Poll - Younger Republicans see Russia as a friend/ally. - Polidicks

most old republicans WOULD view russia negatively. why wouldn't they? the cold war is still fresh in their minds. they grew up on russian spies and air raid drills. it was a time of uncertainty and fear. there's no reason not to be an ally with russia. we don't have to be sleeping together, but it makes sense to do friendly business with them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51863570]eh it's slowly going the way of Russia the way things are now (and has had some big problems for a long time). I wouldn't be so generous here this applies to like half of US history tbh[/QUOTE] It's going the way of Russia but we're not quite to the point of killing reporters who disagree with the government, presidents getting 120% of the vote, or extending term limits just so we can have our favorite be in office forever. I don't disagree with the other part. The US has been a major power for so long that nobody will hold them accountable on blatant atrocities. This is also true for a lot of countries though. [editline]23rd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=mecaguy03;51863576]Im not saying we should ignore everything and be best buds, but its not worth completely shutting them out over these issues either. For one thing their space program is pretty well developed and I think a lot of benefit can come out of international cooperation. I also dont think we should hold a grudge, because just like US politics Russian politics will change over time.[/QUOTE] Russian politics are changing and not for the better, and Russia isn't the only one with a good space program. The US' space program is advanced enough, though underfunded, private space industries are popping up now, and countries like India and China are making huge leaps in space exploration. I'm not saying we should break all contact with them cold war style, but they're not a country we should be overly friendly with.

[QUOTE=TheJoey;51863608]most old republicans WOULD view russia negatively. why wouldn't they? the cold war is still fresh in their minds. they grew up on russian spies and air raid drills. it was a time of uncertainty and fear. there's no reason not to be an ally with russia. we don't have to be sleeping together, but it makes sense to do friendly business with them.[/QUOTE] You mean apart from the fact they're an oligarchy, routinely violate the sovereignty of their surrounding nations, don't even pay passing lip service to human rights, suppress any kind of political opposition and assassinate anyone who Putin basically takes an ill-will to? Well, on those grounds, yes, they sound like the perfect kind of country for the US to endorse by doing "friendly business" with.

I implore [I]all[/I] of you to read [URL="https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/1601017_Conley_KremlinPlaybook_Web.pdf"]Kremlin's Playbook[/URL] so you can understand exactly what Russia is doing in Europe and how they wage their hybrid war. I strongly contend that anyone who defends Putin's Russia is either misinformed due to the masses of pro-Russian propaganda that's out there (reminder that fake news have been a thing in Europe long before Trump devalued the expression) or plain stupid.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;51863643]You mean apart from the fact they're an oligarchy, routinely violate the sovereignty of their surrounding nations, don't even pay passing lip service to human rights, suppress any kind of political opposition and assassinate anyone who Putin basically takes an ill-will to? Well, on those grounds, yes, they sound like the perfect kind of country for the US to endorse by doing "friendly business" with.[/QUOTE] [I]"not our problem"[/I]

[QUOTE=Stopper;51863698]I implore [I]all[/I] of you to read [URL="https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/1601017_Conley_KremlinPlaybook_Web.pdf"]Kremlin's Playbook[/URL] so you can understand exactly what Russia is doing in Europe and how they wage their hybrid war. I strongly contend that anyone who defends Putin's Russia is either misinformed due to the masses of pro-Russian propaganda that's out there (reminder that fake news have been a thing in Europe long before Trump devalued the expression) or plain stupid.[/QUOTE] My issue is criticism to Russia seems inconsistent. The motivation behind the criticism is often politically motivated, we (the west/NATO but specifically UK, US) call out Russia for doing similar things to what we ourself do then we're expected to advocate for reacting to it differently, when we do something its "acceptable" but when Russia do it its some great evil? Doesn't make what they do valid but if the Russian people (or any other nation for that matter) feel they are treated unfairly then they will support more radical action. I also feel it creates a false narrative. We're meant to be opposed to Yanukovich because hes a corrupt asshole and we're supposed to support petro. Despite Poroshenko being as corrupt if not more so, having being as such by western media previously. We're supposed to hate the Russian back militia's but some of the Ukrainian militias are objectively worse, and they're undermining Ukraine. I don't really want to support either side but if thats the narrative thats being pushed I want to oppose it, even if it's intentions are "good". Russia feels cheated (they suffered from the USSR collapse) by the US and the construction of missile bases/being surrounded by NATO members/allies will deny them their main defence (MAD). Then like a dog backed into a corner they'll act violently and irrationally. Ukraine is a sorry scenario, the only way for Russia to leave would be for NATO to commit their forces and no government will do that, no population (in NATO) wants to do that. So we can tell Russia to leave but that will achieve nothing, we can threaten them with sanctions but none of Russia's trade partners will commit and take substantial loss to the economy. This current state of "Russia is the bad guy but we won't do anything about it" does nothing but make the relations shittier. Money which should be spent building economies and improving life will instead be spend on over priced military junk. Instead we should try to mend relations. IMO peacekeepers should be sent into eastern ukraine (a mix of european and russia so the "rebels" don't shoot the europeans and the russians don't fully annex the area), enforce a ceasefire and try anyone breaking the ceasefire for terrorism. Once peace is established do a fair and observed referendum. I say this because if the people don't want to go back to Ukraine then the shit starts over again, if the people do want to go back to Ukraine then its ok. I also think NATO troops should be permently stationed in Ukraine/other consenting bordering countries. If Russia invades then its considered an attack on NATO forces so the NATO governments will have an easy decision/mandate for sending support. (instead of promising to defend somewhere then when things happen umm and arr about doing it till its too late and they end up doing nothing). For Crimea I think russia will probably keep it. More lives and property have been kept intact through peaceful occupation then some bullshit guerilla war. Russia shouldn't just march in there but looking at what happened in Eastern Ukraine it's preferable to all that death. Unfair yup and hopefully it'll be a lesson to other countries/NATO if they want to defend a place they gotta defend it. Russia is willing to invade a place, we're not willing to do a counter invasion so the only option left is for us to be there first. Perhaps under the guise of military advisors etc. A token statement "NATO is here if you invade you pick a fight with NATO". Sadly all this does is prolong the conflict and further make Russia the pariah of europe. NATO is a club they cannot join because its a club dedicated to opposing them. It's the club which seeks to surround them with missile defences so their nukes are useless. In the ideal world I would see Russia as part of europe, as a trading partner but sadly there's this rivalry thing and both sides media seek to propagate it. We shouldn't be friends with Putin because he won't be friends with us, he seeks to destabilise Europe, which is fucking awful, he seeks to retake land previously owned by the Russian Empire, which is shitty. But I see why he's doing all this because, I think, he feels the other options are exhausted. As for Ukraine I would like them to be in the EU but only once they sort their economy which might be never. Too much debt and too much corruption to fix the debt. The war and the IMF loan conditions will make things more corrupt. The private armies and oligarchs will seek to carve Ukraine amongst themselves. Poroshenko had to made a deal with them (the militias and ultra nationalists) and I think it was a mistake, he should have centralised power into the government and ensured that it was 1 army, the Ukrainian army, who freed Ukraine - not a bunch of pretenders who will be seeking influence and power as a reward. Sad situation. I don't defend Putin and Russia, the human rights situation is going from very bad to worse, they invade other countries, they fund insurgents in their neighbouring countries, they meddle with politics in Europe and the US. But I see why they're doing it, if I were in their situation: wall closing, surrounded by an alliance dedicated to opposing you, who tried to totally destroy you just after the cold war (subjective but I think the US sending in businessmen to help carve up the country and teaching oligarchs how to steal money counts as an attempt to permanently cripple Russia) I think I would do the same. Find it strange that lots of the people I routinely agree with take the opposing view to this and many of the people who I often disagree with hold a similar view. Definitely food for though for me. Suppose its not that odd since they are kind of opposed to everything we stand for.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51863812]wall[/QUOTE] Pretty much all this. The problem is Russia is doing these things [I]right now, [/I]regardless of the past, and I think it's an injustice to the thousands affected that we turn a blind eye and jump in bed with Putin like nothing is happening. We can't go defend freedums on the other side of the world when it suits us, then pretend it's not happening when it's right on our doorstep. To be honest, I don't know what we should do because I don't know enough about it to open my mouth, but I know that dropping it all and letting Putin off with a free pass is definitely not the best or fairest thing, nor is endless boogeymanning of the country. It's certainly far more complex than a lot of people in here are making it out to be.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51863841]Pretty much all this. The problem is Russia is doing these things right fucking now and I think it's an injustice to the thousands affected that we turn a blind eye and jump in bed with Putin like nothing is happening. We can't go defend freedums on the other side of the world when it suits us, then pretend it's not happening when it's right on our doorstep. To be honest, I don't know what we should do because I don't know enough about it to open my mouth, but I know that dropping it all and letting Putin off with a free pass is definitely not the best or fairest thing. It's certainly far more complex than a lot of people in here are making it out to be.[/QUOTE] Oh yes I certainly don't think we should jump in bed with Putin. He's corrupt as and seeks to break up europe. [URL="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1701182/eleven-eton-pupils-made-guests-of-honour-by-vladimir-putin-at-the-kremlin-beating-theresa-may-to-her-face-to-face-talks/"]And then you get this scary shit. Russia trying to get our future leaders early on, indoctrinate them when they're young so they'll go on to be sympathetic (and no doubt euroskeptic and no doubt oligarchical drinking from the same vein as Putin and his chums).[/URL] But by being asymmetric and inconsistent, by framing them as the enemy and lying by omission or twisting the truth, by creating this stand offish "they're the enemy and we must fight them just we won't commit troops becauses it's political suicide" we only make the situation worse. And then Russia will get worse. It's a spiral into a real bad situation.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;51863265]what does it mean[/QUOTE] Being a corporate shill mostly.

They sound deluded

I blame all these twat "anti-feminist/sjw" you tubers all over the site, who get teens to parrot their retarded, just as cancerous opinions.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51863923]I blame all these twat "anti-feminist/sjw" you tubers all over the site, who get teens to parrot their retarded, just as cancerous opinions.[/QUOTE] IMO they do it because there's money to be made. Sargon of Akkad used to be fairly moderate and even a little socialist at times, being sceptical of just about everything. Then gamer-gate came along and he noticed an opportunity for stronger viewer base, so he polarised himself against feminists to get in on that. Then Trump came along and he noticed the same thing, in the past he had criticised conservationism and said people were voting against their own interests, now that trump is super popular he's become a Trump demagogue - defending his every action. Milo as well, noticed the more polarised he gets the bigger the viewer ship. Radicals on his side share him coz they agree, everyone else shared because they disagree. Stephen Moleneux as well. A self proclaimed "libertarian"... who supports trump and advocates for some authoritarian ass bullshit. More lies and shit arguements. People polarise to get a bigger/stronger audience to make more money. Sadly the middle ground and the moderates get drowned out because "This is ok" or "I disagree with this because" is far less popular than "TRUMP VOTER OWNZ BERNIE CUCK! WHAT HIM GET OWWWWNNNEDDD" or "KILL ALL MEN" or "FEMINISM IS THE NEW NAZISM!!!!!". Same in actual msm nobody is interested in a peaceful protest, so all you ever see is people throwing rocks and smashing windows. Its more extreme so its more interesting so the media outlets change their programs to show it. Bill O reily does it on Fox, hes a fairly smart man and when he goes on Stephen Colbert's show he's fairly reasonable conservative, but on Fox he's fucking nuts. Then you get actual radicals who see the trends and start off bad, people like Black Pigeon speaks. Actual genuine misogynists who serve to drive the polarisation even further. Even if they don't always outright lie they lie by omission or use straw man arguments or false equivilencies. Was watching Alex Jones yesterday - he's nuts but very entertaining, he uses some science stuff to try and sound smart - so dumber members of his audience will see him as an authority or a guy who knows what he's talking about, then he ties in some utterly insane... stuff. People will fall for that, they'll think "ah this youtuber (thunderfoot) made a rational argument on X (science stuff) so he must be right about Y (feminism being a cult)" Honestly though I share you're sentiment. Those fucking youtubers... Sounds a bit extreme but I'm starting to think such radical content shouldn't have the option of monitisation... Then I'll get a bunch of edgy 16 year olds accusing me of censorship while they advocate for banning of religions and all sorts of other shit. I'm probably guilty of polarisation too tbh

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51863812]Russia feels cheated (they suffered from the USSR collapse) by the US and the construction of missile bases/being surrounded by NATO members/allies will deny them their main defence (MAD). Then like a dog backed into a corner they'll act violently and irrationally.[/QUOTE] Those missile bases were never going to be and certainly aren't now going to be a threat to Russia's application of MAD, Russia's violence and irrational actions with regards to them boils down to nothing more than political football. Not really the game to be playing with nuclear weapons. As for being surrounded by NATO members. I'm afraid I can't much sympathize with a country bordering several small countries inside of a defensive alliance, the members of which have been cutting their military budgets continuously for decades, who then proceeds to annex territory of one of the few neighbours it has [i]not[/i] in that defensive alliance.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;51864045]Those missile bases were never going to be and certainly aren't now going to be a threat to Russia's application of MAD,[/quote] You referring to MIRV's? I suppose they could in theory get round the missile defences, I don't know enough to say but what if you could shoot it down before it splits? [quote] Russia's violence and irrational actions with regards to them boils down to nothing more than political football. Not really the game to be playing with nuclear weapons. [/quote] Why are they being violent though? What prompted that? [quote] As for being surrounded by NATO members. I'm afraid I can't much sympathize with a country bordering several small countries inside of a defensive alliance, the members of which have been cutting their military budgets continuously for decades, who then proceeds to annex territory of one of the few neighbours it has [i]not[/i] in that defensive alliance.[/QUOTE] Yup with Georgia and Ukraine, Russia has proven to its neighbours if they want to stay whole they have to pick sides; and I'm sure Russia (or rather the people making the political decisions for Russia) wanted to make it clear to those neighbours if they didn't pick Russia it would be made a painful transition for them. (Georgia getting invaded after starting NATO join process, Ukraine invaded after anti-Russian regime change).

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51863966]Sounds a bit extreme but I'm starting to think such radical content shouldn't have the option of monitisation... Then I'll get a bunch of edgy 16 year olds accusing me of censorship while they advocate for banning of religions and all sorts of other shit. I'm probably guilty of polarisation too tbh[/QUOTE] Probably, but fuck them. The right to free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to and accept your toxic bollocks, something people so often overlook. These Youtubers are actually pretty good at polishing a turd. Choice wording and seemingly solid arguments.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51864078]You referring to MIRV's? I suppose they could in theory get round the missile defences, I don't know enough to say but what if you could shoot it down before it splits[/QUOTE] I'm referring to location. If the purpose of the bases were to shoot down Russian ICBMs outbound to the US, in an attempt to threaten Russian application of MAD, then they're in the wrong place and unable to do so. ICBMs travel too quickly to be caught in a tail chase, so an interceptor off-set quite a bit to the side of the ICBM's flight path is simply never going to catch it. The complex was in both iterations claimed to be intended for potential future Iranian missiles inbound to Europe, the fact is that's really all it's capable of. The fact that Iran seems to now be no longer playing ball with regards to halting its nuclear program shows the need for these bases regardless of political objections by Russia.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;51864129]I'm referring to location. If the purpose of the bases were to shoot down Russian ICBMs outbound to the US, in an attempt to threaten Russian application of MAD, then they're in the wrong place and unable to do so. ICBMs travel too quickly to be caught in a tail chase, so an interceptor off-set quite a bit to the side of the ICBM's flight path is simply never going to catch it. The complex was in both iterations claimed to be intended for potential future Iranian missiles inbound to Europe, the fact is that's really all it's capable of. The fact that Iran seems to now be no longer playing ball with regards to halting its nuclear program shows the need for these bases regardless of political objections by Russia.[/QUOTE] Well those bases will also be protecting Europe no? It's a hard argument to make since it is literally protection but I'd argue that the threat of MAD and nukes is what stopped the cold war turning hot, what stopped Russia invading Europe with ground forces and what stopped NATO from invading Russia. Russia is now utterly outmanned and out powered by NATO so their only real defence (bar making it as difficult as possible with conventional forces) is MAD and Nukes. Can't talk much about Iran since I don't know the progress of their bomb thing. We claim to have nukes as protection against other peoples nukes, are Iranian nukes inherently different from Russia nukes or Soviet nukes? Are Iranians less interested in their own self preservation? Missile bases are great for Europe and the US but at what cost? Russia will fear losing its only card and will act more and more radically to stop that happening. If we have missile bases as our new defence then nukes become purely an aggressive item, other countries will feel unfairly treated and will act less rationally as a result. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit but I feel if people/countries are treated fairly then they'll cooperate. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51864209]You do understand that Russian's launch sites probably aren't literally on the border of Europe, and are probably scattered all across Siberia and eastward? They aren't "in the wrong place" whatsoever. Regardless, it's a very clear, very blatant political move against Russia that was pushed forward way before the Ukraine fiasco. Even if the missile bases, as they are, aren't equipped to counter Russian ICBMs, their construction is - in and of itself - a dangerous precedent for Russia. Anyone who argues otherwise is either politically ignorant or completely deluded. There is a reason Russia is acting the way it does. It's like people never stop and think about motives or history before forming opinions. It isn't just because of the Cold War, it's because the West really has absolutely zero interest in seeing Russia succeed in virtually any spectrum independently - and modern history confirms this time and time again.[/QUOTE] It's also because Putin is a dictator

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51863454] Revolution barely ever works. It's a romantic mindset [B]which always ends with shit.[/B] [/QUOTE] Well... [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution[/url]

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51864299]Well... [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution[/url][/QUOTE] You got me. Not exactly peaceful though and didn't really change the power dynamic much, Britain had already made taxes fairer and the rich landowners (many of them british anyway) who effectively ran the colonies went on to become the rich landowners who ran the US. I supposed I should have said "revolutions barely ever happen without much bloodshed and violence and rarely do they result in lasting, meaningful transition of power." Examples of it working well are... Romania and Portugal? Amidst a long sad history of failure, betrayal and in fighting. Fun joke: Revolution is called revolution because it revolves all the way round to where it started I suppose in that sense the American Revolution is a true revolution, the US went on the effectively replace the British Empire - World hegemony, technological and military superiority, far reaching corporate power; and just to complete the illusion you even stepped into Iran to finish the job where us Brits failed. Sarcasm aside though. It was one of the more successful revolutions, I'll give you that.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51864193]Well those bases will also be protecting Europe no? It's a hard argument to make since it is literally protection but I'd argue that the threat of MAD and nukes is what stopped the cold war turning hot, what stopped Russia invading Europe with ground forces and what stopped NATO from invading Russia. Russia is now utterly outmanned and out powered by NATO so their only real defence (bar making it as difficult as possible with conventional forces) is MAD and Nukes.[/QUOTE] If Russia wants to nuke Europe, the US could expand the scope of the planned base ten or twenty fold and it would still be useless. Russia could flatten Europe, shield or no, (and flatten the shield itself very easily for that matter) with its enormous stockpile of shorter-ranged nuclear weapons, which are no longer constrained by the missile defence shield of the Atlantic Ocean, and submarine-launched weapons which can entirely bypass the complex by coming from another direction. It's a silly notion anyway unless you think this whole thing is just a ruse by the US to try to allow the UK and France a free nuclear shot at Russia while leaving itself undefended. [Quote]Can't talk much about Iran since I don't know the progress of their bomb thing. We claim to have nukes as protection against other peoples nukes, are Iranian nukes inherently different from Russia nukes or Soviet nukes? Are Iranians less interested in their own self preservation?[/Quote] It's a bit late to do anything about the nukes which are already here, but it's prudent to put measures in place to try to deter the development of future nukes wouldn't you say? That's the idea. [Quote]Missile bases are great for Europe and the US but at what cost? Russia will fear losing its only card and will act more and more radically to stop that happening.[/Quote] Russia has its own missile defences in place, built by the USSR, and is actively improving and updating it. The concept isn't unique to NATO. [Quote=marbalo]You do understand that Russian's launch sites probably aren't literally on the border of Europe, and are probably scattered all across Siberia and eastward? They aren't "in the wrong place" whatsoever.[/Quote] Find yourself a globe and draw a path from Siberia to the US, see how close you get to Poland. They're in the wrong place.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51864394]You got me. Not exactly peaceful though and didn't really change the power dynamic much, Britain had already made taxes fairer and the rich landowners (many of them british anyway) who effectively ran the colonies went on to become the rich landowners who ran the US. I supposed I should have said "revolutions barely ever happen without much bloodshed and violence and rarely do they result in lasting, meaningful transition of power." Examples of it working well are... Romania and Portugal? Amidst a long sad history of failure, betrayal and in fighting. Fun joke: Revolution is called revolution because it revolves all the way round to where it started I suppose in that sense the American Revolution is a true revolution, the US went on the effectively replace the British Empire - World hegemony, technological and military superiority, far reaching corporate power; and just to complete the illusion you even stepped into Iran to finish the job where us Brits failed. Sarcasm aside though. It was one of the more successful revolutions, I'll give you that.[/QUOTE] Well if we're talking about peaceful revolutions, yeah, there's not many that really worked. Hopefully that can change.

[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;51864421]If Russia wants to nuke Europe, the US could expand the scope of the planned base ten or twenty fold and it would still be useless. Russia could flatten Europe, shield or no, (and flatten the shield itself very easily for that matter) with its enormous stockpile of shorter-ranged nuclear weapons, which are no longer constrained by the missile defence shield of the Atlantic Ocean, and submarine-launched weapons which can entirely bypass the complex by coming from another direction. It's a silly notion anyway unless you think this whole thing is just a ruse by the US to try to allow the UK and France a free nuclear shot at Russia while leaving itself undefended. It's a bit late to do anything about the nukes which are already here, but it's prudent to put measures in place to try to deter the development of future nukes wouldn't you say? That's the idea. Russia has its own missile defences in place, built by the USSR, and is actively improving and updating it. The concept isn't unique to NATO. Find yourself a globe and draw a path from Siberia to the US, see how close you get to Poland. They're in the wrong place.[/QUOTE] seems like a good argument tbh can't really refute that. Why would Putin complain about the missile bases though? If they were ineffective why would Russia take so much issue with them?

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51864299]Well... [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution[/url][/QUOTE] the american revolution didn't really change living standards for ordinary people nor did it really give them more freedom or democracy the slaveowning aristocracy of the United States mostly gained from it, with a lesser number of merchants as well. the bulk of the (rural) population pretty much kept on going as they had for years before and would do so after

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51863307]I can understand maybe thinking Russia is made out to be more of boogey man than it actually is, but actually having a favourable view of it? What's favourable about corruption, poverty, authoritarianism, homophobia etc.? You'd have to be an idiot.[/QUOTE] Corruption, homophobia, and authoritarianism are the key staples of the vocal parts of the modern Republican party though. Bonus points, they also hate the poor.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51864676]Why would Putin complain about the missile bases though? If they were ineffective why would Russia take so much issue with them?[/QUOTE] Political reasons most likely. Posturing, one-upmanship, attempts to appear strong and decisive to his electorate and pride issues over the US being active in countries that used to constitute the USSR? All of the above? Putin does seem to be heavily motivated by the concept of face and standing.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51863966]IMO they do it because there's money to be made. Sargon of Akkad used to be fairly moderate and even a little socialist at times, being sceptical of just about everything. Then gamer-gate came along and he noticed an opportunity for stronger viewer base, so he polarised himself against feminists to get in on that. Then Trump came along and he noticed the same thing, in the past he had criticised conservationism and said people were voting against their own interests, now that trump is super popular he's become a Trump demagogue - defending his every action. Milo as well, noticed the more polarised he gets the bigger the viewer ship. Radicals on his side share him coz they agree, everyone else shared because they disagree. Stephen Moleneux as well. A self proclaimed "libertarian"... who supports trump and advocates for some authoritarian ass bullshit. More lies and shit arguements. People polarise to get a bigger/stronger audience to make more money. Sadly the middle ground and the moderates get drowned out because "This is ok" or "I disagree with this because" is far less popular than "TRUMP VOTER OWNZ BERNIE CUCK! WHAT HIM GET OWWWWNNNEDDD" or "KILL ALL MEN" or "FEMINISM IS THE NEW NAZISM!!!!!". Same in actual msm nobody is interested in a peaceful protest, so all you ever see is people throwing rocks and smashing windows. Its more extreme so its more interesting so the media outlets change their programs to show it. Bill O reily does it on Fox, hes a fairly smart man and when he goes on Stephen Colbert's show he's fairly reasonable conservative, but on Fox he's fucking nuts. Then you get actual radicals who see the trends and start off bad, people like Black Pigeon speaks. Actual genuine misogynists who serve to drive the polarisation even further. Even if they don't always outright lie they lie by omission or use straw man arguments or false equivilencies. Was watching Alex Jones yesterday - he's nuts but very entertaining, he uses some science stuff to try and sound smart - so dumber members of his audience will see him as an authority or a guy who knows what he's talking about, then he ties in some utterly insane... stuff. People will fall for that, they'll think "ah this youtuber (thunderfoot) made a rational argument on X (science stuff) so he must be right about Y (feminism being a cult)" Honestly though I share you're sentiment. Those fucking youtubers... Sounds a bit extreme but I'm starting to think such radical content shouldn't have the option of monitisation... Then I'll get a bunch of edgy 16 year olds accusing me of censorship while they advocate for banning of religions and all sorts of other shit. I'm probably guilty of polarisation too tbh[/QUOTE] You nailed it.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51863307]I can understand maybe thinking Russia is made out to be more of boogey man than it actually is, but actually having a favourable view of it? What's favourable about corruption, poverty, authoritarianism, homophobia etc.? You'd have to be an idiot.[/QUOTE] What's favorable about it? Well they're all things that Trump is known for so naturally young republicans see Russia in a positive light.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51863307]I can understand maybe thinking Russia is made out to be more of boogey man than it actually is, but actually having a favourable view of it? What's favourable about corruption, poverty, authoritarianism, homophobia etc.? You'd have to be an idiot.[/QUOTE] The first reason is their mutual enemies. Russia hates the EU, the alt-right hates the EU. Russia hates the Syrian rebels, the alt-right hates the Syrian rebels. Russia hates Turkey, the alt-right hates Turkey. That's the idea, anyway. In general, Russia is always expected to be fighting against Islam and its sympathizers regardless of whether or not they actually are, which the alt-right appreciates. The second, which is somewhat related, is that a lot of Russian propaganda ends up getting to them, either directly or through reposts of propaganda made for europe. It has helped shape their movement's identity, and at this point they probably wouldn't be able to break their ties to Russia even if they tried.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51865138]But he isn't, and misusing words like this for emotional impact is tiresome and detrimental. There are actual dictators that are responsible for crimes against humanity who still continue their reign unpunished today, Putin isn't one of them.[/QUOTE] Christ, well then what word should we use to describe the man who's going to be in power until he dies or is overthrown and uses his power to poison people? I guess perma-president is alright? Oh, we could go for an old comic book theme and call him the Toxic Statesman! How about tyrant? Is that alright, or is that one too mean as well? I wouldn't want to offend, after all we know what happens to people who do that...