Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[uhhello]

 

[brabus]

43 minutes ago, gearhog said:

I believe alternate viewpoints should be allowed on most issues, but those that threaten our national security

Great, but the problem is who is the arbiter of this? Because there are tons of people who viewed completely valid and accurate information regarding Covid as “dangerous misinformation” and went through great lengths to silence said information because “the people couldn’t handle it/decide for themselves.” I believe critical thinking is mostly dead in this country and around the world, but at the same time it will never be worth going down the freedom-trampling road of the govt deciding what information/opinions the population should and should not consume. AOC for example is one of the dumbest people to ever been given a public voice, but the people have every right to listen to every word she says if they want to. I disagree with her existence beyond being behind a bar slinging beers, but this is America and she was voted in and thats the end of it. Censoring anything at a govt level is for communist shit holes, not the United States of America.

Edited February 7, 2024 by brabus

[Sim]

... 😅

 

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

Isn't it cynical to say the American media is propaganda and the American public is stupid. What is America if not its citizens? If it is that stupid, why would you want them becoming involved in an issue they may not understand?

When I was 20 it was cynical; now that I'm 40+, it's an opinion informed by years of experience and observation. And no, I don't want them becoming involved. I think you should have skin in the game if you are going to have a say in the direction our government takes. I would support disallowing voting for people who are not net tax contributors. But alas, I'm not king. And before you jump ahead, no I don't think that's the optimal solution - the better outcome is to have an informed public, and a system that people feel they contribute to, but also feel like they get something from - but we frankly don't have that at this juncture in our history. I lament that fact, but it's where we are.

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

This interview is only going to add to the Pro-Putin propaganda by a substantial amount and there will likely be more people who believe it than disbelieve it. It seems we have two options:

1. Decrease the amount of Pro-Putin propaganda (restrict Tucker Carlson and his ilk by some fashion)

2. Increase the amount of Pro-US/NATO propaganda. This is the more difficult option. Perhaps, as you say, we could let someone else digest it for us, but who should we listen to?

Maybe. But every time I look to our "news" sites, I don't see any meaningful discussion or analysis. I perpetually have to go out of my way to find alternative media, podcasts, historians, etc. to find any meaningful discussion about what is taking place in the world. At the very least, Tucker is attempting to talk about an important subject that is mostly ignored by our media. In that dimension he has them objectively and unequivocally bested.

Secondly, there have been numerous, intelligent critiques of all the pro-Putin propaganda posted on this very forum. People hear what they want to hear. What I've become most aware of recently is that people choose sides. They are not necessarily amenable to fact, reason, or logic. I have chosen mine, but I at least like to think that it is informed by fact, and more importantly, if there is a fact that is presented that doesn't square with my world view, I either adjust my viewpoint or attempt to refute or contextualize the fact - many do not feel that impulse. If Tucker (who I alternate between liking, hating, and going "really???") is able to get people talking about or paying attention to an important issue, then he is doing our country a service, period.

My core point is this: if you don't think people are smart enough to recognize propaganda, then we need to find a way to make it obvious. The instant you tell someone that they aren't smart enough to make a decision for themselves you are making them think you're hiding something from them and unwittingly increasing the likelihood that the propaganda you seek to hide becomes seen as something legitimate because it was worth hiding. Full transparency is the best prevention.

9 hours ago, gearhog said:

Assange and Snowden mishandled classified information, likely giving aid to our enemies. Neither are allowed to roam free. But giving our #1 enemy a massive platform to rationalize his actions and express his anti-US viewpoints to hundreds of millions of people is somehow less criminal? It doesn't make sense.

For the record, Assange is a misguided idiot; Snowden is a Russian sock-puppet. Neither should ever see the light of day again; Snowden should hang.

[raimius]

18 hours ago, gearhog said:

 I believe alternate viewpoints should be allowed on most issues, but those that threaten our national security and global dominance can't be allowed to spread unchecked.

Freedom cannot be enjoyed unless there is a government that provides it to you.

So, freedom of speech/thought is good...unless the government doesn't like it.  Also, government is the source of freedom.  Those are your arguments?

I side with the idea that we, the people, have certain unalienable rights.  Something about governments being instituted to secure our rights rather than the king "providing" them to his subjects.  Always remember that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take away everything you need. 

 

As Stalin might say, "dark humor is like food--not everyone gets it."

[uhhello]

"Maybe he's lying in ways I didn't perceive"   LOL

[raimius]

I listened to a good chunk of the interview.  I don't think those low-intelligence voters are likely to stay tuned after Putin's half-hour "history of eastern Europe" monologue right at the start.  He kept playing up NATO's/US's duplicity and broken promises, then acted like he didn't care.  (BS flag flying high there.)

I'm thinking this might have actually been targeted at the Russian audience more than the western one.

[Prosuper]

I listened to the whole interview, good thing I like history. Of course, the cool kids who appear on Sunday morning news shows scream he is not a journalist but a traitor (to the class of people who are on the DC cocktail party circuit which he used to be part of). My 5 years at Andrews being the fly on the wall made me despise these people both parties. The question I want answered, who the hell is telling the truth? This Tucker interview came across my feed, now I'm scratching my head. Who do I believe, who did I serve, we all know Iraq was a lie. 

 

[VigilanteNav]

Senate votes for the Ukraine, Israel, INDOPACOM, etc Aid Bill.  

Quick analysis: when McConnell, Grassley, Cornyn, Thune vote for something and Bernie votes against it, it must be a decent bill. 

Now, if the House sinks this, it will be because someone who is not the current President but presumes to be veto'd it. I'm not sure that's what the founders intended.     

[HeloDude]

29 minutes ago, VigilanteNav said:

I'm not sure that's what the founders intended.     

Because the founders intended us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don’t have protecting borders of other countries separated from us by vast oceans before protecting our own borders.  Oh and you conveniently left out billions of dollars for Gaza, because we all know that money always goes to a good cause.  If the House shuts this down then it will be one of the few things it has has done well lately.

[Swizzle]

57 minutes ago, VigilanteNav said:

Senate votes for the Ukraine, Israel, INDOPACOM, etc Aid Bill.  

Quick analysis: when McConnell, Grassley, Cornyn, Thune vote for something and Bernie votes against it, it must be a decent bill. 

Now, if the House sinks this, it will be because someone who is not the current President but presumes to be veto'd it. I'm not sure that's what the founders intended.     

What!?? 

Know the difference between political support of a bill and Presidential veto. A veto is of a bill that sit in front of THE President, as in current one, after both houses of Congress, not one.

Define Presidential veto in your universe. 

In ours, simply:

OR

'veto allows the President to “check” the legislature by reviewing acts passed by Congress and blocking measures he finds unconstitutional, unjust, or unwise. Congress's power to override the President's veto forms a “balance” between the branches on the lawmaking power.'

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/education/veto

 

Edited February 13, 2024 by Swizzle
Video URL fix, oldie but goodie

[VigilanteNav]

My apologies.  Should have said "effectively veto'd" instead.  

Senate advances Ukraine aid bill despite Trump opposition | Reuters

Regardless, I guess you can call me a pro-war bubba.  I'll continue to be happy to side with Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.  And, yeah, would have liked to see some US border security funding included in this bill.  But, the grand master said all or nothing and so they had to go with nothing.  

[Lord Ratner]

I've said before that there's no reason why we can't support Ukraine *and* deal with the border crisis at the same time. We are capable as a country of multitasking.

 

However if this bill does not include the border provisions, then we are by definition choosing Ukraine over our own border, and that I do not support at all. I hope the Republicans in the house tank this bill.

[Lawman]

I've said before that there's no reason why we can't support Ukraine *and* deal with the border crisis at the same time. We are capable as a country of multitasking.
 
However if this bill does not include the border provisions, then we are by definition choosing Ukraine over our own border, and that I do not support at all. I hope the Republicans in the house tank this bill.

There is a deliberate separate Border bill that went through the Senate and is effectively torpedoed by the house to allow Political hay to be made out of it for the election.

Congress had the opportunity to do something about the border separate of Ukraine and they are deliberately choosing not to. Don’t now use that to justify not supporting this action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

political hay? ironic. considering the democrats had 3 fucking years to fix the border, but due to wanting to import new illegal voters decided against it.

the border is MUCH worse under the democratic administration. they (you) have no room to bitch about ANYTHING border related. cowards.

[HeloDude]

25 minutes ago, Lawman said:

There is a deliberate separate Border bill that went through the Senate and is effectively torpedoed by the house to allow Political hay to be made out of it for the election.

Congress had the opportunity to do something about the border separate of Ukraine and they are deliberately choosing not to. Don’t now use that to justify not supporting this action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That border bill out of the Senate was junk IMO…and the Senate refused to even take up the border bill passed by the House a while back.  So let’s not pretend that politics is beings played in the House but not in the Senate.  Does anybody really believe that the Democrats want to secure the border?
 

Let Europe deal with the Ukraine issue wrt spending billions of dollars if they’re so concerned.  

[Lawman]

That border bill out of the Senate was junk IMO…and the Senate refused to even take up the border bill passed by the House a while back.  So let’s not pretend that politics is beings played in the House but not in the Senate.  Does anybody really believe that the Democrats want to secure the border?
 
Let Europe deal with the Ukraine issue wrt spending billions of dollars if they’re so concerned.  

They have been.

Despite a lower combined GDP, the Euro NATO countries are actually outspending us when it’s in our best interest not to get stuck solving the third European World War




You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….”

They already are. Also give a comparison in total dollars of mil equipment donated by us vs Ze Germans. For anybody familiar with how much equipment they have just lying around on hand they are punching well above their weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

36 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….”

 

fool

[Lawman]

fool

No we all know what formed your opinion on the matter.

It’s the same reason you spent 20 minutes edging yourself the other night while Putin explained his version of history for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FourFans]

16 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

fool

Come on dude.  You can do better.

53 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….”

Two things can be true at the same time.  I want Ukraine to win, and I want our border secure.  Different pots of money.  Hell, our southern border simply requires the current executive to admit he was wrong and reverse his own actions.  Likewise, Ukraine doesn't require us to kneecap our own capabilities.

We can have both.  Not everyone opposed to a LOT of the current admin's decisions are just binary about that decision.  Maybe narrow down the brush a bit.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

There is a deliberate separate Border bill that went through the Senate and is effectively torpedoed by the house to allow Political hay to be made out of it for the election.

Congress had the opportunity to do something about the border separate of Ukraine and they are deliberately choosing not to. Don’t now use that to justify not supporting this action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a garbage bill. Plain and simple. It does not fix the problems at the border, and exists solely to take away the Republican talking point going into the election. I 100% support torpedoing that bill.

 

I'm completely in favor of supporting Ukraine, but they exist to me as just one issue facing this country, not *the* issue.

 

For better or worse, Ukraine is not an issue that unites the Republican party. However it seems like the issue is of minimal importance to the Democrats as well. There are at least well-reasoned arguments on both sides surrounding the Ukraine debate. There are absolutely no well-reasoned arguments supporting the absolute dumpster fire situation at our Southern border. Democrats would condition aid for Ukraine on perpetuating an overtly anti-American border policy, and as such they can be trusted with *nothing* that isn't codified in legislation.

 

How many times are Republicans going to fall for Democratic border "solutions?" No more. The Democrats dug themselves into this hole, and they can easily dig themselves out by simply fixing the border problem. Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election.

 

Let's say that they are successful, and as a result are able to retain control of the White House for another 4 years. I believe that would be terrible for the country, and far worse than whatever is going to happen to Ukraine, especially considering that even the positive possible outcomes in the Ukraine conflict are nullified by incompetent American leadership in the following years.

[pbar]

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

<snip> Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election. <snip>

 

Unfathomable?  Immigration turned California from red to a one-party blue state where in many races the Republicans don't even bother to run a candidate.  

[Lawman]

It's a garbage bill. Plain and simple. It does not fix the problems at the border, and exists solely to take away the Republican talking point going into the election. I 100% support torpedoing that bill.
 
I'm completely in favor of supporting Ukraine, but they exist to me as just one issue facing this country, not *the* issue.
 
For better or worse, Ukraine is not an issue that unites the Republican party. However it seems like the issue is of minimal importance to the Democrats as well. There are at least well-reasoned arguments on both sides surrounding the Ukraine debate. There are absolutely no well-reasoned arguments supporting the absolute dumpster fire situation at our Southern border. Democrats would condition aid for Ukraine on perpetuating an overtly anti-American border policy, and as such they can be trusted with *nothing* that isn't codified in legislation.
 
How many times are Republicans going to fall for Democratic border "solutions?" No more. The Democrats dug themselves into this hole, and they can easily dig themselves out by simply fixing the border problem. Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election.
 
Let's say that they are successful, and as a result are able to retain control of the White House for another 4 years. I believe that would be terrible for the country, and far worse than whatever is going to happen to Ukraine, especially considering that even the positive possible outcomes in the Ukraine conflict are nullified by incompetent American leadership in the following years.

Then fix THAT bill.

Stop the bullshit of “we will do X if we get everything in the Border Bill we want” when we know the second it’s threatening getting Trump into full campaign mode we will sacrifice that as well.

Ukraine/Israel/climate change/whatever new issue excuse to avoid funding something has absolutely F-all to do with the southern Border and should be governed in laws as such.

The people now stepping forward to say “not without the border” in this thread only to immediately pivot to “Europe should pay first” when they are have simply decided whatever yardage or reason they will move the goal posts because NO is their only answer in regards to Ukraine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

They have been.

Despite a lower combined GDP, the Euro NATO countries are actually outspending us when it’s in our best interest not to get stuck solving the third European World War




You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….”

They already are. Also give a comparison in total dollars of mil equipment donated by us vs Ze Germans. For anybody familiar with how much equipment they have just lying around on hand they are punching well above their weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool story—how much is the EU giving to the US compared to what we’re spending on their continent?  I think it’s safe to say that Europe has a lot more to risk than we do…so yeah, let’s let them cover it.  Unless the EU is trying to send billions of dollars to the US for our border security that I’m not aware of?  Let me know when they stop their crazy socialism in order to provide more for defense of their continent…until then, the US is broke.

[Lawman]

Cool story—how much is the EU giving to the US compared to what we’re spending on their continent?  I think it’s safe to say that Europe has a lot more to risk than we do…so yeah, let’s let them cover it.  Unless the EU is trying to send billions of dollars to the US for our border security that I’m not aware of?  Let me know when they stop their crazy socialism in order to provide more for defense of their continent…until then, the US is broke.

So when confronted with actual hard numbers (which have only gone higher and more in their favor by their recent bill) you now resort to “well they should pay for our border.” Is that before or after they “abandon socialism.”

Like I said this has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of what reason you give, you’ll just adopt a new self justification when you find out that goal line has already been achieved so you can continue to be opposed for any reason. So why should Europe pay for the border now exactly? Because that’s absolute horse shit when the guys at JTF-North would rather have the Mexicans change their constitution so we can use the resources already down there not just throw money at the problem unrelated to Ukraine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk