Measheimer doesn't see him as anti-establishment. — praxis

Question: John, what's your thought on that. Do you see any difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Answer: No. I like to refer to the Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum.

There's hardly any difference. I actually think the one exception is that former president Trump when he became president in 2017 was bent on beating back the deep state and becoming a different kind of leader on the foreign policy front, but he basically failed.

And he has vowed that if he gets elected this time it will be different and he will beat back the deep state and he will pursue a foreign policy that's fundamentally different than the Republicans and the Democrats have pursued up to now. — Literally the first minutes of the discussion

Alright. Done wasting my time on you. You're obviously here begging for some kind of argument in which you can paint me as a Trump lover. Go take a hike, you lazy child.

Thanks for the tip. I've heard of them, but never actually visited their website. I'm going to check that out.

I simply don't view any of the mainstream news outlets in the Netherlands as trustworthy information brokers. They all seem bought and paid for, and towing the line for some interest or another. That's why I don't really see the point of a 'left/right' distinction.

When I'm talking about 'the establishment', what I'm talking about are for example the foreign policy establishment, aka 'the Blob', the neocons, etc. - the people who run the country regardless of who is president.

My sense is that we're talking past each other, but if you're interested in what I'm talking about here's a lecture by John Measheimer explaining in detail. Relevant timestamps are in the description.

Or if you're looking for something recent, here's a panel discussion with Jeffrey Sachs and Mearsheimer discussing American (geo)politics, the 'uniparty', 'the Blob', etc.

I don't watch US news, so I wouldn't know about that. 'Right-wing' news barely exists in my country. It's mostly establishment-owned, not really 'left-wing' or 'right-wing', just patently bullshit propaganda.

I don't recall ever making the argument that the US establishment controls all news.

All US news being fake news is kind of a given, regardless of whether it's unflattering to Trump or not. European news doesn't do much better either, truth be told.

I should probably have put that differently.

European media exclusively reports negatively on Trump, and that's given me the impression everyone hates his guts. That's the main reason why I feel that he's running against the establishment. He doesn't have any influence in the media in Europe, whereas the US establishment certainly does.

This is unlike you.

A page ago you were arguing an AK can't hit shit at 200m 'because of MOA'. Do you stand by that?

Well, everyone in Washington seems to hate his guts.

I asked about iron sights. Previously I also asked about how you would feel about taking the place of the torso-shaped target in the Type-56 video, since apparently you seem believe 500 yards is outside of effective range.

'Just a nothing burger', mhm.

Anyway, I honestly don't know how you could argue that when you have a video infront of you of a shooter delivering accurate fire at up to 500 yards without a scope with a gun that's not his.

So you understand that firing at a torso-shaped target at 500 yards with iron sights is pretty tough, correct?

You don't understand what MOA is then because a scope doesn't change it. You can aim with a scope all you want, the bullets are simply going all over the place within the MOA. — Benkei

Have you ever touched a gun, ?

Of course I watched it. Seems like a perfectly decent showcase of marksmanship to me, that clearly shows 500 yards is well within the maximum effective range of a Type 56. His shooting is clearly accurate. And that's with iron sights.

Again, say this person were to be given a modern AK platform with a scope and several months to familiarize himself fully with the rifle, would you think it a 'nothing burger' to take the place of the torso-shaped target? Would you say "Oh, don't worry, they can't hit us from here" (which is what you would be saying had you deemed yourself outside of the weapon's maximum effective range).

No, clearly not. You'd be shitting thick bricks.

It's not a trick shot. You see the man in the video do it twice at various ranges in sequence, using a gun without a scope that is not his own.

Say we were to give the man in the video a modern AK with a scope and several months to train with the rifle. Then you get to sit in the place of the 'torso-shaped target' at 500 yards.

Would it count as a nothing burger to you?

PS: I actually found a picture of the rifle he was carrying. Looks more like an SKS than an AK. Almost certainly longer-barreled than a regular AK.

Here's a video of someone taking shots at up to 500 yards with a Type-56, which is a Chinese-made AK variant, using only iron sights.





So yes, definitely within maximum effective range.

400 yards is definitely within maximum effective range for a modern AKM-style rifle.

Whether they staged a hit or groomed an extremist isn't really all that significant. They're capable of both. The idea that enemies of the establishment coincidentally happen to befall bad fates is just about as naive as one can get.

Interesting. In that case the establishment must still be fearing a Trump victory, despite what 'the polls' show. :chin:

If Israel cannot find the culprits and instead sees as its only option to wage a bloody revenge campaign on a civilian population, the answer is obviously 'no'. :brow:

The IDF should have put its own house in order first by properly guarding the border. Instead of leaving the door wide open.

If the IDF and/or the Netanyahu government had taken responsibility for that unthinkable failure, maybe people would have been a bit less eager to vent their anger on Gaza and start massacring, hm?


It reminds me of the Europeans whinging about 'the Russian threat' as they arm Ukraine to the teeth, shun all diplomacy and constantly talk about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.

The world starts becoming awfully threatening if one has an attitude and the foresight of a fruit fly.

Something about glass houses.

Ironically, young people now are having less sex than ever.

An important question we should be asking is why the US is insisting on escalating the war in ways that do nothing to improve Ukraine's position on the battlefield, and are similarly unlikely to hurt Russia in any meaningful way.

It's easy to understand the mechanism the Americans are using here: as Russia inches closer to victory, Moscow will be more and more reluctant to escalate. Conversely, the Americans will be able to provoke Russia in increasingly risky ways.

But why?

It appears they are seeking to raise the threat environment for its own sake.

Perhaps the sole purpose is to placate Kiev without any regard for the threat environment, but my sense is that at this point even Kiev understands that strikes into Russia will do nothing to improve their position in the war.

I don't see how he'd be any better on Israel, [...] — Mikie

Neither do I, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the Biden administration carries responsibility for things going to hell in a handbasket on their watch.

I didn't say there weren't any differences.

I know environmentalism is very important to you. The Biden administration's colossal failures of diplomacy vis-á-vis Ukraine and Israel are very important to me.

Comparing the Trump and Biden presidency, I think there's zero basis to argue that Trump was worse in any meaningful way.

Your choice is between Psychopath A and Psychopath B, and whatever groups of psychopaths they represent.

People may seek to keep Psychopath [Orange] out of the Oval Office, but everyone ought to understand it'd be a pyhrric victory at best.

The US political establishment is still the enemy of all things good and just.

Had I lived in the States, I wouldn't vote. There is no lesser evil. Just different flavors.

Consider traveling to Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Have you ever traveled to Israel, and did it include a trip to the West Bank?

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words - connecting all men to rape, this time through masculinity.

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women. — ToothyMaw

So you're a sexist too.

Great.

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by? — ToothyMaw

People aren't fruit. We don't treat fruit as individuals. We do with people. Kind of proving my point there, buddy.

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people. — ToothyMaw

Which begs the question why you can't stop talking about this feature that apparently doesn't define the groups, but which you chose to name the groups after anyway.

If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist? — ToothyMaw

Mostly this is just a vacuous statement. But yes.

Really what you are implying is "Men are rapists" - strictly speaking true, because some men are indeed rapists.

However, it's your failure to delineate and the insiuation that connects all men to rape that is particularly pernicious.

This is exactly how the worst kinds of propaganda function, by the way.

Yes, I think that must be right; your small brain cannot fathom that to address racism is not racist. — unenlightened

People here are not addressing racism, but perpetuating it.

Sometimes people say things like this so they won't have to take responsibility for social conditions in the society where they live. — T Clark

As I've made clear, I don't live in the US, so my taking of responsibility has nothing to do with it.

You're saying things that are overtly racist, and frankly some of it is just plain weird.

Who are these 'Black People' who apparently form a homogeneous group of needy victims looking to be saved and taken pity on, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?


Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features.

That US identity politics is so rank we could smell it from across the pond. Thankfully though, people here saw through that shit.

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing? — ToothyMaw

Yes, and clearly so.

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise.

Not to mention, it's beyond patronizing.

people living in the United States, who are almost certainly the beneficiaries of slave labor, — ToothyMaw

All people living in the US? Does that include people living in abject poverty? Quantify exactly what benefits you believe they received.

Okay, nobody has unreasonably abstracted anybody in this thread as far as I know. — ToothyMaw

Bullshit. T Clark is clearly insisting on the use of skin color as a means of dividing people into monolithic groups.

Furthermore, the desire to throw these roadblocks [...] — ToothyMaw

Roadblocks, my ass. You're apparently unable to see how problematic this baseline approach to the problem is.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem.

One might have to ask themselves from where this desire comes to view people, rather than as individuals, as inherently part of a non-existent abstraction onto which one has slapped all kinds of nasty labels. The answer is usually pathological in nature.

I live in the Netherlands. :up:

In my opinion, thinking in terms of monolithic 'Black People' and 'White People' is inherently damaging, yes.

That's why I can never quite understand why American politics is so absolutely rife with it.*


*Until I put my cynical hat on and realize polarization is the goal.

We both know a lump sum will solve absolutely nothing. (Nor did any of the better ideas that were thrown at these types of problems)

I don't live in the US, just to be clear.

That's not saying anything. — BitconnectCarlos

Keep clownin', bud.

"B-but Hamas..."

Ehud Barak said it best:

If I was [a Palestinian] at the right age, at some stage I would have entered one of the terror organizations and have fought from there, [...]

If you thought slavery were as deleterious as I say, and had generational effects lasting to today even, would you agree that reparations could be justified? — ToothyMaw

No - a hundred years ago, maybe - and I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. It's not like the US hasn't ran countless programs trying to elevate people out of poverty. At some point people will have to take responsibility for their own lot in life. Tough shit.

If you want something to feel guilty about the US has no shortage of atrocities it has committed in the here and now, and has never so much as apologized for. The victims are often still alive, and usually not doing well. Vietnamese mothers are still giving birth to deformed babies as a result of Uncle Sam's Agent Orange treatment.

Nah. Better ignore all that tangible suffering and instead go on endlessly about something with no clear living perpetrators and victims, so that no shit ever gets done, and if shit ever were to get done it would be a perversion of justice anyway.

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals.

I'm struggling to imagine how massive one's blinders must be to even take this idea seriously.