replacing the VP

montgomery said:
You don't pay attention very well so I'l just not bother trying with you anymore. If you paid attention you would understand that Russia has the potential to compete with the US and is already competing by getting in the way of US plans for more aggression in the ME.

You're trying to separate economic competition from competition as a nuclear power and that just doesn't work that way. As the US sanctions against Russia become more ineffective because of the competing alliance which is the BRiCS, you may come to understand better.

Maybe a way to help you understand would be to take the example of China before they became an economic threat to the US. Most people can appreciate that Russia will soon become another of the world's economic and military powers.

Or, maybe it's as simple as just telling you to try to understand why the US has been the aggressor in nearly 40 countries since WW2 alone. Were they geo-political competitors? Venezuela? Syria?
Click to expand...

You in no way have shown HOW it is they 'can compete with us'. IN WHAT? Their GDP is about 8% of ours.

No... NO ONE thinks Russia is going to become a competitor with China and the US economically. They have less than HALF our population, they do not have a diverse economy.

You are 100% wrong with regards to economic power vs. military power. Just because they have a lot of Nukes and can compete in that regard, it doesn't mean they are going to become an economic power.

You have no clue what you are talking about, which is precisely why you won't address any of the actual points I have made.

1) Their population is less than half of ours, about 1/10th of Chinas
2) They are heavily dependent upon energy and minerals, which is why their GDP is SHRINKING over the past several years as oil prices have fallen.

China became a competitor because they have a population five times the size of ours. They became a competitor once they integrated Hong Kong and started opening up their markets to a more capitalistic approach (albeit with a Communist government).

But again I ask you... WHAT is it that you think is going to make Russia suddenly become a competitor in the next five or ten or twenty years or whatever timeline you are using? What sources are you reading that suggest that?

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...omic-pipsqueak-trumps-infatuation-is-baffling
 
Superfreak said:
You in no way have shown HOW it is they 'can compete with us'. IN WHAT? Their GDP is about 8% of ours.

No... NO ONE thinks Russia is going to become a competitor with China and the US economically. They have less than HALF our population, they do not have a diverse economy.

You are 100% wrong with regards to economic power vs. military power. Just because they have a lot of Nukes and can compete in that regard, it doesn't mean they are going to become an economic power.

You have no clue what you are talking about, which is precisely why you won't address any of the actual points I have made.

1) Their population is less than half of ours, about 1/10th of Chinas
2) They are heavily dependent upon energy and minerals, which is why their GDP is SHRINKING over the past several years as oil prices have fallen.

China became a competitor because they have a population five times the size of ours. They became a competitor once they integrated Hong Kong and started opening up their markets to a more capitalistic approach (albeit with a Communist government).

But again I ask you... WHAT is it that you think is going to make Russia suddenly become a competitor in the next five or ten or twenty years or whatever timeline you are using? What sources are you reading that suggest that?

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...omic-pipsqueak-trumps-infatuation-is-baffling
Click to expand...

You refuse to accept that Russia has great potential in the future so I'll switch to a different tact with you. In fact, I already had but you seemed to not notice. The US traditional hate for the Soviet Union has now been transferred to hating Russia. That propaganda effort is greatly pursued in the US and that's hardly debatable. The ME countries, the Central American countries, and especially Venezuela are being interfered with by the US for the same reasons why Russia's wellbeing is being interfered with by the US. And none of them can be considered a geo-political threat to the US.

Unless you consider that a country becomes a geo-political threat if it aligns with another nuclear superpower which then makes that country invulneralbe to US interference and which leads to US led war.

China and Russia being strongly allied against US aggression will continue to gain the favour of all or most of the small countries the US sees as economically important to control in it's sphere of influence. The wishes of the governments and the peoples of those countries are turning their backs on the US and it's wars of aggression. That is the threat, and certainly not geo-political threats. Syria and Iran are prime examples.

For an example of a country that may suit your definition of a geo-political threat, I would suggest that North Korea meets the definition. Likewise China would consider that so for South Korea.

I am suggesting that your argument must be upheld by the US because it's a tactic used to make outright US aggression into something more acceptable.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No....I wish I could say that but...no...were talking about a guy so obtuse that the women in his State started sending him used sanitary napkins.
Click to expand...

Is that on Pence or the women? Sounds to me like Indiana is fucked up every which way. Oh, and btw...President Watermark. Chew on that.
 
montgomery said:
You refuse to accept that Russia has great potential in the future so I'll switch to a different tact with you. In fact, I already had but you seemed to not notice. The US traditional hate for the Soviet Union has now been transferred to hating Russia. That propaganda effort is greatly pursued in the US and that's hardly debatable. The ME countries, the Central American countries, and especially Venezuela are being interfered with by the US for the same reasons why Russia's wellbeing is being interfered with by the US. And none of them can be considered a geo-political threat to the US.

Unless you consider that a country becomes a geo-political threat if it aligns with another nuclear superpower which then makes that country invulneralbe to US interference and which leads to US led war.

China and Russia being strongly allied against US aggression will continue to gain the favour of all or most of the small countries the US sees as economically important to control in it's sphere of influence. The wishes of the governments and the peoples of those countries are turning their backs on the US and it's wars of aggression. That is the threat, and certainly not geo-political threats. Syria and Iran are prime examples.

For an example of a country that may suit your definition of a geo-political threat, I would suggest that North Korea meets the definition. Likewise China would consider that so for South Korea.

I am suggesting that your argument must be upheld by the US because it's a tactic used to make outright US aggression into something more acceptable.
Click to expand...

For the final time. GIVE a friggin example of HOW they are going to become a competitor. Give an example of where you are getting your information. Restating the same nonsense over and over again, while at the same time refusing to address the questions and points I have made suggests you have no intention of an honest discussion on this.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer?

I have already addressed your 'points'. Are you not honest enough to do the same?
 
Superfreak said:
For the final time. GIVE a friggin example of HOW they are going to become a competitor. Give an example of where you are getting your information. Restating the same nonsense over and over again, while at the same time refusing to address the questions and points I have made suggests you have no intention of an honest discussion on this.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer?

I have already addressed your 'points'. Are you not honest enough to do the same?
Click to expand...

No, he's not.
 
Superfreak said:
For the final time. GIVE a friggin example of HOW they are going to become a competitor. Give an example of where you are getting your information. Restating the same nonsense over and over again, while at the same time refusing to address the questions and points I have made suggests you have no intention of an honest discussion on this.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer?

I have already addressed your 'points'. Are you not honest enough to do the same?
Click to expand...

Your politics as an American doesn't allow you to agree with any points I've made. You're forced by the propaganda efforts of your country to view other nations as geo-political threats to the US.

If you're not capable of stating some other reasons for nearly 40 US wars of aggresssion since WW2, then I'm claiming that you are avoiding the truth and are thusly defeated. Now you have the paramaters of the challenge. Deal with it or we're finished.
 
montgomery said:
Your politics as an American doesn't allow you to agree with any points I've made. You're forced by the propaganda efforts of your country to view other nations as geo-political threats to the US.

If you're not capable of stating some other reasons for nearly 40 US wars of aggresssion since WW2, then I'm claiming that you are avoiding the truth and are thusly defeated. Now you have the paramaters of the challenge. Deal with it or we're finished.
Click to expand...

You keep rambling about politics. My points are ECONOMIC. You continue to run away from my points. How do you explain their DECLINING GDP? How do you think that their population is going to DOUBLE the per capita GDP of the US? What areas in their economy are expanding?

40 years of US aggression has NOTHING to do with the economic potential of Russia. Nothing.
 
Guille said:
Is that on Pence or the women? Sounds to me like Indiana is fucked up every which way. Oh, and btw...President Watermark. Chew on that.
Click to expand...
What a terrible dichotomy.

The great thing about America is anyone can become President and the scary thing about America is anyone can become President.
 
montgomery said:
Your politics as an American doesn't allow you to agree with any points I've made. You're forced by the propaganda efforts of your country to view other nations as geo-political threats to the US.
Click to expand...

Just as your anti-American attitudes are shaped by propaganda--the same old cliches that never seem to change.
 
TOP said:
...No one ‘disagrees with me, however;) *lol If you read what you write, neither would you...a shrink would have a heyday with you....
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself. Many people disagree with you despite your arrogance in thinking otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top