Liberals hate him because he’s a misogynist mancow piece of shit
Conservatives hate him because he sounds like their annoying uppity TikTok grandkids
Its the worst of both worlds.
I know it’s mostly about his toxic ideas, but it probably doesn’t help that he looks like a dude that Canteen Boy wouldn’t want to be left alone with on a scouting trip.
I think a big part of it is the “JD Power Rankings”…
It’s what kept popping into my head when I saw his name at first. So I’m betting it still does for trump. He hears the name and thinks it’s powerful. That’s how superficial trump is, whether he realizes it or not, he probably only picked this dude for his name.
I don’t know about this, the worst hated one I remember was parodied in a movie about Nazis on the moon. And the parody seemed fairly accurate, there is that.
the worst hated one I remember was parodied in a movie about Nazis on the moon
Nah. You could at least get horny for Sarah Palin. Nobody is jacking it to Republican Will Menaker.
A phrase said by soldiers in Ukraine at the beginning of Russia’s main invasion: “We’re lucky they’re so fucking stupid.” I feel this applies here a bit. It’s a good thing Republican strategists aren’t all that bright. I chuckled when JD Vance was announced.
This is already obsolete because it turns out Russia still has 3 times more population, N times more money and the war is happening in Ukraine, not in Russia.
And how do we know what people at Russia’s helm thought?
Maybe they wanted to brutalize Ukraine so that it wouldn’t become a democratic competitor state for Russian speakers, sort of how West Germany and South Korea were. Then ruining the Russian-speaking half of Ukraine, killing so many people there and producing this amount of hate are outcomes useful for that goal.
And then those who think that it’s bad for Russia to lose so many men - for Russia as a whole maybe, but the ruling group has gotten itself a very rich supply of thugs, hitmen, candidates for posts and so on. When those people return from war, it’s going to be dark. Crime levels, general depression, the amount of shellshocked people. Nobody will feel good enough to question their legitimacy for some time.
OK, I know you weren’t talking about Russia.
And how do we know what people at Russia’s helm thought?
Americans will believe just about anything, so long as it’s coming from someone on their team.
And then those who think that it’s bad for Russia to lose so many men
As a general rule, losing a big chunk of your youth population is horrible for a whole host of reasons. Hell, a brutal war of attrition on the Russian border was what ultimately brought down the Romanov Government. The Bolsheviks were (somewhat paradoxically) militant anti-war activists.
I don’t exactly predict another October Revolution soon. But the long term health and wellness of the Russian Federation is degraded with every month of utterly fruitless artillery exchanges. Ukraine ain’t doing too hot, either.
As a general rule, losing a big chunk of your youth population is horrible for a whole host of reasons. Hell, a brutal war of attrition on the Russian border was what ultimately brought down the Romanov Government. The Bolsheviks were (somewhat paradoxically) militant anti-war activists.
I meant that the losses may not have the same proportion of various groups or intelligence as in the general population, so, for example, if only RG and FSO troops were sent there and were dying there, it would be arguably a positive result.
However, this is not what’s happening, people from poorest and most depressive places and social layers go there, which means that while many of them will die, some will get back with combat experience. Lots of crime.
Nothing paradoxical in that, about bolsheviks.
I don’t exactly predict another October Revolution soon. But the long term health and wellness of the Russian Federation is degraded with every month of utterly fruitless artillery exchanges. Ukraine ain’t doing too hot, either.
Well, see, it wasn’t going to be good anyway. Those people who’ve ran from Russia to the West and pretend to be good and civilized were able to play opposition exactly because they were compromising on some old issues (like Chechen war, lustrations and crimes of the Soviet state), and they were mostly people with relatives from Soviet and modern Russian elites. By the way, elites in Baltic countries are from the same flock, and seeing Kaja Kallas in EC is kinda intimidating.
Real opposition back then was simply murdered or defamed on federal TV or even put into prisons and asylums, some just died of old age. There’s very little remaining from them and their political ideas and points. Again, Starovoitova, Novodvorskaya, Politkovskaya, Sakharov, one can go on.
Note how those being arrested for sabotage or protest in Russia over the last two years don’t have anything in common with the opposition of the Sobchak kind. And they have some similarities with those people who were successfully dealt with in the late 90s.
Navalny’s organization was better, but they sadly stained themselves by associating with that “fashion opposition” of 2012 too. This may be the reason they didn’t succeed. People may not say anything, not even think anything, but feel vary over such associations.
Are we really doing eugenics on war dead?
Always. Have you not read anything about Roman army in frankly any period?
Anyway, I’m not doing eugenics, I’m thinking how those losses affect society in general because they are not even close to equally distributed.
By the way, since I mentioned RG and FSO troops - I don’t think those have been sent to war in any significant numbers.
Maybe that’s Putin’s way to postpone civil war or revolution - send to grinder those who’d fight against him.
Have you not read anything about Roman army in frankly any period?
Ah, you’re one of those. Thinking phrenology is 2500 years old.
No, the poor were always preferred to be sent to die in wars. Which is what I’m talking about, I’m not responsible for what your associations are.
