Moonbox
-
Posts
9,051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
So your thinking is that a person who is politically unknown, and who has no current ties with the liberal party infrastructure which would allow them to put together a winning team, and who has never fought elections should go up against believer with literally no time to prepare and that's a good idea
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CdnFox said:
That just isn't guaranteed. Any of the brand name liberals that have any kind of recognition in Canada are completely tainted with Justin and it would take a lot of effort to get people to overlook that.
Why would you go with a name brand Liberal? That would defeat the purpose of dropping Justin.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Look at Poilievre. After he won the leadership, it took a solid year of him going out there and working like a dog to raise his profile and sell his message so that voters would vote for him. And he's still working on it.
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.
7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:While it is technically possible it is practically impossible. Nobody's ever done it. They always drop compared to the last election. It was true for Campbell, Turner, martin, anyone who's ever tried.
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.
9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:The candidate who replaces him would be instantly skewered and done in politics in all probability.
Maybe, but even an interim straw-leader would offer a better chance for Liberal MPs to keep their seats than Trudeau's poisonous presence.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Pointing out three different occasions that you were wrong is not 'different versions'
And i spelled them out
You "spelled out" three different versions of what you insisted my argument was - three different versions of what I "very clearly" claimed.
20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:LOLOL i don't have to tell you you're wrong kiddo - you know know that perfectly well. That's why you behave like this
Emotionally you can't cope with it 
and yet, you can't help doing it. These sorts of dumb performances are more about you reassuring yourself than anything else.
23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:Continue with your melt down tho
Keep projecting, muppet. Spastically inserting emojis into every phrase is a great way of convincing everyone it's the other guy having a meltdown. 🤡
-
44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
It does not matter. There is only a slight chance a new leader could do better than Trudeau against Poilievre at this point and with the time remaining. Oct 2025 is the next election I think.
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.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:
I articulated it quite clearly
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!
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:As usual when you're losing a discussion your memory and comprehension magically goes out the window
The quote that keeps giving. 🤣
-
13 hours ago, Army Guy said:
to meet that expenditure one needs to have a manufacturing ability of well over 600,000 rounds a month ( Thats basic math) ...
No, because they're burning through stockpiles of ancient North Korean ammunition going back to the 70's.
13 hours ago, Army Guy said:.add to the mix China and NK and production must exceed 600,000 rounds a month or Russia could not sustain the numbers they are firing daily....
China is not supplying Russia with ammunition. They're already in hot water for providing components to Russian industry.
13 hours ago, Army Guy said:My entire narrative has been that NATO is not stepping up in supplying enough new equipment to make a difference, Ukraine is hurting for tanks, IFV's, anti tank weapons, aircraft, just about everything, yes NATO has agree to supply F-16's, and some Air defense systems, but it takes more to win a war being fought with arty shells...( to which NATO is struggling to supply Ukraine it's supply of 5000 rounds a day)...
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.
13 hours ago, Army Guy said:Most western media sources are stating that Russia is gaining ground in almost every sector...with some small exceptions...are you suggesting they are wrong....and do you have a source for that....
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
even if we are to meet in the middle , then the numbers still stand Russia, NK, are out producing the west by large numbers...
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.
9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:and i'm sorry to say that support will continue to dwindle...Ukraine knows that, the wests attention span is not that long...instead of losing men with no return they should start talks...every day they wait russia gains more ground...
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.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Kid every one can see you very clearly claimed that the treaty was the reason that democracy failed in germany.
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. 🙃
21 hours ago, CdnFox said:The Treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with why democracy failed in germany. Despite your sad attempts to change what you said, that was what you claimed and it's not true.
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. 🤡
-
On 6/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, CdnFox said:
I debate the arguments you present. The problem is you then insist you never presented them, then go on to present them again.
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:
On 6/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, CdnFox said:Sigh. You literally attribute the nazi's rise to power to events that took place AFTER they rose to power. And you don't see how that's relevant to your agument.
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 🤣
-
17 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Moonbox - that's about enough of your cheezy bullshit. You need to learn to say what you mean and stick by it.
I think you need to start debating what people are actually arguing, rather than what you want their arguments to be. 🙃
17 hours ago, CdnFox said:You have very clearly offer the opinion that democracy was not viable because the people were mad about the Treaty of Versailles.
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.
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:You mean when Hindenburg was president? After winning that election in 1932 that you claim hitler rigged with violence?
And the nazi's were already the second largest party in the Reichstag by 1930. So nothing they did in 1933 made that happen.
Swing and a miss again.
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. 🤣
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, User said:
My point was quite clear. Whatever guilt you think Trump has for January 6th, so to does Pelosi and other Democrats like Harris for violence around BLM protests.
Your clarity wasn't the problem. It was your logic.
On 6/19/2024 at 5:01 PM, User said:Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests.
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. 👏
1 hour ago, User said:My point from the start of this thread was to call out the outright lies by folks on here trying to assert Trump literally directed folks to "invade" the capitol or that he encouraged them to storm... etc... and to your lies, to include that he just sat there without saying anything for 3 hours.
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.
-
22 hours ago, User said:
"as guilty"
So, to whatever extent you think Trump is guilty, so to is Pelosi and other Democrats like the VP Harris.
So, now what?
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. 👏
-
16 hours ago, CdnFox said:
But democracy did succeed. Nothing about that treaty eroded democracy.
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.
16 hours ago, CdnFox said:Hitler was elected, and elevated to the top position through a democratic process and was very successfully dealing with the problems of the Treaty of Versailles.
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".
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:Utterly false. Hitler stabilized the economy and brought inflation completely under control long before any 'slave labour' occurred and before the war broke out. He hadn't even got to the 'deporting jews and stealing their assets' stage.
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).
18 hours ago, CdnFox said:if democracy is not strongly driven by the people then it doesn't tend to last. And there is no particular reason to believe that if Iran once again was "Gifted" a democracy that they would retain it or that they wouldn't vote in exactly the same type of government with exactly the same sort of policies.
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.
-
22 hours ago, CdnFox said:
I've read a fair number of books discussing this and i don't recall any of them suggesting that people blamed democracy for the economic conditions per se.
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.
23 hours ago, CdnFox said:I think they were just very comfortable with the idea of a 'permanent ruler' model and thought hitler was doing great (remember a lot of their problems got better when he showed up) and were not sold on democracy.
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.
On 6/19/2024 at 4:18 PM, CdnFox said:I can't prove you wrong in this case, but History is not in your favor and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that people would move to a democracy permanently even if it was given to them or that if they did the gov't they'd elect would have a more pro israeli or non interference policy.
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.
-
20 hours ago, User said:
This continues to be your problem. You claim to have "explicitly" conceded, but in reality you prefaced it with saying you were throwing my "buffoonish nitpicking back in my face, an "IF" qualifier, italics, and a laughing emoji.
I literally just addressed this argument and offered my counter to it. You unsurprisingly dodged...electing instead to uselessly repeat what I responding to.
21 hours ago, User said:I was honestly asking the question, the point was obvious, that Trump is as guilty for causing what happened on January 6th as Pelosi and other Democrats like our sitting VP were for causing the summers long violence around the BLM protests.
Your point was foolish. I agreed that Nancy and the Democrats were guilty of the BLM riots, so now you've admitted the Trump was guilty. Well done. 👌
-
34 minutes ago, User said:
You prefaced that with an "IF" qualifier and followed it up with a laughing emoji.
No, you did not explicitly concede at all.
Your continued dishonesty is evident by your saying that was "explicit" when you clearly conditioned it on an "IF" qualifier and then laughed.
More smarmy semantics!?!? Okay! 🤣
The "IF" qualifier doesn't change anything unless you disagreed with it. Did you?
The emoji is irrelevant. That's tone.
35 minutes ago, User said:I am not convinced you honestly answered, just threw that out there to make a point...
You weren't honestly asking the question, so what foolishness were you playing at asking it repeatedly, complaining that I wasn't answering, then going nowhere with it when I did finally answer? What was your point? Where was that reasoning supposed to take us? Why are you ignoring these questions? 🙄
-
32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Again, we are not talking about the anger and the hopelessness of the german people. We are talking about the german people turning against democracy. There is no evidence anywhere that the german people blamed democracy for the Treaty of Versailles.
Nobody said they did. The Treaty of Versailles set the conditions that made democracy almost certain to fail. When Germany went from super-prosperous European powerhouse under the Kaiser to an impoverished rump state under the Weimar Republic, it's no surprise there were a lot of angry people looking for other options. The fact that democracy wasn't really to blame is too nuanced for the average angry mook, not when you can use it and the jews, communists and capitalists as scapegoats.
42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:So just to be clear, your argument is that it's not possible to detect this 'huddle the masses yearning for freedom' thing due to censorship and brutal repression, yet you have some special knowledge of it that you can't demonstrate but are sure is true? That's your position.
No, my argument is that the Iranians are living under comic-book-villainous repression, and live in poverty. Dictatorships only remain popular when the social contract (prosperity/safety in exchange for freedom) is upheld. When it is not, as it is not in Iran, sentiment turns sour. In that environment of repression, the protests in 2022 were remarkable. This wasn't a bunch of hooligans causing a fuss and getting clapped with fines and petty jail time. These were people going out knowing they faced very real risk of injury, death or disappearance. That isn't "special knowledge". That's just common-sense inference.
In what world is a violent crackdown where you kill and maim 1000+ people an indication that Iranians are pleased with their repression?
-
15 hours ago, CdnFox said:
As long as you keep lying like that you set the stage for what's happening in Europe to happen here just the same.
Why are you accusing him of "lying "here?
Maybe you have the Rosetta Stone for his banal natter, but to me it looks like the same unintelligible nothing-speak he spams everywhere.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, User said:
You never "clarified" anything. You double and triple downed on the literal meaning of "nothing" for 3 hours. Again, you tried to move the timeline to an absurd point. Even now, you still can't be honest about what you were doing here.
I explicitly conceded the use of the word "nothing" by its literal meaning was wrong, and now you're trying to say I double and triple downed on it? Jesus.
I think it's obvious who's being objectively, brazenly dishonest here.
17 hours ago, User said:Not really, I asked you over and over and over again and you kept ignoring it.
I didn't answer before because it wasn't really a question. It was an accusation barely disguised as a question (more bad faith debating). It was nothing more than you projecting your tribal biases, and in one of the most boring and least original ways possible. "Whatabout BLM".... 🫠
When I finally did answer your dumb question, it wasn't the answer you were looking for and you had nowhere to go with it. Predictable.
-
14 hours ago, CrazyCanuck89 said:
We're talking about poorly made laws, based on religious dogma, that latter are found unconstitutional.
That might be the narrow definition you take, but the overall sentiment cuts both ways.
-
11 hours ago, CdnFox said:
He did. He had wide support and he knew it. A lot of people didn't like the whole 'democracy' idea in the first place.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "wide support". I'd consider the fact that he never won even 40% of the vote until he imprisoned/murdered the opposition and began "monitoring" the polling stations with tens of thousands of thugs to question that, but I guess we can just agree that there was obviously "enough" support for him to do that.
14 hours ago, CdnFox said:Sigh. That really doesn't have anything to do with it. And what I said was 100% correct. Sometimes your argumentative for the sake of it.
The Treaty of Versailles and the crippling reparations had nothing to do with the anger and hopelessness of the German people in the early 30's? Really!?
14 hours ago, CdnFox said:History suggests you can't really 'install' democracy. where people want it then it tends to show up and if they don't then even if they get it they just vote in similar gov'ts and while it's POSSIBLE it would be different in this case i'm not seeing anything that would lead to that conclusion.
What do you figure you'd need to "see" to lead you to the opposite conclusion? Remember the censorship and brutal repression within Iran?
Ukraine Can't Win the War
in The Rest of the World
Posted · Edited by Moonbox
...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?