Turkey will veto Sweden and Finland NATO membership.

[Rigby5]

False.

It succeeded because of xenophobia.

Just as Roe v Wade is being overturned because of religious nuttery.

Take these out of the equation, and neither event occurs. And it's not even close.

And what has happened to LePens's support over the last decade?

There is no argument to be had. The far right is resurging in Europe

I don't have much of an opinion on that except that superficially it appears wrong because the EU is mostly white Europeans with a very similar culture to England. But due to the British Common Wealth, England already has a lot more cultural diversity, with easy immigration from India, Egypt, Pakistan, many countries of the South Pacific, and almost a dozen African countries.
So I don't agree with the xenophobia idea.
The European mainland likely is more xenophobic than England.

 

[Rigby5]

As Russia steals Wheat from Ukraine..........lmao

No, Russia has never stolen wheat from the Ukraine, as there is no way to accomplish that.
But the Ukraine was already found guilty in the World Court, of stealing Russian oil from the Russian pipeline that runs through the Ukraine.

{...
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[11][12] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return "would not be quick".[13]
...}

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Go on then, make your argument that it was all down to xenophobia

Mkay

Brexit is strongly linked to xenophobia, according to scientists

‘I think the Leave campaign gave a new, acceptable way to express xenophobia’

www.independent.co.uk

Britons didn’t know what they were doing when they backed Brexit, says European Parliament

MEPs suggest they could have swung 2016 vote for Remain had they warned ‘often misled’ British voters of the risks of leaving

www.telegraph.co.uk

For starters

The UK right wing knew that xenophobia was a powerful factor, and their rhetoric was intentionally designed to pander to it. Go ahead and tell them how wrong they were... which might seem odd to them, considering they won.

Politicians’ anti-immigrant rhetoric fuelled post-Brexit hate crime spike, United Nations says

UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said it was ‘seriously concerned’ about British politicians’ rhetoric

www.independent.co.uk

 

[eagle1462010]

No, Russia has never stolen wheat from the Ukraine, as there is no way to accomplish that.
But the Ukraine was already found guilty in the World Court, of stealing Russian oil from the Russian pipeline that runs through the Ukraine.

Russia is guilty of killing whole towns now................So nice huh.........

How is the tanker business going................Can you keep up with demand for new ones?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Mkay

Brexit is strongly linked to xenophobia, according to scientists

‘I think the Leave campaign gave a new, acceptable way to express xenophobia’

www.independent.co.uk

Britons didn’t know what they were doing when they backed Brexit, says European Parliament

MEPs suggest they could have swung 2016 vote for Remain had they warned ‘often misled’ British voters of the risks of leaving

www.telegraph.co.uk

For starters

The UK right wing knew that xenophobia was a powerful factor, and their rhetoric was intentionally designed to pander to it. Go ahead and tell them how wrong they were... which might seem odd to them, considering they won.

Politicians’ anti-immigrant rhetoric fuelled post-Brexit hate crime spike, United Nations says

UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said it was ‘seriously concerned’ about British politicians’ rhetoric

www.independent.co.uk

Yes, the right knew they could manipulate certain sections of the country with xenophobia. However that's just part of the manipulation. The people doing it weren't xenophobes, Nigel Farage's ex wife is German, many of these people will do business in the EU, probably have houses in the EU etc.

You're trying to take one tactic they used and say it was everything. But it's not.

These people wanted something. So they used whatever means they could to get it.

Xenophobia alone would never, ever in a million years, have got the UK out of the EU.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, the right knew they could manipulate certain sections of the country with xenophobia.

Yep, the far right. An irrational appeal to an irrational fear. No xenophobia = no brexit. While you might be able to make the same claim about other issues, xenophobia is irrational and hateful and deserves to be singled out.

Especially in the context of discussing the resurgence of the far right.

And that's why right wing British politicians spent more time talking about it than about the actual effects of brexit.

Again, you might want to take it up with them. Good luck, since they won, using that strategy.

 

[Rigby5]

The EU is not a military alliance.

They are doing it to protect their sovereignty.

I disagree.

{...
The EU treaty includes a mutual defense pact similar to NATO’s, in which its members agree to fight militarily against an outside attack on any one of its countries. If Ukraine were in the EU, Russia would now be facing massive firepower from France, Germany, and others, instead of the Ukrainian military alone.
...}

Mutual defence clause: what the requirement to help out other member states means | Topics | European Parliament

The mutual defence clause, requiring EU countries to help a member state under attack, was invoked for the first time by France in November in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. In a resolution adopted on 21 January, MEPs said this cooperation should serve to strengthen European...

www.europarl.europa.eu

The EU is based the rule of law, with courts, judiciary, etc.
In contract, NATO is based on pillaging and plunger, without any pretense of law or justice.

 

[eagle1462010]

I disagree.

{...
The EU treaty includes a mutual defense pact similar to NATO’s, in which its members agree to fight militarily against an outside attack on any one of its countries. If Ukraine were in the EU, Russia would now be facing massive firepower from France, Germany, and others, instead of the Ukrainian military alone.
...}

Mutual defence clause: what the requirement to help out other member states means | Topics | European Parliament

The mutual defence clause, requiring EU countries to help a member state under attack, was invoked for the first time by France in November in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. In a resolution adopted on 21 January, MEPs said this cooperation should serve to strengthen European...

www.europarl.europa.eu

The EU is based the rule of law, with courts, judiciary, etc.
In contract, NATO is based on pillaging and plunger, without any pretense of law or justice.

Well then Putin should stay home.............And this is WHY HE DOESN'T ATTACK NATO.

Which happens to be WHY NATO WAS CREATED.........Sounds like it freaking works.........lmao

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I disagree.

{...
The EU treaty includes a mutual defense pact similar to NATO’s, in which its members agree to fight militarily against an outside attack on any one of its countries. If Ukraine were in the EU, Russia would now be facing massive firepower from France, Germany, and others, instead of the Ukrainian military alone.
...}

Mutual defence clause: what the requirement to help out other member states means | Topics | European Parliament

The mutual defence clause, requiring EU countries to help a member state under attack, was invoked for the first time by France in November in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. In a resolution adopted on 21 January, MEPs said this cooperation should serve to strengthen European...

www.europarl.europa.eu

The EU is based the rule of law, with courts, judiciary, etc.
In contract, NATO is based on pillaging and plunger, without any pretense of law or justice.

It's an economic alliance first, not a military alliance.

And it's a weak one, considering it only takes one effective propaganda campaign against scary brown immigrants to make one of its most powerful members tap out of it.

 

[Rigby5]

Russia is guilty of killing whole towns now................So nice huh.........

How is the tanker business going................Can you keep up with demand for new ones?

Wrong, and just propaganda.
You will notice that at Bucha, those civilians killed has white armbands.
That means they were NOT aligned with Kyiv, but were ethnic Russians, aligned with the Russian forces.
When Russia withdrew the day before, the Azov Battalion murdered anyone with a Russian accent.

Russia has such a wide geographical range that it is one of the most multi cultural countries in the world.
But the Ukraine is tiny and very culturally homogeneous.
There is likely not a single country as racist and xenophobic as the Ukraine.

Russia has not lost any tanks newer than 1970 yet.
But the US has spent over $50 billion supplying those weapons.
What happens when they run out?
The US will be bankrupt if we keep up giving away these weapons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You will notice that at Bucha, those civilians killed has white armbands.

^^

Spreading putin propaganda

 

[Rigby5]

Well then Putin should stay home.............And this is WHY HE DOESN'T ATTACK NATO.

Which happens to be WHY NATO WAS CREATED.........Sounds like it freaking works.........lmao

Russia does not attack anyone who does not steal Russian oil, murder ethnic Russians, violate treaties, or try to put nukes on its borders.
If NATO tries to put nukes on Russia's borders, Russia will attack.
NATO is totally corrupt, useless, and just a way for US arms makers to sell more arms.

 

[eagle1462010]

Wrong, and just propaganda.
You will notice that at Bucha, those civilians killed has white armbands.
That means they were NOT aligned with Kyiv, but were ethnic Russians, aligned with the Russian forces.
When Russia withdrew the day before, the Azov Battalion murdered anyone with a Russian accent.

Russia has such a wide geographical range that it is one of the most multi cultural countries in the world.
But the Ukraine is tiny and very culturally homogeneous.
There is likely not a single country as racist and xenophobic as the Ukraine.

Russia has not lost any tanks newer than 1970 yet.
But the US has spent over $50 billion supplying those weapons.
What happens when they run out?
The US will be bankrupt if we keep up giving away these weapons.

And why should I believe you........either way the tank crews are dead.

Globalist are screwing us on purpose with the dollar........Which will lead to another depression........It WILL EFFECT ALL on the planet.........

But Russia is NOT THE GREAT SAVIOR......they with China and many other countries are moving off the dollar......Doesn't change the fact we still have a whole shit load of weapons.

Anyway........Russia attacks NATO WE WILL KILL THEM.

 

[eagle1462010]

Russia does not attack anyone who does not steal Russian oil, murder ethnic Russians, violate treaties, or try to put nukes on its borders.
If NATO tries to put nukes on Russia's borders, Russia will attack.
NATO is totally corrupt, useless, and just a way for US arms makers to sell more arms.

Baloney........your history with the USSR is complete BS and you have used your influence and weapons all over the world....

NATO was there AGAINST YOU.........You hate them because you can't have your way with NATO countries and be the USSR AGAIN.

 

[Rigby5]

^^

Spreading putin propaganda

Its been independently verified.
Bucha was not wiped out as claimed, and only those with a Russian accept were murdered by the Azov Battalion.

Just like the claim that Russia hit the train station with Trochka U missiles, that Russia has not had for 20 years, but the Ukraine does.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yep, the far right. An irrational appeal to an irrational fear. No xenophobia = no brexit. While you might be able to make the same claim about other issues, xenophobia is irrational and hateful and deserves to be singled out.

Especially in the context of discussing the resurgence of the far right.

And that's why right wing British politicians spent more time talking about it than about the actual effects of brexit.

Again, you might want to take it up with them. Good luck, since they won, using that strategy.

No, I don't think so.

You have to remember there are two sides to this.

One side is those who would do and say anything to get Brexit.

The other side tried to paint UKIP as an extremist party. They weren't.

The reality is the far-right in the UK disappeared as a viable entity in 2014.

The other reality is that the push for brexit had been happening for a very long time. Since the early 1990s. If it were a case of simple xenophobia, then it'd have been a much bigger issue in the early 2000s when Labour were pumping the country full of immigrants.

However it was an issue that got bigger at all. It just continued on its path of media manipulation, of anti-EU sentiment.

Traditional Labour voters voted to leave the EU, Corbyn the Labour leader was pro-Brexit. Was that xenophobia? No, it wasn't.

A lot of people didn't see why they were in the EU. The money the UK paid to the EU was one of the biggest factors. Poor people thinking they'd spend less on taxes if the UK left the EU were probably the main reason.

The NHS bus, very infamous because it was a total lie, but they claimed if the UK left the EU then there'd be this extra money for the NHS (which the tories had spent the previous six years reducing, in real terms, the amount of money the NHS had and was going into crisis).

The Sun and the Express, trash papers, had the highest number of Brexit voters. Things explained in simple for people with a complete lack of ability to think for themselves. Some of it was anti-immigration (as opposed to xenophobia), remember the UK is smaller than Idaho and has a population 1/5th the size of the US, nearly twice the population of California in such a small size, immigration is a MASSIVE issue. One that the left, who seem to want to open every border no matter the consequences, will say is about racism and xenophobia because these are key words that get simple minded left wing voters on their side instantly, the fear of being called a racist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Russia does not attack anyone who does not steal Russian oil, murder ethnic Russians, violate treaties, or try to put nukes on its borders.

Liar.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

One side is those who would do and say anything to get Brexit.

And their rhetoric showed what they considered to be the most efficient Pathway to that. And that was to appeal to xenophobia and fear of scary Brown immigrants. It's just a simple fact. There's just no argument to be had over that.

They made this conscious decision. And then they won.

So go ahead and tell them they were off base or wasted their time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

frigidweirdo

You sound suspiciously like an apologist, here.

Like, when a Muslim comes here and lectures everyone about how Islam is a religion of peace and that the fanatics are all "doing it wrong".

Why lecture us? Go lecture the fanatics. They are the ones who can quote Quran and Hadid verses word for dword to justify their actions. They are the ones who say they are doing the will of Allah.

I see parallels in that to our discussion.

Why lecture me? Why try to tell me xenophobia wasn't a large factor? The scientific data shows it was...the right wing politicians made the conscious decision to focus rhetoric on xenophobia...

Go tell them!. But good luck...since they...you know.... won.

Would be like lecturing the Muslim fanatics that they are doing it wrong, right after they create the new caliphate and Allah comes down to earth and blesses it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And their rhetoric showed what they considered to be the most efficient Pathway to that. And that was to appeal to xenophobia and fear of scary Brown immigrants. It's just a simple fact. There's just no argument to be had over that.

They made this conscious decision. And then they won.

So go ahead and tell them they were off base or wasted their time.

Well, mostly it wasn't about "Brown immigrants", because the "Brown immigrants" weren't from the EU, so couldn't get in unless the UK govt said so anyway.

So, your "There's just no argument to be had over that" is, again, annoying, and ridiculously wrong. That's not me saying they didn't invoke some of this, it's just me saying this wasn't going to win them the Brexit vote at all.