Ow the edge. You even added an NPC reference at the end, 10/10, real best of Stormfront material there.
Anyways, I don't believe that a New Russia Empire is driving his foreign policy. I STILL don't think he wants the entirety of Ukraine for keeps.
But I'm also prepared to be wrong. Again. It's only my opinion. As I mentioned, I thought he was just posturing in regards to Ukraine to try and leverage what he wanted by the optics he was creating. I thought he'd at most send troops into Donbas to fight Ukranian forces there. I was obviously very wrong. It's easy to look at this in hindsight and say it was obvious he was planning to invade all along but I'm not sure he had determined to pull the trigger until the very end, waiting to see what the response was.
Putin very clearly believes that Ukraine does not have the right to exist as a sovereign nation and that the only reason it does is because of Western interference with Russia, which dovetails nicely with his hatred of the West, Western values and NATO. He'll do as much as he can get away with.
Putin very clearly believes that Ukraine does not have the right to exist as a sovereign nation and that the only reason it does is because of Western interference with Russia, which dovetails nicely with his hatred of the West, Western values and NATO. He'll do as much as he can get away with.
Nice try. You implied it by referencing stormfront and linking my post to it. Methinks you are full of shit? Nazis love satire? References to robots? Feel free to clarify and contextualize. Calling someone a nazi and saying 'this sounds like what a nazi would say/love' is pretty much a distinction without a difference. You're going full Godwin's Law in an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism via ad hominem/character assassination. Very transparent, clone.
Whataboutism isn't applicable in cases of obvious hypocrisy. Search my posts about 'whataboutism' - talk about the overuse and misapplication of terms....
A spade is a spade. You guys are completely predictable (as the useful idiots you are). Replete with allusions to nazis, who could have seen that one coming?
Let's see, my bingo card is pretty full:
- denialism
- projection
- 'whataboutism' buzzword used
- reference to being a Putin shill
Nice try. You implied it by referencing stormfront and linking my post to it. Methinks you are full of shit? Nazis love satire? References to robots? Feel free to clarify and contextualize.
You use an NPC meme straight out of /pol/, people will end up drawing associations.
Calling someone a nazi and saying 'this sounds like what a nazi would say/love' is pretty much a distinction without a difference. You're going full Godwin's Law in an attempt to shut down legitimate criticism via ad hominem/character assassination. Very transparent, clone.
Considering your original post was about mocking someone's opinion, you haven't a leg to stand on.
Whataboutism isn't applicable in cases of obvious hypocrisy. Search my posts about 'whataboutism' - talk about the overuse and misapplication of terms....
Tell me you read the Federalist without telling me you read the Federalist.
A spade is a spade. You guys are completely predictable (as the useful idiots you are). Replete with allusions to nazis, who could have seen that one coming?
Earlier this week, a video clip surfaced in which Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said, in the context of talking about sanctions on Iran, that “Leading up to World War II, we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily.” Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post reported on the...
www.aei.org
This claims sanctions did not provoke the pearl harbor attack.
Truth? russian 4d chess to get ukraine to get confident? Makes sense with russia's economy being at its best closer to mexicos than an actual world power. And how hilarious would it be that putin is outed as a moron as a room temperature iq orange clown like trump calls him a genius and throws him praises? *sight* we are all dying in fireballs in a week.
I said "prorgrammable" and predictable (as conversing with you proves out). If you draw comparisons to NPC memes that's on you. Sometimes something is as simple as being what it is, in this case the absolute unanimity and predictableness of your post verbiage and responses to issues. One of which is allusions to nazis.
I wasn't aware nazis were the only ones willing to make references to other people acting cult-like, or robotic. Please - tell me more about how unique your opinion is and how it is entirely your own, as opposed to informed and predictable. **Beep Boop! Sounds like a Nazi! Beep Boop!**
His response was deserving of ridicule (see: your beloved Rules for Radicals). That's YOUR playbook (or those you act as an apologist for at the very least). Although it was honestly laughable in of itself and on its face - he actually did exactly the same thing - virtue-signal - that he sought to suggest is an invalid claim against him. Go read it again about how virtuous he is - to the point of pointing out when others need to be called out!
Talk about having self-awareness (while attempting to categorize self as having more awareness than the next guy) at Absolute Zero levels. Say nothing of how he took a post that had nothing to do with him as a person and made it into a personal diatribe about how virtuous he is - add 'self-centered' to the list as well. And you liking his post says all I need to know about you as well.
Regardless, I didn't stop short of JUST using ad hominem, I made sure to use satire to explain WHY my position is what it is. You're posts are the equivalent of walking in the room, shitting in it, and leaving. Nothing substantive at all.
Tell me you didn't find my posts on 'whataboutism' without... ah, meh, that fucking meme-phrase is *also* way over-used. So, good job on the hot takes!
I even quoted a progressive, the reference found in a Al Jazeera article (re: whataboutism). I'm more than happy for you to associate me with whatever you need to do to feel like you're morally or intellectually superior however. You know, instead of addressing what I'm actually saying. This is the same as disregarding a source because you don't like it (see your buddy doing the same above) without actually addressing the content. It's lazy and uninspired, and I'm not surprised considering my only other interaction with you is from your lazy and uninspired ToG posts. It seems a theme, par for the course.
Nice attempt at "you're the type to read ______, therefor your opinion is invalid" though.
Can I just say you must read Vox or Rolling Stone or (insert rag here) instead of just calling you an uninformed idiot? Is that how it works? Your buddy has already tried that with me attempting to use Fox News and InfoWars. I gather my news from a much wider and broader-spectrum variety of sources, thanks.
I said Ukraine is "run" by Nazis? I don't think words mean what you seem to think they mean (yet another recurring theme with you guys... sorry, xirs?). Ukraine has a Nazi problem, that's a fact, you're welcome to challenge it. I'm on record here explaining that they are firmly cemented into the Ukrainian forces and were allowed to function and even relied upon during the so-called 'color revolution' - the same as the US utilizing actual terrorists (AQ) in Syria, or training/funding ISIS fighters as a means to an end. That's a far cry from saying the country - with a Jewish leader and PM to boot - is "run" by Nazis from the top-down through and through.
But, purposefully misconstruing my position (straw man arise!) is nothing new here by you and your buddies.
The US has been imposing sanctions of various varieties on Russia since the 70's - a soft continuation of the cold-war into the modern era. I'm not speaking about their merit or lack thereof - God forbid I might get called a Putin stooge! - but that is the facts. They have varying degrees of names and severity, and are/were imposed for various reasons.
Sanctions seem to precede war, and never seem to actually change the target's actions militarily (I can't seem to find any example of successful sanctions that stopped military action). Many see them as an act of war in of themselves. Remember Albright and her complete lack of care when asked about the 100's of thousands dead, many children, and the functionality of sanctions imposed by us in the ME? Sanctions affect not only the government, but the innocent civilians more.
Truth? russian 4d chess to get ukraine to get confident? Makes sense with russia's economy being at its best closer to mexicos than an actual world power. And how hilarious would it be that putin is outed as a moron as a room temperature iq orange clown like trump calls him a genius and throws him praises? *sight* we are all dying in fireballs in a week.
I can't imagine a scenario, short of brain-rot, where Putin isn't aware that actual occupation isn't multiples of degrees harder than the initial strike of hard military targets.
- He has to know his country's own history in Afghanistan as a warning to getting bogged down in empire
- And our more recent issues in Afghanistan
- And how easy it was for the US to declare victory in Iraq (Mission Accomplished!) with our shock and awe attacks (this feels very similar), yet when it comes to ACTUAL door-to-door occupation things get messy and protracted
- And that Slavs are hardened and used to fighting and entrenching the populace
- And that there is a majority of anti-Russian sentiment particularly in the Western 2/3's of the country
soooo, I don't think he thinks Ukrainian occupation OR total annexation is a walk in the park. Another reason he would seek to discuss an armistice, and again why I don't believe he seeks to 'take' all of Ukraine as opposed to stopping at Donbas in whatever form that takes.
He did after all pull out of Georgia after overextending the war theater there after 'securing' or 'freeing' a Russian-esque ethnic enclave in a very similar situation to the Donets Basin or Crimea.
So there's precedent for him withdrawing troops and not taking the entire country and keeping it very regional as the end goal (LPR/DPR).
but but but but 'Putin is just trying to recreate the former Soviet Union!'
I said "prorgrammable" and predictable (as conversing with you proves out). If you draw comparisons to NPC memes that's on you. Sometimes something is as simple as being what it is, in this case the absolute unanimity and predictableness of your post verbiage and responses to issues. One of which is allusions to nazis.
I wasn't aware nazis were the only ones willing to make references to other people acting cult-like, or robotic. Please - tell me more about how unique your opinion is and how it is entirely your own, as opposed to informed and predictable. **Beep Boop! Sounds like a Nazi! Beep Boop!**
Oh, is this the part where you say you weren't using the meme you were using as if the first part of your post wasn't straight out of the right wing playbook? Cool, cool.
His response was deserving of ridicule (see: your beloved Rules for Radicals). That's YOUR playbook (or those you act as an apologist for at the very least). Although it was honestly laughable in of itself and on its face - he actually did exactly the same thing - virtue-signal - that he sought to suggest is an invalid claim against him. Go read it again about how virtuous he is - to the point of pointing out when others need to be called out!
The fact that you actually believe any opinion that disagrees with you is virtue signalling - a phrase that your ilk has rendered virtually meaningless and that you think this is some great gotcha is well, I'd like to say sad, but pretty bog standard, really.
I'm more than happy for you to associate me with whatever you need to do to feel like you're morally or intellectually superior however.
Lmao, I don't even know you, so why would need to feel morally or intellectually superior to you? I dunno why you right wing folks always seem to feel any pushback on your ideas is part of some mad scheme to deperson you or something.
It's lazy and uninspired, and I'm not surprised considering my only other interaction with you is from your lazy and uninspired ToG posts. It seems a theme, par for the course.
So, you accuse someone of calling you a Nazi then segue that into a post about how Nazis in Ukraine and I'm supposed to believe this is unrelated to Putin's mad screed about the same, even though you're here caping for him? Sure ,fine.
I don't think words mean what you seem to think they mean (yet another recurring theme with you guys... sorry, xirs?). Ukraine has a Nazi problem, that's a fact, you're welcome to challenge it. I'm on record here explaining that they are firmly cemented into the Ukrainian forces and were allowed to function and even relied upon during the so-called 'color revolution' - the same as the US utilizing actual terrorists (AQ) in Syria, or training/funding ISIS fighters as a means to an end. That's a far cry from saying the country - with a Jewish leader and PM to boot - is "run" by Nazis from the top-down through and through.
Oh, is this the part where you say you weren't using the meme you were using as if the first part of your post wasn't straight out of the right wing playbook? Cool, cool.
Wait - calling an obvious hypocrite without self-awareness a hypocrite is a proprietary 'right-wing' tactic? Does this then mean by implication leftards (OMG BUZZWORD) can *not* call someone a hypocrite or point out their opponents, when applicable (rarely), as being those very things? I realize words and concepts have become politicized and policed to death (mostly by those left of center), but damn. What other landmines should I avoid?
The fact that you actually believe any opinion that disagrees with you is virtue signalling - a phrase that your ilk has rendered virtually meaningless and that you think this is some great gotcha is well, I'd like to say sad, but pretty bog standard, really.
"Fact" lol. Another term that's lost all meaning thanks to you. I think I'm more qualified to speak on what qualifies as a fact in reference to my beliefs than you are, and that claim is in fact... not a fact. I do however think actual held beliefs (however formed or informed) can be presented in a fashion to signal said belief of being virtuous. Is there anyone that doesn't think their beliefs are virtuous for that matter?
I didn't speak to his opinions on anything but HIMSELF (which is, you know, what he was talking about hilariously enough), and as such virtue-signalling is 100% relevant. He opened the door to that conversation - in more ways than one. Or do you think the very concept of virtue-signalling is impossible for you and your bros?
Lmao, I don't even know you, so why would need to feel morally or intellectually superior to you? I dunno why you right wing folks always seem to feel any pushback on your ideas is part of some mad scheme to deperson you or something.
Well, that's *exactly what you did* by attempting to pigeon-hole my sources (and thus the quality of my argument) based on nothing but assumption (in one of the most played out meme-phrase format btw - further irony for people complaining about shit being played out), so perhaps go find a mirror and ask yourself that? As opposed to, you know, discussing the merits of whataboutism which was the context of my quote.
Hilarious. Pick ANY metric for posts in that sub - threads created, word count, theories offered, post likes, source-material citations... literally any metric you'd like. Then, try to make the argument that my posts are lazier or more uninspired relative to yours. I'll wait.
So, you accuse someone of calling you a Nazi then segue that into a post about how Nazis in Ukraine and I'm supposed to believe this is unrelated to Putin's mad screed about the same, even though you're here caping for him? Sure ,fine.
This is what happened, since you're being dense on the chronology of it all:
you: Beep! Sounds like something a Nazi would say! Boop!
me: well, that's not me, but that's sure a predictable response from one of you... Nazis are everywhere, under every rock, in every cloud formation, but when it comes to Ukraine where they are absolutely relevant to current events it sure seems like the left is silent on this aspect of the invasion in an effort to paint this as 100% black and white (it's not)
you: I GOT YOU! DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!
...
me: *clarifies position* *reiterates relevance and previous posts*
you: you're "caping" for Putin! (zero explanation of how or why - more shitting in the room)
Again, if clarifying my position so as not to allow you to take my posts on (actual) Nazis out of context is a crime then I'm condemned. That's probably the least of my crimes judged by the arbiters on the left.
Would you like to attempt to address what I *have* said about Nazis in Ukraine, rather than what I have not? Care to quote me where I've said or implied Ukraine is "run" by Nazis, or will you walk that back as fallacious and be done with this waste of time?
In before the newest 'babies pulled out of incubators' by posting about Putin's 'kill list for gays'... come on, one of you had to have at least read and bought this one. Anyone?
I wish I could see the 'I stand with Ukraine' flag filters on your socials, but I know they are there right along with your pronouns.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Let's see... crickets, attacking the source, or a well-thought-out response to the article? If past performance is any indicator, I'm going with one of the first two options, but leave the door open for hope:
Whatever we may think of Putin, he is no Stalin. He has not murdered millions or created a gulag archipelago. Nor is he “irrational,” as some pundits rail. He does not want a war with u…
buchanan.org
"When Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanded that the U.S. rule out Ukraine as a future member of the NATO alliance, the U.S. archly replied: NATO has an open-door policy. Any nation, including Ukraine, may apply for membership and be admitted. We’re not changing that.
In the Bucharest declaration of 2008, NATO had put Ukraine and Georgia, ever farther east in the Caucasus, on a path to membership in NATO and coverage under Article 5 of the treaty, which declares that an attack on any one member is an attack on all.
Unable to get a satisfactory answer to his demand, Putin invaded and settled the issue. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will become members of NATO. To prevent that, Russia will go to war, as Russia did last night.
Putin did exactly what he had warned us he would do.
Whatever the character of the Russian president, now being hotly debated here in the USA, he has established his credibility.
When Putin warns that he will do something, he does it.
Thirty-six hours into this Russia-Ukraine war, potentially the worst in Europe since 1945, two questions need to be answered:
How did we get here? And where do we go from here?
How did we get to where Russia — believing its back is against a wall and the United States, by moving NATO ever closer, put it there — reached a point where it chose war with Ukraine rather than accepting the fate and future it believes the West has in store for Mother Russia?
Consider. Between 1989 and 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev let the Berlin Wall be pulled down, Germany be reunited and all the “captive nations” of Eastern Europe go free.
Having collapsed the Soviet empire, Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union to dissolve itself into 15 independent nations. Communism was allowed to expire as the ruling ideology of Russia, the land where Leninism and Bolshevism first took root in 1917.
Gorbachev called off the Cold War in Europe by removing all of the causes on Moscow’s side of the historic divide.
Putin, a former KGB colonel, came to power in 1999 after the disastrous decadelong rule of Boris Yeltsin, who ran Russia into the ground.
In that year, 1999, Putin watched as America conducted a 78-day bombing campaign on Serbia, the Balkan nation that had historically been a protectorate of Mother Russia.
That year, also, three former Warsaw Pact nations, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, were brought into NATO.
Against whom were these countries to be protected by U.S. arms and the NATO alliance, the question was fairly asked.
The question seemed to be answered fully in 2004, when Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria were admitted into NATO, a grouping that included three former republics of the USSR itself, as well as three more former Warsaw Pact nations.
Then, in 2008, came the Bucharest declaration that put Georgia and Ukraine, both bordering on Russia, on a path to NATO membership.
Georgia, the same year, attacked its seceded province of South Ossetia, where Russian troops were acting as peacekeepers, killing some.
This triggered a Putin counterattack through the Roki Tunnel in North Ossetia that liberated South Ossetia and moved into Georgia all the way to Gori, the birthplace of Stalin. George W. Bush, who had pledged “to end tyranny in our world,” did nothing. After briefly occupying part of Georgia, the Russians departed but stayed as protectors of the South Ossetians.
The U.S. establishment has declared this to have been a Russian war of aggression, but an EU investigation blamed Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for starting the war.
In 2014, a democratically elected pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown in Kyiv and replaced by a pro-Western regime. Rather than lose Sevastopol, Russia’s historic naval base in Crimea, Putin seized the peninsula and declared it Russian territory.
Teddy Roosevelt stole Panama with similar remorse.
Which brings us to today.
Whatever we may think of Putin, he is no Stalin. He has not murdered millions or created a gulag archipelago.
Nor is he “irrational,” as some pundits rail. He does not want a war with us, which would be worse than ruinous to us both.
Putin is a Russian nationalist, patriot, traditionalist and a cold and ruthless realist looking out to preserve Russia as the great and respected power it once was and he believes it can be again.
But it cannot be that if NATO expansion does not stop or if its sister state of Ukraine becomes part of a military alliance whose proudest boast is that it won the Cold War against the nation Putin has served all his life.
President Joe Biden almost hourly promises, “We are not going to war in Ukraine.” Why would he then not readily rule out NATO membership for Ukraine, which would require us to do something Biden himself says we Americans, for our own survival, should never do: go to war with Russia?"
Earlier this week, a video clip surfaced in which Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said, in the context of talking about sanctions on Iran, that “Leading up to World War II, we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily.” Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post reported on the...
www.aei.org
This claims sanctions did not provoke the pearl harbor attack.
From what I've read about this, Japan was warned not to do stuff, but did it anyway so USA blocked essential supplies, which then made the Japanese retaliate with attacking Pearl Harbor.
And highly doubt it, since Russia did not attack USA the way Japan did.
Most of his posts are about mocking others, but when others mock him or something, he gets upset and cries.
From what I've read about this, Japan was warned not to do stuff, but did it anyway so USA blocked essential supplies, which then made the Japanese retaliate with attacking Pearl Harbor.
And highly doubt it, since Russia did not attack USA the way Japan did.
Wait - calling an obvious hypocrite without self-awareness a hypocrite is a proprietary 'right-wing' tactic? Does this then mean by implication leftards (OMG BUZZWORD) can *not* call someone a hypocrite or point out their opponents, when applicable (rarely), as being those very things? I realize words and concepts have become politicized and policed to death (mostly by those left of center), but damn. What other landmines should I avoid?
Putting aside the facile nature of your argument- the fact that you use SJW as if it's some serious take that is telling- I would wonder about your standards for what is hypocrisy.
"Fact" lol. Another term that's lost all meaning thanks to you.
The speed at which you and yours are willing to label anything contrary to your belief system as virtue signalling is the issue.
Well, that's *exactly what you did* by attempting to pigeon-hole my sources (and thus the quality of my argument) based on nothing but assumption (in one of the most played out meme-phrase format btw - further irony for people complaining about shit being played out), so perhaps go find a mirror and ask yourself that? As opposed to, you know, discussing the merits of whataboutism which was the context of my quote.
One joke I made about how your whole talking point is straight out of a shitty Federalist article is pigeonholing all your arguments. I'm on a real roll today.
Hilarious. Pick ANY metric for posts in that sub - threads created, word count, theories offered, post likes, source-material citations... literally any metric you'd like. Then, try to make the argument that my posts are lazier or more uninspired relative to yours. I'll wait.
Dunno why you're turning this into a competition since I barely post there and mostly lurk. There are posters there who do come out with some interesting arguments beyond more power level nonsense and I wouldn't call you one of them, which is why I found you suddenly acting as if you're the arbiter of quality amusing.
This is what happened, since you're being dense on the chronology of it all:
you: Beep! Sounds like something a Nazi would say! Boop!
me: well, that's not me, but that's sure a predictable response from one of you... Nazis are everywhere, under every rock, in every cloud formation, but when it comes to Ukraine where they are absolutely relevant to current events it sure seems like the left is silent on this aspect of the invasion in an effort to paint this as 100% black and white (it's not)
you: I GOT YOU! DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH!
...
me: *clarifies position* *reiterates relevance and previous posts*
you: you're "caping" for Putin! (zero explanation of how or why - more shitting in the room)
Even if I was to agree with your assertion on the presence of Nazis in the Ukrainian military and during the revolution ( a claim which I would say has some truth but is wildly exaggerated by Moscow for their own purposes) it is not germane to the current situation other than Putin's mad justifications for his actions and so yes, I do take you acting as if it was caping for Putin
It was even less germane to the conversation we were having, but you decided to plop it in anyways because you can't seem to go 5 minutes without mentioning it.
Would you like to attempt to address what I *have* said about Nazis in Ukraine, rather than what I have not? Care to quote me where I've said or implied Ukraine is "run" by Nazis, or will you walk that back as fallacious and be done with this waste of time?
Your argument does not exist in a vacuum. If it was any other time it might but in this situation you are only strengthening Putin's justifications for his actions, which is precisely the reason he has been pushing this rhetoric in the first place. The fact that you then call other people useful idiots is the cherry on the irony sundae here.
Progressive, Pro-worker, pro-open border, pro-choice, anti-MIC, (all the things) interviews pro-socialist, gay, vegan, anti-imperial POC on the unreported truths about the Ukrainian crisis. (So stuff it when it comes to biased sources claims)
If you truly want a deeper dive into what isn't being said by the corporate media this is worth a listen.
Putting aside the facile nature of your argument- the fact that you use SJW as if it's some serious take that is telling- I would wonder about your standards for what is hypocrisy.
With a couple posts on a lone forums I was able to dismantle the entire concept of what is factual or not?! Damn I'm mighty.
The speed at which you and yours are willing to label anything contrary to your belief system as virtue signalling is the issue.
One joke I made about how your whole talking point is straight out of a shitty Federalist article is pigeonholing all your arguments. I'm on a real roll today.
Dunno why you're turning this into a competition since I barely post there and mostly lurk. There are posters there who do come out with some interesting arguments beyond more power level nonsense and I wouldn't call you one of them, which is why I found you suddenly acting as if you're the arbiter of quality amusing.
Even if I was to agree with your assertion on the presence of Nazis in the Ukrainian military and during the revolution ( a claim which I would say has some truth but is wildly exaggerated by Moscow for their own purposes) it is not germane to the current situation other than Putin's mad justifications for his actions and so yes, I do take you acting as if it was caping for Putin
It was even less germane to the conversation we were having, but you decided to plop it in anyways because you can't seem to go 5 minutes without mentioning it.
Your argument does not exist in a vacuum. If it was any other time it might but in this situation you are only strengthening Putin's justifications for his actions, which is precisely the reason he has been pushing this rhetoric in the first place. The fact that you then call other people useful idiots in the cherry on the irony cake here.
G.O.P. leaders, while condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were silent on comments made by the former president. Some figures on the right amplified them.
G.O.P. leaders, while condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were silent on comments made by the former president. Some figures on the right amplified them.
Glad our taxes go to such righteous freedom fighters! /s
This is exactly what happens in a country like Ukraine, stuck between two superpowers. Reactionaries are armed and sensible people end up confused about who they're supporting. This certainly heavily contrasts with the throngs of westoid morons insistent on romanticizing what's happening.
Glad our taxes go to such righteous freedom fighters! /s
This is exactly what happens in a country like Ukraine, stuck between two superpowers. Reactionaries are armed and sensible people end up confused about who they're supporting. This certainly heavily contrasts with the throngs of westoid morons insistent on romanticizing what's happening.
