EDIT: pro-war. Title's messed up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48709997)

some icky Ostjuden embarrassed their great grandfathers lived in goat shit and still obsessed with taking it out on the Czar.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710064)

Libs have always been pro war against Russia. Don’t forget it was Clinton who betrayed the Russians and committed the US to expanding NATO eastward. Dems also forced Russia to conduct the special military operation in the Ukraine when they supported the 2014 protests that toppled the pro Russian government (thanks Obama). Libs throughout the past 30 years have supported all of the above.

Of course, after causing all this chaos and devastation, libs are now doubling down to supply the Ukraine with more weapons to prolong Ukrainian suffering. Just this weekend libs were protesting Vice President Vance in Vermont oblast to get him to cease peacemaking efforts. It’s just the latest in 30 years of warmongering against Russia. It shouldn’t surprise anyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710114)

https://x.com/RALee85/status/1501469696150880256

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710907)

Russia = 1939 Germany is such lazy propaganda.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48711051)

edit: also Putin is against fags and trannies, so he can't be all bad

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48711643)

because of that, we are required to have nuclear war

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710609)

Also, everyone who's dick hasn't been surgically removed can see that the goal here is direct involvement of the US military. Ukraine has no ability to expel Russia from the occupied territories, and what the hell do you think a "security guarantee" is?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710863)

Libs were never against war. They were against the powers that be until the second they became the entrenched powers. So now they favor anything that maintains their power.

War comes with appropriations, contracts with suppliers that have board spots to fill, special power for the spy agencies. Libs control these things now, so how could they not be in favor of foreverwar?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48710852)

Or if you want to be more daring, start massing troops in (new NATO member) Finland's territory just across the border from St. Petersburg. Tell Vlad that if he doesn't get the fuck out of Ukraine, NATO tanks are going to be rolling through downtown St. Petersburg at the beginning of next week. This carries the obvious risk that Putin might drop the bomb to save his ass, but at this point, what are the chances that Russia's nukes even still work? I think it's a gamble that should at least be considered.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48712169)

If you grew up in the 80s and 90s, like most of us did, it's easy to associate liberals with the nonconformist libertarian rage against machine attitude, with all its distrust of big governments and social conventions. Out of this grew the anti-war movements. But it ignores that there's always been a strong undercurrent of rules-based groupthink consensus among much of liberalism. They yearn for the idealized international rules-based order where a modern version of Plato's Republic's guardians benevolently preside over a compliant population who knows their place in a progressive world order. This is most evident in socialism and communism, where the party rules benevolently for the people and ostensibly makes their lives better in exchange for tremendous conformity and embracing of the party's progressivism. I could blab on about this, but this trait is profound everywhere in liberalism, and we see it abundantly in modern American liberalism that sees democracy as more the consensus of bureaucrats, media, NGOs, donors who agree to consensus what policies are rather than the will of the voters. The rules of the world are ordained by largely unelected yet "democratic" entities like the UN and EU, and it is through this model, enforced by a strong state, that we shall find Eudaimonia. This is the first Parliament.

Trump is not of this worldview, to put it politely. The TDS emerged very early on when it became clear Trump was openly disdainful of virtually every aspect of the liberal's worldview, and by extension, their morality and their sense of identity. And Trump was not just disdainful, he mocked it and made it appear irrelevant and useless. But he was not just a dissenter or inconvenient speaker of truth, he sought out to dismantle it (as he is now with the dismantling of the bureaucracy, the core of the modern liberal state and the financial connection between all the disparate element of the liberal's "democracy". This is the second Parliament.

The knee jerk opposition to everything Trump says or does is classic human reaction to someone you hate. The sheer existence of Donald Trump attacked every aspect of a liberal's morality, every single day, by undermining what they thought to be right and true and just. That is why they hate him so intensely, and the hatred is made worse by that deep down inside, there are truths to Trump's attitude. So they must automatically take the opposite stance of anything Trump does We can see how Trump's realistic attitude towards Ukraine, focusing more on unnecessary deaths and destruction than the evilness of Putin's invasion, and acceptance that there are spheres of influence where the US has little need to be involved with, means he is simultaneously undermining NATO, the EU, the UN, all the other sacred cows of liberalism, who have rushed to defend Ukraine (with justification, it must be said). But never mind the deaths, liberals care more about ideals and their beliefs in this rules-based international order than working class men sent to the slaughter. They always really have. Vietnam? It was really against the corrupt American state who defied international rules based order to fight the communists and peasants. Iraq? Oh, major defiance of international rules-based order by a corrupt American government. But Ukraine? Oh, very different, my dear boy. Very different. It's fighting against a corrupt dictator who rejected international rules-based world order. And now even worse, our own president is turning his back against the rules-based world order in favor of a different (if more realistic) realpolitik.

Once you understand the personalities and metaphysical relationships at play, everything falls into place in ways that make perfect sense. This is the third Parliament.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48711128)

The man is not without his flaws and his refusal to be too critical of Putin is puzzling, but ironically, he does share with another great liberal icon a more grounded geopolitics, FDR, who pragmatically accepted the reality of a soviet sphere in parts of the world, knowing that the US could not risk overextending itself as a world's policeman in the name of democracy. And for the last 20 years there were signs of US overextension on the global scale that would have scared the heck out of FDR. And FDR was also suspicious of both the British and Europeans, knowing our interests were not perfectly aligned as well as disdainful of their empires and snobbery (something that is strikingly similar to Trump and Vance's disdain of liberal's neo-imperial attitudes in how it governs its subjects, which is very evident in the modern UK and the EU).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48711542)

MSM programmed libs are still what they are but Russia is much more dangerous than cons are giving the country credit for

The best arguments for are either about geopolitical advantage-seeking against a largely hostile state with a long, long memory or "it's a matter of national honor" though at this point but it's becoming clear that the Novo Homo types both con and lib in DC don't really have any sincere care for that old fashioned notion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5688262&forum_id=2...id.#48712087)