jakee

Oh I know, but my point is Trotsky was a very important man. A Poliburo founder member and personal rival to Stalin, he fits firmly in the first category. We know they've always done that. Today Russian intelligence is killing people you've never heard of. People who were never part of the political establishment, people who just blog and vlog about regional politics, who aren't even important enough to warrant risking an FSB officer to carry out the hit but are still going to get a bullet or hammer in the head anyway.

Not just not condemning it, he's now actively participating in the Russian propaganda response. Tweeting that he wasn't briefed because the info wasn't credible, and claiming that Russia denied and anyway they haven't faced many attacks so everything's fine. I am truly stunned.

It's stunning how widespread Russia's political assassination program is, and how many tiers of sophistication it works on. There's the big, loud, 'statement' assassinations they use on defectors and important former insiders like the Litvinenko and Salisbury poisonings. Professional operations from top to bottom using such exotic methods (radioactive elements and nerve agents) that are as much (or more) about sending a message than getting rid of the specific person. Then there are the 'normal' professional murders - still all in house with the FSB and military hit squads but with everyday methods like blowing up cars or apartments, and plain old shootings - often used for important political opponents in client states and journalists who are finding too much of Putin's dirty laundry. But then there's all the casual stuff as well. People they or their pocket dictators kinda want to go away but aren't really important that important in the grand scheme of things. Incredibly, Russia doesn't just let things like that slide - they still go after them just with disposable assassins instead of professional assets. For instance the current mad thug in charge of Chechnya takes internet criticism extremely seriously, so the Russians are doing him a favour. Multiple expat Chechen social media critics have been killed or faced attempts on their life by Russian citizens who have been blackmailed into it by the security services. Faced with credit card debts or minor convictions they've been provided with flights in and out, and fake documentation and sent into various european countries to kill people for what they posted on Instagram, with the promise that prosecutions would be dropped or credit cards paid off when they got back to Moscow. The extent of it beyond the headline grabbing hits is freakin' insane. In Putin's new Old Russia the FSB will go after anyone, anywhere for any reason and they don't give a fuck about what anyone thinks.

I think the highest goals of Vladimir Putin are 'all of the money' and 'all of the power'. Given his background I'm sure he does like taking the US down a peg wherever possible, but mostly as a side benefit to the goal of creating more Russian power in more places where his mafia state can make more money.

I'd agree with that. Fewer attacks would surely lead to a faster draw down of forces in the region. IMO from Russia's perspective more attacks will lead to more commitment of resources for more time that can't be used elsewhere, and a continuous stream of casualties means there is much less public and political appetite for major intervention in other areas like Syria where Russia really wants to cement their influence. Here's a thing, if you want one of those 'damn I feel old' moments, this isn't even the first year where soldiers are currently serving in occupied Afghanistan who weren't yet born when the occupation started. We're just about at the point where people who were part of the invasion force could have come home, then had kids, and those kids are now being deployed to the continuation of that conflict. Think of what US and Nato forces haven't done and where Russia has been able to step back in because we've been fighting in Afghanistan for a generation instead.

This is true. I'm kinda glad he did post it though, because the rest of that video was the funniest thing I've seen all weekend. Those old people are maaaaad.

Why do you need to ask again? At the time you posted this nearly 15% of replies to the thread were devoted to telling you where those numbers come from. Look, when you haven't been paying any attention to Coronavirus in general it's odd that you'd come into this thread with such strong views. When you can't even be bothered to pay attention to what's being said about Coronavirus in the conversation you joined, I don't even know what you're trying to achieve.

You said 'in this conversation'. It's the same conversation. You were replying to me talking about the strawman Kallend pointed out. That is the strawman Kallend pointed out. It is also what you specifically pointed out as the topic of the conversation less than a handful of hours earlier. The fact that you would even need to go back to find out if you said it is again something you should probably have checked. Seriously, I'm somewhat worried for you. If you didn't take it seriously you'd probably be able to admit a mistake without having to add in nonsensical justifications and passive-aggressive attacks.

Maybe then next time you'll think twice before you make yourself look foolish with your insistence on spinning every situation to defend Trump. It's ok though, looks like there are enough people paying attention to call you on it. It's front and centre in the link that Phil provided in a post you have already replied to. Maybe if you read it you'd have some perspective on the issue.

Explain to me why? He executed a valid technique he was trained to use against suspects resisting arrest and he immediately achieved the outcome he wanted. The problem is that he used it against someone who was neither resisting arrest nor a suspect.

Post number 246. It was three hours ago, and you specifically said it was specifically what you were talking about. This is not a criticism but a genuine concern - I really think you should get an appointment with your doctor to check for early onset dementia because you keep doing this over and over again. It shouldn't be a constant struggle to get someone to remember their part of a conversation that only just happened.

Or doesn't care. It has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a significant enough subset of police officers who don't care how badly they injure the people they are arresting that they can't be trusted to only continue with correctly applied chokeholds. That's absurd. It's definitely easier to train officers that they will go to jail if they shoot fleeing suspects in the back than it is to train them to always use correct chokehold technique against a struggling suspect. On the subject of those cops who either don't care about or want to hurt the people they're arresting I was struck by the reaction of the cop in this video about a minute in when he realises the guy whose wrist he just broke is just a random bystander. It's the face and body language of a guy who knows how badly he's fucked up. If his actions had been reasonable and appropriate for the situation he thought he was in he wouldn't be looking like that. But no, because he thought the guy had a warrant on him he thought he'd be able to get away with an unprovoked violent assault. That's what you're dealing with, not poorly trained technique.

You do realise that you have just explained why Kallend is correct in pointing out your strawman argument of saying 'legal immigrants', right?

There is also lag. Someone who is infected might be two weeks away from showing symptoms. Someone who shows symptoms might be 10 days away from needing hospitalisation. It makes perfect sense that hospital admissions are not instantly tracking the same trend spike as positive test results. Hell, there'd be something really fucking strange going on if they did. It's really not that long ago since we went through the same thing with the initial pandemic spread, I'm surprised you've forgotten so quickly.

Which video? How does it clarify the point that both parties are the same? How does it clarify the point that a third party will be different? Why does splitting people into only two boxes increase the chance that the boxes are identical? Why do you think that is the case?

Which one? There was no video posted when you made the comment that a third party would fix the problem of both parties being the same. Why do you think that?

Because done properly, it's not just testing. You test positive, you isolate and the people you have contact with get tested. Those who test positive isolate and the people they've had contact with get tested, etc. Compared to the alternatives of locking down everyone and having no economy, and locking down no-one and seeing huge numbers of infections this is a good thing. I've gotta be honest, at this stage of the game I really wonder how someone who appears to be interested and has been actively discussing the subject for months doesn't have even a passing awareness of the concepts involved.

If you think the two major parties are the same, why would a third major party be different?

I'm sure Turtlespeed will be along momentarily to explain why that means she's hyper-left wing, and should be more centrist like him.

Some allowance can be made for that. Before that you've also got to look at whether it was intended to be insulting to black people, or a caricature based on racial stereotypes at all. I notice you still haven't provided any references to back people being offended - just white journalists and Fox news. Bill Maher would not be happy with you right now.

Then you're not being misunderstood, people simply treat you in accordance with the way you post. You claim to be a centrist but admit that you intentionally post in constant defence of the right and constant criticism of the left. So why shoud anyone believe you? And you think that's you? Again, there are several posters on here who are former republican voters who still agree with many of the tenets of the traditional republican platform but can post against the current conservative leadership and in favour of current democrat policies when it chimes with what they believe is right or wrong. You claim to not be a hard line republican anymore yet you still always post in defence of the republicans and against the democrats no matter how much you have to twist and misinterpret your sources in order to do so. Sometimes even to the extent of claiming things are the exact opposite of the way they really are. So what is it that you're hiding from everyone that makes you a centrist, and why do you try so hard not to look like one?

Then why are your posting habits so partisan?

For the amount you guys bang on about it it's amazing how tricky the concept of personal responsibility is to republicans. You bought him, you own him.

I know you mean this as an accusation but I'm having trouble seeing why it's not a great explanation of how things should work. You have a guy with 'correctness of thought' - i.e. he has a long history of not being a racist, and saying and doing the right things regarding various anti-racism campaigns - who quarter of a century ago impersonated a black person in a way that probably wasn't inended to racially stereotype but nevertheless is significantly more uncomfortable and less acceptable now than it was then. So - should you use common sense to say 'you know what, on balance it's most likely this guy isn't a racist', or should you crucify him regardless?

Called out by Mary McNamara, who is white. Called out by Evann Gastaldo, who is white. Again, given your recent posting of the Bill Maher video I'm surprised that you can't be bothered to find articles by black people or even referencing black people who are offended by the Kimmel skits - just ones by white people and conservatives assuming that black people should be offended.