Total posts: 1,896
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Well, this will be bad news for you, then: the Biden administration will be pursuing a reinstatement of the mask mandate.
Created:
-->
@thett3
The claim is that The Libs of TikTok founder violated Twitter’s TOS. How was that done?
Created:
Posted in:
White House Press Secretary: “Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts—they should be made by public health experts.”
Reporter: “Mr. President, should people continue to wear masks on planes?”
President: “That’s up to them.”
Created:
Posted in:
The federal mask mandate is officially over in the US. Most US airlines now no longer require masks to travel domestically, but one can still wear a mask if desired.
A cause for celebration… or concern?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
They also constantly argue that children should be educated based on their bad ideas, that anything non-affirming is bigoted (even saying non-affirming therapies should be banned), etc.
I agree. A line is crossed when it goes from teaching impressionable children tolerance and mutual respect to teaching such as not just normal but common, perhaps even preferable in certain circumstances— as if to imply “if you are at all confused by your body/gender (and who doesn’t experience an iota of such confusion) going trans may be preferable. Look at all the positive attention, the accolades, the automatic respect we confer on such a choice.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It’s a discussion worthy subject if not for the incoherence, contradictions, and prevarications of this particular thread.
Here’s my attempt to make it interesting:
I have come across individuals who might place ecological well being and non-human animal well being above human well being as their moral foundation.
Or:
What about when a human’s or group of humans’ well being clashes with that of another human’s or group of humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You seem to be misunderstanding me on purpose.
No, but you seem to be creating needless confusion on purpose.
You asked for feedback in your OP, so here’s mine:
You are espousing a moral system founded upon human well being and public health, which is fine and dandy as far as it goes. The glaring problem is that you deny this concept, this code of morality constitutes a concept of morality. This merely creates an incoherent, semantics wild goose chase in a forum intended to be about philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If someone claims homosexuality is immoral I can say "I don't care if it is immoral they aren't hurting anyone" and oppose them in these grounds. If someone claims that they have a divine mandate to own some people or take their land then I can say "I don't care if it is morally justified you are hurting people" and oppose them on those grounds.
You are still making an argument about morality in any case— you just don’t seem to realize it…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One can still care about morality if one believes it to be subjective.
How does pursuing your stated priorities differ from a moral code?
How does pursuing your stated priorities differ from a moral code?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
My stance remains that I am disinterested in the concept of morality and instead only in the effects of actions on human wellbeing and the public health.
Oh, I thought progress was being made, but you regress here. Your claim is not coherent. It’s akin to claiming “I am disinterested in the concept of survival and instead only in what it takes to keep us alive.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This:
IF morality is subjective THEN I have already given you my standards
And
IF morality is objective and it doesn't support my standard THEN I don't give a fig about being moral.
… should be included in your OP. It would clear up a lot and prevent the ensuing confusion. I tend to agree with Matt Dilahunty on this: the foundation of morality is subjective, but once a foundation is chosen, morality is objective from that point onward.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not possible to debate that, it's a matter of pure definitions. You either agree on the definition or you don't, if you don't there is no point using the word to communicate.
Exactly. It would be akin to debating whether Pluto is a planet or not. It used to be defined as a planet. Now, it is not. In the meantime, nothing about Pluto has changed.
Created:
Posted in:
REPUBLICANS CHICKEN OUT of 2022 DEBATES
Really? Gee… how do they expect to win any seats?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can only speculate why the left wants the number of intersex and gender confused people to be as large as possible. It seems to be working, too, as gender confusion is increasing much faster than natural selection could justify…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But…building that mega yacht cost money. Hiring the crew for it cost money. The helicopter on the helicopter pad, all the other toys those all cost money and spending that money creates lots and lots of jobs. It’s actually way better for billionaires to be blowing their money instead of dressing up in clothes from Walmart and LARPING as an average joe while their money sits in wealth management accounts
True but for the last part— money in investment accounts IS being put to work. If I had to think of ways of making money dormant (other than under the mattress), I would say buying precious metals and crypto.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
We don’t think enough about how human instincts evolved in a VERY different social environment. I doubt the hunter gatherer ever heard of a conflict that they didn’t have a personal stake in somehow. Signaling support for one side or the other actually bore risks and costs, and siding with the side that ultimately won would be a benefit.
That reminds me:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
That is why people call it the "Don't say Gay" bill
Yes, a misleading title (also a “snuck in premise” btw) which the MSM ran with to their disrepute.
Teachers are including LGBT people in age appropriate discussions about civil rights and civic responsibilities and those are the discussions that this Florida law is designed to censor.
Cite? I would genuinely be interested to see if there is any truth at all to these claims. Either way, I believe that civil rights are universal in a nation, so the concept can and should be taught without bringing various forms of identity into the concept, especially at a young age.
Note that I brought up civil rights in my first post- before you entered the conversation.
Noted. Initially, I was just taking issue with your claim about DGSH— a claim you then tried to render as moot. I still don’t agree, yet at least, to your characterization of the bill as being anti-civil rights education.
I note also that you failed to object to the inclusion of many other totally unrelated subjects- Drag Queen Story Hour, anal sex, masculine looking women, Colorado legislation, etc.
This is a head-scratcher of a contention, and you’re not even the first to make it. I will explain: I could probably take issue with almost anything anyone says in here… really! If this were a site patronized almost exclusively by right wingers, I would then be much more willing to quibble over the fine points and various disagreements that right wingers have with each other. This site *hardly* matches that description, so I pick my battles with those who bat for left wing platforms and allow left wingers to pick apart arguments from right wingers. I hardly see much infighting at all here, and it comes as no surprise… to me, at least.
… and the bill only prohibits discussion/instruction regarding sexual orientation and gender identity…
You persist in conflating “discussion” with “instruction” in the actionable aspect of the law. If you refuse to discuss the issue honestly, I’ll take that as my cue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I agree prohibiting teachers from instructing students that LGBT have civil rights
How did civil rights enter our discussion about young children’s education? This is known as “sneaking in a premise”— saying something as if it has been established and agreed upon as true when it has not been. If you had an intellectually honest rebuttal, I’m sure you would have posited it instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I think you are still missing the central point which is that Drag Queen Story Hours happen at public libraries and not schools. That is, Drag Queen Story Hours are totally voluntary events at which it would be illegal to leave a K-3 age child unsupervised. The state probably has no regulatory authority for that library in Houston or any of the libraries in Florida that offer this particular entertainment.
That would be fine if the limits you claim actually existed. From the Drag Queen Story Hour website (emphasis added):
“Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.”
a current law unconstitutionally restricting the capacity of schoolchildren and teacher to discuss gay rights has deceived and befuddled you just as was intended.
You sound as if you don’t want to comprehend the distinction made in my prior post. “Instruction” is prohibited, not “discussion.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I linked to the text of the bill. As I stated above the law makes no mention of libraries or drag queens. The new bill amends existing legislation regarding student health to require teachers to notify parents about kids who come out at school and prevents teachers from "encouraging " discussion of LGBT issues in school.
I think you linked to an outdated version of the bill. The latest version, which is going to become law I believe, states in subparagraph 3:
“3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third
parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur
in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-
appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in
accordance with state standards.”
So, “discussion” has been revised to “instruction,” although the summary still states “discussion” for some reason. It seems to me that this paragraph would discourage, if not outright prohibit schools from having a “Drag Queen Hour” in kindergarten through 3rd grade at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Drag Queen story hours are still happening in Florida because nothing in this bill does anything to try to stop it.
Isn’t it possible that this is because the bill has not become law yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah, that’s a valid concern. Lefties inhabit some very influential institutions, which gives them a distinct advantage in the national zeitgeist:
- Academia - this has been brewing for decades, perhaps even a century. Just about everything that comes out of AOC’s mouth strikes me as very “college student-y”…
- Print and television media/social media
- Multinational corporations - this one is a bit of a turnaround, as this was seen as the province of the right up through W Bush’s presidency (this one also has some overlap with the above institution). Also a bit of a head scratcher, as corporations are capitalist, and the left is becoming more vocally anti-capitalist. Perhaps there are books out there exploring this very phenomenon…
Also, the military establishment is becoming increasingly PC/woke. Listen to just about any right leaning service person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Liberals just seem to have the will to power in general. I don’t know how to go about changing that but we really need to if we want them to stop winning
I take it you’re not talking 2022/2024 elections but thinking long term?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Your question seems to misunderstand the purpose of news reporting.
It is not the purpose of news reporters to agree or disagree with the policies they report on. The purpose of news reporting is to state in non-emotive language what is happening without passion or prejudice. This allows the reader to be informed and use that info to form his own conclusions. If this were done with Sweden, journalists would have had more of a tone of “time will tell if Sweden’s COVID strategy is ultimately the right one or not.”
This is not what occurred. Instead, articles on Sweden were negatively slanted. “No lockdowns = mounting deathcount.” The reporting on Sweden was one dimensional and geared toward one conclusion: not locking down = bad. If there was an upside to Sweden’s strategy, it was not presented in media as frequently as the negative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Interesting observations, thett. I have noticed similar trends. The terms “activist/activism” are certainly more synonymous with the left. Put simply:
Liberals: “Don’t just sit there; do SOMETHING!”
Conservatives: “Don’t just DO something; make sure it’s BETTER than doing nothing or nothing new.”
Here’s a funny twist on that generalization: Sweden, normally viewed as the liberal’s dream realized on earth, decided not to institute lockdowns during COVID. Well, the US press— one of the institutions overrun by the left— did a complete 180 on Sweden and published only negative articles on its failure to do SOMETHING. I’ve never seen a welfare state so demonized in media. It was as if the press felt betrayed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well, it’s about time for me to hop off our (not so) merry-go-round discussion. We, or at least I can agree to disagree. Clearly, you have your reasons for your views, and I have my reasons for my views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Actually, logic escapes it. First of all, the US is not the only country in the world. Whether Donald Trump is president is not the one and only thing every world leader thinks about before they decide what is best for their country and whether they should go for it. This is exactly the kind of arrogance that makes so many people around the world hate us, because so many Americans like yourself literally believe the world revolves around us.
So, now you’re (unintentionally) making a case for the US leaving NATO not being a big deal? Try and stick to a consistent frame of reference and line of reasoning…
Third, Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor (the Prez picks the team and is therefore responsible right?) has already shared his view that Putin didn’t do this before because he was counting on Trump to pull the US out of NATO in a second term. This answer makes so much more sense than the silly idea that Putin didn’t do it then because he was so afraid of Trump. As if a world leader’s calculation for war is based on how tough the other guy talks, or whether he uses all caps on Twitter.
You (conveniently) omit that Trump was also responsible for firing Bolton after just 1.5 years.
My problems with Bolton’s thesis:
1. (First and foremost) Putin has invaded Ukraine with the US in NATO… it’s just a blunt fact now…
2. Bolton gave a totally different reason in another interview— he is grasping, it seems to me
3. Bolton has sour grapes from being openly fired, so him complaining about Trump is hardly compelling or profound
4. I already caught Bolton in a fib in an interview, so his credibility is in question (related to problem #3)
5. Bolton also complains about Biden’s decisions, so if he is to be listened to on Trump, he should also be listened to on Biden, the president you have opined as superior (the purportedly objective MSM also neglects to do this… not that I wonder why)
Yeah, that’s why I watch episodes of Tucker Carlson and Hannity. Spare me your tunnel vision blindness speech.
Your fallacious and feverish retort is noted.
I already acknowledged that Trump did some good things and gave my prescription for how one goes about evaluating a president. Feel free to engage in the conversation instead of pretending my views are the result of some kind of delusion for some kind of reason which I never made any sense out of.
You don’t think our pages long back and forth constitutes engagement? Or *you’re* attempting to engage while *I’m* refusing? THAT must be it! Well, it’s your world, and I just live in it, I guess.
*yawn* Man! I’m getting sleepy all of a sudden…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And what made this even clearer is the way you continue to duck and dodge when I ask you tell me what you think of Trump cow towing to Putin on the world stage and how you factor that into this discussion.
I didn’t care for it. It helps when you pose the question honestly, by the way. But obviously there is no pleasing you with any answer of mine, as I stated earlier. Thing is, and there’s no escaping this: it *evidently* never prompted Putin to invade another country.
When it comes to his actions you expect me to sort through 52 different links to read up on all of Trump’s policy actions
No, I didn’t expect you to do that. I expected you— or, more realistically, anyone caring to read this forum— to see the conceivable possibility of tunnel vision (ie selection of detail to support a biased outlook) in the MSM reporting on Trump’s administration, regarding Russia in this case.
What I expected you to do was to find a way to dismiss most or all of it, and you didn’t disappoint!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump claims he appointed Bolton to be a contrarian voice— perhaps too contrarian, as we know how that relationship ended. There seem to be, to me at least, several flaws in taking Bolton’s word for it on this… the most glaring one being that Putin still invaded Ukraine with the US in NATO!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Me acknowledging and pointing out to you that actions speak louder than words is hardly equivalent to “rhetoric doesn’t count.” I could explain this to you in detail and with real world examples, but (1) I have wasted enough time typing long responses to your strident posts and (2) you really shouldn’t need it explained if you are as logical as you make yourself out to be.
And, for the record, I initially accused you of TDS after I asked “Which politician do you believe has been tough with Russia?” and you responded dodgily, “Pretty much every one except Trump.” That’s pretty “textbook” stuff…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason I don’t respond to links, it’s often a monumental waste of time as it was here. But I’ll go ahead and indulge you on this one.
Gee, thanks! I owe you one…
In the future if you have an argument, make it yourself.
Because politics and foreign policy can be fully presented, substantiated, analyzed and deconstructed solely via formal logic and self-evident truths by the layperson?
This is your style in a nutshell:
Either this:
Me: [states an opinion]
You: “I call BS! Provide links or else you’re just making sh!t up.
Or this:
Me: [provides links]
You: “I don’t entertain links as they’re a waste of my time. Make your own argument!
In the future, you will continue to see posters avoid engaging you in earnest— presumably because they lack the fortitude, the intellectual foundation or integrity to do so. They don’t have the guts!! THAT must be it…
Your link lists 52 different policy actions to support the notion that Trump was “tough on Russia”. Out of those 52 actions, about half (24) were either a WH Statement, press release, announcement, declaration, or alert. Since rhetoric doesn’t count, neither do any of those.
Words don’t count? When did I ever say that? I suppose it’s no coincidence you assume that as true when it works for you, whereas you have posited the opposite until now.
Out of the remaining actions, there was still a mix. Other actions listed here included multiple indictments issued by the Department of Justice, which the US President is not even supposed to have any involvement in, but most remarkable was that it included sanctions resulting from the Mueller probe which Trump adamantly opposed, rallied against for years, and even tried to stop himself. Yes, your link is giving Trump credit for this.
The AG is appointed by the president— that’s part of my earlier point re: it’s a team effort, not always a one man show. The prez picks the team.
And then there’s the list of snoozers, including a ban on Kaspersky anti virus software on federal computers, sanctioning a Russian bank because it evaded a US sanction on Venezuela, or an executive order directing federal gov agencies to investigate the 2018 mid term elections for Russian interference. (I mean seriously, they needed to be told this?)This isn’t to say Trump did nothing good. The toughest action listed here was the strike in Syria, but that hardly qualifies as Trump being tough on Russia. The only reason it made the list is because Russian mercenaries were among the casualties, which hardly qualifies.The best example on this list of Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the poisoning in Europe. I give him credit for stepping up on that one. But at the same time, this is hardly remarkable given that the US was just one of 18 countries who did the same thing, which brings me to my point… your entire argument that Trump was tough on Russia is that at times, Trump did his job.If I order a steak medium and the waiter brings me a steak cooked medium, that doesn’t mean the waiter deserves a raise. It doesn’t mean the waiter is the star of my restaurant. And it for damn sure doesn’t excuse all of the times the waiter fucked up someone else’s order.
Man, you have a genuine talent for discounting contrary facts. It’s truly something to behold. So, a president should not be credited for *acting* on results from a report unless the investigation behind it had his full blessing. And if a president is “merely” doing his job, he really shouldn’t be credited for doing it well… because it’s much like a server getting your food order right… right?
I get the idea that you believe these things have nothing to do with foreign relations with Russia, that these things play out in a vacuum:
- energy policy
- policy in Syria and Afghanistan
- admonishing NATO countries to pay their share of defense costs
- the Iran nuclear deal
- bombing Soleimani
- tariffs on China
I could go on here, but let me just go back to where this conversation began… I did not jump into this thread to claim that Trump was so much worse than any other president with regards to Russia, even though that is still my view. I jumped into this thread in response to those claiming that the absence of Trump’s strength against Putin is why Putin decided to invade Ukraine. That’s an absurd claim, and if you want to substantiate it you need to do more than hand waive away everything Trump has done in front of our eyes and instead post a link to “actions” Trump took against Russia.
Ah, ok. So now, you demand a link— after I supplied 2, and you claimed you don’t entertain links except when “indulging” me. Please…
And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…
I don’t know where you get the idea that I automatically approve of everything Trump said or did. GP tried explaining this, too. I don’t check what letter is next to a politician’s name before I determine what they did is good or bad. Seems you do, though.
Anyway, you already answered your own question for me to your own satisfaction, remember? It seems clear to me, at least, that my answer *couldn’t possibly* satisfy you as much as your assumed answer. You have shown yourself to be completely unreceptive. So… where’s the pleasure or point in me answering a question asked in hostility??
Created:
Posted in:
Excerpted:
“The following is the text of the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 2021.
…
Section II: Security and Countering Russian Aggression
The United States and Ukraine share a vital national interest in a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine. Bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against threats to its territorial integrity and deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions are concurrent priorities.
The United States recognizes Ukraine’s unique contribution to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and reaffirms its commitments under the “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (the Budapest Memorandum) of December 5, 1994.
Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.”
Putin has been pretty clear that he isn’t a fan of Russia bordering a member nation of NATO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I gave you multiple examples of Trump’s interactions and handling of Russia and/or Putin. Your one example of Trump being tough on Russia was him complaining about an oil deal Germany did with them. Please tell me with a straight face that this example is comparable to the examples I listed.
Oh, brother. And again I must point you back to the beginning of our discussion to the nonpartisan article I linked in post 343 which provides a great deal of context in contrast to your TDS inspired bloviating. Do you need me to paste the whole timeline here, or should I expect you to (falsely) accuse me of “Gish galloping”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You keep telling me what I have to say is nothing new, well here’s a crazy thought… respond to it. Please explain the logic of “Trump might have been against it but I still give him credit because it happened while he was in office”. I’d really love to hear it.
There’s another thing you do: act as though I haven’t responded when I have.
You said yourself that a president isn’t a dictator. Correct. What happens under a president’s admin is a team effort, and involves the checks and balances of the entire governmental apparatus. This is probably why the electorate seems to prefer that the executive and legislative belong to opposing parties. A president chooses his cabinet members, his advisors, chief of staff, etc. I assume you’re familiar with “the buck stops here.” A president is ultimately responsible for what occurs on his watch. Given bad advice? Well, he chose the advisor and chose to follow the bad advice. Didn’t follow good advice? Self explanatory. Congressional blockade? The president needed to be more persuasive. Opposition party party holds congress? Perhaps the midterms went poorly because the electorate didn’t like where the president was taking things.
Reluctantly agreed to good advice? You seem to have a problem with that when it involves Trump. And it’s no wonder…
So you’re all about results not rhetoric, but your example is Trump whining and complaining about an oil deal Germany made with Russia? Is this supposed to be what refutes everything I’ve said here?
Man, the way you frame and dismiss important points. I get it— loud and clear— if Trump did something right, it was minor; if it was wrong, it was major. I can simply assume this as axiomatic with Trump detractors.
The question is, what would you have thought if it were Biden doing these things instead of Trump?
Again, this is you acting as if I haven’t responded already. This compels me to quote myself:
“If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.”
We both know you would have lost your mind and grabbed your torch and pitchfork along with the rest of the GOP demanding Biden be impeached for being a traitor to the US.
Ah, yes. Very productive discussion you’re having there… with yourself. What you envision actually happened with the Afghanistan withdrawal, except that actually WAS Biden. If only it were a hypothetical…
But you know… TDS.
Indeed. Your posts exemplify it— especially the snarky tone.
I was just curious to ask you about this… why does the fact that the MSM reported on these things matter to the point that you act as if they have some kind of monopoly of ownership on this? Why when for example, a US President stands in front of the world and takes his adversary’s word over the unanimous conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, does my pointing out that this was bad somehow make me a purveyor of “MSM talking points”? I’d really love an answer to this.
Because you don’t deviate one iota from the MSM narrative regarding Trump, and you act as if that narrative irrefutably overrides the validity of any support or agreement with Trump’s presidency. All bad; no good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand how this works?
I understand that you like to give the appearance of addressing and debunking what I posit without really doing so. You stick to a few of the MSM favorite complaints and act as though you have effectively negated the nonpartisan article I posited in post #343 whereas you have merely dismissed it instead. Nothing new there…
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
This is where logic and basic critical thinking comes in. If someone tells you you’re wonderful to your face, and says you’re an asshole behind your back, which one do you believe?
Again, I judge leaders more by actions and results rather than their poorly chosen words. If Trump uses buddy buddy rhetoric with Putin while exhorting a major NATO member not to be so resource dependent on Russia, guess which takes precedence for me?
And if it were Biden doing all of these things you would not be calling it “unorthodox”.
If Biden were to do what Trump did, I would shake my head at the hypocrisy of doing the very things one formerly criticized adamantly. If he copied ideas of Trump’s without giving due credit, I’d shake my head at that, too. If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.
If, heaven forbid, a Russian missile were headed toward your residence, your final words would be “Well, Trump couldn’t have prevented this, either!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you really need the name of a politician in order to have a conversation about this then insert Biden.
There ya go! Now you have a stake in a discussion about presidential leadership and doctrine rather than merely sniping from the sidelines. This is progress from your “I don’t give a rat’s ass about Biden!” claim.
Listing things that happened during the Trump administration is not the same thing as listing things that happened because of Trump. In almost every case, the actions taken by the administration were taken over Trump’s (often public) disapproval.
In other words, ignore what his administration actually DID; listen to the things this buffoon SAID! And when he said the proper things, those instances were allegedly few and should be discounted entirely, just as the MSM did. Also, when Trump’s Secretary of State says or does the proper thing, those instances somehow don’t count, either.
This is you simply batting away facts that don’t fit the narrative.
The sanctions were passed with a veto proof majority and were not even imposed until he was pressured after it was revealed that he hadn’t yet moved on them. The military aid to Ukraine was passed by congress and withheld by Trump until he could get dirt on Biden, which he had to abandon after it was about to go public. Time after time Trump was the obstacle to the US being tough on Russia, not the reason.
So, you fault Trump for being “pressured” into making a good decision? It’s a pity that our current president wasn’t so pressured on some of his decisions…
As for obstacles to NATO, Germany has been largely guilty of that one, which is why Trump was exhorting them to up their game. For this, Trump was lambasted for “criticizing a major US ally!” *gasp*
And then there are all of the other examples of Trump inexplicably taking Putin’s side on issues no US President would have ever taken; allowing Russia back into the G8, working with Russia to “investigate” interference in the 2016 election, pulling the US out of NATO, blaming the former US President for Russia’s decision to invade and annex Crimea, etc.
Yes, he certainly has an unorthodox style, no doubt. I might call his foreign policy “The Capone Doctrine.” That is: “I keep my friends close… but I keep my enemies even closer!”
Created:
Posted in:
5) Be caught bluffing about an ultimatum
6) Give the green light to a NATO country’s dependence on Russian oil
7) Enact energy policy that raises oil prices leading to more dependence on foreign resources
8) Preside over a military blunder
9) Exhibit low regard for national sovereignty and border security
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, it is not a red herring, as the topic is “Russia and Ukraine,” not, as you seem to believe, “Russia and Trump.”
I was actually looking for context on what you consider good US foreign policy regarding Russia so as to have some point of reference. If you had offered the name of a politician you don’t otherwise support, at least that would mean you have the honesty to admit what he was good at. If you offered the name of a politician few others would support, again, at least that would mean you have the gumption to put it out there for examination. Or someone whom historians laud for his foreign policy. You posited none of these. If you cannot offer up a particular foreign policy doctrine on Russia which was arguably superior to Trump’s, then that is telling.
Put some skin in the game instead of merely indulging your TDS.
I was actually looking for context on what you consider good US foreign policy regarding Russia so as to have some point of reference. If you had offered the name of a politician you don’t otherwise support, at least that would mean you have the honesty to admit what he was good at. If you offered the name of a politician few others would support, again, at least that would mean you have the gumption to put it out there for examination. Or someone whom historians laud for his foreign policy. You posited none of these. If you cannot offer up a particular foreign policy doctrine on Russia which was arguably superior to Trump’s, then that is telling.
Put some skin in the game instead of merely indulging your TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There’s a saying: “Trump supporters take Trump seriously but not literally. Trump detractors take Trump literally but not seriously.”
Which US politician do you uphold as having been tough on Russia, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
John Bolton claims the evidence points to Russia not thinking their military was ready to invade yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Oh, I thought the entire Bolton (blech!) interview would be featured. Alas, it’s just another “Here’s someone prominent saying things we like” sort of article…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, I never was a big admirer of Mr. Bolton… or his music!
Seriously though, I’ll entertain that interview if you’d supply the link. Here’s this:
“Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“The Trump administration’s policy actions often seemed at odds with the President’s rhetoric. To set the record on policy actions, rather than rhetoric, Alina Polyakova and Filippos Letsas tracked the administration’s concrete actions on Russia from 2017 to 2019.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So where's all that oil you need going to come from?
It would come from not canceling the Keystone pipeline and lifting prohibitions on oil exploration. The US used to be a net oil exporter.
And how would not buying oil have stopped the Russians in their tracks?
Russia makes a lot of money from selling oil. Some of the countries buying their oil are part of NATO. That’s a problem.
Russians have got all the armour and fuel that they need to keep their tracks going.
Thanks to foreign dependence on their exports.
It's the U.S. that needs the oil....Because as you say, you are not energy independent.
It’s not only the US. It’s many countries— even the UK!
And Green energy is just not a relevant issue.
This is just head in the sand ignorance. The pursuit of green energy, while well intended, has resulted in nations deemphasizing other sources of energy. The focus on renewables has ironically led to more dependence on foreign fossil fuels, such as Russia. It’s a variation on “not in my back yard” thinking…
Created:
Posted in:
Hopefully this at the very least serves as an object lesson that there’s much more to presiding over a world superpower than promising to address climate change and social justice. That is, if the Afghanistan withdrawal did not already teach this…
Created:
Posted in:
UPDATE:
It appears that this docuseries is about as well-received as a fart in an elevator, and rightly so.
This means there is some hope for our society!
Created:
Posted in:
It’s hardly nonsense. You are *equating* awful actions with a certain identity group— as is this docuseries. And there’s a word for that.
There exist pockets of hardcore white supremacists who, I’ve been led to believe but could be wrong, would love nothing more than a full on race war in this country. My question is: if anti-racists also wanted a race war, what would they be doing differently, if anything? Not a rhetorical question— I’d actually like to hear possible answers!
Thankfully, there is a middle path to be explored— one with much less virtue signaling, anti-white attitudes, militancy, and more in a spirit of unity. I suggest listening to what Professor John McWhorter has to say for starters…
So, is there ANY part of this trailer that rubs you the wrong way?
Thankfully, there is a middle path to be explored— one with much less virtue signaling, anti-white attitudes, militancy, and more in a spirit of unity. I suggest listening to what Professor John McWhorter has to say for starters…
So, is there ANY part of this trailer that rubs you the wrong way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In response to this:
Casting (black) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
“You stand by the above characterization, then?”
You responded:
Yep, because the problem would be actions not skin color.
The problem is that you are essentially ascribing “awful actions” specifically and uniquely to a particular identity group. Black people, in the above case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Casting (black) people in a negative light for awful actions isn't discriminating a group on the basis of identity or immutable characteristics.
You stand by the above characterization then?
Created: