Invasion of Ukraine: Drone Incursion Into Poland

[Rogue]

41 minutes ago, begooode said:

 

The cognitive dissonance that must be going through right wing media consumers' heads when they have to keep ignoring all the pro-Russia stuff has to be on another level.  You'd absolutely have to fashion a deep state / media boogeyman pulling all manner of strings, otherwise you'd have admit much of what you've screaming about is a bunch off insidious manipulative bullshit.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/02/25/the-ruling-class-is-a-far-greater-threat-to-americans-than-russia-is/

I posted this link in the GOP thread a while back.  It was kind of eye opening for me.  It could be a home grown miscalculation, but if it was foreign propaganda, wow, it was brilliant and incredibly effective.   

 

Quote

There’s no gentle way to say it, but the truth is that a lot of us hate our elites far more than we hate some foreign dictator.

I mean, it's right there.  They are open about it.  The elites.  For years we've heard about the elites.  Coastal elites.  Media elites.  Famed elites. Trump's base is completely inline with this "anti-elite" mindset (nevermind that he was one).  They've been built up all this time, but it has come to a head in the last few years. 

It's not just elites, it's the institutions that belonged to the elite (or federal government institutions).  It's not just the institutions, it's the general American mindset of the last few decades.  The powers that allowed outsourcing to become mainstream.  The society that made accepting minorities and other groups the norm.  Yes, even the attitude towards Russia.  None of that stuff made their lives "better", whatever the fuck that means, and they damn sure won't blame themselves.    

They've literally been made to hate our own systems, and that has greater relevance to them than a foreign entity.  They aren't dealing with cognitive dissonance, this all is perfectly in line for them.  Their regards towards Jan 6th?  Makes perfect sense once you realize they see it all as "elites", in which they were made to hate.    

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Rogue

[Rogue]

17 minutes ago, tgo said:

 

That depends on what exactly we're debating. Debating the extent of involvement, and the mechanisms for involvement is perfectly reasonable. 

 

Debating whether we should support Ukraine or be effectively a neutral party should not be debatable. 

This started on the votes against a bill by a few people.  The reasoning given for opposition was reasonable.  Are you saying that reasonable opposition to a bill should be dismissed as anti-Ukraine?  Because that's kind of what happened.  

[tgo]

5 minutes ago, Rogue said:

This started on the votes against a bill by a few people.  The reasoning given for opposition was reasonable.  Are you saying that reasonable opposition to a bill should be dismissed as anti-Ukraine?  Because that's kind of what happened.  

 

Are we talking about the Putin/Trump caucus that voted against the Russian trade ban? Or those who voted against the omnibus for purportedly fiscal reasons?

Edited March 18, 2022 by tgo

[Rogue]

1 minute ago, tgo said:

 

Are we talking about the Putin/Trump caucus that voted against the Russian trade ban? Or those who voted against the omnibus for purportedly fiscal reasons?

It might have been the trade ban.  It was posted a few pages back.  

[tgo]

3 minutes ago, Rogue said:

It might have been the trade ban.  It was posted a few pages back.  

 

If we're talking about the 8 traitorous Trump/Putin pro-authoritarian buffoons that voted against the Russia Ban in the House, then they did nothing but further reveal themselves simply for what they are. They are anti-American fascists, kindred spirits of Russian ethnocentric nationalist authoritarianism, and useful idiots in this case. 

 

It's good vs. evil, and we know which side of that coin people like Matt Gaetz, Boebert, Massie, and MTG are on - it's readily apparent what they are. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by tgo

[Rogue]

9 minutes ago, tgo said:

 

If we're talking about the 8 traitorous Trump/Putin pro-authoritarian buffoons that voted against the Russia Ban in the House, then they did nothing but further reveal themselves simply for what they are. They are anti-American fascists, kindred spirits of Russian ethnocentric nationalist authoritarianism, and useful idiots in this case. 

 

It's good vs. evil, and we know which side of that coin people like Matt Gaetz, Boebert, Massie, and MTG are on - it's readily apparent what they are. 

So, I'm guessing you don't actually read the thread you post 20-30 times a day in?  Well, okay.   Here's what I said...
 

Quote

 

I haven’t looked into it deeper than this article, but Roy said this….

 

Quote

However, the Republican congressman said he has "deep concerns about the provisions of this bill that would permanently empower the President with the unilateral authority to issue sanctions against anyone who he deems responsible for an undefined 'serious human rights abuse.'"

 
That’s not an unreasonable objection, though it seems if the language of the bill was that direct more would have opposed it.  

 

So the question of how much power to give the executive branch can't be debated or considered because he's "anti-American fascists, kindred spirits of Russian ethnocentric nationalist authoritarianism"?  

That's a little Hitler like, don't you think?  

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Rogue

[tgo]

1 minute ago, Rogue said:

So, I'm guessing you don't actually read the thread you post 20-30 times a day in?  Well, okay.   Here's what I said...
 

So the question of how much power to give the executive branch can't be debated or considered because he's "anti-American fascists, kindred spirits of Russian ethnocentric nationalist authoritarianism"?  

That's a little Hitler like, don't you think?  

 

 

Chip Roy's comments on the matter could be of legitimate debate, but I seriously doubt the sincerity of them coming from the likes of him. 

 

I don't have anything else to say on the matter nor do I have anything to say to anyone who supports or defends any of those people who voted against that particular bill. 

 

 

[pat]

Speaking for myself, yes I consider "reasonable opposition" to be unreasonable in this situation.

 

The Russian state has demonstrated no regard for the right of Ukrainians to exist.  It has exhibited a callous disregard for their soldiers.  It has demonstrated no regard for Russians who disagree with the state.  It has demonstrated no respect for national boundaries.

 

Russia right now is a national security risk, and a threat to world peace.

 

If you are a progressive siding with Tucker Carlson, then you need to think.

[pat]

And no @Rogue, it's not Hitler like, there was a bill that Congress passed.

[Rogue]

6 minutes ago, tgo said:

Chip Roy's comments on the matter could be of legitimate debate, but I seriously doubt the sincerity of them coming from the likes of him. 

 

I don't have a problem with this position.  I haven't looked into the bill any further than what was given in the origin article, so I can't speak beyond that.  I merely quoted what he said in the original article and that it wasn't unreasonable.  

 

7 minutes ago, tgo said:

I don't have anything else to say on the matter nor do I have anything to say to anyone who supports or defends any of those people who voted against that particular bill. 

Dismissing any opposition to your beliefs as simply being evil (or whatever), doesn't appear very pro-democracy to me.  The opposite actually.  

So let's go a little further and a bit more on the head.  If a legislator stated "deep concerns about the provisions of this bill that would permanently empower the President with the unilateral authority to issue sanctions against anyone who he deems responsible for an undefined 'serious human rights abuse.'" but was in the case of granting Trump this measure, would you be as callous as you are now?  

We both know the answer.  Keep your emotions in check.  

[begooode]

4 minutes ago, pat said:

The Russian state has demonstrated no regard for the right of Ukrainians to exist.  It has exhibited a callous disregard for their soldiers.  It has demonstrated no regard for Russians who disagree with the state.  It has demonstrated no respect for national boundaries.

 

Russia right now is a national security risk, and a threat to world peace.

 

I want to personalize this for just a minute -- it's not even mother Russia we are worried about any longer.  It's 100% Putin.  This is his war, his objective, his Russo-centric belief system being played out despite the suffering to Ukraine and even his own citizens.  Putin has made himself an unchecked emperor with an expansionist agenda backed by a nuclear stockpile. The symbolism of power created for his followers to relish while cowing any oppositional dissent is unmistakable.  I just hope the next guy is more manageable.

 

 

 

[tgo]

9 minutes ago, Rogue said:

I don't have a problem with this position.  I haven't looked into the bill any further than what was given in the origin article, so I can't speak beyond that.  I merely quoted what he said in the original article and that it wasn't unreasonable.  

 

Dismissing any opposition to your beliefs as simply being evil (or whatever), doesn't appear very pro-democracy to me.  The opposite actually.  

So let's go a little further and a bit more on the head.  If a legislator stated "deep concerns about the provisions of this bill that would permanently empower the President with the unilateral authority to issue sanctions against anyone who he deems responsible for an undefined 'serious human rights abuse.'" but was in the case of granting Trump this measure, would you be as callous as you are now?  

We both know the answer.  Keep your emotions in check.  

 

Nah bro - it's anti-Democracy that I find to be evil - not "anything that opposes my beliefs." We absolutely have to defend Western Democracy against the forces of authoritarianism. It's the substance of America. America isn't about soil and blood and social security checks - it's about moments like this when a fledgling young Democracy needs our help to survive. Global democracy would not be thriving today at all like it is if the French had not come to our aid in a heavy handed way during the Revolution. 

 

As far as sanctions authority - National Security sanctions are already in the purview of Presidential Authority via an Act of Congress (AKA Democracy). If Chip Roy doesn't believe in it - why isn't he working to repeal the law that grants that authority?

 

And no, I don't believe in removing national security sanctions authority from the Presidency, whether Trump is president or not. I didn't advocate that position during his presidency, and I don't now nor plan to in the future. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by tgo

[Rogue]

15 minutes ago, pat said:

And no @Rogue, it's not Hitler like, there was a bill that Congress passed.

I'll ask you as well.....

 "deep concerns about the provisions of this bill that would permanently empower the President with the unilateral authority to issue sanctions against anyone who he deems responsible for an undefined 'serious human rights abuse."

If this was the opposition to a bill Trump would be signing, would you feel it was not reasonable opposition?  

We all know the answer. 

And if you said that was a reasonable opposition and Trump said you were a "traitorous Trump/Putin pro-authoritarian buffoon" for doing so, you wouldn't say that was Hitler like?  

Again, we all know the answer.  Do you?  
 

[tgo]

2 minutes ago, Rogue said:

I'll ask you as well.....

 "deep concerns about the provisions of this bill that would permanently empower the President with the unilateral authority to issue sanctions against anyone who he deems responsible for an undefined 'serious human rights abuse."

If this was the opposition to a bill Trump would be signing, would you feel it was not reasonable opposition?  

We all know the answer. 

And if you said that was a reasonable opposition and Trump said you were a "traitorous Trump/Putin pro-authoritarian buffoon" for doing so, you wouldn't say that was Hitler like?  

Again, we all know the answer.  Do you?  
 

 

Your underlying assumption is wrong. 

 

The President has the authority to issue sanctions. He was vested with that power via an act of Congress. I do not support repealing that authority, whether Trump or anyone else is president. 

[reo]

4 hours ago, kgsTitan said:

 

The problem is, who defines what positions on further sanctions, no-fly-zones, direct assistance, etc. qualifies as "pro-Putin"? You, Twitter, CNN? 

I'm really not talking about lunatics who say they're pro-Putin/Russia. I'm talking about people who oppose further US action or involvement for whatever reason

 

This sounds like someone who hears people being called treasonous or something being called near treason but not really paying enough attention to understand the context of why. The reasons you listed are not why people are being called pro-putin or treasonous or at least not by most people.

 

Do you know the context of why Tulsi Gabbard's comments were referred to as treasonous by Romney? 

Edited March 18, 2022 by reo