Ukraine

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1496285263684849665?s=20&t=ku8MW8ZsnBxNmS4gSpzM8w

There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions  away from being close to scalable.

Sweden has successfully begun a transition to a low-carbon energy system, reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from 1990 to 2014 and by more than 40% since the mid-1970s. In terms of energy for heating, the share of fossil fuels is now below 5%. This has been achieved by removing oil and other fossil fuels for heating in both detached homes and blocks of flats over the past 50 years. Fossil fuel energy has been replaced by both district heating and electricity through resistive heating and heat pumps, which provide up to 75% of the energy demand for heating in buildings.

Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1496285263684849665?s=20&t=ku8MW8ZsnBxNmS4gSpzM8w

There are no workable alternatives for heat in a cold climate, and barely existing alternatives for energy. Solar and wind are fine for one house out of ten but decades and trillions  away from being close to scalable.

Sweden has successfully begun a transition to a low-carbon energy system, reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 24% from 1990 to 2014 and by more than 40% since the mid-1970s. In terms of energy for heating, the share of fossil fuels is now below 5%. This has been achieved by removing oil and other fossil fuels for heating in both detached homes and blocks of flats over the past 50 years. Fossil fuel energy has been replaced by both district heating and electricity through resistive heating and heat pumps, which provide up to 75% of the energy demand for heating in buildings.

Also, would like to point out.. Sweden must be considered having "a cold climate"..?

District heating is scalable in North America?

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

One would guess due to our gross domestic reliance on humming our cars. And it's cheaper to be a net-exporter of overall oil where you can buy imported oil cheaper than what you are selling your own oil for overseas. I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same resources needed to try and prove your point (ala google) can also be your friend in asking a rhetorical question which probably has actual answers which may not agree with the rhetoric.

Again, if a country wanted to actually be energy-independent it would mean going beyond oil.

You guys are quick to jump on anything someone says in here from an opposing viewpoint- it’s exactly why it’s so slimy in this forum.  Everyone quickly laughed at me until they were shown we import millions of barrels of crude from
russia every month when they wrongfully assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about.  

I used google to double check my point, and I stand by my original statement that I would like to see us using our own resources instead of paying Russia every month to fuel their insanity.

do our sanctions involve no longer buying these barrels? Or are we continuing to send Russian companies 30 million a month while sanctioning them?

At this point,  I don't believe we have cut that. But we will run those sanctions through the EU and other countries so no one is buying Russian oil.  

I didn't think anyone laughed.  Russia supplies 10% of oil and gas.  The point I was making was that we have no governmental production constraints. So yes,  energy will increase in price during this war. But I don't think that's too much to ask from selfish Americans.  

I believe this to be correct if we were in normal times.  But with a growing inflation rate, millions of people without jobs, an insane housing market that is growing more unaffordable by the year, Auto prices through the roof, supply chain issues and a pandemic, I don't think this holds.  Wouldn't an increase in energy prices lead to even more inflation with the already weakened buying power of the proletariat?

Are times really tough compared to history?  I don’t buy that.  Anyone that wants a job can get one. It’s impossible to find help today.  That’s no joke.  I don’t know where the workforce disappeared to, but it’s thin pickings.  

Regardless, there’s zero chance that Putins desire to rebuild the Soviet Union ends with two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine.  He needs to be checked now and the West is united.

Getting a job doesn't equal making a living or making ends meet. Luckily we are seeing wages being raised in hopes to draw more candidates.  With prices rising due to inflation and market manipulation a lot of the wage gain is meaningless.  Sure we are better off than other points in history, so what?  Is Ukraine better off than compared to a historical point? Well then we might as well not do anything... That is the same kind of taking point that the right will use to justify holding back civil rights, stifling unionization etc.  My point is that if the price of gas and other goods goes up at a higher rate than it is currently due to Ukranian conflicts and the US hand in it, there will not be broad based support for further action.  

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when RUssia was the enemy?

Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.

ZWho is defending Russia in this?

Tucker 
Rod Dreher
Trump

You want the pro Russia view from an American, read Dreher.  He's not a nobody.  He has been extolling Hungary for a few years and that's what led Tucker there.  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/putin-war-ukraine-russia-ours/

I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia. 

I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia.
Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine  though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.  Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted.  Is that not pro-Russia?

Now read this:  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-america-gain-nothing-from-starting-war-russia

Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin. 

For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. 

That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."

I couldn’t read your quote from Owens. 

That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for.
I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”

Fox News posted this 5 hours ago. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hate-putin-americans-suffer

How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent? 

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when RUssia was the enemy?

Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.

ZWho is defending Russia in this?

Tucker 
Rod Dreher
Trump

You want the pro Russia view from an American, read Dreher.  He's not a nobody.  He has been extolling Hungary for a few years and that's what led Tucker there.  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/putin-war-ukraine-russia-ours/

I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia. 

I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia.
Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine  though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.  Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted.  Is that not pro-Russia?

Now read this:  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-america-gain-nothing-from-starting-war-russia

Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin. 

For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. 

That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."

I couldn’t read your quote from Owens. 

That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for.
I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”

Fox News posted this 5 hours ago. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hate-putin-americans-suffer

How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent? 

That still comes across to me as indifferent and why should we care more than being pro-Russia. I disagree, we should care.
But even if you’re right, and Tucker is all pro-Russia invading and taking Ukraine, my point was I don’t know any Americans who feel that way.
I should have responded by asking who is a QtRumplican? Because Bentley said QtRumplicans like Russia now. That word gets thrown around a lot and often I see it as meaning anyone who voted for trump, or is Republican, or sometimes even simply not a Biden supporter. But in any case, covers tens of millions of Americans.
I see a lot of people arguing why we should care about Ukraine, but I don’t personally know a single person who doesn’t and isn’t worried about what can happen. And if that many people really didn’t care, we all would know quite a few.

If that comes across to you as indifferent, your mental gymnastics are impressive AF. 

He literally says what do Americans have to gain with a war from Russia. You don’t need any mental gymnastics to conclude Tucker only wants to act if it benefits America/him. Just need to read or listen to what he says.
He only cares about America and himself, not Russia or Ukraine. No kind of gymnastics, physical or mental, required.

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

Remember when RUssia was the enemy?

Now the QtRUmplicans led by the likes of the former guy and tuQer Qarlson are tripping all over themselves to defend RUssia and denigrate President Joe Biden.

ZWho is defending Russia in this?

Tucker 
Rod Dreher
Trump

You want the pro Russia view from an American, read Dreher.  He's not a nobody.  He has been extolling Hungary for a few years and that's what led Tucker there.  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/putin-war-ukraine-russia-ours/

I haven’t seen Tucker or Trump say anything pro-Russia. Tucker has been critical of Biden’s response, but that’s not the same as defending Russia. 

I haven’t heard anything in the last few weeks from Trump, but his stance has always been Putin wouldn’t try stuff like this if he was president. Believe him or not, that’s not the same as defending Russia.
Havent read Dreher, but I will later. I doubt he is pro Russia invading Ukraine  though. Probably just critical of the response or saying we should stay out of it, which is not the same as defending Russia.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.  Read the tweet from Candace Owens that I posted.  Is that not pro-Russia?

Now read this:  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-america-gain-nothing-from-starting-war-russia

Read it all if you want the view straight from the Kremlin. 

For Russia, the core question is NATO. NATO is the post-war military alliance created in 1949 to keep the Soviets from invading Western Europe. And it worked pretty well for about 40 years. The Soviet Union has not existed in more than three decades; it’s part of history now. And yet NATO very much lives on, better funded than ever. It’s an army without a purpose. So at this point, NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe. Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. 

That’s why he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO. And that makes sense. Imagine how we would feel if Mexico and Canada became satellites of China. We wouldn’t like that at all. In Russia’s case, this is an existential question. A NATO takeover of Ukraine would compromise Russia’s access to its Sevastopol Naval Base – that’s the site of the Russia Black Sea’s fleet and one of the country’s only connections to international waters. In the words of Russia scholar Richard Sakwa, if Russia lost the Sevastopol Naval Base, it would be "the biggest military geopolitical defeat of Russia in the last thousand years."

I couldn’t read your quote from Owens. 

That quote from Tucker was from December, so obviously not about the current invasion. I haven’t seen him support this invasion. His stance is pretty much why should we care, how will helping Ukraine help America? And if Trump was president Putin wouldn’t be doing this. And this is what Ukraine paid Hunter for.
I don’t agree with any of those points. But again, it’s not supporting the invasion or current situation. His stance is I don’t care, not “go Russia!”

Fox News posted this 5 hours ago. 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-hate-putin-americans-suffer

How is this rationalization any different than what would be expected of a confirmed Russian agent? 

That still comes across to me as indifferent and why should we care more than being pro-Russia. I disagree, we should care.
But even if you’re right, and Tucker is all pro-Russia invading and taking Ukraine, my point was I don’t know any Americans who feel that way.
I should have responded by asking who is a QtRumplican? Because Bentley said QtRumplicans like Russia now. That word gets thrown around a lot and often I see it as meaning anyone who voted for trump, or is Republican, or sometimes even simply not a Biden supporter. But in any case, covers tens of millions of Americans.
I see a lot of people arguing why we should care about Ukraine, but I don’t personally know a single person who doesn’t and isn’t worried about what can happen. And if that many people really didn’t care, we all would know quite a few.

If that comes across to you as indifferent, your mental gymnastics are impressive AF. 

He literally says what do Americans have to gain with a war from Russia. You don’t need any mental gymnastics to conclude Tucker only wants to act if it benefits America/him. Just need to read or listen to what he says.
He only cares about America and himself, not Russia or Ukraine. No kind of gymnastics, physical or mental, required.

You believe Tucker Carlson cares about America? 

That's precious.