Awwww, honey, I don't think you're a fantasy and a waste of time <3 <3 <3

See, the difference between those people and you is that you are here. I don't bother to call out every idiotic idea that I ever see in the world. That would be unreasonable and take up all my time. I only call out the idiotic ideas that I see here on my favorite gaming forum. And feel free to ask some of the leftists here if I only call out idiocy on the right. You and them may share some common ground in how you both feel about me.

Yes. Cause all Ukraine is receiving is $60bn worth of guns /s. JFC. Could you do ANY research on ANY topic that you try to chime in on?

How many fighter jets and tanks did the US make sure they get so they can defend against all of Russia's tanks and jets? Not near what the US handed to Afghanistan free of charge? Did the MAGA protesters simply need dollar bills to provide the final blow and achieve an overthrow?

Lol. Oh no I revealed that you were from 9.985 million km² Canada with a population of 38m, how will you live. Get over yourself acting like a victim.

Being doxed isn't bad or a problem and all those people should just, deal with it. Not victims, got it. I guess you were right all along Mr no mod Mattrick.

Are you more upset that I revealed your location or that I revealed to the thread that you aren't American and yet commenting on multiple American issues and getting them all wrong?

Another, great, example. Anyone no longer within Americas racist borders, is no longer an American. Those poor people, especially the military.

Since you're not in America either, should I also assume all your American points made mean nothing like how mine supposedly mean nothing?

Nah, I checked your IP months ago because I suspect you are an alt.

That's normal? Even for mods? To look up peoples info and post it here? What made you assume I was alt right back then? You suspect, or suspected?

I've not seen anyone in this thread mention Calexit (I may be wrong) and only you mentioned that the Red States should leave the union. Who the hell are they meant to respond to in regard to Calexit?

I posted Calexit, in response to the points about suggesting leaving must automatically mean civil war. Which would mean California wants civil war. In terms of fantasy and delusion, who are the looney ones? I don't think they're the only ones, not to mention anyone else who wants to change state borders within the country.

Yes, they could, it's called Hard Brexit. But Hard Brexit was fucking dumb, EU is a huge trading block, deals had to be worked out, shockingly, deals with multiple countries and a gigantic trading bloc don't happen in a week. Parliament (UK) voted down multiple Brexit deals too.

They accepted literally the next day.

All 27 told UK 6 days after to submit the intention to leave! Do you even read your own sources?

Took so long because of everything that had to be worked out, not because EU was trying to stop us, I will say again, we could have left at any time that we wanted to via Hard Brexit.

"The European Council concludes that further progress is needed on citizens’ rights, Ireland and the financial settlement to proceed to the next phase and start discussions of future relationship."

"Leaders agree that while they want to have the closest possible partnership with the UK, which would cover trade and economic cooperation, security and defence, among other areas, the UK’s current positions “limit the depth of such a future partnership." The leaders also confirm that if these positions were to evolve, the Union will be prepared to reconsider its offer in accordance with the principles stated in the guidelines of the European Council".

Hows the EU supposed to assure things like citizens rights if the UK simply instantly bails out? Why didn't the EU just accept the UK's "current positions"? They were part of the same group before, why now the issues and concerns? Upset and deeply regretful perhaps?

There were a few things in the UK Parliament like the Brexit Delay Bill getting in Johnsons way forcing him to ask the EU for extension. Well there is a little bit of guilt as to some UK politicians not exactly getting the work of the people done asap as they wished. I guess even if the people democratically want something they can't even rely on their own system of governance to get it done by standing in the way.

*Sigh* Lol. You'll be comparing The Commonwealth to the United States of America next...Please just do some research on the European Union and the United States of America. You could at least use such a closer comparison such as a province of Canada deciding it's leaving but instead you insist on this awful comparison.

So past points made by others disagreeing with you means nothing? For and against? Sorry Australia, guess you don't really matter. Canadians seem to take separation much more serious, like Alberta more recently, even if they don't think it would take place in the end. Makes more sense to me.

Yes, there were some who thought that UK would get everything it wanted, and it would be quick, the world doesn't work like that though, we don't get everything we want, compromise has to happen.

As for no research, how many UK Brexit leave voters thought they would get every single last thing they wanted and were promised? I'd say that's a pretty low blow to the UK people's intelligence.

Looking at this thread, I don't see any serious attempt by anyone to secede any state, only a very small minority of crazies, listening to the Americans in this thread suggests that the Constitution being changed for this purpose has an almost 0% chance of happening.

Minorities are people too. Only a tiny amount of MAGA crazies has the President saying the nation has been under serious threat. People said the same no chance things about Trump and Biden and both became President, so that doesn't exactly make me think it's as unlikely as some suggest.

I really don't know how well they were armed, I think I only heard of two, and saw one that carried zipties. This is because I haven't been following the case since around the time it happened. Mainly because it's mentally exhausting.

But the point is the mob got to the chambers. Some of them armed, but even an unarmed mob can be very dangerous. Hence how they got through capitol security, and broke into the building. Some security guards lost their lives in the process.

They even brought a gallows for Mike Pence.
Although I think this was meant to be a symbolic thing. But if the mob actually dragged out a member of congress, who knows what would happen when mob mentality is involved.

The point though is that they got into the chambers, and were very close to being able to kill members of congress.
Sure, even if they had done that, that wouldn't be enough to overthrow the rest of the government and the military (unless the ones in charge of the military decide to revolt). But a mob storming the capitol and killing members of congress would be about as close to the fall of democracy as you can realistically get in the US.

A few hand weapons with hundreds of thousands of people protesting far away was enough to be seconds away from overthrowing the US government?

The few crazies got in because the guards opened the doors and let them walk right in. So much for security. The people who had the power to, which wasn't Trump, didn't take the proper security precautions, even though even he suggested it. The intelligence agencies, government, and DC, knew it would be a massive angry crowd, yet did the least they could until afterwards, when they fenced things off and brought in the NG. How convenient to let people and the country be at such risk don't you think?

A few died, yes, like the cops who committed suicide days after the event, which the police aren't connecting to the protest, or like the police and protestors who had a heart attack at the protest. Protesting isn't a known cause of death. The only person that seems to have died through direct violence is the woman who couldn't enter the chambers due to locked metal gates, who was shot by a security guard anyway. The members of congress were long gone before anyone ever got near the chambers. Nobody ever got near AOC. She was a country mile from the protestors when she tweeted and implied she was in immediate danger.

But yeah, the mob that stormed the capitol on January 6 won't get these kind of weapons so they can't stand up to the US army, that is true.
Though what almost happened on Jan 6 is still a terrifying thing. And people suspected that things like that would happen if Trump came to power.

Well Trump was in power for 4 full years and next to nothing they accused him of came true. Like they said Trump was trying to investigate Biden specifically through quid pro quo and got impeached for it, even though Zelenskyy was like nope not interested in any more investigations, and yet Biden did quid pro quo with Ukraine due to investigations before Trump, and is investigating Trump now, and that's not a problem whatsoever? Trump, the supposed Russian spy, also not true, after investigations, was said to have to be dragged from the WH, which he normally left like every other President does.

First of all, I'd say yes. Ukraine were on the defensive for the first few months. Then recently they switched over to counter-offense. Meaning they are the ones primarily attacking and taking territory from Russia. They've even attacked Russian soil.

Secondly, Ukraine isn't just using guns, but they're recieving heavy military equipment including tanks. And very modern equipment, like the infamous Bayraktar drones.

When it comes to fighter jets, Russia failed to establish air superiority, which means they were unable to take out anti-air defenses, which is crucial if you want to invade using expensive planes. So Russia eventually retreated from trying to take Kyiv, and instead gathered all their forces in the eastern Donbass region that they already had control over since 2014. That's why the war is mainly fought there now.

Russia has taken everything it needs to for the time being. Continuing on would be the poorer next move. What they did was push Ukraine back to give them some space where they really need it. All they have to do is sit and wait at strategic locations and can easily grind down Ukraine's offensive until there's little left. Then move further into Ukraine if they want later. I wish that weren't the case, but without way more soldiers and way more powerful fire power, it's only a matter of time before Ukraine runs out of options as of now. Leadership see this but don't want to admit it because it would give Russia an early win.

Those items will help a bit, but why didn't the US make sure they gave Ukraine what they truly need? Why is the US sitting on the sideline against an enemy like Russia, especially since Russia is really starting to turn up the heat against the EU? The US support style has made America look super weak.

Saying that you're sorry that someone decides to leave you, but that you respect their decision is a pretty standard response.

The only snags I see on that timeline that lead to things being dragged out is here:

UK requests an extension. EU grants it.  UK requests yet another extension. EU grants it.

A third extension is made after both parties agree that it would give them more time to finalize the agreement.

So I don't know where your impression that it was EU dragging things out comes from, but from what I can see, UK were not properly prepared, and had not thought out what to do about the issues surrounding Irelands borders and how trade ships are allowed to travel while they are in the EU, but not when they leave the EU, among other things.

As I stated earlier, UK were always free to leave on the original deadline, without an additional agreement.
But they wanted to try and reach an agreement before leaving that would essentially give them some EU benefits even though they left.

Sorry, and we deeply regretted the UK decision, are very different, along with the follow up actions, which don't suggest, we're just sorry.

"The European Council concludes that further progress is needed on citizens’ rights, Ireland and the financial settlement to proceed to the next phase and start discussions of future relationship."

"Leaders agree that while they want to have the closest possible partnership with the UK, which would cover trade and economic cooperation, security and defence, among other areas, the UK’s current positions “limit the depth of such a future partnership." The leaders also confirm that if these positions were to evolve, the Union will be prepared to reconsider its offer in accordance with the principles stated in the guidelines of the European Council".

The EU wasn't happy with certain decisions the UK was making, and they didn't like some of their current positions, so they made it hard on them. The UK partially voted to leave because they were tired of the EU having too much control and telling them what to do, and yet the EU kept that up even during the split.

The UK parliament had the Brexit Delay Bill which forced Johnson to have to ask the EU for an extension. That's not allowing the UK to just leave, even though it's some of the UK politicians themselves, after the people voted to leave.

Yeah, I don't think anyone expects the states or the government to initiate a civil war.
What I'm saying is that civilians may get violent like on Jan 6 if they are under the impression that their state is allowed to leave (even if they're not), but the "tyrranical government" won't let them. If that mob violence escalates to the point that it needs to be met by the military, does that count as civil war?

A bunch of people here seem to think that's what would immediately happen. What about all the other violence and destruction that happened in the US that wasn't due to the right? Why wasn't the Jan 6th protest labelled as a mostly peaceful protest as well? Harmful rhetoric from leaders on the left almost got a supreme court justice killed not that long ago, which was basically ignored by the media. Its arguable that the NG or perhaps the military should've been called in many times for many different reasons over the years, but it seems like the people chosen to make that call won't do it until it's too late.

I don't like when people referred to Trump's win as illegitimate, because influencing public opinion is part of an election. (Although I can understand why people see it differently when that influence is caused by a foreign adversary nation.), but at least the general public didn't contest that it was lawful and that he recieved the votes he did. 

I wouldn't say the Russia investigation was a hoax since Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies.

Unlike what the public originally assumed, the investigation was not looking for Trump's connections with Russian officials, but instead looked for potential cases of obstruction of justice. (Since Muller was brought in after Trump fired the FBI director for investigating him.)

In Muller's final report, he found 11 cases of potential obstruction of justice comitted by Trump.

However, Muller decided not to make the judgement call on any of these, and instead wrote that he passed that responsibility on to congress.

So why wasn't Trump indicted on any of these 11 cases, you may ask?
Because congress never got to see it. Before it goes to congress, it has to go through Trump's DOJ, William Barr.
And he basically said "nothing to see here", and threw it out.
He also missrepresented Muller's words, which Muller later complained about in a testimony in front of congress.

Naturally, Fox News and other right wing media then painted this as a hoax, and Trump tweeted "full exoneration", even though Muller didn't pass judgement on any of it.
It was supposed to be given to congress for them to decide, but Bill Barr stopped it from going to congress.

Illegitimate means not done by the rules. Meaning he didn't legitimately get the votes. It's exactly what they meant. The Russia investigation was eventually changed after they couldn't pin Trump down like after they changed the quid pro quo impeachment after that wasn't going to work either. Mueller said it didn't matter what he found because it was precedent that they not go after the President, so what's the point if nobody is going to make sure justice is served, if it really is justice? Durham's ongoing 2016 Russia investigation which the media isn't covering at all, sure is interesting though. 

Well the major difference was that it wasn't contested that Trump actually got the votes. I believe there were some security breaches in voting machines, but no votes were reportedly changed. And no one tried to storm the capitol or white house in 2016.
The reason that happened now is because a large group of people are under the impression that Biden either got fake votes, or that many of Trump's votes were not counted. No evidence of that btw. Even Trump's DOJ Bill Barr who previously defended him from the russia investigation, said that they found zero evidence of large scale fraud.

But these people are convinced that their country was stolen from them, so some of them took to extreme measures. True, the rioters wouldn't have been able to take over the government, but what happened, and almost happened on Jan 6 is still pretty crazy.

How can people forget what happened in the Capital during Trumps inauguration? Considering the media turned a blind eye to it, I guess it's not surprising. People who wanted to just see the ceremony were being injured who weren't even Trump supporters. DC boarded up all its windows for 2020 fearing the same or worse violence across the city again if Trump won again. What is considered large scale fraud, and was that necessary to change the election since it's not a popular vote? An full investigation into both elections seems fair don't you think? Why just 2016 and not 2020 due to the protesting by both sides? I think both 2016 and 2020 were crazy for DC, and that both should've been dealt with more evenly.

So they don't need 34 States to agree to be able to force Congress to call a convention, and then 38 to agree to ratify anything proposed? Isn't the point to bypass DC, like in case the federal government decides to stand in the way or disregard things for whatever reason?

Is this video explanation incorrect?

Yes, I also know he says the States wouldn't ever do something crazy like abolish the 1st amendment and that a reason to do this would be to avoid civil war. This may be a better way, since some here have said the federal government definitely won't play ball. Yet as to the 1st amendment, many States don't seem to be taking it too seriously when it comes to making sure everyone is playing by the rules as of recently, or at least the federal government isn't. So what would actually happen and what would pass with a convention today, who knows, but if DC is only going to be a roadblock for many things, then this doesn't seem like a terrible idea.

I'm a little surprised nobody else mentioned this as a possibility due to my apparent lack of American political knowledge.

I didn't say anything about what it would take initially, just like how you didn't say or ask many things initially either.

Neither of us are in the Ukraine or Russia, so how could either of us know and be correct?

After everything that has come out in the last 6 months with video/image evidence(confirmed by independant sources), if you still cuck for what Russia is doing, then you're clearly just a pos.

I mostly agree, though I would have ended with misguided instead.

Hopefully the EU and America have a back up plan if this ends up how it looks right now. Being unprepared to start can't happen again.

I would not, we have had a lot of information and a lot of material available to us for a while now. 1 month into a conflict sure, misguided you could claim. But its been a lot longer and to still feel that even a small % lies at the blame of Ukraine is completely and willingly ignorant to the conflict. So I stick by my claim. Though I give some room for people who have not done any or even a small amount of research into this conflict until recently which gives some room to believe ignorance. But with how much this topic has been broadcasted and discussed I find it hard to believe.

None...Because Ukraine doesn't know how to use American tanks/fighter jets without training and it's easier to instead transport tanks/fighter jets from countries that aren't an ocean away from Ukraine, that also use Soviet-era equipment, which has been done since the start of the war, you do know that it isn't just America that has been sending stuff? It's a coordinated effort.

Not to mention it isn't like Ukraine doesn't already have their own tanks, jets and artillery that they're using! Oh and the HIMARS that America has sent to Ukraine which has been a game changer, or all the artillery ammo and artillery weapons from other countries. Oh and the anti-air, anti-tank, anti-ship missiles, the attack drones, etc.

Do you think Ukraine is fighting with only guns? Lol. You're once again showing a severe lack of information on a particular issue.

Why isn't America taking care of getting equipment? Couldn't they strike better deals and push harder time wise? Ukraine has it's hands full. I thought everyone was aware that Ukraine is also known for being pretty corrupt? Is handing them tens of billions the best way to assure victory?

How is Ukraine learning how to use all the non local American weaponry? Training? That you say they aren't getting?

What happened to the initial and early attacks where Russia went after Ukraine's equipment like tanks and jets? I thought the majority was destroyed?

Yes, only guns, and without communications too. Definitely no dishes and sats Putin wants to stop either.

I'm not the only one. Glad we can agree on that at least.

Lol, I said what country you were from, not like I told everyone what your home address is or even what providence you're from, if you have an issue then go and take it up with a Head Mod. Sorry for revealing to the thread that you keep talking about issues you don't have a clue about and suggesting drastic solutions to countries you don't even live in.

As I said, you don't live in America so it's easy for you to suggest that they should essentially break up without having a clue what that would entail.

Unlike you, I've actually listened to the Americans in this thread who actually know what they're talking about and done my own research, I also asked the American Mods about what the situation is regarding seceding though it really only took a 1-minute Google search to find that out.

No, but I also brought up the concern immediately obviously. Which you give the impression that it wasn't exactly Kosher. Which I find a hard time believing it's something seen as acceptable on the site. If you seem to think it's a joke, what are the odds the rest of the mods do, or don't?

What country does your profile say you live in again? And where do you keep giving opinion's on where you don't live? Is this a screen or mirror?

I also mentioned what others said in here, like an Aussie, about America and Australia being the same, and you said it was meaningless. So is it only Americans on homeland soil and Brits who are correct and everyone else is all wrong?

Isn't America the country that celebrates and lets everyone know their firsts? Like first CEO President, first oldest President, first black female VP, first black female supreme court justice, etc? America has plenty of firsts that aren't always obvious they are going to occur.

Suspect. You want to ask so many questions, I'll answer them. You're only digging yourself a hole

So your long past digging told you that you needed to answer questions from me, recently? You're making less and less sense.

The hole is clearly going to nowhere based on your replies. That much seems to be clearer now.

Lol...Okay, so it was only you who posted about Calexit...Should have seen that coming. No I don't believe California is leaving nor would they be allowed to do so based on everything I've read in this thread. Can end that debate, Lol.

Yes, because someone on the other side of this particular conversation would not only bring that up but admit it proves them wrong. That's something I don't think I've ever seen, but who knows, there's always a first.

Not sure what those quotes are meant to prove, doesn't change the fact that UK could have left EU at any stage they wanted to by initiating a Hard Brexit.

Moving on from this line of questioning though cause talking about Brexit is off topic for this thread and not even the comparison between European Union/United States of America is really on-topic because it makes absolutely zero sense and isn't similar at all.

So I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about, but I make a few more strong points based on timeline points and quotes like you did, about the EU and UK, from the same source, and all of the sudden you have no idea how it relates and think we should just move on because it's off topic? Convenient timing this far in, wouldn't you say?

Don't have a clue what you're saying at this stage, Lol.

That's starting to become clearer the more you realize what you think I don't know.

No comment.

I'm sure just a quick google search could've brought it up. Not this time?

Thanks...I think I know what people are though, doesn't change anything, a small minority believe in flat Earth, it doesn't make it true, a small minority want their State to secede, it won't happen.

Unfortunate to know that just because some people are minorities that their thoughts don't matter. Just because people are in a small group shouldn't mean they get disregarded and forgotten. Yet I've been told I'm wrong a lot here, so maybe that's another one you can chalk up?

Who assumes any country is perfect? You mentioned the outcome, which I had touched on and thought the same.

I don't automatically believe everything I see from sources who tend to always show and say the same things. Not just as to Ukraine. For three years the media talked about an investigation constantly and what it would lead to, which most of it was wrong and didn't turn out anywhere near what was expected as per the coverage. Trying to put it all together and hoping for a certain ending aren't the same and don't guarantee the outcome for Ukraine.