Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Immanuel Can]

The Democrats had their chance with Sanders (who, incidentally, you dismiss as just another "wealthy socialist").

That's exactly the truthful description of the man. He's a wealthy Socialist. But the Dems don't find him manageable, apparently, because they've never allowed him to the front of the line.

I don't suspect the American public would have voted for Sanders. But he would have posed a much more credible opposition than the candidates they did choose. As you recall, they skipped the primary and had a kind of informal coronation, instead. I think they really believed that, after Biden, the American public could be induced to accept anybody...and Harris was just so controllable, in a way that Bernie never was.

Yes, the Democrats blew it.

That's the point.

However, when the other door people choose clearly demonstrates that it's the worst option,

I don't think we can say that. I think we can say that Harris was no option at all, though.

Sanders was too "socialist" for the red-white-and-blue-blooded "commie" haters.

Rich Socialist, of course. Like so many of the Socialist self-appointed "illumnati," Sanders really seems to believe he's entitled to privileges. It's okay for him to have at least 2.5 millon dollars of private assets, plus a lavish home, plus a lakefront home, plus another home he recently sold...for a radical Socialist, that seems a little lavish, doesn't it?

...according to people like you, "socialists" are all genocidal, autocratic demons that must be avoided at all costs.

That's actually according to history. That's how it's been 100% of the time. No wonder, then, that Harris exhorted us all to forget history and be "unburdened by what has been"; what has been has been a total disaster. She would need us to stop remembering that.

Maybe Trump will turn out to be something worse. That's conceivable, I suppose. But it's hard to beat the record of disasters Socialism has caused, so he's got a ton of work to do before he gets there. At least 140 million killed in the last century alone, and the thefts, the tortures, the gulags, the re-education camps, the death marches, the purges, the killing fields and the complete national economic disasters -- it's going to take him awhile.

I'm not sure 3 years is long enough, and that's all he's got.

So Sanders would have just been a step closer to a Stalinist-style Soviet Union clone? Is that correct?

Where are you thinking you see that said, Gary?

Maybe Trump will turn out to be the next Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Kim Jong, or Castro...or...for all we know. But we do know they all were Socialists. So he'd probably have to go the Socialist route next. Bernie's already on it, but I don't think he's formidable enough to become anybody's dictator. They guy who inherited the role of Socialist leader, once Bernie shuffled off, well, that might be quite a different matter.

[Gary Childress]

That's exactly the truthful description of the man. He's a wealthy Socialist. But the Dems don't find him manageable, apparently, because they've never allowed him to the front of the line.

I don't suspect the American public would have voted for Sanders. But he would have posed a much more credible opposition than the candidates they did choose. As you recall, they skipped the primary and had a kind of informal coronation, instead. I think they really believed that, after Biden, the American public could be induced to accept anybody...and Harris was just so controllable, in a way that Bernie never was.

That's the point.


I don't think we can say that. I think we can say that Harris was no option at all, though.


Rich Socialist, of course. Like so many of the Socialist self-appointed "illumnati," Sanders really seems to believe he's entitled to privileges. It's okay for him to have at least 2.5 millon dollars of private assets, plus a lavish home, plus a lakefront home, plus another home he recently sold...for a radical Socialist, that seems a little lavish, doesn't it?

That's actually according to history. That's how it's been 100% of the time. No wonder, then, that Harris exhorted us all to forget history and be "unburdened by what has been"; what has been has been a total disaster. She would need us to stop remembering that.

Maybe Trump will turn out to be something worse. That's conceivable, I suppose. But it's hard to beat the record of disasters Socialism has caused, so he's got a ton of work to do before he gets there. At least 140 million killed in the last century alone, and the thefts, the tortures, the gulags, the re-education camps, the death marches, the purges, the killing fields and the complete national economic disasters -- it's going to take him awhile.

I'm not sure 3 years is long enough, and that's all he's got.

So Sanders would have just been a step closer to a Stalinist-style Soviet Union clone? Is that correct?

Where are you thinking you see that said, Gary?

Maybe Trump will turn out to be the next Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Kim Jong, or Castro...or...for all we know. But we do know they all were Socialists. So he'd probably have to go the Socialist route next. Bernie's already on it, but I don't think he's formidable enough to become anybody's dictator. They guy who inherited the role of Socialist leader, once Bernie shuffled off, well, that might be quite a different matter.

So starting an unprovoked war is no problem. Harris, on the other hand... Can't have that. And Sanders? OMG! Let's not even think it, lest it come true.

[Immanuel Can]

So starting an unprovoked war is no problem.

Are you meaning Ukraine? The Dems actually provoked that one. Farage told them, in the EU, a dozen years before it started that they had to stop encroaching on Putin, or they'd be inducing him to invade. And he was right. Why, then, was America (and the Bidens in particular) messing around in Ukraine? Why did they push Ukrainian NATO membership, when they knew that Putin would invade?

As for the other war, could it be true, even remotely, that America was on the verge of allowing a totalitarian regime to acquire the means to nuke their allies, and had to act?

It's an honest question. I don't know the answer, and don't pretend to. But if Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear missiles, that does seem to me to be a very serious state of affairs. Does it seem so to you?

[Will Bouwman]

I think she makes a compelling case for her actual thesis.

Well, you've already realized she got the whole derivation of American education thing wrong.

No, that is just you making things up; again, you are delusional. As I have pointed out, her thesis is not that American education derived from any particular piece of legislation, but that legislation has influenced American education in ways that do not encourage critical thinking. You agree with her.

Once again, I commend to you Tocqueville. You'll find his analysis of the American psyche much more balanced and apt, and a whole lot less negative and self-congratulatory.

Tocqueville was writing when America had yet to outlaw slavery, and before women were allowed to vote. Who but a racist misogynist would think that Is the psyche by which we should judge America today?

You'll find his analysis of the American psyche much more balanced and apt, and a whole lot less negative and self-congratulatory. And in addition, almost everybody who is a serious historian or sociologist of America quotes Tocqueville. Sample a bit here, if you like: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... ocqueville

Not my job. If you think there is something in there that supports your argument, cite it. It is not for anyone else to make your case for you.

However, If her analysis satisfies you, then I guess it satisfies you. I don't think you'll find that it satisfies the facts of history, though.

So what are those facts?

[Will Bouwman]

So starting an unprovoked war is no problem.

Are you meaning Ukraine? The Dems actually provoked that one. Farage told them, in the EU, a dozen years before it started that they had to stop encroaching on Putin, or they'd be inducing him to invade.

Do you think Ukraine's foreign policy should be subject to the wishes of Moscow?

[Immanuel Can]

So starting an unprovoked war is no problem.

Are you meaning Ukraine? The Dems actually provoked that one. Farage told them, in the EU, a dozen years before it started that they had to stop encroaching on Putin, or they'd be inducing him to invade.

Do you think Ukraine's foreign policy should be subject to the wishes of Moscow?

No. But I think when you are sitting next to a malevolent giant, you don't start irritating him to make him react. America had no legitimate business in Ukraine, just as Russia does not. Ukraine belongs to Ukrainians, of course.

Does it surprise anybody that when the Dems threatened to bring Ukraine into NATO, right on the border of Russia, that a psycho like Putin reacted? If they didn't see that one coming, then they certainly weren't very bright. But I think they knew.

[Immanuel Can]

I think she makes a compelling case for her actual thesis.

Well, you've already realized she got the whole derivation of American education thing wrong.

No, that is just you making things up

Really? So you're going to go back to the view that America's school system was created in the Prussian-industrialist pattern, even contrary to all the evidence I gave you? Okay, you can do that. It's just not true, though.

Once again, I commend to you Tocqueville. You'll find his analysis of the American psyche much more balanced and apt, and a whole lot less negative and self-congratulatory.

Tocqueville was writing when America had yet to outlaw slavery, and before women were allowed to vote.

The American identity was being formed while Tocqueville was writing. And expert consensus is that he was remarkably perceptive in his analysis, actually.

But you can find that out for yourself, so don't take my word for it.

You'll find his analysis of the American psyche much more balanced and apt, and a whole lot less negative and self-congratulatory. And in addition, almost everybody who is a serious historian or sociologist of America quotes Tocqueville. Sample a bit here, if you like: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... ocqueville

Not my job.

It's very easy reading. If you don't think it's "your job" to find the truth, though, I guess you don't have to.

However, If her analysis satisfies you, then I guess it satisfies you. I don't think you'll find that it satisfies the facts of history, though.

So what are those facts?

I've cited some, such as her errors about educational history, her failure to understand the effect of the American frontier on differences with European psychological patterns, her facile characterizations as if Americans were somehow created of a stuff less "empathetic" or "intellectual," than Europeans, or the rubbish about "systemic" causes (which simply glosses over the question of who creates "systems," why and how) and so on.

But it seems you don't like the facts; and I can't make you like them. All I can do is point them out.

[Will Bouwman]

...I think when you are sitting next to a malevolent giant, you don't start irritating him to make him react.

Well, given that you think Russia is a "malevolent giant", what do you suggest Ukraine should have done?

[Immanuel Can]

...I think when you are sitting next to a malevolent giant, you don't start irritating him to make him react.

Well, given that you think Russia is a "malevolent giant", what do you suggest Ukraine should have done?

It didn't need to do anything. The Dems did everything. Ukraine wasn't invaded before the Dems tried to install a NATO regime on the border of Russia itself. And the Dems knew it was coming. They'd already been warned. They didn't care. They wanted the war; they asked for it, and they got it. The Ukrainians paid the price, as did the Russians; and so did the American taxpayer. Everybody lost, except the politicians.

[mickthinks]

So what are those facts?

… her errors
… her failure to understand
… her facile characterizations
… [she] glosses over the question of …

It seems “fact” is a word Manny misunderstands. Do you think it’s willful? I think it must be willful.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, given that you think Russia is a "malevolent giant", what do you suggest Ukraine should have done?

It didn't need to do anything.

Then in what sense is Russia malevolent?

[Will Bouwman]

It seems “fact” is a word Manny misunderstands. Do you think it’s willful? I think it must be willful.

Dunno. Mr Can talks bollocks. The product is the same whether it results from intent or incompetence. Meself, I think it's the latter.

[Dubious]

...I think when you are sitting next to a malevolent giant, you don't start irritating him to make him react.

Well, given that you think Russia is a "malevolent giant", what do you suggest Ukraine should have done?

It didn't need to do anything. The Dems did everything. Ukraine wasn't invaded before the Dems tried to install a NATO regime on the border of Russia itself. And the Dems knew it was coming. They'd already been warned. [They didn't care. They wanted the war; they asked for it, and they got it. The Ukrainians paid the price, as did the Russians; and so did the American taxpayer. Everybody lost, except the politicians.

Did the Dems, your bête noire, try to install a NATO regime when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 which properly belonged to Ukraine? What was the reason for that. Of course, I forgot, it must have been those super insidious Dems again who caused it compared to the well-meaning, super-patriotic GOP who have done nothing but good for America and its citizens!

Whether straight-up or sitting on your ass, all you do all day is lie, distort and misrepresent...a true cultist and charlatan. That's what you've always been outstanding at starting from your first post. You're a denigration to any site you're on. All those like you whose prejudices re-write fact so consistently should be denoted as a subspecies of the human race.

You're exactly what the world doesn't need but still has too much of.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, given that you think Russia is a "malevolent giant", what do you suggest Ukraine should have done?

It didn't need to do anything. The Dems did everything. Ukraine wasn't invaded before the Dems tried to install a NATO regime on the border of Russia itself. And the Dems knew it was coming. They'd already been warned. [They didn't care. They wanted the war; they asked for it, and they got it. The Ukrainians paid the price, as did the Russians; and so did the American taxpayer. Everybody lost, except the politicians.

Did the Dems...try to install a NATO regime when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 which properly belonged to Ukraine?

How would they go about doing that? Putin had annexed it.

Here's what we know: they knew Putin would attack if they pushed NATO membership. We know that for sure. They'd known it for at least a decade. They pushed it anyway. What does that tell you?

When the Russians tried to install missiles close to American soil, the world nearly went to nuclear war, remember? So exactly what did the Dems NOT know about what was going to happen?

So ask yourself: why did they want it to happen?

[Dubious]

It didn't need to do anything. The Dems did everything. Ukraine wasn't invaded before the Dems tried to install a NATO regime on the border of Russia itself.

Did the Dems...try to install a NATO regime when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 which properly belonged to Ukraine?

Putin had annexed it.

Yes, Putin annexed it. Putin will do what he wants to do, Dems or no Dems.

>>>Putin annexed Crimea for a mix of strategic, political, and nationalist reasons. Crimea hosts Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, so controlling it gave Moscow a major military foothold, and the 2014 upheaval in Kyiv gave Putin a chance to act quickly.

He also framed the move as protecting Russian speakers and stopping Ukraine from moving closer to the West, including NATO and the EU. Many analysts also note the domestic payoff: the annexation boosted Putin’s popularity inside Russia.

Ukraine and most Western countries rejected the annexation as illegal, and Russia used a disputed referendum and unmarked troops to justify the takeover.<<<

And the Dems knew it was coming. They'd already been warned. [They didn't care. They wanted the war; they asked for it, and they got it.

This statement ranks exceptionally high in your index of not only stupid but maliciously so!

No. There’s no evidence that Democrats wanted Russia’s war on Ukraine to happen; their public position was generally to support Ukraine and deter Russian aggression.

What Democrats did support was U.S. aid to Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, and a broader policy of backing Ukraine’s defense and sovereignty. Some Democrats also favored keeping Ukraine on a path toward Western integration, but that is very different from wanting the war itself.

The war was initiated by Russia’s invasion in 2022, which U.S. government and mainstream international sources describe as unprovoked and unlawful.