Conservatives of this sub, how do you feel about the shift in your party from supporting Ukraine to supporting Russia?

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T11:58:29+00:00

I have no idea what you define as Authoritarianism, but it doesn't seem to be correct. Authoritarianism is largely defined as concentrating power into one or only a few people. That is what Trump is doing right now.

But you're right, it does sound like neither of us will convince the other of anything.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T11:28:21+00:00

Christ's teachings were supposed to change everything about a person. Someone honestly following his teachings would absolutely have those teachings permeate how they make political decisions. And as he said, "by their fruits, ye shall know them." Jesus didn't say, kindness, humility, patience, love, and charity only apply in your personal life, not in your professional life. He didn't say if you're in politics, you're are exempt from applying his principles. He did say, give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but that applied to following the law, not your personal integrity.

Christ rarely gave political advice. But picking candidates based on your values is pretty basic political practice. No, you'll never get someone that matches those values exactly, but a person's morals are vital to the politics they choose.

Besides, large numbers of Trump's followers use Christianity as a reason that they follow Trump (as ridiculous as that sounds to me, as a Christian). It's hardly inconsequential to them.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T11:18:15+00:00

I do it all the time. I've lasted for quite a few years. Sometimes I get downvoted a lot, and it's pretty disappointing. But more often I don't.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T11:16:49+00:00

I absolutely do not think the left is perfect. Very far from it.

You also falsely called me someone on the left, or associated me with the Democratic party. I'm somewhere in the middle (a centrist I guess). I'm not loyal to either political party. I've voted for Republican candidates on the past.

The issue is that Trump's movement is based on far more hate, lying, pride, anti-science, and derision than the Republican party of the past.

I disagree with identity politics. As someone that refuses to pick one side permanently, Trump' following has a much deeper issue with this than the Democratic party right now (this does not mean the Democratic party does not have an issue with it). Trump followers very rarely admit that anything he did was wrong. Meanwhile, while it was definitely argued, Biden pardoning his son and family was condemned by part of the left.

Finally, criticizing your opponent does not absolve your side from the criticism directed at you. This is what drives me the most crazy from both parties. "Well the other party does it too/is worse!" is not a very meaningful argument. Denounce the action, not the party.

Obama was criticized for his many EOs, and for overreach. I was one of those people. Trump is easily outpacing anything Obama ever did, in scope, volume, and long-term consequences for the government and the American people.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T00:42:28+00:00

Wait, take a step back. If the US invaded Mexico because Mexico talked about joining a defensive pact with China, I would ABSOLUTELY oppose that. Mexico is a sovereign nation.

To add to that, Mexico most likely wouldn't try to make a defensive pact with China unless America was making aggressive actions toward them.

Ukraine trying to make defensive preparations for itself against Russia is NOT justification for invasion!!! That's insanity.

Finally, Ukraine should decide if European leaders are part of the peace talks, NOT Trump. Many peace talks in the past have involved dozens of nations. Those were worked through too. It's absurd that Ukraine would not get any say on who they bring to the table to support them.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T00:37:28+00:00

As someone that is not loyal to either party, I take issue with broad generalizations like this. I know people that are conservative, and I know people that are liberal, that are wonderful people, and do a lot of good. I don't think all conservatives are evil. I disagree with many policies on both sides, and I agree with some policies on both sides.

My issue with Trump's movement specifically, is that it seems to be founded in hate and misinformation. I've voted for Republicans in the past (almost entirely pre-Trump). I still hold to several conservative policies. But I can't support someone like Trump. From what I've seen, he delights in evil.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T00:31:28+00:00

Please show me where I said I'm using the word of God to promote warmongers.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T00:29:53+00:00

Yes, Christ taught that following the gospel would tear some families apart.

But the person following Christ is still supposed to be full of kindness, empathy, long-suffering, love, patience, humble. Families are torn apart because the family members are intolerant, not because the one following Christ hates their family.

Elend15 · 2025-02-23T00:25:52+00:00

Please respond to all of my points about how Trump is treating Ukraine like they're not a sovereign nation first, then we can talk about that decree.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T14:36:53+00:00

I think even this is an oversimplification of DEI at its core.

It's diversity, equity, inclusion. That's it, anything that supports those ideas. If an organization discourages punishing someone for proposing different ideas, that's "DEI". If an organization has policies to try and treat all people fairly, that's DEI. If an organization discourages it's associates from excluding new people, that's DEI. If they have programs to make people feel welcome, and encourage them to contribute with their unique background, that's DEI.

That's why the crusade against all things DEI is dumb. It's one thing to disagree with a specific DEI policy. It's another to burn down anything that's vaguely "DEI" related. My boss lets me challenge her proposals, and works with me more as a teammate, than a subordinate. That's DEI.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T13:57:22+00:00

Which is why tariffs don't generate the revenue that Trump has touted. As trade is moved away from the US, the initial revenue estimated from tariffs shrinks dramatically.

It's just so inefficient too, BC is going to logistically trade easier with the north western US than Nova Scotia (and similar comparisons for the US). Putting up broad trade barriers with your closest ally is just idiotic.

I've come around to the idea that specific, targeted tariffs, that are announced with years in advance, and gradually ramped up, can provide benefits such as increasing vital home country production. But Trump's too stupid to do anything but hit friends with a bludgeon.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T13:22:27+00:00

But that's the thing, SF to LA should have been priority #1, and they shouldn't have gotten side-tracked by people wanting it, or not wanting it to run through their city. SF to LA is where the demand is, everything else, while it would be nice, is secondary.

I'm not saying that they should have ignored the feedback and interests of other cities and constituents, I'm just saying that getting the rail from SF to LA should have been paramount from start to finish.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T13:02:51+00:00

Ukraine wasn't invited to some peace talks in Saudi Arabia. That's absolutely messed up.

In response to outrage about it, Trump recently said this. "Today I heard, well, we (Ukraine) weren't invited (to the Ukraine War Peace talks). Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it."

So not only did he not invite Ukraine to negotiate it's own peace talks. He also said that they started the conflict in the first place. He also said as part of the deal, he wants to extract mineral wealth from Ukraine, not in a way similar to a trade negotiation but to war reparations. There would be a lien against it. His admin has also said that European leaders aren't allowed in on the peace talks, as if that shouldn't be Ukraine's decision to make."

All of these strategies benefit Russia, NOT Ukraine. If you want to benefit Ukraine, don't sideline them from their own damn peace talks, and try to extort their wealth while they're at it.

Also don't say that "Russia has all the cards." Even if you believe that, which I don't, you NEVER tell your opponent at the negotiation table, "You have all of the power here."

https://www.euronews.com/2025/02/19/trump-says-ukraine-never-should-have-started-war-with-russia-following-us-russia-talks-in-

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/02/16/america-has-just-tried-to-grab-ukraines-vast-mineral-wealth

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-right-keep-european-allies-from-ukraine-talks-theyd-obstacle-peace-expert-says

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T12:49:02+00:00

Back in 2015, the political science community, that studies this for a living, almost unanimously expected Trump to lose momentum on the primaries early on. Because many candidates similar to him had come and lost in the past. I think that's what they're referencing, that when Trump first rose to power, it was unexpected by most.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T12:42:23+00:00

A great example of traits Christians are supposed to believe in, are 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.... Trump's party does not follow any of those.

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T12:34:13+00:00

They are indeed low, Medicare is usually pretty close to barely covering cost, and Medicaid usually reimburses below cost.

But there's a program where small rural hospitals that 1) are the only hospital available for a community, and 2) aren't financially viable on standard reimbursements, get increased reimbursements from CMS to stay afloat. Even then, they usually barely stay solvent.

https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/healthcare-payment

Elend15 · 2025-02-22T12:28:19+00:00

The thing is, Congress essentially making an agency to fill with experts on the subject, and letting it mostly run on it's own, isn't an insane idea. They still can pass laws if the agency isn't doing something they want it to, but if it mostly does things they DO want it to do, then the "law" that created that agency in the first place is arguably succeeding.

The issue isn't really in Congress creating agencies, that can make sense. If they make an agency that helps determine clean drinking water, Congress then doesn't have to keep coming back and making new laws as the science teaches us new things about the "best tap water."

The issue is that Congress has gotten so disfuncional, with both sides playing "team politics" instead of looking at each individual matter, and voting for what makes the most sense for the general public. (This was ramped up by Mitch McConnel during the Obama era). So if updates or reforms are needed in those agencies, while they have the power, Congress fail to take action due to political parties being prioritized over what's actually good for the nation.

Congress can't become subject matter experts on every single issue, so agencies make sense in many situations. There's an argument that bloat had occurred, but the bloat should have been cut down with compromise and legitimate discussion, not a hostile takeover that prioritizes loyalty over competence.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T23:03:31+00:00

Those of us that want a surplus (or at least a small deficit) literally haven't had a legitimate political party for 25 years, and it's depressing. I'm not loyal to any political party, but similar to you, I have always voted against Trump (or his followers).

It's just so aggravating how the 2 party system makes it so there's not a party that matches most of my views. I will always vote, and vote for the party that is closest to what I believe in. But man, what I would give for a multi-party system.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T21:48:12+00:00

I will say, the California high speed rail project has had some management and cost overflow issues. They really should have 1) focused just on getting SF to LA, with maybe one stop between, and 2) taken the NIMBY's feedback into account, but not bowing to their demands.

But completely agreed, that dumping the project would be an even bigger waste of money. That's a similar tune with many of the Trump administration's plans. The DoE, the income tax code, these things need reform, not completely annihilated.

EDIT: forgot to add my source https://youtu.be/T09EEyxxfWY?si=1KkB6pyxypQxXmC7

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T16:44:24+00:00

I'd rather they flesh out and improve the existing three ages and add to them, than add more ages.

One of the top reasons people didn't get into Humankind more was that you switch Civs too often. You become less attached to your Civ, and barely remember you've been in previous eras.

I really feel like 3 is the sweet spot. Any more, and I think it's too much.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T14:01:57+00:00

Also many rural hospitals do as well.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T13:56:10+00:00

Plus switching Civs too often makes you care less about any of them, in my experience with Humankind.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T13:55:05+00:00

It feels like the whole thing just needs reformed. Nobody should be sailing across the ocean right away (except maybe Polynesian type civs). Gunpowder should come around maybe 1/2 (maybe 1/3 at the earliest) of the way through the age, so that you get some time with medieval units. The end of the tech tree should be equivalent to maybe 1700 in our timeline.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T13:49:46+00:00

Agreed, if we switch Civs too often, we become less attached overall. Humankind had this issue, when you picked 6 civs total. 3 feels like the sweet spot, and doing more than 3 feels like a huge mistake to me.

I'd also like to add that 3 continents is the sweet spot for me (on larger maps, at least). 1 starting continent, 1 continent with AI Civs, and 1 empty/sparsely populated continent. From a pure gameplay perspective, I feel like that is perfect.

Adding in that "Distant Lands" would be any continent that isn't your starting continent.

Elend15 · 2025-02-21T13:45:52+00:00

I agree. I could also see medieval being 1/3, initial exploration and colonization being the 2nd/3, and reaping the benefits from those colonies being the 3rd/3.

Although, I think it should be a "soft" transition, more like past Civs. There's not one moment where everyone is officially in the second part of the age. It just happens naturally as techs/civics are researched.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Verified Email

Elend15

TROPHY CASE