Shofercia wrote:DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Do you even understand what "hypocritical" means? Being hypocritical implies being inconsistent in your opinion, more specifically, supporting something when it is convenient for you to do so whilst at the same time denouncing someone else that does.
Here's my original statement:
My argument wasn't that you're inconsistent in your opinion, but rather, overly consistent, to the point that your opinions stop being based in reality and start being based on preconceived ideas on how countries are (or should be) organized, rather. Then I went ahead and hypothesized as to where these preconceived ideas may have come from, it could have just as well been the US or Germany instead of Russia there.
You really should stop commenting on what you think the opinions of others are, because you tend to use your commentary to claim that people who dare to disagree with you are supa-poopa-ubah biased in whatever the fuck you're arguing against. Lame tactic is lame. Also, you stated this:
not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison
I've already explained this, I don't have to repeat myself just because you choose to ignore whatever you feel is convenient to ignore, only to call me out on issues already addressed.
Federal vs Unitary is not about democracy. It's about autonomy. For instance, a country like Estonia works as a Unitary whatever, cause it's tiny. A country like Russia cannot work as a Unitary thingy. And Ukraine is closer to Russia than to Estonia in terms of demographics and diversity.
Unitary republic, that hard
? I understand you despise them, but you could call them what they are, at least for practicality's sake.
I also love how you call me out on my commentary that you claim implies you have pro-Russian bias , only for that to prove to be true. It's like me making an argument, you strawman-ing and disproving a perceived claim, only for that perceived claim to actually prove to be true
And yes, before you ask, I was referring to the likes of this
(not that Russia would allow any of this, after all, even spreading separatist views can get you up to 5 yrs in prison)
not this
Perhaps removing the bias goggles would help.
Why, you ask? As far as diversity goes, Russians make up almost a full quarter of the total population in Estonia, whereas in Ukraine this number is closer to 17%. Estonia has among others, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Finns, Tatars, Jews, Latvians. Point is, as far as diversity goes, Estonia is either more diverse or on par with Ukraine, and Ukraine is nowhere near as diverse as Russia. As far as demographics go, if by that you mean population, it's obviously closer to many nations in its ballpark, many of which are unitary republics, than it is to huge ass Russia. Same applies for size. Starting from the bottom of the list, federations only really start getting common once you reach a certain size threshold. Ukraine is well below that and I can bet that unitary republics about its size outnumber federative republics by a lot. This is flawed logic on your part.
So, your little attempt at trying to make Ukraine look like Russia
(and duh obviously because it's like Russia it's more appropriate for it to be federative) has failed.
And are we beating a dead horse or what?
I know!
Keep telling yourself that, bud.
People's votes do. It's not about creating a Great Russia, it's about respecting the will of the voters.
Right
Oh, and you could for once, address the post.
We've already been through this. I've already clarified my position that I'd rather Transnistria fucked off wherever they wanted , as a USSR themepark is nothing but trouble, but you keep on beating this dead horse even deader. The reason we've had this whole argument is that you stated Moldova's
regions (with no word from you of this being limited to Transnistria) should individually vote on union with Romania, and when I attacked this, you turned it into a Transnistria issue, and pretended that because Transnistria is autonomous, this somehow invalidates Moldova being a unitary republic as far as all other regions save for Transnistria are concerned. Which I've debunked. Moving goalposts much?
Let me reiterate: Transnistria can fuck off (literally), Moldova is a unitary republic whose population already votes and will vote as such.
Yeah, living in California tends to make one enjoy the Proposition Process.
Irrelevant.
From your comments, I'm guessing that you're either in Texas, Florida, or the part of Arizona influenced by McCain.
You guessed wrong. See, I'm better at guessing than you are.
Additionally, I'm not suggesting federalization for Moldova
Except for the fact that you indirectly are by suggesting Moldova should vote region by region as opposed to nationally. Which you did suggest.
I'm suggesting a split, if, and only if, the voters actually approve it; TransDneister to Russia, rest to Romania
Fine.
, special states for Gaugazia.
Nah, don't think so. It's already autonomous (between you and me, disproportionately large to the actual number of Gagauz) , but a far cry away from Transnistria.
Please explain how California's state elections aren't the golden standard for Democracy. Now, Cali's state elections, what's wrong with them?
Strawman.
I'm well aware of America's Federal Electoral Flaws.
At least we can agree on something.
Again, the people on the ground aren't going to follow a piece of paper not signed by them. Your failure to understand this is most amusing.
No, your failure to understand the difference between de facto and de jure is most amusing. They don't get to sign anything.
Yeah, really. Moldova has little de facto control over TransDneister, even though De Jure TransDneister is part of Moldova. Hence the De Facto De Jure split.
See above. They're about as recognized in the UN as I am on the hardcore porn scene.
Also, this holds:
All of its other administrative divisions are unitary, both de jure and de facto.
First you bitched about someone calling someone else "terrorists" over political stuff, then you applauded someone calling self-defense forces, "terrorists" and now you're claiming that's been your plan all along? Brilliant!
Oh what a bloody hypocrite I am, where the fuck did I do that.
Shofercia wrote:DnalweN acilbupeR wrote:Right, like your "Crimea River"?
And you presented it more as something factual than an opinion. Let him speak for himself, I'm pretty sure he's well capable of that.
He might get tired of responding to you after your countless attempts to make what he's saying worse than it actually is.
I never did that, and you might be confusing Nilf with Lytte .
They funded Chesno, and similar organizations whose goal was another anti-Yanukovich revolution, albeit a peaceful one, and then their politicians went out and joined the protests.
Do you, or anyone else, have any proof whatsoever to suggest that the "West" boosted aid after Yanu refused the EU? If not you lack an argument.
I'd much rather have the US go into Mexico guns blazing if the US can target just the cartels, and cause no civvie casualties. I'd have no issues with that, because, guess what, cartels have no issues exporting violence to the US, and then they just run back home and go "nyah, nyah, nyah" fuck that shit. Pwn 'em.
Well that says a lot about you in general and specifically the way you understand peace and politics.