Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
User ID: 137

But he is playing to ’a hit’ here. He’s repeated the 51st state line over and over and over again. A lot of his stray thoughts lately have concerned this subject or other potential annexations.
You don’t need to blackmail rich American Jews into supporting Israel. This, to me, is the single most obvious argument against the entire alleged scheme as a Mossad project. The absolute majority of the important alleged co-accused were Jewish. For every Clinton (who was post-office at the critical time), Trump (random real estate developer at that time) and Prince Andrew (powerless) were at least as many Blacks, Dubins, Dershowitzes and so on, if not many more. Wexner himself (the source of pretty much all Epstein’s wealth) was and is a Jew and a Zionist. If you’re Mossad, you really don’t need to blackmail these people with videos of them fucking 16 year olds to get them to support Israel; they’ll do it for free. The whole point of blackmailing someone is to get them to do something they don’t want to do.
Other arguments are valid, but I'm not sure if this is a particularly good argument on its own. Sure, rich Jewish Americans (and a lot of other Americans besides) will revert to supporting Israel even without blackmail, but there's levels of support; someone who will offer Israel basic support might still balk at giving considerable proportions of their property, offering support in any and all cases including Israel committing a genocide (exceeding current actions at Gaza) or nuking something, committing potentially criminal acts etc.
Also, someone being powerless or low-powered now does not mean they'll be so in the future, at the alleged time of the acts Trump had already expressed interest in presidency, Bill Clinton was a very potential first husband of a future president, and Prince Andrew was a plane crash away from the throne. If you WERE an intelligence agency amassing a blackmail file, of course you'd benefit from a wide trawl among the elite class in general.
My guess is that he just mostly lets the mothers name the children. The ones with the weirdest names are the ones with Grimes.
While the specific derangement syndrome indeed originated with W, there was the concept of Clinton crazies before it.
There are accounts (some notable Finnish ones here and here linking to a lot of foreign accounts of the like) that seemingly argue that basically every famous person, including historical ones, is transgender. (Including claiming that famous trans persons are double trans.) It could be a bit, but to me it smacks of actual crazy in a way that goes far beyond even a persistent bit.
Don't they do this every two years or like?
...what does Finlandising mean in this instance? During the actual Finlandisation, Finland was neutral, while Canada is right now in a military alliance with the US. A Finland that was in a military alliance with Soviet Union wouldn't be Finlandised, it would have been an outright part of the Soviet block.
No matter what you believe about the validity of polling, "Zelensky has an approval rating of 4%" does not pass a basic sanity check at any level. He's a wartime president, if his approval was really just 4% in a time like this he'd be shunted aside at warp speed. There are plenty of people in Ukraine at the moment with both the willingness and the ability to remove what would be a hysterically unpopular president with relatively little hassle if it came to that.
Third.
I've read quite a few works by Mieville and the one I'd recommend the most is October, which, while obviously and openly biased towards the Bolsheviks, actually managed to give me a better view of the actual timeline of the events during October Revolution than any of the "real history" works I've read on the subject.
But they didn't leave it at that. They wrote a whole chapter about how it's racist to hate white people within a book where they could have easily not done that and where, indeed, one would expect many if not most of the potential readers willing to agree with the general thesis of the book to find the view that 'anti-white racism' is even possible to be highly controversial.
Googling around, EU's temporary protection scheme was extended to 2026 and Finland, at least, has implemented this on a national level.
It's unlikely that these people will be deported to Ukraine, as they will self-deport to Europe quite a bit before Homan can get to that.
It's probably comparable to school shooting in the copycat attack pattern way. News about school shootings make murderous loons think "Holy shit, I could shoot up my school!" News about cars being driven to crowds with fatal effects make murderous loons go "Holy shit, I could do so much damage just be driving my car into the crowd at a high speed!"
I'm not sure if he was right or not, mainly posted to make the Tsipras comparison which has been on my mind for a while.
Russia was first too ramshackle and corrupt to integrate and then too authoritarian to integrate.
I guess there would have been a window specifically around 2004-2006, but that's a pretty small window.
W did have military experience, however one might slice the practicalities of his time in the Texas Air National Guard. You're probably thinking of combat experience here.
Since he has already made not wearing a suit his "thing", it would have also been a signal for him to wear a suit. It would have probably signified a humiliation and subjection, a kowtow to the new Emperor.
I'm thinking of another leader who made disrespecting sartorial codes his "thing", the Greek PM Tsipras during the euro crisis, who made a point of not wearing a tie until there was a debt deal. Of course, when the debt deal was made, it was basically the same old austerity he had been elected to end, and when he wore a tie it was obviously an indication of submission (though the actual submission had been made far earlier).
Winter War, I don't think it continued to the Continuation War.
I've never considered direct Russian influence to European electoral politics to be as meaningful as claimed by many, though there have been clear attempts by the RF to do so.
And, of course, there was a lot of open and hidden American electoral interference to European electoral politics during the Cold War. A lot of political forces in Europe basically ran entirely or mostly on American cash.
Sweden and Finland implicitly (often stated explicitly, even) work together as a team. Finland provides the land force, Sweden provides the navy and the air force.
If this was a Finnish forum you could probably start a flamewar lasting hundreds of posts on the topic of "the degree of Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad".
and was not helped during the war by any foreign country in any way
Well, not quite true...
There's a longstanding historical debate on whether the possibility of Anglo-French intervention in Winter War was the decisive factor in Soviets deciding to acquiesce to peace, but that debate is beyond my pay grade, insofar as giving a definite answer goes.
I think that the best way to see it is like: Trump likes tariffs. In the ideal Trumpworld, there's basically a high tariff against most every country, with lower and nonexistent tariff rates being a special favor for pliant loyalists, not the basic starting point. He can't implement this right now in its entirety, since it would still be bit too harsh a hit on economy, but he can start implementing it against those whose negotiating position isn't particularly good, ie. weaker neighboring countries much more dependent on US than US is on them.
- Prev
- Next
But if it is understood as being leaked on purpose then it becomes just more public noise.
More options
Context Copy link