Eh, I disagree. It's not enough on its own by any stretch, but it remains a very useful part of a multi-pronged approach. I'll also point out that I addressed how almost all satires fail to have any impact on his supporters. Have you seen any Cunk though? It's a distinct style.

It's not about him or thinking he's smart. It's about why they like him and how they perceive the actual issues of the day. When Carrell or Morgan poke fun at something, they usually do it by taking it to other (quasi)logical conclusions that are so (overly) simple a young child can follow their logic. They only reason they can get away with this is because they're clearly being Monty Python levels of serious. This lets them get away with seriously and enthusiastically espousing bad ideas in a way that makes them look even stupider than they are, in a way the rest of us can't manage. They can parody what we cannot. Not effectively anyway.

While true, I'll also say that Cunk has a style and power that is something special. It takes talent to play that character, not everyone can convincingly play the bumbling idiot that effectively. There's a special something that the Diane Morgans and Steve Carells of the world have that even a Stephen Colbert can't pull off because he still comes off as a fancy and smarter-than-you east coast elite to a flyover country person.

I'd argue an attack from Cunk, if seen by his supporters, would be more effective than an attack from almost any other source, because only she (and some Steve Carrell characters) are stupid enough to actually make them see how stupid it all is.

You need to be that level of dumb to parody him (edit: or more accurately, MAGA as a whole) to his own supporters though, even the likes of The Onion is usually too intellectually complex. Otherwise it doesn't work, too much of it goes over their heads. And lets be real, these are some of the stupidest characters we have ever conceived of. Lenny from Of Mice and Men had significant intellectual strengths over the likes of Philomena Cunk and Michael Scott. They need that stupidity to deal with Trump on the level.

A clickbaity opinion piece from 14 years ago? I'm not impressed. I thought we were talking about the Russo-Ukrainian War anyway.

I see. Yea that makes sense, thanks.

I figured they were just okay giving out the free advertising to one of their own. But stolen also makes sense.

Honestly someone should just look up the photographer, email him and politely ask him if he was paid or not.

edit: Likely case: They asked him for it and he happily donated it, so long as they kept the watermark, and they were totally cool with that.

western and ukrainian media been saying russia collapsing, Ukraine winning, for 4 years

This really just indicates you don't read any western media. Because, no, that is not what they have looked like the past 4 years at all.

This guy may have been saying it, I'm not sure, but he's just a guy on youtube, he can say whatever he wants. If people want to get their information from a guy on youtube, that's up to them.

Right, but free advertising in every Syrian passport will help his business, which will make money, which can buy food, which is edible.

Giving the photographer the credit for his work is a win-win for everyone involved.

edit: Ooooh do you think the watermark means they stole it and never paid him? I didn't consider that possibility.

Why is that mildly infuriating? Personally I think it's actually kinda cool that they're okay preserving the attribution for the artwork like that. Photographer is probably a Syrian national, so it still honors the nation and all that.

Iowa/Missouri maybe?

Growing up where I did you'd hear about famous outbreaks, I recall one where a particular county had a few dozen touchdowns in one storm. But most people here have never seen one directly.

But like I said, treelines limit vision here by quite a lot.

A dozen funnel clouds is pretty easy, those are genuinely common. 2 touchdowns in 25 years also sounds about right for you guys' conditions, that is not so common. And sure, the heaviness of the rain doesn't indicate tornadoes or anything, but tornadoes and rain absolutely do show up in the same circumstances and tornadoes absolutely can be obscured by rain.

You tornado alley folks are also particular in the Great Plains having sightlines that are absolutely huge. The rest of us in the midwest have tornadoes too, we just also have treelines. You cannot expect see a billion miles in every direction from the highway, your line of sight in one direction may only be 100' or less.

Anyway, you may have the most, but you guys don't own tornadoes.

Probably. Consider too, it's actually kinda rare to see one, since the storm they're happening in often has heavy enough rain that you can't see very far, especially if it's in the evening.

In these cases, you hear them before you see them.

Even worse, apparently only a single base had all the supplies for it. That was a single point of failure that, when struck, caused the failure of the entire supply mission.

You'd think the Navy would be a little better prepared. Here I thought redundancy was an important part of military conduct and operations.