up taking root top-down and bottom-up.
You end up with a lack of diversity of viewpoints. In today's age, despite its bias, I'd still consider the CBC "moderate" compared to corporate shills like the Toronto Star or the National Post, but I'm not paying taxes to support the other two. I can just ignore them.
When you see the former CEO battling it out in public with Pierre Poilievre, you get a clear perspective of its priorities. It's tough to maintain objectivity when you're being attacked, but as a publicly-funded broadcaster, your job is to show Canadians your value, not attack political opponents.
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:I don't watch CBC News. I find all TV news superficial anyway.
Almost nobody does anymore.
-
4
-
1
Ukraine Can't Win the War
in The Rest of the World
Posted
Where did I say it was a substitute for "any other" security guarantees, as you claimed? I can play these retarded word-games too.
Like the US was arming Ukraine prior to Putin's invasion (or rather Zelensky starting the war, according to Trump LOL). The point is, that "backing them" can mean anything, and it's not a security guarantee.
There's those farcical mental gymnastics again. I don't even know how you can take yourself seriously saying this shit.
Halting military aid to Ukraine only makes Ukraine weaker, and Russia stronger. Those are facts. That you're trying to argue otherwise is absolutely pathetic, and it further highlights why nobody can take you seriously. 🙃