Moonbox

Who is climate Barbie?

If Russia is firing 600,000 rounds per month, and 75% of it is landing on Ukrainian troops, there wouldn't be any Ukrainian troops left alive, would there? The certain, mathematical reality is that 95% of their rounds don't even scratch a Ukrainian soldier: Perhaps, but Russian accuracy was shit to start, so barrel-ware is going to affect them worse. More importantly, if they're firing at 7-10x the rate the Ukrainians are, so who's dealing with more barrel-ware? NATO production capacity dwarfs Russian and NK's. North Korean factories don't operate at capacity because they are constantly lacking raw materials, and both nations are under critical components shortages on account of their being sanctioned and unable to make any of it on their own. You can probably appreciate that there's more to military economics than the number of artillery shells you can theoretically produce, right? Long-term, this is a question of economic scale. Russia's economy can be outmatched by Canada's. North Korea's can be matched by...Uganda. Those two countries can keep up with NATO in the longer term? That's what you really think?

If you're arguing the numerical advantage of Russia's munitions, how is it a moot point that a large portion of them miss their target and turn out to be duds even if they hit? That's the exact opposite of moot. If # of artillery shells was the determining factor of the war, it would be over already. The reality is that Russian equipment has always been garbage. It was garbage during the Cold War, and they've only fallen further behind. Combine that with the fact that Russian training, leadership, C&C and intelligence is all dogshit. Look back at Summer 2023, when Russia was losing artillery systems at a 4:1 or worse ratio, despite firing 7x more shells per month. A lot of it has to do with public perception and Vladimir Putin's info ops. The slow-roll nature of all of the equipment being donated has been a direct consequence of limp escalatory threats from the Kremlin, and prevaricating on it here. The Red Line has been feebly threatened by Putin, but continuously pushed by NATO, over and over. We call their bluffs, but it's an agonizingly slow process. First it was long range artillery, then it was tanks and AA systems, then it was cluster munitions, then fighter planes, then permission to strike within Russia...the piecemeal nature has been tortuous and costly. Arguments like the ones you're making here, however, are actively making the situation worse. It's the narrative that Putin is pushing - and you're buying into it and the negative feedback loop it leads to. The situation is hopeless, so we might as well stop supplying aid, which makes to situation worse, making it seem more hopeless, and so on. I'm not sure you really have: Man, look at all that progress Russia's making...they're advancing daily...from one blade of grass to the next.

HAHAHAHA! Where?!? Twice in the same thread, you dumb muppet. I get that it's upsetting when people show how much of an assclown you are, but you do it so regularly, and so obviously, that the solution is to think before you post something stupid. Ranting emoji spam doesn't convince anyone of anything. 🤡

This is a funny matchup. Inarticulate copy-paste poster VS Deluded Conspiracy clown. Round 2... FIGHT!

I'll just leave that here again...LOL 🤡

What makes Mark Carney "elitist", by your estimation? That he's crazy smart and highly regarded around the world? When I hear someone complain about "elitists" in a context like this, what you're really telling us is that three word slogans are the key to your heart. 🙄 For the record, I don't think Mark Carney should run in the next election.

...stockpiles built up over 50 years, significantly deteriorated, with high dud rates and reportedly often stripped of de-copper and prone to warp barrels or misfire. They're coming from stockpiles. I thought that was clear. Even if they are capable of producing 600,000 shells together, Russia and North Korea can't hope to compete when the West scales up production. This is a short-term advantage. In a year it will be greatly diminished. In two years it will be gone. South Korea is now considering supplying Ukraine, and that's one of the world's largest economies vs it's third-world shithole neighbour. The fighting around Bakhmut was over a year ago. The Ukrainians have since made some gains, and the Russians have made some of their own. Look at the map. Steady progress...measured in meters and tens of thousands of thousands of monthly casualties. I heard of +$60B recently being committed by US congress in the last month or so. I also heard about +$300B in frozen Russian assets being used to finance a $50B loan worth of further military aid just for this year. This is all pennies to NATO in the West, and with it they're hobbling what's historically been its greatest adversary. The point I'm trying to make here is that it's the delays or abandonment of aid to Ukraine that's causing their problems. Vladimir Putin's info-op is to to convince people like you that there's no hope - that Russia can pay the cost of blood and outlast the West, or that properly supporting Ukraine will escalate the conflict out of hand. Neither of these are true, but there are lots of people out there unwittingly arguing these points for him. Ask yourself, is there any possible link between Russia's brutally costly foray into Kharkiv Oblast from April/May, and the fact this was when the Congress was debating the aid bill?

I think a hamster would do better for the Liberals in an election than Justin Trudeau, or one of his cabinet members. Folks could also reasonably expect that a hamster would do a better job running the country.

Why would you go with a name brand Liberal? That would defeat the purpose of dropping Justin.

This is more about the implosion of the Trudeau Liberal brand than Poilievre's efforts. He's still wildly disliked and mistrusted, though strongly preferred over the even more wildly disliked and mistrusted Justin. Martin won an election. There's almost no chance a new Liberal leader will, but that's not what this is about. It's about survival. If Liberal MPs want any hope of keeping their seats, they need to shed the anchor around their necks that is Justin Trudeau. Maybe, but even an interim straw-leader would offer a better chance for Liberal MPs to keep their seats than Trudeau's poisonous presence.

You "spelled out" three different versions of what you insisted my argument was - three different versions of what I "very clearly" claimed. and yet, you can't help doing it. These sorts of dumb performances are more about you reassuring yourself than anything else. Keep projecting, muppet. Spastically inserting emojis into every phrase is a great way of convincing everyone it's the other guy having a meltdown. 🤡

There's over a year until the election. That's plenty of time for a leadership race. If the Liberals are so unpopular under Trudeau that they're giving up seats they've held for over 30 years, none of his MPs are safe. They'd be crazy to go to election with him in charge - political seppuku. Crazy sometimes happens, of course, but I this is the writing on the wall. I'd be surprised if Trudeau isn't forced to resign before the end of summer, and it would be long overdue.

When you provide three different versions saying three different things, you evidently did not. The quote function exists for a reason. Rather than use it and argue against what people say, you insist instead on make up your own version of it and argue against that. Nobody is better at arguing against themselves than you! The quote that keeps giving. 🤣

No, because they're burning through stockpiles of ancient North Korean ammunition going back to the 70's. China is not supplying Russia with ammunition. They're already in hot water for providing components to Russian industry. I agree they're not stepping up or supplying enough, but it's a bit weird to say it's not making a difference. Regardless, a big problem with ammunition production is that there was nowhere to use it. You can only stockpile so much (since it deteriorates), but with a concerted effort the West could outproduce Russia/NK by orders of magnitude. Russia's economy is smaller than Canada's. Let that sink in. Sources you're not providing, that were probably from April/May, and that turned out to be wildly overblown. Russia's advances were marginal, barely noticeable on a map, and have since stalled. That was before the latest aid packages even started trickling in. As I said, I really think you need to compare a map of the frontlines from Dec 2022, to today.

North Korea's industrial capacity is a joke. Most of what they're sending to Russia is from the 70's and 80's, and probably half of it is duds. Russian artillery isn't accurate either, so as they spray ordnance all over the place, most of it is missing and what does eventually hit the right target often doesn't explode anyway. This is just self-reinforcing logic though - the sort of fatalistic pessimism that the Kremlin does everything it can to promote. The narrative you're drawing here is exactly what the Russian troll farms are peddling. You're trying to tell me that an economy the size of Canada's (Russia) and an impoverished third-world shithole is capable of out-producing the West and NATO? Please. Losing ground every day? You should look up the front lines in Ukraine from late 2022, and compare them to today.

and yet, you can't seem to settle on what you've decided I "very clearly claimed" If only there was a quote function where you could just show "very clearly" what I said. 🙃 You should send your thoroughly-researched, totally-not-clueless thesis paper to the historians. Be sure to include your insights on why economics don't affect politics, and how the Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Germany's abysmal post-WW1 economy. 🤡

Joke of the year. 🤣 Whether you're too stupid, or too dishonest, the reality is that you inevitably end up arguing against something only you've said - as you've done here, as you do in every debate. Here's yet another example: No, I literally didn't. As we see, over and over and over again, your limp insistence is worthless when I can just quote you and prove otherwise. 🤡🤡🤡

If a flustered and self-flattering "let's review" summary is what you need to re-assure yourself after all of this, have at her. You'll always be the pedantic flailer who resorted to disputing statements based the usage of italic fonts and emojis 🤣

I think you need to start debating what people are actually arguing, rather than what you want their arguments to be. 🙃 Here's what I actually said, in 3 different ways: If you can't see the difference between those three quotes, and your muddled version of it, that's not my problem. LOL! What does any of this have to do with the DAF and the labour policies of the Nazi party? 🤣

Hahahahaha. Karen's really out-Karen'd herself here. 🤣

Your clarity wasn't the problem. It was your logic. This cuts both ways. I think Pelosi and Harris should go to jail and are guilty as sin. By your own reasoning, you've therefore agreed that Trump should be in prison. Way to argue yourself into a corner. 👏 Your "point" was dead-on-arrival, and I've only entertained it as long as I have because your debating tactics were so curious/novel. I've been on this forum for 16 years and never seen anyone lean into petty semantics, ultra-literal word mongering and mealy-mouthed lawyer-speak as you have in this thread. You've literally tried warping and reinterpreting my statements based on my use of fonts and emojis. 🤣 That's what we call rock-bottom, and I'm not engaging with it any further.

That's the question you now have to answer, since your own goof reasoning just agreed to Trump's guilt, which is what you were arguing against since the beginning of the thread. 👏

Nobody said it did. The treaty made life in Germany shit, and a shit life is the only sample of Democracy the German people ever got. It doesn't matter if democracy wasn't responsible for the poor conditions - distinguishing between causal and coincidental relations is too much nuance for the average rube. A "democratic" process tainted by tens of thousands of thugs policing the election ballots, and the imprisonment and murder of his political opponents, whose assets and forced labor were used to fund his later "successes". I think you need to go reread some of those books you were talking about. Look up the DAF, and what happened in 1933/1934. Trade unions were outlawed, their assets and offices confiscated and leaders imprisoned (or killed). The work week was increased to 72 hours, striking was made illegal, workers couldn't negotiate their wages, and they weren't even allowed to leave their jobs unless their employers gave them written permission (which they typically didn't). Nobody's proposing Iran should be "Gifted" with democracy. I'm suggesting that the people are not as happy with their government as you presume they are.

That's not what I said. Versailles set the abysmal economic conditions that made it nearly impossible for democracy to succeed. The Germans couldn't be sold on democracy, as you say, because they were given a rotten deal. Saying problems got better under Hitler comes with some colossal, glaring caveats. Economic expansion was bought and paid for with slave labour, confiscated property and longer working hours with no increase in wages. I'd say a lot of history would suggest otherwise, considering that's exactly what ended up happening with Germany, almost the entire Warsaw Pact, and Iran itself in the 1950's prior to having their nascent democracy stamped out by foreign powers.