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 3 hours ago 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.