🚨 A Dictatorial Coup Is Taking Place Within The United States Right Now 🚨

[Breakingthewall]

46 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

That's like claiming that what the Nazis did was justified because they won a plurality of Reichstag seats in the 1932 election.

The 'vast majority' of Americans did NOT vote for this - Trump didn't even win a majority of the vote, he eeked out a thin plurality of just 31.8% of eligible voters, compared to Harris's %30.8. %36 of the country did not Vote - far more than voted for Orange Shitler. Stop spreading disinformation.

Democracy doesn't mean that if you win an election you get to rule by decree like a king. We have Constitutional checks and balances for a reason. If you want to live under a monarchy, there's plenty of countries in the Middle East that you could emigrate to.

Enough with the gaslighting.

 

@DocWatts 

I live in a country in Europe where the two parties are in a contest of corruption, and I'm watching the American movie like a show. It's fascinating, but not only Trump, Biden, Blinken , Kamala, all of them. It's like a circus. Trump is wonderful, it's like showing directly and without filters the big joke. The Americans thought that they lived in the democracy of goodness and justice where they have the duty of bombing countries for their good and salvation, steal the resources because the others are not good democrats except it they are Allende, then they don't like and they put Pinochet, and eat all the cake and fuck the others. With trump at least it's clear without hypocrisy.

Anyway, sorry if for you the topic is serious and painful. I see it different, for me US was getting too rotten and trump is just showing the reality, and maybe this is healthy at the end for all the Americans and for the world. But it's just an opinion and maybe I'm dramatically wrong. 

Edited Friday at 04:13 PM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Seems more or less informed about whats happening and the news are complete lies, then what could I listen to make an idea of the reality there? It's very difficult 

Anyway, logic says that Russia won, if weren't the case Blinken wouldn't have been so desperate as to suggest sending children to war and bombing Russian territory.

I think whats going on is that there are different definitions of what winning looks like. In the mainstream narrative / establishment view, a win or defeat is total, not partial (little room for nuance). When they say Russia hasn't won it's because their perspective assumes "winning" is purely about territorial expansion (taking all of Ukraine in total) rather than strategic positioning, sustainability, and long-term advantage. To them they need Russia pacificed (Macrons words) and balkanized / fractured (Kaja Kallas words). From Chat GPT:

''The establishment definition of victory: Russia is weakened, contained, and ideally broken apart. This means Ukraine pushing Russia out of all occupied territories, Russia suffering internal collapse, and Putin’s government being overthrown. In short, Russia must lose decisively, ensuring it can never challenge Western primacy again. This vision is ideological, maximalist, and detached from reality.

The realist definition of victory: Acknowledging that Russia cannot be defeated within its own sphere of influence and that continuing the war only leads to more Western losses. The realistic "win" is actually minimizing defeat—cutting losses, preventing further escalation, and stabilizing Europe rather than chasing an impossible goal.''

Russia has already won where it matters most which is in its own sphere and backyard, in the areas that are logistically and strategically vital - mainly the Russian speaking areas. The establishment view of defeating Russia is defeating Russia at its borders or near them, but this is no easy task. The closer a country is to its own industrial base and supply lines, the harder it is to defeat them in a war of attrition. Russia can supply their front lines way longer than the West can - because Russia has the logistics, the cheap energy to run industry, and the raw materials and competitive labor to produce war material. Europe has none of those ingredients which is why they still haven't re-industrialised to match Russian capacity and their shelves / stockpiles are running low. Even US has said this which is why they need out of this war to gather some time to re-base.

How is Europe going to outproduce Russia in arms and send those in a efficient manner to the Ukrainian front line when: They now have some of the highest energy costs, non-competitive labor cost, the needed raw materials and inputs are largely imported and have a complex supply chain, their supply line and logistics runs through multiple countries in Europe,  and they are indebted to their eye balls compared to Russia (20% debt to GDP vs Europe's average 80% - UK, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are over 100%) assuming they will take out loans to finance this, which is what they’ve said - further squeezing their economies that will energise a domestic backlash and fracture the political will needed to sustain war.

Analysts who say Russia has won are speaking in practical military terms - in this war of attrition, where it matters - in Russia's backyard.

The problem is that the Western establishment refuses to accept this reality because it undermines their larger agenda. Their war isn’t just about Ukraine but about permanently neutralizing Russia. That’s why they escalate, frame it as a fight for all of Europe, and why they indulge in ridiculous Hitler analogies. They need the public to believe that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it will roll tanks into Denmark next. They are also using this as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own failures and to cool down populist rage. But warmongering against Russia and turning a welfare economy into a war economy by cutting social welfare will only anger the public more and shift things even more right. But this is the delusion of the detached establishment.

Also, speaking of Kursk as a holdout - just from today: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-attack-force-ukraine-consider-pull-out-kursk/

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

 A war against china would be impossible, the only possible war is a commercial one, and with little chance of success. In a real war, the US would fail completely, China would crush them. It would lead to an atomic war and the world would be destroyed.

The US is making maneuvers to delay its recession, the war in Ukraine has been one of them, now Trump is trying a protectionist strategy, but the world is moving in one direction and the decline of the US is inevitable.

They won't defeat China for the same reason they can't defeat Russia - China has even more of the advantages that Russia does. It's delusional to think you can go up against a near peer country with not just equivalent but superior industrial capacity to you, in their own sphere of influence and backyard where they have the home advantage, and superior logistics to push their production to the front line and into the theatre of war. 

This is if they even get to land. They'd first have to win in the sea - but China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US, and the world largest navy.

Their only hope is economic, but even there they most likely will fail. Trump has announced tariffs to address the $300 billion trade deficit between US and China. For China to lose $300 billion worth of trade due to these tariffs is the equivalent of them losing the GDP of their 10th largest city in GDP - which is Wuhan ironically lol. It's a bruise on the arm, but not crippling at all.

 

Like Trump said to Zelensky “You don’t have the cards”

Edited Friday at 08:06 PM by zazen

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I see it different, for me US was getting too rotten and trump is just showing the reality, and maybe this is healthy at the end for all the Americans and for the world.

Maybe a big asteroid hitting the Earth is "healthy at the end" for the world too.

[Breakingthewall]

54 minutes ago, zazen said:

I think whats going on is that there are different definitions of what winning looks like. In the mainstream narrative / establishment view, a win or defeat is total, not partial (little room for nuance). When they say Russia hasn't won it's because their perspective assumes "winning" is purely about territorial expansion (taking all of Ukraine in total) rather than strategic positioning, sustainability, and long-term advantage. To them they need Russia pacificed (Macrons words) and balkanized / fractured (Kaja Kallas words). From Chat GPT:

''The establishment definition of victory: Russia is weakened, contained, and ideally broken apart. This means Ukraine pushing Russia out of all occupied territories, Russia suffering internal collapse, and Putin’s government being overthrown. In short, Russia must lose decisively, ensuring it can never challenge Western primacy again. This vision is ideological, maximalist, and detached from reality.

The realist definition of victory: Acknowledging that Russia cannot be defeated within its own sphere of influence and that continuing the war only leads to more Western losses. The realistic "win" is actually minimizing defeat—cutting losses, preventing further escalation, and stabilizing Europe rather than chasing an impossible goal.''

Russia has already won where it matters most which is in its own sphere and backyard, in the areas that are logistically and strategically vital - mainly the Russian speaking areas. The establishment view of defeating Russia is defeating Russia at its borders or near them, but this is no easy task. The closer a country is to its own industrial base and supply lines, the harder it is to defeat them in a war of attrition. Russia can supply their front lines way longer than the West can - because Russia has the logistics, the cheap energy to run industry, and the raw materials and competitive labor to produce war material. Europe has none of those ingredients which is why they still haven't re-industrialist to match Russian capacity and their shelves / stockpiles are running low. Even US has said this which is why they need out of this war to gather some time to re-base.

How is Europe going to outproduce Russia in arms and send those in a efficient manner to the Ukrainian front line when: They now have some of the highest energy costs, non-competitive labor cost, the needed raw materials and inputs are largely imported and have a complex supply chain, their supply line and logistics runs through multiple countries in Europe,  and they are indebted to their eye balls compared to Russia (20% debt to GDP vs Europe's average 80% - UK, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are over 100%) assuming they will take out loans to finance this, which is what they’ve said - further squeezing their economies and tormenting domestic backlash and a fractured political will needed to sustain war.

Analysts who say Russia has won are speaking in practical military terms - in this war of attrition, where it matters - in Russia's backyard.

The problem is that the Western establishment refuses to accept this reality because it undermines their larger agenda. Their war isn’t just about Ukraine but about permanently neutralizing Russia. That’s why they escalate, frame it as a fight for all of Europe, and why they indulge in ridiculous Hitler analogies. They need the public to believe that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine, it will roll tanks into Denmark next. They are also using this as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own failures and to cool down populist rage. But warmongering against Russia and turning a welfare economy into a war economy by cutting social welfare will only anger the public more and shift things even more right. But this is the delusion of the detached establishment.

Also, speaking of Kursk as a holdout - just from today: https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-attack-force-ukraine-consider-pull-out-kursk/

They won't defeat China for the same reason they can't defeat Russia - China has even more of the advantages that Russia does. It's delusional to think you can go up against a near peer country with not just equivalent but superior industrial capacity to you, in their own sphere of influence and backyard where they have the home advantage, and superior logistics to push their production to the front line and into the theatre of war. 

This is even if they get to land. They'd first have to win in the sea - but China has 200 times the ship building capacity of the US, and the world largest navy.

Their only hope is economic, but even there they most likely will fail. Trump has announced tariffs to address the $300 billion trade deficit between US and China. For China to lose $300 billion worth of trade due to these tariffs is the equivalent of them losing the GDP of their 10th largest city in GDP - which is Wuhan ironically lol. It's a bruise on the arm, but not crippling at all.

 

Like Trump said to Zelensky “You don’t have the cards”

Good analysis. The war in Ukraine was planned to balkanize Russia and plunder its resources, and the result has been the collapse of NATO. The West has been defeated, the UK and France rebel against this by issuing empty threats, but the reality is that they will never, under any circumstances, dare to send troops to die in Ukraine. Let's see, Korea has sent troops, what's stopping NATO from sending its own? It simply can't. They wouldn't go. There would be a mass rebellion, the West has no fangs.

Right now the West is weaker than the East, for the first time in modern history. In a conventional war, a Russian-Chinese alliance would conquer the US and Europe and colonize it by violence, just as China was colonized by England and the emperor's palace sacked. The Chinese remember this all too well. Be careful, the balance has shifted and NATO is an octogenarian tiger without teeth.

36 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Maybe a big asteroid hitting the Earth is "healthy at the end" for the world too.

Trump is not an asteroid, at most the bubonic plague. A refreshing reality check for the West to look in the mirror and see a fat kid screaming that he wants all the ice cream for himself.

[Frylock]

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Maybe a big asteroid hitting the Earth is "healthy at the end" for the world too.

I mean, who's to say that the world is better off now than when the dinosaurs ruled the planet? An asteroid really fucked up that dynasty. 

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Seems more or less informed about whats happening and the news are complete lies, then what could I listen to make an idea of the reality there? It's very difficult 

Anyway, logic says that Russia won, if weren't the case Blinken wouldn't have been so desperate as to suggest sending children to war and bombing Russian territory.

He is seriously biased and not objective.

There is a ton ofindie news about Ukraine that is good and not anti-Ukraine. You are in a self-created echochamber.

Edited Friday at 08:05 PM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He is seriously biased and not objective.

There is a ton ofindie news about Ukraine that is good and not anti-Ukraine. You are in a self-created echochamber.

All those who have an opinion are biased. I don't listen to him much either. Have you heard the speech of Jeffrey sachs that I posted in another thread? It's interesting, maybe you think he's biased too. Who isn't biased? You?

 

Edited Friday at 08:08 PM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@DocWatts 

Trump said during his campaign that if he won he would act like a dictator, and the vast majority of the US voted for him, so who is against democracy, him or you?

The whole point of democracy is that foolish people can hand it away to a dictator.

"A republic. If you can keep it." 

-- Ben Franklin

Democracy is easily abused by bad faith actors who have no shame, in the same way that a good woman can be abused by an Andrew Tate.

Even if Trump waa democratically elected he is still anti-democracy. There is no contradiction. Just like you can hire a school teacher who is a child rapist.

Edited Friday at 08:11 PM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The whole point of democracy is that foolish people can hand it away to a dictator.

"A republic. If you can keep it." 

-- Ben Franklin

Democracy is easily abused by bad faith actors who have no shame, in the same way that a good woman can be abused by an Andrew Tate.

Even if Trump waa democratically elected he is still anti-democracy. There is no contradiction. Just like you can hire a school teacher who is a child rapist.

Let's see the consequences of the trump's actions. This moment is very complicated. If Kamala had won with the two vultures Rumsfeld and Blinken perched on her shoulders pushing for Ukraine to send children to the front and giving long-range missiles to Zelensky, perhaps the consequences would have been apocalyptic. Very polite and democratic apocalypse.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

with the two vultures Rumsfeld

Bro, Rumsfled is dead.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Bro, Rumsfled is dead.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

 

True, I recognize my misinformation ,But if he had been alive, he would have been there like a vulture on her shoulder😅. Anyway, I am referring to the spirit of war escalation that the Biden administration had and that Kamala was going to continue. Blinken's move was to give Ukraine long-range missiles. What would have been achieved by that? A lot of destruction, especially in Ukraine, the total destruction of Ukraine. 

Btw, Did you listened Jeffrey sachs? Seems someone who knows what he's talking about 

Edited Friday at 10:03 PM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

28 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

the spirit of war escalation that the Biden administration had and that Kamala was going to continue.

Dude, it's not war escalation. Stop framing it way. That's a very biased and unintelligent frame.

It's support for a country that has been invaded in violation of international treaties and laws.

What do you want? The US to just allow dictators to invade whoever they want without pushback?

Stop listening these brain-dead anti-mainstream YTubers. They are warping your mind with their narrow thinking.

Edited Friday at 10:16 PM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, it's not war escalation. Stop framing it way. That's a very biased and unintelligent frame.

It's support for a country that has been invaded in violation of international treaties and laws.

What do you want? The US to just allow dictators to invade whoever they want without pushback?

Stop listening these brain-dead anti-mainstream YTubers. They are warping your mind with their narrow thinking.

So, since you don't agree with the invasion of the Dombass, which is a very complicated matter full of nuances that has occurred after 8 years of war that it's not clear who started, we have to give Ukraine long-range missiles and lower the age of recruitment to 18, then to 14? What is the idea? That there are no Ukrainians left? I find your vision very surprising. Don't you see that this matter has many more nuances than a bad dictator attacking a good democrat? It's impossible that you dont see it. 

Edited Friday at 10:28 PM by Breakingthewall

[Hardkill]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, it's not war escalation. Stop framing it way. That's a very biased and unintelligent frame.

It's support for a country that has been invaded in violation of international treaties and laws.

What do you want? The US to just allow dictators to invade whoever they want without pushback?

Stop listening these brain-dead anti-mainstream YTubers. They are warping your mind with their narrow thinking.

I agree with what you're saying, but why does Mearsheimer claim that Biden is a warmonger responsible for provoking Russia into invading Ukraine and that he made a mistake by continuing to support the war?

Furthermore, I'm stunned that he describes Zelensky as a failure who should resign, will likely be forced to, and will be remembered in history as a leader who let down the people of Ukraine.

He also argues that this war probably wouldn’t have happened if Trump had been president instead of Biden because Trump really wants peace with the Russians.

I'm shocked that someone as brilliant as Mearsheimer really believes that.

Edited Friday at 10:47 PM by Hardkill

[Girzo]

10 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

According colonel McGregor it's exactly the opposite. Thank you for the recommendation about checking, where are you checking? In the news? 

Polish military press releases. I trust my generals over some jerks with names like McGregor or Blinken. Your name doesn't end with - ski or -wicz? Get the fuck off my ears, that's my policy. No, but really, stupid Americans that have no skin in the game, I wouldn't trust them.

Anyone who says don't listen to mainstream media is a red flag. Listen to mainstream, but check their sources. Anti-mainstream is more often mental cancer than not. 

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Girzo said:

Polish military press releases. I trust my generals over some jerks with names like McGregor or Blinken. Your name doesn't end with - ski or -wicz? Get the fuck off my ears, that's my policy. No, but really, stupid Americans that have no skin in the game, I wouldn't trust them.

Anyone who says don't listen to mainstream media is a red flag. Listen to mainstream, but check their sources. Anti-mainstream is more often mental cancer than not. 

Listen this guy , you all, don't be lazy, it's extremely interesting, the most interesting ever. Do you want direct knowledge? Here it is. More direct impossible.

 

Edited Friday at 10:51 PM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

58 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

So, since you don't agree with the invasion of the Dombass, which is a very complicated matter full of nuances that has occurred after 8 years of war that it's not clear who started, we have to give Ukraine long-range missiles and lower the age of recruitment to 18, then to 14? What is the idea? That there are no Ukrainians left? I find your vision very surprising. Don't you see that this matter has many more nuances than a bad dictator attacking a good democrat? It's impossible that you dont see it. 

Your argument is: So you mean we have to fight Hitler???

Yes.

That's how life works.

My grandfather was fighting Nazis at 16 years old.

Who ever wants to be in war?

If Ukraine doesn't want to fight, they can surrender any day. As long as they want to continue fighting, it makes a lot of sense for the US to support them.

Edited Friday at 11:25 PM by Leo Gura

[Girzo]

40 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

after 8 years of war that it's not clear who started,

The fuck what? Ukrainians had pro-European democratic protests for fair elections. Then Russia got mad they can't control them politically so they invaded Crimea and since then only expanded their aggression. The only reason there's still war is because Putin over-estimated Russia's ability to take over the country over-night. There's a clear one-sided history of aggression. Ukraine gets nothing out of these conflicts. The best for Ukraine would be to still control all its territory, have non-destroyed cities and earn money for transit of gas and goods from Russia to Europe. Thus it's clear they had no point in starting anything. It's Russia who wants to control the sea and be in a better position to bully the EU. And it's Putin who has fucked up and is too afraid to pull out of this war because of a fear of losing power due to backlash from that failed venture.

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Your argument is: So you mean we have to fight Hitler???

Yes.

That's how life works.

Hitler wants to create a thousand-year Reich in which the Aryan race will reign over the other subhuman races. Russia is involved in a regional conflict over Crimea and the Dombass, which are populated by Russians, who are being harassed by the Ukrainians, and NATO, which by contract was not going to move an inch from defined lines, for some reason feels the need to corner them. These are different cases.

 

3 minutes ago, Girzo said:

they invaded Crimea

Crimea has 70% of Russian population, you could check it, same than the dombass. They wanted to join Russia, same than the dombass, that's why the war started, because the Ukrainians don't want that they join Russia. In Crimea was a referendum, and the Russian option won, it's normal since 70% of them are Russians 

Listen this please , don't be lazy, Leo give a chance 

 

[DocWatts]

19 minutes ago, Girzo said:

The fuck what? Ukrainians had pro-European democratic protests for fair elections. Then Russia got mad they can't control them politically so they invaded 

The MAGA (ie Russian) propaganda on this topic is the modern equivalent of claiming that 'Poland invaded Nazi Germany'.  Continue to call this out whenever you see it.

Edited Friday at 11:41 PM by DocWatts