- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:04 pm to deltaland
quote:
Why not reset the power paradigm? Western Europe is weak, trending authoritarian and woke beyond hope.
Im in this camp. One group is now Godless, turns a blind eye to the abuse of children, persecutes people for criticizing their government...and they are supposedly supposed to be the "good guys"
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:10 pm to Friedbrie
quote:what a historic offering indeed
Putin Offered US Access to Rare Earth Minerals
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:12 pm to deltaland
quote:
Why not reset the power paradigm? Western Europe is weak, trending authoritarian and woke beyond hope
For starters, the EU has about 10x the economy that Russia has. That's a pretty big reason not to "rest the power paradigm"
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Russia is mostly an extraction capital oriented country so I think the GOP - who really represents the interests of US extraction capital - can more easily talk turkey with Russia.
However, bankers rule the world and always will under the capitalist system. All those extraction capital types with their oil fields, gas mines, livestock, and wheat fields need debt to run their operations and thats where the liberal side will always win in the end. Really this dynamic has been playing out on repeat in US history since the beginning. Everyone hates the banker but nobody can beat the banker it seems.
However, bankers rule the world and always will under the capitalist system. All those extraction capital types with their oil fields, gas mines, livestock, and wheat fields need debt to run their operations and thats where the liberal side will always win in the end. Really this dynamic has been playing out on repeat in US history since the beginning. Everyone hates the banker but nobody can beat the banker it seems.
This post was edited on 3/1/25 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:23 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:
Diego Ricardo
I said this before: Russia’s whole “liberation” in East Ukraine was about getting their natural resources
I was banned for a year cause I posted this in the OT thread and they couldnt handle it
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:23 pm to SDVTiger
I tried to free you from the chains of oppression my brother
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:28 pm to Friedbrie
We have all the rare earth minerals we could ever need domestically, we just don't mine it
This post was edited on 3/1/25 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:32 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorstep, but he'll let US com in?
Allowing a US mining operation to operate and partner with them in eastern Ukraine isn’t allowing NATO to setup a massive presence on their border.
All Russia ever wanted was a buffer between them and NATO and some of the resources in the areas they already control.
I’m not saying it was a just reason for the invasion, but if China occupied Mexico I would want us to do the same thing.
Posted on 3/1/25 at 7:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For starters, the EU has about 10x the economy that Russia has. That's a pretty big reason not to "rest the power paradigm"
How would Russias economy fare if they had open trade deals with the west and no sanctions?
And I didn’t say exclude the EU. I was saying normalize relations if Russia agrees to certain terms and let them join the Western world rather than continue to villainize them
Posted on 3/1/25 at 8:26 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:
I think the GOP - who really represents the interests of US extraction capital
That's a point that we should talk about more
The political parties represent different ethnic groups, but also slices of the economy
Posted on 3/1/25 at 9:18 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
That's a point that we should talk about more
The political parties represent different ethnic groups, but also slices of the economy
The GOP is really the party that represents the interests of extraction capital. The Democrats are the party that represents the interests of financial capital.
Tech has been deeply intertwined with financial capital because tech speculation is a great place for idle money to go. Technology is great for keeping the churn of money moving because money that is moving towards investments is better than money sitting still for economic activity.
There is a realignment happening in US tech towards the right because they want the same protection rackets that many of our extraction capital industries enjoy. Why? Because they see that China is rapidly growing in hard science research and heavy state subsidies bank rolls R&D to market endeavors. They cannot compete with China or at least fear that they cannot. Hell, I think the biggest motivation in Elon tossing aside his sorta centrist liberalism for MAGA was BYD and others being able to make a Model 3 competitor that would actually be 25k USD. He's fricked if Chinese EVs ever hit these shores.
As Wu Tang Clan says, "Cash Rules Everything Around Me"
This post was edited on 3/1/25 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 3/1/25 at 9:40 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
I was banned for a year cause I posted this in the OT thread and they couldnt handle it
Well, it is simply true. The plight of the people in Eastern Ukraine was mostly something stirred up by Russia itself - though Ukraine did everything they could to amplify the problem with ethnic Russians near the border - as the casus belli for a naked land grab for resource enrichment.
No state, empire, kingdom, realm, etc that has existed in human history has taken someone's else land for solely moral reasons. The economic or security reasons come first, the moral justifications second. Hell, the 19th century anti-slave bloc's main body was not people morally against slavery but industrial laborers in the Northern states that did not want an industrialized South with slave labor competing against them. It would invariably lower their wages if not put them out of work altogether. The economic reasons first, moral reasons second.
This post was edited on 3/1/25 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 3/1/25 at 9:56 pm to tide06
quote:
All Russia ever wanted was a buffer between them and NATO and some of the resources in the areas they already control.
That's a contradicting comment. I'd US is operating there, that would be NATO . If they did aggressive activity w US there, NATI would step in
Posted on 3/1/25 at 10:04 pm to Friedbrie
Nothing like funding a potential adversary,,,
Posted on 3/1/25 at 10:20 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Congo is also offering.
Some things never change.
This post was edited on 3/2/25 at 8:00 am
Posted on 3/1/25 at 11:19 pm to ChatGPT of LA
A US mining operation is not a nato base, I’m not sure how that’s contradictory or confusing.
They want Ukraine as a no go zone for NATO/US troops.
That is entirely possible to achieve while extracting minerals.
They want Ukraine as a no go zone for NATO/US troops.
That is entirely possible to achieve while extracting minerals.
Posted on 3/1/25 at 11:25 pm to tide06
quote:
A US mining operation is not a nato base, I’m not sure how that’s contradictory or confusing.
Yes, it is. any aggression against Ukraine. While the US is in the country would be considered aggression against a NATO partner, since US would have an official presence.
Bottom line is that they would not attack while the u s was there, which is the same effect as being a nato partner
Posted on 3/1/25 at 11:39 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Yes, it is.
Please explain how having a private company extracting minerals in a non US allied nation who isn’t in NATO is the same politically and militarily as having a military base?
Feel free to reference the NATO charter and how that would be relevant to a non member state and a nation in which no US troops are deployed?
quote:
While the US is in the country would be considered aggression against a NATO partner, since US would have an official presence. Bottom line is that they would not attack while the u s was there, which is the same effect as being a nato partner
None of this is applicable because we would not have a defense agreement in place, nor is it particularly relevant because Russia would’ve just signed a peace deal they wouldn’t agree to if it weren’t preferable to them relative to the current status quo.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News