Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Clark Griswold]

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?
If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?
It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

Kinda of an expansive definition to say talking to someone then letting others see it at their own choosing to view it or not is harmful to our national security


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, nunya said:

In a better world, the viewer would analyze the speaker and the message and judge accordingly. You think most of what's broadcast domestically is not propaganda and misinformation? You think most of what Trump or Pelosi or Biden or the squad chicks say is truth? I think it's a perfect opportunity to sit down with your kids (or great-grandkids, CH & Huggy) and talk about critical thinking.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world are absolutely not going to. Personally, critical thinking among children on this issue isn't anywhere near the top of my list of concerns. My concerns are with the full grown adults with actionable opinions on the matter that do not have critical thinking skills, and no one is going to sit with them. What if some of them are unable to see through the lies and actually take the interview at face value? Allowing Putin to speak freely to the American people can only be detrimental to our cause, unless equal time and questioning were given to Biden and perhaps Zalensky.

2 hours ago, raimius said:

Because he is a free citizen and we are not at war with Russia?

I'd actually like to hear Putin's "reasons" so that we can more accurately counter his propaganda/respond appropriately to his abuses.

A supplemental aid package to Ukraine worth $60 Billion is about to be approved, bringing the US total Ukraine aid to roughly $175 Billion. There are American citizens fighting in Ukraine. The majority of Ukraine war-fighting vehicles, weapons systems, and equipment are being supplied by us. I think we're in a war.

Do you believe this interview will reveal glaringly obvious flaws in Putin's rationale, or will he make sense to some people, resulting in a net loss of support for Ukraine? I believe the latter. This is bad for Ukraine, bad for NATO, and bad for our global superiority.

8 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Kinda of an expansive definition to say talking to someone then letting others see it at their own choosing to view it or not is harmful to our national security
 

It's Vladamir Putin, the biggest bad guy on the planet. It's like giving Hitler a platform to explain himself. Introducing the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness could be devastating to the aid we're providing to the Ukrainians, and potentially clear a path for Putin to invade Europe.

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

Why is Tucker Carlson being allowed to publish his interview with Vladimir Putin tomorrow evening at 6pm EST?

If we're at war with Russia, and Tucker interviews the leader of the country we are at war with, and then publishes that interview on American media outlets, is that not Anti-American propaganda? Is it not traitorous? We already know every word Putin says in the interview will be a lie, so why would we allow anyone to see dangerous misinformation?

It only makes sense to sanction and bring charges against anyone deliberately causing harm to our national security.

In order to believe this you have to believe either one of two things:

1. That our media apparatus is a propaganda tool.

(or)

2. That the American public is too stupid to see through Putin's BS.

Note: both of those are likely (partially) true.

28 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Personally, critical thinking among children on this issue isn't anywhere near the top of my list of concerns. My concerns are with the full grown adults with actionable opinions on the matter that do not have critical thinking skills, and no one is going to sit with them. What if some of them are unable to see through the lies and actually take the interview at face value?

Oh, there we go. So you have misidentified the root problem here. The problem isn't with the American public hearing a foreign leader's voice - it's that the American public is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

I'll just say one thing. There are plenty on this board who have never heard this interview, and yet, still, come out on the side of Putin/Russia. They have found other talking points from other outlets or other corners of the internet/pod universe that align with their worldview and have used it to reinforce it or support it in one way or another. So your lamentation that this is going to somehow be causative for some unforeseen catastrophe is a non-starter. People who want to believe Putin's propaganda have already found it, and already do.

I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, and then listen to other smart people analytically pick it apart and tell us why it's wrong, rather than trust the PTB to protect us from some dude's opinion.

What I personally find far more interesting is why everyone else in a powerful position is so worried that a (truly) alternate view is going to find a platform. That says something far more interesting and, frankly, concerning.

Edited February 7 by ViperMan

[kaputt]

I’m pretty sure Gearhog was being facetious. Either that or he’s had a complete reversal on his view of the Ukraine conflict. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

It's Vladamir Putin, the biggest bad guy on the planet. It's like giving Hitler a platform to explain himself. Introducing the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness could be devastating to the aid we're providing to the Ukrainians, and potentially clear a path for Putin to invade Europe.

So the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness... so should we have jailed/banned Vietnam War protesters?  Or anti-war activists for any of the conflicts we the US of A have been in or Allies we have supported in their conflicts?  

Freedom has its risks, I'd rather take this risk than the first step down the road you seem to be prodding us on to...

There are limits of course, explicit calls to arms against a legitimate government, policy, law for example but it is unreasonable to say that conversing with a foreign leader involved in a conflict with another nation and not directly at war with the United States is traitorous.  

What's next?  You don't like Orban in Hungary and interviewing him and broadcasting it is against the national interests of the USA?

[Clark Griswold]

2 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I’m pretty sure Gearhog was being facetious. Either that or he’s had a complete reversal on his view of the Ukraine conflict. 

Probably so but I see the Globablists itching for a new form of lockdown hence my pointless BO rantings...

Eurocrtats Threaten Sanctions on Tucker Carlson for Interviewing Putin (breitbart.com)

We're not that far away from thought crimes and 1984

 

[gearhog]

22 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

In order to believe this you have to believe either one of two things:

1. That our media apparatus is a propaganda tool.

(or)

2. That the American public is too stupid to see through Putin's BS.

Note: both of those are likely (partially) true.

Oh, there we go. So you have misidentified the root problem here. The problem isn't with the American public hearing a foreign leader's voice - it's that the American public is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

I'll just say one thing. There are plenty on this board who have never heard this interview, and yet, still, come out on the side of Putin/Russia. They have found other talking points from other outlets or other corners of the internet/pod universe that align with their worldview and have used it to reinforce it or support it in one way or another. So your lamentation that this is going to somehow be causative for some unforeseen catastrophe is a non-starter. People who want to believe Putin's propaganda have already found it, and already do.

I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth, and then listen to other smart people analytically pick it apart and tell us why it's wrong, rather than trust the PTB to protect us from some dude's opinion.

What I personally find far more interesting is why everyone else in a powerful position is so worried that a (truly) alternate view is going to find a platform. That says something far more interesting and, frankly, concerning.

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?

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?

The most important thing is preserving the US, which means preserving US global leadership. 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.

1 minute ago, Clark Griswold said:

So the least bit of doubt as to our righteousness... so should we have jailed/banned Vietnam War protesters?  Or anti-war activists for any of the conflicts we the US of A have been in or Allies we have supported in their conflicts?  

Freedom has its risks, I'd rather take this risk than the first step down the road you seem to be prodding us on to...

There are limits of course, explicit calls to arms against a legitimate government, policy, law for example but it is unreasonable to say that conversing with a foreign leader involved in a conflict with another nation and not directly at war with the United States is traitorous.  

What's next?  You don't like Orban in Hungary and interviewing him and broadcasting it is against the national interests of the USA?

There was a large amount of anti-war sentiment during Viet-Nam, and how did that turn out for us? Lots of people began to grow weary of our involvement in AFG, and that didn't turn out so well either. I think we've learned our lesson. We jailed people for Jan 6 and I think we even shot one. There hasn't been any massive anti-government protests since.

Freedom cannot be enjoyed unless there is a government that provides it to you. Allowing anti-US sentiment to proliferate is like shooting yourself in the foot.

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.

[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 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 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