That's irrelevant due to the circular logic of discussing something that may have happened; 'more people didn't die because he didn't kill them'. Well, no shit, but that's an alternative reality that never occurred so is therefore invalid as a counter-argument.

But it does back up my actually point that "Stalin was worse then Hitler" due more to circumstance then intent.

Besides, fascist-state mass murders in the 20th century (on a scale of 10,000s upwards) were a singular feature of the Nazi regime, in contrast mass murder appears to have been a modus operandi for numerous communist states. I know which system, i.e. fascist or communist, I'd rather take my chances under under.

This is true, but who I would rather take my chances under would depend on if I was an ethnic minority.

I can't wait for season 3. This is easily my favorite currently running series.

Frank Underwood > Walter White.

It would have been great if could make the leap here, but alas he apparently did not.

Yea but no ones gonna donate to some random kickstarter. They need some viral video or some other reasoning behind it to get the big $$$.

This. An incident similar to the redneck family/gay kid scenario could be staged. As long as nobody admits anything there is no way they can prove it was staged just be sure not to allot the money for any one specific thing (like "getting my own place"). Just something like "support" for said victim.

Why are they called GOP?

Gullible Old Pricks?

Grand Old Party. The "official" (original) name of the Republicans.

In a generic election I would agree with you, but the Obama camp did such a good job framing the auto bailout in places like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that I feel like he had more of an inherent advantage there than in Pennsylvania. And the kind of affinity the bailout created - the kind where you are sort of indebted to the president for your continued livelihood - makes the voters' persuadability extremely low, meaning Romney would be less of a threat there unless he really pumped the money in. Pennsylvania was a bit more open to persuasion in 2012.

I guess 2012 could be the exception but I just think that Pennsylvania is fools gold for Republicans for the time being. They always float it as a place where they could "expand the map" but always lose by big margins.

Not to nitpick, but even with the factors you mentioned Ohio was still much closer then Pennsylvania was it not? I just don't see how even with said factors Pennsylvania is a "better bet" for Romney than Ohio/Wisconsin. Don't get get me wrong there was a bit of a panic on the Democratic side about Pennsylvania in October because Romney hadn't been defined there yet, but it turned out to be hot air. IIRC Ohio was the second closest state in the Union next to Florida on election night, so isn't it still more plausible that Romney wins Ohio (still losing the election, mind you) then Pennsylvania in some huge upset?

Romney's bread and butter was older whiter voters, the kind that already have extremely high turnout. The younger voters that high-tech tools help turnout are predominantly Democratic. Romney wouldn't benefit much from this infrastructure. What doomed him was the fact that he went hard-right during the GOP primary, and the Obama campaign had no primary fight, so they spent all that time framing the GOP opponents as lunatics. By the time Romney attempted to pivot back towards the middle, most of Obama's key electorate already made their minds up about him, so it was all turnout from there. A simple fact is that Republicans are truly a minority in this country. If everyone voted, the GOP would lose elections 65-35 consistently. Romney at no point had a real chance to win the presidency. The electorate was stacked against him from the very beginning.

And to think the Romney campaign skewed their internals to account for 2004 voter demographics because they thought the 2008 map was a fluke. They seriously believed going into election night that they weren't only going to win, but win big. Something like this:

Red for DEMS, blue for GOP (I know, I know):



Romney.Ryan: 315 Electoral Votes

Obama/Biden: 223 Electoral Voted

They were expecting a 1988 and got a reverse 2004 instead. Must have sucked. They were so confident in their operation they (famously) didn't draft a concession speech in advance. Even the Obama people were surprised in the effectiveness of their turnout operation when the results actually came in.

Obviously started by Russian intelligence to undermine Ukraine for their Eurasian union

I'm just gonna leave this quote here in case you ever try to insinuate you have an IQ over 65.

Do you even know what the Eurasian Union is? Of course not. It's all lined up in The Foundations of GeoPolitics, which is currently used as a textbook in Russian military academies and is popular in influential circles. Tell me if any of this rings a bell in you limited mind:

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[1]

In Europe:

    -Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term a "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
    -France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
    -United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
    -Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
    -Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
    -Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
    -Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
    -Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with the "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
    -Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as an independent state with certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

    -The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
    -Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
    -Armenia has a special role and will serve as a "strategic base" and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
    -Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
    -Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
    -Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
    -The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

    -China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled".[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia".[1]
    -Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
    -Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

-Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

See that last part about America. That's you. The useful idiot.

This is just ridiculous conjecture. Also, in war you tend to cut off resources to areas controlled by the enemy. Stop making up post-facto unrealistic standards that you would never hold anyone else to. At least you admit Russian involvement.

So you admit that the whole Donetsk region is "the enemy" to kiev and anyone harbouring pro russian sentiments deserves to be treated as an enemy combatant? Wait, so if this is a "civil war" and Ukraine is treating all civilians in the Donetsk region (inb4kievhasneverkilledanyciviliansonpurposebecauseCNNsaidso as enemy combatants.

No, that's not what I said. Can you even read? I said "controlled by" you moron.

Not even Al-Assad cut off ties so strongly to regions, especially not ones it was supposed to acknowledge and give special status to under a protocol.

I'm calling bullshit on this.

liveleak.com and click on "ukraine" up at the top, kid, you expect me to do simple things for you?

So in other words no? That's what I thought.

While you're at it, google "Geoffry Pyatt." Keep in mind the "I am Ukrainian" viral video was exposed as western propaganda as well as just about everything coming out of Kiev. Denying using cluster bombs, denying having anything to do with Odessa, denying losing territory, denying ever harming civilians until recently the list goes on and on. They've also "declared" and whole region of the country "terrorists" and shelled villages indiscriminately because people had a vote and declared autonomy. Kiev is never getting Eastern Ukraine back, lol, get over it faggot.

A.) I'm calling bullshit on the government declaring the entirety of people living in the region terrorists.

B.) We're actually in agreement on the Russians keeping Eastern Ukraine. The Russian Imperialists have a grand agenda and they aren't about to let the Ukrainians get in the way.

Herp derp IQ once again. You really think Kiev gives two shits about "the people" of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea (having proven for decades they don't) beyond using it as an industrial sector? Putin is a Russian nationalist, I don't think anyone is implying he cares less about the region than Kiev does. He's accepted relentless, hardline economic sanctions and risked isolation from the rest of the world. But he doesn't care about the people there, it would just give him a micro boner to see Russias borders pushed slightly westward, that's it. Those hundreds of aid trucks sent to Luhansk and Donetsk after Kiev cut off water and power were full of AK's and potatoes to only give to people who swore allegiance to the great midget bear. You are fucking dumb, Cory.

Again, you need perspective and are talking about a complex situation you know nothing about. It's part of the grand Eurasian agenda to make Russia a superpower gains and re-align the worlds politics. The only reason he has to intervene in Ukraine is because things didn't go his way when it looked like Ukraine was about to accept the customs and trade union.

Are you just hearing about the maidan snipers or something?

http://rt.com/news/195004-ukraine-maidan-sniper-investigation/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-ukraine-killings-probe-special-report-idUSKCN0HZ0UH20141010?irpc=932

http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
http://rt.com/news/estonia-confirm-leaked-tape-970/

inb4rt=russki shill even though the audio tape is right there

All you sources say is that the people in the tape suspected that the people firing the rounds were firing at people on both sides and that "somebody should investigate". All they said is that is "could be somebody" from the new coalition. Who these people are, we don't know. There is no evidence to pin this on the government itself.

C.) The revolution happened because the incumbent President campaigned on closer relations to the EU and then turned coat at the last second and wanted to accept a customs union and closer ties with Russia.

your citation: CNN or some other joke of a publication

Translation: No matter how credible the sources I cite you will just deny it and go back to your closed loop of conspricary blogs an RT.

Literally (proper use) everything you've typed has been what a 45 year old housewife would glean from watching fox news for an hour. You've done absolutely no research of your own and it definitely shows, kid.

Trade Fox News (which I can't fucking stand, btw) with RT and your looking in a mirror.

Everyone knew which way Yanokovich was going to go for a while, and no one could blame him for it. Turning to the EU is a serious mistake by all accounts (You have no idea what that deal even entailed do you?)

This is a matter of opinion. So I'm guessing you admit that Yanokovich turned coat on his promises?

Sure, he was corrupt but probably no less so than every other Oligarch running the country. The EU/West pumped money into the protest movement, funding it and serving up propaganda on a hot plate. When they realized some faggots lighting candles in a square wasn't going to work, the people who wanted EU membership (which Ukraine doesn't even technically have) funded some snipers to make martyrs out of protestors and police alike to justify violence and give the movement more of an urgency, which was ultimately the movements success.

Again, you can't prove this.

None of the Maidan protestors had any idea what the EU deal entailed and if they did, they likely wouldn't have supported it, it just seemed like "something different."

 

Pure conjecture on your part, of course. But I'm sure you have some kind of psychic connection to them and can read their minds.

The orange revolution was about Oligarchs and now the Oligarchs are firmly back in power and now its about something else and less important for ensuring a positive future for western Ukraine. Ukraine is a shithole, people just want something different.

 

Yes, a more open country with greater ties to secular, modern, developed Europe. Why the fuck would they want to be part of a reactionary backwards Russian shithole?

Crimea wanted to become part of Russia because they haven't gotten fuck all (wait, there's no war going on in Crimea, why did Ukraine immediately sever all ties with it?) since the fall of the Soviet Union, so they wanted back in with Russia, where they always should have been.

 

The reason they are fighting in Eastern Ukraine is because they had to draw the line on Russian expansionism somewhere. They probably realized that Crimea was a lost cause. They have gotten "fuck all" from Russia and it's not getting any better. Fail.

Nobody cares less about the Ukrainian people than the west. The EU doesn't see it as anything more than "Europes breadbasket" (their words) and Merkel sees how Putins brand of Russian nationalism is at odds with the EU's welfare state. Basically, a socioeconomic issue became a "omg Russia!" one because Oligarchs were placed firmly back in power .

I'm pretty sure China, India, and basically everyone else cares less then the West. What you said is largley conjecture and has no bearing on the conversation.

western idiots like you are too stupid to see it for what it actually is

My irony meter is exploding.

 

This is so fucking facepalm worthy I'm not even going to address it, just quoting it so you re-read it and face palm yourself into self help book or something. This is one of the dumbest paragraphs I've ever read about anything to do with politics. It wouldn't even fly on /pol/

Because you can't.

So are you a  stupid clueless kid or a lying shill? If you think an illegal coup followed by an illegal government brought on by identity and ideological issues would have no effect on his largest voting bloc who only wanted to declare autonomy (during a time when there was no legal government) because some FSB agents told them to I'm sorry, your IQ is literally (!) dead. Objectively, you're pretty dumb Cory.

Yeah, I'm sure the pro-Russian uprisings just came out of nowhere conveniently timed for Russia to undermine the Ukrainians after the realized their Eurasian Union proposal wasn't gonna fly. Moron.

inb4shillsbargain

Actually, the Shills Bargain was in the paragraph above this. So too late.

I could literally get a peer reviewed article published on the conflict and you just spew cold war propaganda because you're dumb enough to think western propaganda holds weight.

No you couldn't.

Why are you so caustic and angry? That doesn't go well with stupidity you know. It's not good for you.