Miscellaneous News

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Trading Ukraine for Russia is fine but trading EU for Russia isn't. So no, the US can't afford to trade Ukraine for Russia. As for Taiwan, the US doesn't care about Taiwan but it cares about containing and destroying China. US views China as its number enemy so Americans would fight to the last Taiwanese.
Trading EU for Russia is totally worth it. Russia is the lynch pin for pressuring China, while lock down any would be European powers like WWII Germany. Besides, EU is not going anywhere. The leadership is controlled from the start.

The alternative is handing Russia to China. Those two have way too much synergy together. Biggest industrialized nation with access to most resource rich nation? Impossible to crack economically. Largest population armed with high tech and high strategic depth? Cant crack militarily either.

Now you look at EU + US, there is no synergy. Both are deindustrialized nations making a living with high tech. Their prosperity is in competition with each other. At best they try a cartel with their technology bloc, but that is a flimsy strategy to say the least.

US + Russia is a much better combo than EU + US. It is even worse when you consider if US don't pick Russia, the alternative of facing China + Russia is even worse.
 
Last edited:

FriedButter

Major
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Denver judge overseeing Trump disqualification case won't recuse over political contribution​

On the first morning of a weeklong hearing to determine if Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible to appear on Colorado's 2024 presidential primary ballot, the judge overseeing the case rejected Trump's request to recuse herself over a $100 political contribution she made prior to taking the bench.

Scott Gessler, an attorney for Trump, "reluctantly" filed a motion on Saturday seeking Denver District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace's recusal. Gessler indicated he only learned on Oct. 27 that, prior to her appointment as a judge, Wallace made a $100 contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project.

"Its website proudly proclaims that the group was formed 'shortly after Colorado Republicans refused to condemn the political extremists who stormed the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,'" Gessler wrote. "A contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project shows support for the view that January 6, 2021, constituted an 'insurrection.'"

One of the key issues in the case is whether Trump is disqualified from seeking the presidency under the 14th Amendment, which bars federal and state officials from holding office if they engaged in an insurrection against the United States.

At the beginning of the hearing on Monday, Wallace denied Trump's motion to recuse, while distancing herself from the Colorado Turnout Project and its views on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

"I do not dispute that on (October 15, 2022), prior to taking the bench, I apparently made a $100 contribution to the Colorado Turnout Project. That being said, prior to yesterday, I was not cognizant of this organization or its mission," she said. "It has always been my practice, whether I was entirely successful or not, to make contributions to individuals, not PACs (political action committees)."

"I can assure all of the litigants that prior to the start of this litigation and to this day, I have formed no opinion whether the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection," Wallace continued, or whether Trump "engaged in an insurrection or, for that matter, any of the issues that need to be decided in this hearing."

She did not address the standard for recusal in the code of judicial conduct, which directs recusal when a judge's impartiality "might reasonably be questioned." The Colorado Supreme Court has held that even if a judge's involvement creates an appearance of impropriety, it will only question the outcome on appeal when there is evidence of actual bias.

Before becoming a judge in January, Wallace was an attorney in private practice. Lawyers for the four Republican and two unaffiliated voters who brought the case defended Wallace's contribution, noting the prohibition on political contributions applies to "a judge or a judicial candidate."

"Judge Wallace was neither a judge nor a judicial candidate on October 15, 2022, when the alleged contribution was made," the attorneys wrote.

However, Gov. Jared Polis announced Wallace's appointment on Aug. 18, 2022, meaning Wallace was aware at the time of her contribution that she would become a judge.

According to the secretary of state's contribution database, Wallace gave several hundred dollars to Democratic candidates in the years prior to her judicial appointment. The recipients included Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who is a party to the case involving Trump's ballot eligibility.

Trump did not take issue with any of those other contributions in his recusal motion. Nor did he contest Wallace's $100 contribution to the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia around the time of her October 2022 contribution.

The hearing is scheduled to continue for the rest of the week. The petitioners are asking Wallace to bar Griswold from placing Trump on next year's ballot under the theory that he stoked an insurrection to disrupt the counting of the 2020 Electoral College votes. Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, he is ineligible to hold office again. Trump's lawyers have defended his behavior as protected under the First Amendment.

So the judge is a democrat donor… overseeing the case to remove Trump from the 2024 president ballot.

What could go wrong?
 

KYli

Brigadier
Trading EU for Russia is totally worth it. Russia is the lynch pin for pressuring China, while lock down any would be European powers like WWII Germany. Besides, EU is not going anywhere. The leadership is controlled from the start.

The alternative is handing Russia to China. Those two have way too much synergy together. Biggest industrialized nation with access to most resource rich nation? Impossible to crack economically. Largest population armed with high tech and high strategic depth? Cant crack militarily either.
US leverage over EU is Russia. US can control EU and NATO by using the threat of Russia. Without Russia, EU would have second thought. The leadership of EU might have been compromised but EU's national interests are not. In international relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

If NATO didn't expand eastward to Russian border, then the US might have a chance to trade Ukraine for Russia and EU might not mind. But it is too late now. EU can't allow Russia to take Ukraine at least not totally as it would threaten central EU and Poland and the Balkan.

China has faced down both Russia and the US during the cold war. If the geopolitical environment is hostile to China, CPC is pragmatic enough to change strategy. China can give up its interests to bide its time. As a nuclear superpower, the US can't do anything to China if China lay low.

In addition, Russia is no longer a conventional threat to China. China doesn't need to station a million army in the North to fend off Russia. Russia to China is an important resource provider and a partner for multi-polar world. China would be fine if Russia decided to jump ship. However, even if the US gave Ukraine to Russia, Russia would probably play both sides.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
There is no solution. Take it from someone who grew up here. Westerners and particularly Americans deeply resent the fact that a nonwhite late-industrializer like China could maintain a strong sense of cultural self-confidence and self-worth that was not totally dependant on western approval. While western states' (and Japan's) hostility towards China has always been driven by cynical geopolitical and trade concerns, the ability of these states to so easily convince their populations to go along with this hostility is because of this racially/technologically motivated resentment of Chinese dignity. There is no fix for this beyond hoping that maybe over the course of generations the prominence of racism in the west will gradually fade.

Incidentally this is also why westerners frequently have a bizarre and kind of perverse fascination with Japan. It is the only nonwhite country to industrialize early and so they are predisposed to thinking of Japan as some kind of exotic clone of themselves.
IMO it's not just how early they industrialize, it's what they did with the industrial power they got. There's a particular brand of imperialism associated with the industrial revolution that has admirers, much moreso than older conquerors and empires.

Old empires incorporated foreigners as full citizens in the imperial framework. A Muslim eunuch of lowest birth like Zheng He could rise to become China's top admiral. Chinese generals weren't just Han, they were Mongol, Korean, etc. The sons of slaves and peasants like Pertinax and Diocletian could rise to become Roman Emperor.

These empires, ironically, were state based, not ethnicity based. Anyone holding the citizenship of the empire was a full member of the empire no matter ethnicity, while even those who are the same ethnicity as the royal family and top ministers but work for a foreign ruler, are barbarians. 华夏入夷狄则夷狄之,夷狄入华夏则华夏之。

Colonial imperialism is very different. It is more akin to the Indian caste system where those born of the wrong ethnicity are the permanent underclass. There was never a Native American minister in the Spanish cabinet nor an Indian in the British Imperial cabinet. It took the dismantling of the British Empire for an Indian to finally rise to the top after 70 years.

Japan is beloved because they're a fellow colonial imperialist power. They see in Japan a version of themselves that they just can't in either a subjugated people or people from an older imperial system. They don't think of themselves as even having the potential to be subjugated so why would they give a shit what they thought? And for the people from the older imperial systems, they're seen as backwards.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
US leverage over EU is Russia. US can control EU and NATO by using the threat of Russia. Without Russia, EU would have second thought. The leadership of EU might have been compromised but EU's national interests are not. In international relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

If NATO didn't expand eastward to Russian border, then the US might have a chance to trade Ukraine for Russia and EU might not mind. But it is too late now. EU can't allow Russia to take Ukraine at least not totally as it would threaten central EU and Poland and the Balkan.

China has faced down both Russia and the US during the cold war. If the geopolitical environment is hostile to China, CPC is pragmatic enough to change strategy. China can give up its interests to bide its time. As a nuclear superpower, the US can't do anything to China if China lay low.

In addition, Russia is no longer a conventional threat to China. China doesn't need to station a million army in the North to fend off Russia. Russia to China is an important resource provider and a partner for multi-polar world. China would be fine if Russia decided to jump ship. However, even if the US gave Ukraine to Russia, Russia would probably play both sides.
Using personal interest can override national interest. US do it all the time.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Skynet is being used as an example to scare people from AI. That's the lie. They don't want China to have its own AI because they want theirs to be in control of China where the real meat and potatoes are which is controlling the daily lives of people feeding only what the US and the West wants everyone to consume only.


OR we are legit having Terminator nightmares because Chinese researchers are doing this…

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

KYli

Brigadier
Using personal interest can override national interest. US do it all the time.
For how long, NATO was formed to deter Russia. If the US allied itself with Russia and allowed Russia to take Ukraine and bought Russians to the doorstep of central Europe and Poland, no amount of whitewashing is enough to convince EU the transatlantic alliance isn't dead. You are talking about EU's existential crisis not some minor nationals interests.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
For how long, NATO was formed to deter Russia. If the US allied itself with Russia and allowed Russia to take Ukraine and bought Russians to the doorstep of central Europe and Poland, no amount of whitewashing is enough to convince EU the transatlantic alliance isn't dead. You are talking about EU's existential crisis not some minor nationals interests.
For as long as people dont overthrow the ruling class.

Hell, Ukrainian ruling class is still selling the country today.
 
Top