The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[downzy]

15 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

"That's not how NATO works" that's exactly how it works, asks Noam Chomsky and many others who have spent their life studying this kind of thing.

So Finland and Sweden joined NATO because of "fear based politics”?  Not on a rational calculus that they would better off having formal allied support in the face of Russian aggression towards its neighbours?

15 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

It's western propaganda, and maybe it's hard for a North American to see this maybe? not trying to condescend. Looking from the outside it's pretty apparent and brazen. I watched that interview, and I didn't perceive the walk through History as a conqueror naming his next targets. It was more of a "here's the history you're not told, and this might help explain why Russia has trouble trusting the West". You say that I might see/hear things and have preconceived ideas, but from what you're saying here I think you're showing a real blindside. It's astonishing that in 2024 given all the available info, that people still believe that it's good vs evil. Russia is corrupt to the gills we all know this, as is USA and its extension arm NATO.   

Making of it what you will. Downzy, I'm making of it what it is. This is a phone call from US diplomats discussing how they are putting a new government in place in Ukraine (Green-lighted by the president), that is basically going to do what it's told. Why that is linked to the 2022-present war, is simple and you know this. The previous government were on good terms with Russia it was beneficial, the replacement government was less beneficial to Russia and more in line with US "ideals". I'm sure there's every reason under the sun for why the coup happened and there's good/bad. Anyway, new government in place and next thing the overtures for joining NATO. And you might think, why can't they join NATO? that's their right as a sovereign country? and I would say yes of course! HOWEVER. Russia doesn't believe this, and had been clear for years and years that this was a red line. People within governments worldwide knew this was a red line and recommended strongly against ever poking that particular bear. Let's look at it from another countries perspective, imagine say America, and some other country decided they were going to put a base beside the US borders capable of striking America, what do you think would happen? oh yes, that was the Cuban missile crisis and America nearly went nuclear. So I ask, why is it perfectly ok for NATO which is not a friend to Russia (despite attempts from both sides over the years) to be able to place Military bases all along the border countries? And so in a very long winded way 2014 links to 2022.

So it's not a reach. Obama was president in 2014 and gave the green light for the coup knowing full well the consequences for Ukraine. Are you aware that the rebuilding of Ukraine has been sold off to several huge western countries? are you aware that the unions have all been eviscerated? that Ukraine is in so much debt that they will likely be paying it back for generations? There's so many deals that have been done while this war has been going that in a lot of ways are worse in the long term for Ukraine (not to undersell the devastation of the war and loss of life). So, yes Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and should never have happened, but there's so much more to the story than this American narrative of "doing the right thing, standing for justice against tyranny" etc, etc. excuse the rambling but the guts are solid and I'll stand by it.

We could go back and forth on this all day, but for me, the notion that Euromaidan that launched in 2014 as a result of Yanukovych's rebuke of the parliament to deepen ties with the EU was nothing more than Western interference is absurd. This take, which you hear often from Russia and Russian supporters, supposes that Ukraine has and had no real agency of its own, that it was a vassal state doing its master's bidding; that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets in 2014 were simply pawns of American foreign policy and the subsequent elections that produced a pro-EU and anti-Russian government.  I find such a position so untethered to what was well documented and for everyone to see.  It is hard to take seriously claims that to believe otherwise are simply a product of western propaganda.  

With respect to you video clip, this is from Wikipedia:

Russian propaganda portrayed the revolution as a US-organized coup.

In December 2013, Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, said in a speech to the US–Ukraine Foundation that the US had spent about $5 billion on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since 1991.  The Russian government seized on this statement, claiming it was evidence the US was orchestrating a revolution.  In February 2014, a phone conversation between Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. Nuland and Pyatt discuss who they think should or should not be in Ukraine's new government and give their opinion of some Ukrainian political figures.  US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki said the discussion was not evidence of any plan to influence the political outcome, saying "It shouldn't be a surprise" that politicians would discuss the revolution and Ukraine's future leadership. Yale University professor Timothy Snyder said, "Imagine just how much evidence the Russians have of what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine, given that they had access to that telephone call. That was the best bit they could come up with. And in the context of the time, what that telephone conversation showed was that the Americans were, A, not up to date about what was happening in Ukraine and, B, unable to influence events happening in Ukraine."

15 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Downzy even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, I can have a discussion with him, you on the other hand? No. You're a very small narrow building with no windows or doors, there's zero way to connect with you on any of these topics. I'm yet to see you acknowledge/agree with one thing that anyone has said in response to you. Your idea of debating is "I'm right and you're wrong" and that's not something I'm interested in taking part in. 

The differences between what EFTurtle is saying and what I'm saying are not that great.  We just have a different approach to saying it.

[evilfacelessturtle]

18 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Downzy even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, I can have a discussion with him, you on the other hand? No. You're a very small narrow building with no windows or doors,

And yet you're also disrespectful to downzy.

Quote

there's zero way to connect with you on any of these topics.

In order to know that, you would have had to actually engage with my arguments. You just run away and call me names.

Quote

I'm yet to see you acknowledge/agree with one thing that anyone has said in response to you.

"Agreed, though I heard someone suggest that she was expecting to get an opening statement, but they just went straight into questions, so she wanted to still get some of that in there." - Me, a couple pages back

You're just mad that I don't agree with YOU.

Quote

Your idea of debating is "I'm right and you're wrong" and that's not something I'm interested in taking part in. 

I post 500 word responses with links to sources. You call me names like a child and dismiss my points with one sentence replies. Do you really think this lie is fooling anyone?

Your idea of debating is "my opinions are impartial and anyone who disagrees with me is partisan, so I don't even need to respond"

What you're saying is the complete opposite of reality, and the record is right here in this thread for all to see.

Quote

you either call it down the middle or you play favourites.

And you're clearly incapable of calling it down the middle because you can't perceive your own biases. Anyone who unironically calls their self "impartial" is nothing of the sort, only blind to their own biases.

To think anyone is truly impartial is laughable egotism.

Edited September 20 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

20 hours ago, downzy said:

You're making of it what you will ("getting caught red handed).  I see it differently.  Again, I fail to see how actions taken during the Obama administration damned Ukraine sovereignty six years later.

As always, it's the "look what you made me do" argument. Personal responsibility is only for people I disagree with! Everything done by someone I want to defend is just an involuntary reaction to the people I dislike, and therefore they hold no personal responsibility.

19 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

This is a phone call from US diplomats discussing how they are putting a new government in place in Ukraine

LOL that phone call does not even come close to substantiating that claim. They are literally just discussing their opinions on the uprising. This is some straight up conspiracist nonsense, and you sourced it from South China Morning Post. What a shock, an ally of Russia.

19 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

The previous government were on good terms with Russia it was beneficial, the replacement government was less beneficial to Russia and more in line with US "ideals".

Imagine that, the Ukrainian people rejected Putin's puppet. You should listen to them.

19 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

And you might think, why can't they join NATO? that's their right as a sovereign country? and I would say yes of course! HOWEVER. Russia doesn't believe this, and had been clear for years and years that this was a red line.

I declare that my neighbor cannot be friends with the guy across the street, that is a red line or else I will invade his house.

All the other neighbors knew this and told him not to poke the bear. Everyone in the town should be cowed into fear and live by my rules, right?

19 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Let's look at it from another countries perspective, imagine say America, and some other country decided they were going to put a base beside the US borders capable of striking America, what do you think would happen? oh yes, that was the Cuban missile crisis and America nearly went nuclear.

I love that you chose this analogy because Ukraine is the complete opposite; they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.

And in exchange, Russia would not interfere in the internal politics of Ukraine, threaten them with military action, or invade them. Russia has done all three.

 You are completely propagandized on this issue. Further proving the absurdity of claiming yourself "impartial". Utterly blind to your own biases.

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 9/18/2024 at 11:11 AM, downzy said:

Communists is a drop in the bucket compared to what Trump and his allies have said about Democrats...

- Trump calling on supporters to beat up hecklers

- Trump mocking Nancy Pelosi's husband for being attacked by a MAGA supporter with a hammer

- Trump calling for and threatening execution to former Joint Chief of Staff Mark Milley because he viewed him disloyal

- Trump encouraging police to rough up people they're arresting.

- Trump praising an elected official for roughing up a reporter

- Trump using the racist phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during the George Floyd protests

 

Democrats argue Trump is a threat to democracy.  Trump says Democrats and liberals a destroying the country.  One statement is based on actual actions and words used by one candidate and his allies.  The other is made up nonsense.  

They are not the same.

Oh, and how could I forget: MAGAs also call Democrats "Satanic Pedophiles".

Yeah, it's really Dems who are out of control with violence-inciting rhetoric.

[Tom2112]

10 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

As always, it's the "look what you made me do" argument. Personal responsibility is only for people I disagree with! Everything done by someone I want to defend is just an involuntary reaction to the people I dislike, and therefore they hold no personal responsibility.

LOL that phone call does not even come close to substantiating that claim. They are literally just discussing their opinions on the uprising. This is some straight up conspiracist nonsense, and you sourced it from South China Morning Post. What a shock, an ally of Russia.

Imagine that, the Ukrainian people rejected Putin's puppet. You should listen to them.

I declare that my neighbor cannot be friends with the guy across the street, that is a red line or else I will invade his house.

All the other neighbors knew this and told him not to poke the bear. Everyone in the town should be cowed into fear and live by my rules, right?

I love that you chose this analogy because Ukraine is the complete opposite; they agreed to give up their nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.

And in exchange, Russia would not interfere in the internal politics of Ukraine, threaten them with military action, or invade them. Russia has done all three.

 You are completely propagandized on this issue. Further proving the absurdity of claiming yourself "impartial". Utterly blind to your own biases.

Propagandized.... rich coming from someone with your very limited political leeway

And that's how I know you don't view things in any balanced way. Left and right get equal lashes from me, as I don't vote in the US or have some undying love for one or the other.

As for that leaked conversation. It's about as plain and simple as it can be. If you hear it and honestly believe that this is just two people sharing opinions, then I honestly don't know what to say to you. Sourced from who? I could have chosen and number of articles, this was reported in mainstream papers even the BS rags you probably read. You realise that what you said is the exact response America gave, they basically ignored the details in the call and went straight to "yeah but Russia shouldn't be leaking our private illegal phone calls". Repeating that retort in my opinion highlights your western propaganda training has gone well🥇 so if I'm a proganda merchant as are you dumbass.

Now piss off.

 

[Tom2112]

17 hours ago, downzy said:

So Finland and Sweden joined NATO because of "fear based politics”?  Not on a rational calculus that they would better off having formal allied support in the face of Russian aggression towards its neighbours?

We could go back and forth on this all day, but for me, the notion that Euromaidan that launched in 2014 as a result of Yanukovych's rebuke of the parliament to deepen ties with the EU was nothing more than Western interference is absurd. This take, which you hear often from Russia and Russian supporters, supposes that Ukraine has and had no real agency of its own, that it was a vassal state doing its master's bidding; that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets in 2014 were simply pawns of American foreign policy and the subsequent elections that produced a pro-EU and anti-Russian government.  I find such a position so untethered to what was well documented and for everyone to see.  It is hard to take seriously claims that to believe otherwise are simply a product of western propaganda.  

With respect to you video clip, this is from Wikipedia:

Russian propaganda portrayed the revolution as a US-organized coup.

In December 2013, Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, said in a speech to the US–Ukraine Foundation that the US had spent about $5 billion on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since 1991.  The Russian government seized on this statement, claiming it was evidence the US was orchestrating a revolution.  In February 2014, a phone conversation between Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. Nuland and Pyatt discuss who they think should or should not be in Ukraine's new government and give their opinion of some Ukrainian political figures.  US Department of State spokesperson Jen Psaki said the discussion was not evidence of any plan to influence the political outcome, saying "It shouldn't be a surprise" that politicians would discuss the revolution and Ukraine's future leadership. Yale University professor Timothy Snyder said, "Imagine just how much evidence the Russians have of what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine, given that they had access to that telephone call. That was the best bit they could come up with. And in the context of the time, what that telephone conversation showed was that the Americans were, A, not up to date about what was happening in Ukraine and, B, unable to influence events happening in Ukraine."

The differences between what EFTurtle is saying and what I'm saying are not that great.  We just have a different approach to saying it.

If it's from Wikipedia it must be true. I know that's low hanging fruit, couldn't resist.

As regards the video. Nicely done. This isn't some BS video, this is hard evidence. I can't convince you otherwise obviously, you just think it's proganda😄 ok. Believe that the 2014 coup wasn't lead by US involvement and that the government they wasn't basically figure heads and as highly corrupt as the previous governmentbut bow thet were slanted toeards the west as opposed to Russia. Also I do agree that there were many within Ukraine that didn't like how the country operated before 2014, not suggesting it was some love boat.

You're incorrect but you can have that opinion, very condescending there, but it is what is. You're showing your ass (you think I am, I know), if the shoe was on the other foot and one of Trump's team was caught doing this you would be calling for jail or at the very least somebody tonbe fired. Example the call where Trump was caught red handed trying to pressure that senator into finding more votes in the 2020 election, rightfully so people called that out for what it is. Obviously the right were trying to rationalise it with this 'oh that was more of a suggestion to work harder, not telling him to find more votes and swing the election results' paraphrased (I know that's frowned upon here).

Edited September 21 by Tom2112

[colonizedmind]

Trump has lost almost everything since 2020....

He has a very loud, vocal mob that make his support seem more substantive than it is.

Reality. He will still lose to a candidate that only launched their campaign 8 weeks ago.

 

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:31 AM, Tom2112 said:

Propagandized.... rich coming from someone with your very limited political leeway

That's funny, because Downsy himself said that he and I are not far apart on the issues. Is he also a propagandized radical partisan? You're so emotionally triggered by me that you can't even correctly articulate my stances.

Only one of us has the lack of self awareness to claim to be "impartial" and it wasn't me, hoss.

Do you not understand that someone can be strong in their beliefs and not propagandized? Those are two different concepts. Try again.

I love that your response to an accusation of bias is "you're biased, so I can't be!" 

On 9/21/2024 at 7:31 AM, Tom2112 said:

And that's how I know you don't view things in any balanced way. Left and right get equal lashes from me, as I don't vote in the US or have some undying love for one or the other.

Buddy, the record of your comments is right here for all to see. You are anything but equal, and the fact that you think you are proves my point that you're incapable of seeing your own biases.

Your whole framing is built on the presupposition that both left and right are doing equally wrong. If I give "equal lashes" to a person who committed 14 felonies and a person who committed one misdemeanor traffic violation, I am not being impartial, am I?

The conservative/liberal dichotomy does not only exist in the US. You think foreign conservatives don't defend Trump? This is an incredibly weak argument and you know it.

On 9/21/2024 at 7:31 AM, Tom2112 said:

If you hear it and honestly believe that this is just two people sharing opinions, then I honestly don't know what to say to you.

That is literally what the words are saying. Do they talk about a plot to overthrow the government? No. YOU are adding that in based on your unfounded assumptions. Nobody who is impartial would make the massive jump to conspiracy based on zero evidence that you have done from that conversation.

On 9/21/2024 at 7:31 AM, Tom2112 said:

You realise that what you said is the exact response America gave, they basically ignored the details in the call and went straight to "yeah but Russia shouldn't be leaking our private illegal phone calls".

Proving again that you don't even read comments disagreeing with you because I said nothing even remotely close to "yeah but Russia shouldn't be leaking our private illegal phone calls"

I'd ask you to quote me on that, but I already have multiple times and you just keep running away because you know you're bullshitting, strawmanning and lying.

On 9/21/2024 at 7:31 AM, Tom2112 said:

Repeating that retort in my opinion highlights your western propaganda training has gone well🥇

"Western Propaganda"... taking your buzzwords straight out of RT. Have a good one, Comrade Tom.

Edited September 22 by evilfacelessturtle

[downzy]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:50 AM, Tom2112 said:

If it's from Wikipedia it must be true. I know that's low hanging fruit, couldn't resist.

But that's kind of my point.  If all it takes is a quick reference to a Wikipedia article to refute your argument or understanding, you're not on solid ground.

On 9/21/2024 at 7:50 AM, Tom2112 said:

As regards the video. Nicely done. This isn't some BS video, this is hard evidence.

It's a piece of evidence devoid of context or understanding of what was happening in Ukraine in 2014.  As the Yale professor mentions, if all Russia had was this one phone call, in which two diplomats opine on who they would like to see run the country, then there's not much to prove that U.S. was instrumental in fermenting opposition.

Again, this isn't a discussion worth spending much time on since there's little that supports your viewpoint.  Yes, there's this one leaked call, but it's not being put into context nor does it much to explain how the U.S. somehow mobilized hundreds of thousands to take to the streets after Ukrainian President vetoed the country's parliament vote for closer ties to EU.  It fails to explain how the country overwhelmingly voted in a pro EU government in the subsequent elections.  The leap of logic is too great for me to accept your position, one that's based on one phone call leaked by Russia's FSB.

On 9/21/2024 at 7:50 AM, Tom2112 said:

You're showing your ass (you think I am, I know), if the shoe was on the other foot and one of Trump's team was caught doing this you would be calling for jail or at the very least somebody tonbe fired.

I would expect diplomats to speculate and provide preferences for who they would prefer to lead geo-politically important countries regardless of the administration.  This is done by every nation on a routine basis.  It's not as if you have the U.S. President leveraging American foreign policy for his own political gain.  

On 9/21/2024 at 7:50 AM, Tom2112 said:

Example the call where Trump was caught red handed trying to pressure that senator into finding more votes in the 2020 election, rightfully so people called that out for what it is.

But that's not what this is.

 

[Tom2112]

42 minutes ago, downzy said:

But that's kind of my point.  If all it takes is a quick reference to a Wikipedia article to refute your argument or understanding, you're not on solid ground.

It's a piece of evidence devoid of context or understanding of what was happening in Ukraine in 2014.  As the Yale professor mentions, if all Russia had was this one phone call, in which two diplomats opine on who they would like to see run the country, then there's not much to prove that U.S. was instrumental in fermenting opposition.

Again, this isn't a discussion worth spending much time on since there's little that supports your viewpoint.  Yes, there's this one leaked call, but it's not being put into context nor does it much to explain how the U.S. somehow mobilized hundreds of thousands to take to the streets after Ukrainian President vetoed the country's parliament vote for closer ties to EU.  It fails to explain how the country overwhelmingly voted in a pro EU government in the subsequent elections.  The leap of logic is too great for me to accept your position, one that's based on one phone call leaked by Russia's FSB.

I would expect diplomats to speculate and provide preferences for who they would prefer to lead geo-politically important countries regardless of the administration.  This is done by every nation on a routine basis.  It's not as if you have the U.S. President leveraging American foreign policy for his own political gain.  

But that's not what this is.

 

That's the argument I love you need to see this very, very specific context. I mean when you have to do that much manoeuvring to make it seem OK, that's when you knows there's an issue. Context. Ukraine has leadership that the west don't approve of, they are on the phone discussing a very fast coup that replaces that government to one that favours the west. I'm not sure there's anything else to add to that. And it's not them talking about who they prefer, they are saying this person is in, they are out let's seal this off and have Biden Shepard it in. It's very clear. It's honestly like there's an alternate call you're listening to where they aren't saying anything wrong. They sound like wall street people, just your top class bottom feeder scum, with zero morality and this repugnant attitude  of we can do what we want we're the fucking USA! 

One phone call. Again, it's astounding that you can be this interested in politics and not delve into less mainstream sources. Listen to an interview or read something from Noam Chomsky (name dropped twice..ok! But there's others, however i'm sure they would be considered right wing for not following the status quo snd i'm not giving any free shots away. Not referring  to anyone like Alex Jones, Russell brand, Tim pool, Megyn kelly or those usuals) he will very quickly explain the Western position, and I agree entirely. You can listen/read him discussing this exact Coup too if you care too, he's fair and considered and most definitely can't be written off as some Kremlin crony because he's just as ferocious to non western countries. And no matter how much you might not like what he says you will find it very difficult to say his points are very far off the mark. 

https://chomsky.info/20220408/ if you have the time and interest then this is a good read. Certainly isn't taking any sides (although he obviously condemned the 2022 invasion of Russia, comparing it to the Iraq invasion in the 00s), he just adds balanced fact driven context that isn't swayed right or left.

Edited September 23 by Tom2112

[downzy]

10 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

That's the argument I love you need to see this very, very specific context. I mean when you have to do that much manoeuvring to make it seem OK, that's when you knows there's an issue. Context.

Everything requires context when you're making an argument.

9/11 Truthers say that because the WTC's beams were made of a certain metal, and such metal only starts degrading at a certain temperature, which they argue isn't possible with jet fuel, it therefore proves that the builders were brought down by bombs.  But every reputable structural and chemical engineer has refuted the argument by putting these facts in context to explain why flying commercial jets into the WTC buildings brought them down. 

"Facts" in isolation stop being facts when you consider the larger picture; when context is considered.

And that's what you're failing to do here with our discussion about Ukraine.

Look, believe what you want, but don't act like I'm being calcitrant because I don't accept your narrow use of one discussion between American diplomats as proof of a Western-based coup in Ukraine.  I've given you reasons for why that call is being taken out of context.  I've also asked how America was able to provoke widespread protests across the country.  How did America influence subsequent elections to get the government they want.  America would love to replace many regimes all over the world.  How did they manage to do it in Ukraine?  Pointing to one phone call between diplomats isn't proof that America forced the issue.  As I said earlier, I'm sure similar discussions occur frequently about many other countries.  You're connecting two points without demonstrating how they connect.

10 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Listen to an interview or read something from Noam Chomsky

I'm quite familiar with Chomsky and while there's parts of his analysis I agree with, there's a lot I don't.  I know I'm viewed as this hard-left liberal around some parts, but I find a lot of the hard-left so out of touch from reality that it's shocking that they're taken seriously on some subjects.  Geo-politics being one of them. 

For Chomsky, every action by Russia is viewed as a responsible reaction to American overreach.  That Ukraine has no agency of its own.  In fact, that Russia has no agency, that it's merely responding to US aggression.  It's all nonsense and gives absurd deference to a murderous thug that has returned Russia into dictatorship.  For Chomsky, the best way of dealing with Russia is to simply stay out of its way; to let it do what its wants.  Any form of intervention or resistance is the fault of the U.S., not Russia.  We should simply agree to any demands made by Russia; that Ukraine should be left to be swallowed up (despite U.S. security assurances provided when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in the early 90s).  

So feel free to reference Chomsky as often as you want on this issue.  I'm familiar with his arguments and I find them both dangerous, myopic, and outright wrong.

[Tom2112]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Everything requires context when you're making an argument.

9/11 Truthers say that because the WTC's beams were made of a certain metal, and such metal only starts degrading at a certain temperature, which they argue isn't possible with jet fuel, it therefore proves that the builders were brought down by bombs.  But every reputable structural and chemical engineer has refuted the argument by putting these facts in context to explain why flying commercial jets into the WTC buildings brought them down. 

"Facts" in isolation stop being facts when you consider the larger picture; when context is considered.

And that's what you're failing to do here with our discussion about Ukraine.

Look, believe what you want, but don't act like I'm being calcitrant because I don't accept your narrow use of one discussion between American diplomats as proof of a Western-based coup in Ukraine.  I've given you reasons for why that call is being taken out of context.  I've also asked how America was able to provoke widespread protests across the country.  How did America influence subsequent elections to get the government they want.  America would love to replace many regimes all over the world.  How did they manage to do it in Ukraine?  Pointing to one phone call between diplomats isn't proof that America forced the issue.  As I said earlier, I'm sure similar discussions occur frequently about many other countries.  You're connecting two points without demonstrating how they connect.

I'm quite familiar with Chomsky and while there's parts of his analysis I agree with, there's a lot I don't.  I know I'm viewed as this hard-left liberal around some parts, but I find a lot of the hard-left so out of touch from reality that it's shocking that they're taken seriously on some subjects.  Geo-politics being one of them. 

For Chomsky, every action by Russia is viewed as a responsible reaction to American overreach.  That Ukraine has no agency of its own.  In fact, that Russia has no agency, that it's merely responding to US aggression.  It's all nonsense and gives absurd deference to a murderous thug that has returned Russia into dictatorship.  For Chomsky, the best way of dealing with Russia is to simply stay out of its way; to let it do what its wants.  Any form of intervention or resistance is the fault of the U.S., not Russia.  We should simply agree to any demands made by Russia; that Ukraine should be left to be swallowed up (despite U.S. security assurances provided when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in the early 90s).  

So feel free to reference Chomsky as often as you want on this issue.  I'm familiar with his arguments and I find them both dangerous, myopic, and outright wrong.

Ha! Well yes, you are as hard left as left can be😄 dangerous, myopic and outright wrong. I look forward to your political research that might suggest you have an equal understanding on the subject. I don't have such a thing so I follow the highly, highly respected words from people like him. You read his thoughts and figure he says it's all fair because America did xy and z. That's categorically false. You are not being fair to not acknowledge one countries actions having an impact on another countries action (that goes both ways too). And You're not being accurate to Chomskys position, he absolutely doesn't make any dangerous arguments or show any favouritism... it's just the history as it presents itself. Facts not emotion, you might being swayed because of a political leaning, I personally don't see this as a left or right issue, this a both issue.

Anyway!! We know where we stand. I bid you a polite adieu🤝

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I look forward to your political research that might suggest you have an equal understanding on the subject. I don't have such a thing so I follow the highly, highly respected words from people like him.

But you're not actually engaging in the arguments he's making.  You're at best renting them and hiding behind his stature without engaging in what's actually being said.

I've given reasons why Chomsky is wrong on this issue.  I'm not an outlier on this either.  Many others (Anne Applebaum, Tom Friedman, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, etc) have called out Chomsky directly or his arguments indirectly.  

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

You are not being fair to not acknowledge one countries actions having an impact on another countries action (that goes both ways too). And You're not being accurate to Chomskys position, he absolutely doesn't make any dangerous arguments or show any favouritism

Your summation of Chomsky on Russia and Ukraine is not at all reflective of the arguments he actually makes.  He continually defends Russia's motivations for its involvement in Ukraine and pins almost all the blame on the West and the U.S., as if Ukraine nor Russia have any actually agency in the matter.  To say Chomsky isn't playing favouritism is absurd.

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

it's just the history as it presents itself.

History never just "presents itself."

 

[Tom2112]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

But you're not actually engaging in the arguments he's making.  You're at best renting them and hiding behind his stature without engaging in what's actually being said.

I've given reasons why Chomsky is wrong on this issue.  I'm not an outlier on this either.  Many others (Anne Applebaum, Tom Friedman, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, etc) have called out Chomsky directly or his arguments indirectly.  

Your summation of Chomsky on Russia and Ukraine is not at all reflective of the arguments he actually makes.  He continually defends Russia's motivations for its involvement in Ukraine and pins almost all the blame on the West and the U.S., as if Ukraine nor Russia have any actually agency in the matter.  To say Chomsky isn't playing favouritism is absurd.

History never just "presents itself."

 

That's twisting my words. I didn't say history just presents itself. I said 'this is the facts (history) as it happened' maybe I was unclear. 

We're all hiding behind someone else's argument to some extent, I'm just confident i'm on the right side of it is all. You disagree and think you are that's the beauty of life we can both be right, in our own heads at the very least.

But I've essentially said everything I'm going to say on this. Ready to move on after a week long tennis match😄

[evilfacelessturtle]

20 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

That's the argument I love you need to see this very, very specific context.

Mocking the idea that context matters.

20 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

they are saying this person is in, they are out let's seal this off and have Biden Shepard it in.

Evidence of diplomacy, what a shocker! They were talking about having conversations with Ukranian leaders, can you believe it?!

You really must not follow politics if you've never heard somebody talk about the president "sealing the deal" or "shepherding" a deal through Congress. That does not mean they secretly orchestrated that law against Congress' will. It was no secret that US diplomats were talking with Ukrainian officials.

Ironically you did get one part right; they are saying "this person is in, they are out". Notably, not "we've put this person in and taken this person out".

Kind of an important detail, but continue your baseless conspiracizing...

10 hours ago, downzy said:

Look, believe what you want, but don't act like I'm being calcitrant because I don't accept your narrow use of one discussion between American diplomats as proof of a Western-based coup in Ukraine. 

Anyone who doesn't submit to his opinions is an "entrenched partisan hack". And that does not apply in both directions!

10 hours ago, downzy said:

You're connecting two points without demonstrating how they connect.

Correlation is the same thing as causation!

Putin gave his opinion on the American election in 2016 and his favored candidate won. That proves Trump was installed by Putin, right? Hmm, if he hadn't already run away after exhausting his RT talking points, this would have been an interesting corollary for him to wrestle with.

Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/putin-trump-win-election-2016-722486

Edited September 24 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

6 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I follow the highly, highly respected words from people like him.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

6 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

he absolutely doesn't make any dangerous arguments or show any favouritism... it's just the history as it presents itself. Facts not emotion, you might being swayed because of a political leaning

Literally "Anything I agree with is impartial, factual telling of history. Anything I disagree with is emotional and partisan".

You can't even parody this guy, he literally admits it outright.

6 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Anyway!! We know where we stand. I bid you a polite adieu

WOAH, STOP THE PRESSES!

You're admitting that you're entrenched in your opinion and cannot have your mind changed.

I don't even know who you are anymore! Open-mindedness was the foundation of your entire self-proclaimed ideology!!!

I am SHOCKED!

Well, not that shocked.

Yeah, calling Downsy "emotional" and saying "you're showing your ass" and using emojis to laugh at him is very polite...

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

I'm just confident i'm on the right side of it is all.

ENTRENCHED

[evilfacelessturtle]

"Miriam and Sheldon (Adelson) would come into the White House almost more than anybody…and they were always after something for Israel. As soon as I'd give them something, they'd want something else. But I gave them the Golan Heights."

Trump literally admits he is a puppet of his billionaire donors and GAVE territory to a foreign country, but not a peep from the self-proclaimed centrists...

The double standard is so obvious it can be seen from space.

Not to mention how the following statements expose his incompetence:

"I said 'give me a quick lesson, like 5 minutes or less on the Golan Heights' ... I said, 'let's do it' and we got it done in 15 minutes."

Imagine arguing with a straight face that the guy who makes international socio-political decisions based on a 5 minute brief is more equipped to hold office and face off with the likes of Putin than an Attorney General who can actually string together coherent sentences and not be manipulated by their insecurities like a teenager.

I'm sure this comment will get another coping laugh reaction because when you're lost the argument, all you have is juvenile mockery. SAD!

 

[Rindmelon]

The JD Vance Research Dossier that the Trump team compiled was hacked by Iran and is out there. 

[evilfacelessturtle]

While calling Kamala Harris "mentally disabled", Trump had a dementia moment:

Will Repubs do the responsible thing and replace him with someone competent to hold office? Of course not.

[downzy]

State department officials are claiming that Iran is preparing a missile attack against Israel.

Things are about to get ugly.

[-W.A.R-]

The current policy of unconditional support for Israel is reckless, short-sighted, disastrous, and morally bankrupt. I don't know what this administrations delusion about this is. Even as someone who has a very negative view of how the US conducts itself in the world, I'm stunned at what lengths they are going to continue it.

The VP Debate: First of all what a ridiculous and insane first question "would you support a Israeli preemptive on Iran". I like Walz but this was a bust performance for him. He said he was a bad debater (I feel that ) but I also think the center-right campaign they are running doesn't allow for him to spread his populist wings much. I don't think he loses her the election but I'm conceding Shapiro would have been better.

[evilfacelessturtle]

On 10/2/2024 at 11:35 AM, -W.A.R- said:

I don't think he loses her the election but I'm conceding Shapiro would have been better.

Wasn't Shapiro to the right of Walz? Or a zionist or something?

Liz Cheney has now joined Anthony Scaramucci and countless other Republicans in endorsing Harris. Anyone who was genuinely impartial would see that for the damning indictment it is of how extreme the MAGA GOP has become.

In other news, the right has been pushing their latest hoax with a fake AI generated image:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wingers-heartbroken-picture-little-girl-212703410.html

It's so nakedly obvious that they're weaponizing this disaster to score cheap political points that it's appalling.

Not to mention hypocritical, when Trump withheld aid from CA during a wildfire because they were a Democratic state. And the right attacked Chris Christie accepting aid from Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/trump-california-disaster-funding-19814002.php

Funny how all the "independence, personal responsibility and bootstraps" language suddenly disappears when a red state can't fund its own disaster efforts because they've cut taxes to the bone. You don't see Biden demanding they institute an income tax before he sends aid.

Edited October 4 by evilfacelessturtle

[-W.A.R-]

5 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Wasn't Shapiro to the right of Walz? Or a zionist or something?

To clarify about Shapiro I'm speaking strictly from a campaigning standpoint. Ideologically I'm still happy with Walz and would have rather have him in the WH should she win. Anyway polls show Walz receiving a boost in favorability after the debate so perhaps I was being too harsh.

[downzy]

The debate between Vance and Walz was interesting in that it demonstrated how regardless of one's debating skills, arguing bull shit is still a tough thing to do.

Vance was noticeably a better debater than Walz, but Vance had the disadvantage of defending so much bullshit.  If this was a high school debate, Vance easily won in terms of rhetoric and tactics.  But it's not a high school debate, and most people (I think) aren't watching it to determine who won the most points.  Walz ultimately won because I think he spoke genuinely about issues he believes in.  Vance, on the other hand, broke the laws of physics to defend Trump's positions and statements.

Ultimately, a VP debate in which the two sides split people's opinions on who won is a non-story.  We've already moved on to dancing "Dark Maga" Elon and Trump saying that people who don't vote for him are more dangerous than dictators.  

Four more weeks!