• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

SoHowAreYou

Well-Known Member
"It is what it is" is such an extreme way of accepting the worst possible outcome...that they themselves cause and can totally avoid doing.


Stereotypes of Russian suicidalness aside, this is an extension of the Russian chest thumping from before the invasion. Instead of Russia stronk, they want to drum up internal support for this awful war and their crimes against innocent Ukranians by treating NATO support for Ukraine as an existential threat against Russia rather than a logical response to Russian aggression, because Russia isn't really winning right now. They're taking territory by throwing their troops at Ukranian lines, while Ukraine is willing to trade ground in order to cause as many Russian casulties as possible, while minimizing their own.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Meanwhile in Europe,

Finnish Ithalethi tabloid claims Finland will officially make a decision on NATO on May 12. The same newspaper previously claimed May 16 as a possible date for joint Swedish and Finnish declaration.

****
For Russo-Ukrainian war, the Ukrainian command is exclusively focused on Kharkiv and the surrounding areas (that is, Northeast). Southern Ukrainian command seems to be weak, which means Russia can probably take over Odessa by the end of May, which will complete their current war objectives.

The current Ukrainian objective is to secure Kharkiv area and cause large equipment losses to Russia through sabotages and guerrilla tactics, which will likely have no effect, as Russia is expected to do a third major offensive soonish, by drafting more people.
 

SoHowAreYou

Well-Known Member
The current Ukrainian objective is to secure Kharkiv area and cause large equipment losses to Russia through sabotages and guerrilla tactics, which will likely have no effect, as Russia is expected to do a third major offensive soonish, by drafting more people.

I don't think they can, Russia had 2800 tanks in active service at the start of this and Oryx is listing over 500 lost. And that's just the ones that can be confirmed, and while Ukraine has lost tanks, they are getting more from other Warpac nations like Poland. Also Russia still doesn't have air superiority two months in to this invasion, as evidenced by the video of a Byraktar destroying a Russian patrol boat that came out this morning. I don't think Russia has the logistical capacity to reach Odessa, let alone take it. Remember how much trouble they had with Mariupol, Odessa has had two months to prepare.

Edit: Plus all of the American and European heavy equipment that is finally starting to make it into Ukraine, which will make the Russian tactic of artillery bombardment a lot more difficult to pull off.
 
Last edited:

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
The protections existed for a reason, and after stories of a woman going into prison after getting shot because she supposedly wanted to kill the fetus, and a Texas bill considering the death penalty for women with abortions, the protections have more than justified themselves.
 
Last edited:

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Meanwhile in Europe,

Finnish Ithalethi tabloid claims Finland will officially make a decision on NATO on May 12. The same newspaper previously claimed May 16 as a possible date for joint Swedish and Finnish declaration.

****
For Russo-Ukrainian war, the Ukrainian command is exclusively focused on Kharkiv and the surrounding areas (that is, Northeast). Southern Ukrainian command seems to be weak, which means Russia can probably take over Odessa by the end of May, which will complete their current war objectives.

The current Ukrainian objective is to secure Kharkiv area and cause large equipment losses to Russia through sabotages and guerrilla tactics, which will likely have no effect, as Russia is expected to do a third major offensive soonish, by drafting more people.
Finland has made the statement. The legal process will take weeks, and even more weeks after formal application, but it is happening. Swedish declaration will also happen in the coming week, according to the reports.
***
For Russo-Ukrainian war, the war for Kharkiv is mostly won by Ukraine. Russia has very little territory occupied left near the border, but the war for northern Ukraine will continue, since Ukraine wants to cut off supply lines for Izyum and eventually to Luhansk.

Russia is intensifying its offensive towards Odessa, and despite earlier claims, is not withdrawing from Snake Island it seems. Ukraine has little force in the south, so this front might be won by Russia. Russia is also quickly annexing the southern occupied territories, which was its actual war objective anyway.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
I am getting real f***in' sick and tired of this incessant goal to ban abortion. It clearly has nothing to do with protecting children or life in general.

They don't even do enough for the children that are already here! Foster care is a mess; the education system is falling apart (the United States ranks among the lowest in literacy), healthcare is still counterproductive for the working class, and the price of food has doubled in the last month, so nutrition is now even harder for anyone to attain, let alone children.

On top of that, they want to ban abortion, birth control and Plan B because they stop life, but I've yet to hear any of them mention vasectomies. That stops life as well, but that benefits men, so they clearly don't care.

If they're gonna do this, they can at least be honest about it. This ain't about life. This is about removing women's autonomy. This isn't the first time it's been done. Let's not even play dumb to that.
 

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
*is getting

SCOTUS hasn't published their formal decision yet, but if nothing changes, this is the decision come June or July iirc.

This means that protests, for the short term, are aimed at changing SCOTUS' mind.
The problem is the SCOTUS is far too hyper partisan right now, thanks to Trump. They're never going to change their mind. They've been dead set on ending Roe v. Wade. They could go for marriage equality next. Its frustrating that there's not much we can do and the Democrats just can't do much to codify it into law because everything they do is filibustered or ruined by Manchin and Sinema.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Honestly the Supreme Court is in need of a serious overhaul. It's probably the most undemocratic institution in the government. The people have no say (or at least not directly) in who makes it to the Supreme Court since they're nominated by the President and approved by Congress, no one actually votes them in or anything. And then they get to be there for life? What makes this even worse is that 5 of the 9 justices there were appointed by Presidents that lost the popular vote, and 2 of the seats were taken by Republicans thanks to them playing games with a double standard (when Obama was set to nominate a judge by the end of his administration they said "let the people decide" and held off until after the election but then when the same thing happened to Trump they rushed Trump's pick right through). This whole mess is blatant manipulation by the Republicans and I highly doubt it stops at abortion. And we seriously need to rethink how and when justices are appointed to prevent this from happening again.
 

Litleonid

Well-Known Member
What makes this even worse is that 5 of the 9 justices there were appointed by Presidents that lost the popular vote, and 2 of the seats were taken by Republicans thanks to them playing games with a double standard (when Obama was set to nominate a judge by the end of his administration they said "let the people decide" and held off until after the election but then when the same thing happened to Trump they rushed Trump's pick right through).
This right here. The blatant hypocrisy the Republicans have shown here never should have been allowed to happen. Either President Obama should have been allowed to nominate Merrick Garland or Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barret should have been blocked. This double standard was a disgraceful abuse of power and something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
This right here. The blatant hypocrisy the Republicans have shown here never should have been allowed to happen. Either President Obama should have been allowed to nominate Merrick Garland or Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barret should have been blocked. This double standard was a disgraceful abuse of power and something needs to be done to prevent this in the future.

Yes, but that's only the most blatant offense here. What I'm getting at is that there's larger issues with the Supreme Court than the Republicans' double standard in that situation. Take a step back for a second, they regarded "the people's decision" on who to nominate to the Supreme Court as boiling down to their decision for President. But if it's the President choosing, is that really our decision? Especially when the President is chosen by an Electoral College majority and not a popular majority? Again with 5/9 being chosen by a President that lost the popular vote the Supreme Court in its very makeup, let alone its rulings, is against the will of the people. And then to make matters worse, we're now stuck with these terrible Republican justices we didn't approve for decades because Supreme Court appointments are for life. It will probably take decades before the Democrats can even hope to fix the damage done here because of the way the Supreme Court is structured. It is far too easy to stack the Court with candidates chosen by a minority ruling class which is exactly what the Republicans have done, and the solutions need to go far beyond patching up the issue of whether or not to hold off filling a vacant seat during an election year. Honestly it sickens me that an institution this important that represents 1/3 of the federal government is this easy to exploit.
 
Last edited:

Zora

perpetually tired
Not just approved by Congress, but the Senate specifically.

Like, isn't something like the Trump justices were approved by senators representing just over a third of the US?
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
Honestly the Supreme Court is in need of a serious overhaul. It's probably the most undemocratic institution in the government. The people have no say (or at least not directly) in who makes it to the Supreme Court since they're nominated by the President and approved by Congress, no one actually votes them in or anything. And then they get to be there for life? What makes this even worse is that 5 of the 9 justices there were appointed by Presidents that lost the popular vote, and 2 of the seats were taken by Republicans thanks to them playing games with a double standard (when Obama was set to nominate a judge by the end of his administration they said "let the people decide" and held off until after the election but then when the same thing happened to Trump they rushed Trump's pick right through). This whole mess is blatant manipulation by the Republicans and I highly doubt it stops at abortion. And we seriously need to rethink how and when justices are appointed to prevent this from happening again.

We need to end this two-party system, starting with the Commission on Presidential Debates.

This Red vs Blue mess has done nothing but rip the country apart.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
We need to end this two-party system, starting with the Commission on Presidential Debates.

This Red vs Blue mess has done nothing but rip the country apart.
Which the Republicans have already decided to pull out of. They don't really like Presidential debates anymore.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Really the Senate itself is undemocratic, considering how much it weights some peoples votes over others. There’s more people within a mile of a street in California than entire states.

But we also have a push to make voting rights as far gone as possible and we’re basically one GOP controlled government away from voting based on how much land you own.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
We need to end this two-party system, starting with the Commission on Presidential Debates.

This Red vs Blue mess has done nothing but rip the country apart.

More parties would be great, but it doesn't seem to have helped other countries which still seem to be engaged in a battle of left vs. right, it just ends up that the left-leaning parties and the right-leaning parties team up against each other. I think the solution to the left vs. right issue is to combat extremism, I think a large part of the problem is related to the media, right wing media is dragging the country to the extreme right whereas left wing voters don't want to follow the rightward trend and either stay where they are or shift even further left and so the two sides are drifting further and further apart. I think combating the misinformation stemming from right wing media is the best way to bring the country back together.

Really the Senate itself is undemocratic, considering how much it weights some peoples votes over others. There’s more people within a mile of a street in California than entire states.

But we also have a push to make voting rights as far gone as possible and we’re basically one GOP controlled government away from voting based on how much land you own.

Maybe, but at least the people vote for their senators and they only have 6 year terms. Maybe it is a little less democratic than other institutions, but at least there's some level of democracy there whereas there's no direct democracy involved whatsoever in Supreme Court appointments, so I would still say the Supreme Court is even less democratic.

The Senate is also less democratic by design and I can see valid reasons for keeping it that way. The whole point of the Senate is that it's part of a compromise between giving states equal representation vs. representation based on population (with the House being population based and the Senate being equal representation). Part of the problem with population based representation is that the population is skewed towards certain demographics, especially when it comes to urban vs. rural. (really urban vs. rural has been an undercurrent in politics throughout the nation's entire history). And even now, the majority of the population is urban so if democracy becomes purely population based it could lead to a tyranny of the majority for the urban areas against the rural areas, and I think that's something we want to prevent. Democracy would work better if both urban voters AND rural voters get a say in the direction of this country because then you have a more diverse range of political views to weigh in on how effective these policies are. So ultimately I don't think making the Senate population based or dissolving it altogether is the right way to go here.
 

PrinceOfFacade

Ghost-Type Master
More parties would be great, but it doesn't seem to have helped other countries which still seem to be engaged in a battle of left vs. right, it just ends up that the left-leaning parties and the right-leaning parties team up against each other. I think the solution to the left vs. right issue is to combat extremism, I think a large part of the problem is related to the media, right wing media is dragging the country to the extreme right whereas left wing voters don't want to follow the rightward trend and either stay where they are or shift even further left and so the two sides are drifting further and further apart. I think combating the misinformation stemming from right wing media is the best way to bring the country back together.

I didn't say anything about including more parties. Parties themselves are divisive.

While such associations are ultimately inevitable, the high visibility of multiple parties to the general public could potentially - with enough media push - make party affiliation obsolete. Since nearly half of American adults aren't registered to vote, and half of those that are don't vote, there is nothing to lose from presenting an alternative to the monotony of a two-party system. It could in fact increase voter participation, if voters are aware they don't have to settle for just two options. the 140 million+ Americans who tend not to vote would thus focus less on the party of the additional candidates and more on the candidates themselves. Of course, once again, this would require a lot of push in the media.

I am aware both the left and right would do a hell of a lot to stop it, but all it takes to get the ball rolling is one revelation (i.e. informing the public about the Commission on Presidential Debates).
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO

Swedish Social Democrats, which is the current ruling party in Sweden, have confirmed they will join NATO, but under certain conditions. They oppose stationing nuclear weapons (because Sweden is very anti-nuclear) and hosting permanent NATO bases (because Sweden is still against hosting foreign military bases, and any "NATO" base is just a glorified USA base, let's be real). Effectively, they want the benefits without the costs.

The right-wing opposition is already pro-NATO, obviously, so there is no change from there. Apparently both Finland and Sweden might apply on May 17 officially, but we will see if this is true or not. Again, the bureaucratic process will take more time than people expect.

There are no updates on Russo-Ukrainian war, but Russia is advancing on Izyum front, which means claims of Ukrainian resistance on that front are obviously exaggerated (as everybody watching the war knows), but Ukrainian plan is to advance from north anyway, so this won't change much. Ukrainian tactics, just like the Russian tactics, are very old when it comes to the ground forces (ie. they can literally advance from one singular front like they are still fighting the WWII, which is not how 21st century armies operate), they are just more competent at them then the Russians.

Edit:
Here's an article for the date. Yes it is TASS, but the article is correct.
 
Last edited:
Top