I wouldn’t call myself an “expert” on Putin, but it seems I know a lot more about him than you do. That stuff about lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons is typical of him. It has no real meaning; they’ll use nuclear weapons when Putin wants to do so. But not being a complete idiot (though he’s also not the genius his Mar-a-Lago admirer thinks he is), Putin will not use nuclear weapons for the reasons I stated.
No, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Neither is Israel, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of other nations with poor human rights records that we give billions in military aid to. Ukraine postponed its elections because it’s hard to hold elections when you are busy fighting for your survival, but Zelensky was democratically elected, and the country is certainly far more democratic than Russia. What Ukraine also is, is a country that was invaded without justification by a much larger neighbor. US and European weapons sent to Ukraine have indeed “prolonged the war”, but considering the alternative is a Russian victory, which aside from being a bad thing on its own account also sends a message that aggression pays to nations like China, then prolonging the war (and incidentally weakening Russia) is a good result. As for your repeated nonsense about money laundering, I say again, why don’t you complain about all the other hundreds of billions the US spends on both its own military and those of regimes far more questionable than Ukraine’s? The amount that has been spent on Ukraine is only a small part of US military spending.
Incidentally, your guy did not win in a “landslide”. He won the popular vote by less than 2% (not even as much as Hillary won it by in 2016), and when the counting is done, he probably won’t even have a majority (he’s sitting right at 50.0% right now, and most of the late votes are going to Harris).
Possibly, but I think the Chinese government’s initial knee-jerk reaction (cover up all bad news, and punish anyone who objects) meant that the virus would have still had the opportunity to spread widely before anyone was aware of it, and once that happened a significant pandemic was inevitable. My recollection is that in January 2020, when the first cases appeared outside of China, experts in other countries still had little clue what was going on. Even if the CDC had had observers on the ground in Wuhan, they might have been kept in the dark until it was too late. But there’s no question that his disbanding the Epidemic Response Team, among other boneheaded moves, made things a lot worse than they had to be.
I agree that Greta Thunberg is probably a better example to follow than Al Gore, and that having a smooth transition is crucial. However, I do think that that transition could be accomplished fairly quickly if we collectively have the will to make the necessary changes and investments. While it’s not a perfect analogy, the dramatic retooling of the American economy following the US entry into WWII provides an example of what it is possible with sufficient collective effort.
I don’t think it’s a stretch at all. Even in this comment thread, we see people making snide comments about Gore and carbon credits. Sure, there are probably a lot of people who aren’t aware of the Internet thing, but what I’m saying is that when someone makes an “Al Gore said he created the Internet!” comment, there’s a non-zero chance that they are to some degree politically motivated. I can’t prove that, of course, but since Al Gore remains a political figure even now, it still seems to meet that you can’t accuse someone responding to the original comment of “politicizing” the discussion without acknowledging that the original comment itself could be regarded as political, too.
If Phil were really to use one of his song titles as his password, he’d be better off using some obscure recording by Brand X or Flaming Youth, or maybe a Genesis B-side (something like “Naminanu”).
“His lifestyle is incongruent to his message.” So you say. I don’t know that to be the case. But it doesn’t matter, as Gore is just one person among many making the same basic argument. If Gore and some of those other people are imperfect messengers, that doesn’t change the importance of the message. As I said, if we get the right policy changes, no one will be able to engage in those environmentally harmful practices that you imply Gore engages in anyway.
Putin makes a lot of empty threats. Western nations can’t afford to back down every time he hints that he might use nukes. And of course it is possible for Ukraine to win. A victory for Ukraine just means driving the Russians out of their territory; very difficult, but not impossible if the West gives them enough support. Even if Ukraine starts a successful push like that, Putin isn’t going to launch nuclear weapons against them. For one thing, Ukraine is right next to Russia, and effects from such blasts would be felt deep into Russia itself. More importantly, he won’t use nukes for the same reason the Soviet Union didn’t use nukes in any regional wars they engaged in during the Cold War; that would invite the West to retaliate with their own nukes. Even Putin isn’t fool enough to want that.
Interestingly, most of the MAGA politicians who call the money spent helping Ukraine wasteful not only don’t say the same about the much larger amounts spent on aid to Israel, they loudly advocate for the latter. Maybe you should complain about that spending instead.
No idea what point you are trying to make. US leaders have been trying to make peace in the Middle East for decades with limited success. If you are referring to the present conflict, Blinken’s lack of success is mostly because Netanyahu doesn’t want peace and keeps sabotaging potential deals, and Hamas is not particularly eager to make a deal either. Talking to Putin is useless, as he will just make unreasonable demands to be allowed to keep Ukrainian territory. Of course now Putin is about to get his own “stooge” back in the White House, so he may be able to force Ukraine to accept an unfair peace deal.
I haven’t taken time to investigate how much truth there is to the accusations of hypocrisy that anti-environmental types like to lob against Gore, but I suspect they are exaggerated. But even if they aren’t, his personal lifestyle is mostly beside the point; his message is what matters. Global environmental problems like climate change can’t be solved through individual action; they require changes in policy. If the policy changes Gore himself says are necessary are enacted, he will have to reduce or stop any wasteful practices he engages in, but I think he’d be okay with that.
I wouldn’t call myself an “expert” on Putin, but it seems I know a lot more about him than you do. That stuff about lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons is typical of him. It has no real meaning; they’ll use nuclear weapons when Putin wants to do so. But not being a complete idiot (though he’s also not the genius his Mar-a-Lago admirer thinks he is), Putin will not use nuclear weapons for the reasons I stated.
No, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Neither is Israel, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of other nations with poor human rights records that we give billions in military aid to. Ukraine postponed its elections because it’s hard to hold elections when you are busy fighting for your survival, but Zelensky was democratically elected, and the country is certainly far more democratic than Russia. What Ukraine also is, is a country that was invaded without justification by a much larger neighbor. US and European weapons sent to Ukraine have indeed “prolonged the war”, but considering the alternative is a Russian victory, which aside from being a bad thing on its own account also sends a message that aggression pays to nations like China, then prolonging the war (and incidentally weakening Russia) is a good result. As for your repeated nonsense about money laundering, I say again, why don’t you complain about all the other hundreds of billions the US spends on both its own military and those of regimes far more questionable than Ukraine’s? The amount that has been spent on Ukraine is only a small part of US military spending.
Incidentally, your guy did not win in a “landslide”. He won the popular vote by less than 2% (not even as much as Hillary won it by in 2016), and when the counting is done, he probably won’t even have a majority (he’s sitting right at 50.0% right now, and most of the late votes are going to Harris).