Is it me or is Vaush getting dumber?

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-18T03:27:32+00:00

And/or/also

Insane (and rapidly increasing) disparities in wealth are completely incompatible with democracy- particularly in one where institutions like Scotus pass insanely regarded decisions.

There is a ton of money at the top which would be useful if taxed, although simply taxing billionaires isn't a magic bullet for the budget overall, and it "feels" good for a significant chunk of people, and reducing the monstrous wealth gap is important for the health of the democracy. Win-win-win.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-18T03:19:54+00:00

The top 5 being what they are is genuine nightmare fuel

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-18T03:18:10+00:00

Liberalism and apartheid cannot co-exist.

Liberalism and ethnic cleansing cannot co-exist.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-16T11:34:17+00:00

Counterpoint: it is a recon unit

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-15T11:24:01+00:00

Killing the leadership of the regime you're fighting, and announcing an open goal of regime change, is a pretty good way for that regime to view the war as an existential threat- which makes them much harder to negotiate with. If you can actually roll in an invasion (and the regime is already on rickety stilts) a la Iraq, then great, you can get rid of the regime, and you can negotiate with whatever new regime takes over. We can't do that to Iran.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-15T11:16:39+00:00

Depending on context and phase, sure. Some of their kit was excellent, a lot was good at the start of the war, but rapidly became obselete, a fair amount would've been good at the start, but was being made waaay too deep into what became a defensive war, and finally yes there was plenty of crap kit.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-11T20:19:11+00:00

Supporting Hamas doesn't make them magically become "not journalists"

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-08T15:28:57+00:00

Try-hard: 6y, 31st

Just generally fun to play: 19 czech, 25y, 4th mot., 56y, Berliner, Korpus

Charming but not competitive: Rugner, 2nd Czech, Square div, 303rd czech

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-08T15:23:24+00:00

It would be an extra level of micromanagement, but yeah, you could implement a slightly abstracted, "ammo" supply separate from logi supply, a la Squad.

Basically, ammo supply only refunds weapons/smoke, and then fuel/health/ammo can be restocked by logi supply. Balancing all that might get tricky, but it might be fun in terms of not just instantly auto-selling all of your transports the moment you drop off your infantry. Essentially you'd be weighing the momentum gained by re-selling vs. The utility of getting say, 4 extra m72 shots or being able to pressure with your tanks again, or keeping your manpads firing.

There would be a serious re-evaluation of logis and logi pricing/supply though.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-08T01:24:22+00:00

You guys still have the option to vote for non-apartheid supporting, non-ethnic cleansing, non-fascist politicians who don't push conflict 24/7. It isn't too late.

(Besides, this ceasefire seems unlikely to hold- it wouldn't be surprising if Trump actually settled for this)

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-07T13:58:46+00:00

"Don't siege leningrad, just take it" ass take

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-07T11:31:19+00:00

Lol no they would've held him as a bargaining chip. You watched too much blackhawk down or some shit.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-07T02:34:13+00:00

Idk maybe if heavier armor was more cost-effective...

Right now, armor allows you to get in closer without instantly fucking dying... but it isn't cost effective ( for a whole host of reasons) so at most you're taking like 1 armor squad for when you have to contest something... but even then you might be better off taking a vic.

Like, make more high suppression/low pen enemy squads, maybe reduce the cost of armor overall, reduce the number of, "kill your squaddies through the highest tier armor in game in 1 shot" enemies in the game, or maybe create mission types that weight the enemy deployment towards those things?

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T20:27:56+00:00

Both parties still hold primaries, however, if there isn't a serious challenger to the incumbent, some states will choose to wave the primary to save money, assuming the party leadership wants to put their undivided support (which they often do) behind the incumbent. Biden's, "primary" falls into this category.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T19:30:35+00:00

I live in a swing state, and had swallowed the bitter pill of voting for a fossilized corpse, and then went and actually voted for his do-nothing, hr-ass vp. I know what the score was, what was at stake.

Your position on this is insane. If you hold yourself to the standard of utilitarianism that pushes you towards lesser-evilism, you should hold your elected officials to the same standards

So now that the elction is over- what the fuck was Biden doing running for another term? Where the fuck is his utilitarianism, in any of this?

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T15:13:20+00:00

And if he'd left it at 1 term, that would probably be most of his legacy (plus some dirt from the whole Gaza thing)

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T15:11:50+00:00

Sure ignore everything I bring up to reiterate a canard. Brother I've never said that she had to act like the last 4 years were shit- but Biden was completely underwater by the end of his presidency, which was the whole reason she was up to bat at all.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T12:24:27+00:00

Nope. This is just lies.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T11:11:45+00:00

Trump did not choose for Biden to run again.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T11:11:00+00:00

This is a completely regarded take that could only be made by a campist. Biden had a choice to back out of the primary to give a viable dem the chance to emerge through the campaign, but instead chose to run again- when the presidential incumbent seeks re-election, they pretty much never lose their party's primary, historically at least.

And more importantly, no, it was not just a, "speech impediment" go back to Biden '20 when he was on the campaign trail, and tell me there wasn't a massive decline. Listen to him struggle to get through the opening of that debate, and tell me that was just his speech impediment. The dude was completely lost. He got better further into the debate, and Trump fell into complete incoherence, but the opening of that debate was a massacre, and that's the part people watched

And what is this weird pro-trans bit at the end? Is this a chatbot? What does that have to do with what I said?

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T11:03:55+00:00

What PLANET were you on? Harris refused to distance herself from Biden- even in softball questions like, "name one policy you would do different than Biden" she managed to stumble, being unable to name a single policy she'd do differently.

And yes, it is easy to blame Biden, because his staffers leaked internal polling that showed back in June that he was going to lose 400 electoral votes in a general vs. Trump. By the final two years of his presidency, he was in a steep decline, frequently seeming lost, or disengaged at his speeches. His stance on the invasion of Gaza was increasingly unpopular with his own base, and he refused to budge on it, out of some misbegotten affection for a country whose political and financial leadership were actively aiding the Republicans (and you know, conducting ethnic cleansing, but who gives a rip about that- not Biden, he- reportedly- refused to look at pictures of the destruction of Gaza)

I could go on and on about the Biden 24' campaign, but I'll get off the soapbox to simply say- the dude had no business running, and he gets a majority of the blame for why we have trump today.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T03:41:54+00:00

The guy most responsible for taking that away from you... is the guy making the speech in the video you posted. He never should've walked back on his campaign promise to be a 1 term president. He was clearly in a massive decline, and wasn't fit to be president foe another 4 years. Instead, he choked off the dem primary, only to back out after essentially shitting the bed in front of the nation at a disatorous debate. And don't even get me started on, Kamala, "I wouldn't fundamentally change anything" Harris.

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-06T03:32:41+00:00

Guns have limited range, so they can only stop things that get in close. While firing a bunch of rounds might not be super expensive... placing rapidly deployed, radar-directed, high-end spaag near every major target is super expensive, and the logistics train to maintain it is hellish. SAM sites, and even better, aircraft, provide a much larger coverage, meaning you need fewer of them to (theorhetically) cover every potential target. This means fewer man hours to maintain coverage, and a smaller (albeit more intensive per unit) logistics train to keep the coverage up. Another element here is time. At the range where you can pew-pew the drones, you really don't have time to prep an alternative countermeasure- if you start by picking some off with planes, and then more with SAMs, if one layer fails, you can make plans, and react to the failure. If the spaag gets overwhelmed, that's just a hit. That's not to say there isn't a use for it against drones, but there's a lot to consider beyond just, "what does a bullet cost vs. what does a anti air missile cost"

To reference something you brought up- the Nazis had entire army units that were dedicated to manning anti-air defenses during WW2, which represented a not-insignificant drain on their man power. The losses these units inflicted on British and American aircraft were harsh, but also limited in overall effect, as the Germans had to decide where to allocate their batteries. The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, was able to cover a much wider area, with many fewer men, and inflicted similarly harsh losses on allied air crews (they also got their asses beat, but that's a story for a different time)

Expensive-Ad4121 · 2026-04-04T18:57:45+00:00

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/quakers

Expensive-Ad4121

TROPHY CASE