Should U.S.A. actively pursue in the removal of Putin?

[CristW]

To: Jenny A.,

Obviously because they are more sane, rational and stable ... by choice and philosophy.

---

To: Alice,

By picking the Putin option, you would be expressing - "We should stay out Russia's internal affairs". Which is not a good idea knowing his pattern of behaviour.

[Violet]

To: Jenny A.,

Obviously because they are more sane, rational and stable ... by choice and philosophy.

I do not recall my friend Stalin ever being accused of this 'stability' you speak of.

Sanity, rationality, and stability are not available to your kind through choice. Were it so, then why would the insane even exist? Being insane isn't particularly fun.

---

To: Alice,

By picking the Putin option, you would be expressing - "We should stay out Russia's internal affairs". Which is not a good idea knowing his pattern of behaviour.

By 'we' I would only mean the United States, which currently either has to go to war with its gigantic military, or has to shed the unnecessary budget waste.

So yes, I'd prefer we ditch a pointless drain over building a sewer to give the thing a purpose.

Let someone else be the world's scorned "policeman".

[Dystopia]

Alice just saying we were talking about socialist parties, not communist ones, Stalin was from the CP, not from the socialist one


Regarding my conversation with the OP about nationalism, I must say that if there was a nationalist party that was socially liberal I would vote for them without thinking twice.

[Anomalocaris]

It appear to me the OP's idea of "socialist" more closely resemble the sort of "socialist" party that is a communist party rebranding itself for the post communist era, than the sort of socialist party of some northern or Western European mold.

[Dystopia]

So why not be a part of the communist party then?

Usually when there is a commie and a socialist party I see the commie as being the marxist leninist one and the socialist as being the social democrat who favours government intervention but still keeps the free market.

Of course that literally speaking socialist parties in europe aren't really socialist, if they were their purpose would be solely to reach the stage of communism. They are more like moderate socialists who do not wish to abolish capitalism but merely control it

[CristW]

Blackout,

You got it. The socialists parties in Russia are at times also expressing some form nationalism as well. The only reason they are doing this is because of their fear of Putin and of course going along to steal some votes from his party. By the way, what is "OP"?

Alice,

Just read blackout's comment to get understanding what it happening and the political dynamics. Yes, "we" means the United States. Stalin is a Communist party member in the past, I am NOT a communist.

[Dystopia]

OP is the person who posted the thread.

In europe you see some nationalist parties having some leftist ideas to gain more votes. For instance in France Le Penn is a nationalist and a conservative anti-immigration leader, but to gain votes she is pro-choice and pro gay rights

[Violet]

Alice just saying we were talking about socialist parties, not communist ones, Stalin was from the CP, not from the socialist one

............ *PFT*



That was pretty good. I'd give you a reputation upper, but I don't think you'd understand it.

Regarding my conversation with the OP about nationalism, I must say that if there was a nationalist party that was socially liberal I would vote for them without thinking twice.

That wouldn't make a lot of sense, really. Patriotism is dependent on believing that you're the best, and for that you'd have to believe that the others are... not so the best.

If it happened, it would have a very difficult time remaining stable, as it's being pulled in two conflicting directions by its nature of existence, especially considering that we're not talking a fictional universe here, but of manipulating already existing people to bend into shapes they've never even heard of... and of course, you'd likely fail, leaving your nation severed cleanly in two: those who believe they're the best, and those who believe in some awful semblance of equality that stops short of unification.

---

Alice,

Just read blackout's comment to get understanding what it happening and the political dynamics. Yes, "we" means the United States. Stalin is a Communist party member in the past, I am NOT a communist.

I understand plenty of fun little political dynamics and more importantly, I understand that if we're not annexing a country in a war that we're not fighting mostly by proxy and/or external manipulation: we're going to have to defend our claim over Ukraine's oil without actively incurring the wrath of the entire world. But, we have options, and the only ones that make any particular sense TO THE USA are to stay out of it until we're dragged in by weight of our alliances with the majority of European countries... and then, we would do well to either assist at that point by carrying the brunt of the battles (incurring international debt towards our state), or we can assist in a minimalist capacity that says 'we're holding up our end, but not because we want to'.

Russia is not in a position to be an active threat to the United States without going nuclear, and Putin's advisers are not stupid enough to try it, for they would be.... buried.

---

In europe you see some nationalist parties having some leftist ideas to gain more votes. For instance in France Le Penn is a nationalist and a conservative anti-immigration leader, but to gain votes she is pro-choice and pro gay rights

All that changes is 'who do we hate?!' once the previous avenues have been exhausted.

[*Deidre*]

No, the US should stay out of it. Why is the US responsible for changing the world?

[Dystopia]

That wouldn't make a lot of sense, really. Patriotism is dependent on believing that you're the best, and for that you'd have to believe that the others are... not so the best.

If it happened, it would have a very difficult time remaining stable, as it's being pulled in two conflicting directions by its nature of existence, especially considering that we're not talking a fictional universe here, but of manipulating already existing people to bend into shapes they've never even heard of... and of course, you'd likely fail, leaving your nation severed cleanly in two: those who believe they're the best, and those who believe in some awful semblance of equality that stops short of unification.

Lol. Nationalism and patriotism are not the same, don't make senseless confusions. Nationalism is a political ideology that empathises one's nation. Patriotism is simply being proud of your own country and origins. I'm a patriot, I like my country and my origins, and I contribute to it as I can and try to be productive. Most people are patriots to an extent, at least they are moderate patriots. Nationalism takes patriotism to a higher level and puts everything submitted to the nation's will and good. Even nationalists won't kick out all immigrants, simply the ones who don't contribute to anything.

---

............ *PFT*



That was pretty good. I'd give you a reputation upper, but I don't think you'd understand it.

Can you try to be clearer? There is a difference between socialist and communist parties, at least in europe there is.