|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Because that directly leads to the issue that the way to stop encroaching fascism is to get there first.
How do you stop Trump from being elected despite everything against him barely moving the needle? By upending the entire democratic foundation of the country and arresting him for no crime and shipping him off to Guantanamo bay. Then you have to rig the election to stop a backlash from electing his replacement. So now we have a sham election and a dictatorship, and you cant stop being a dictatorship because the fascists are all still there waiting in the wings to ride the backlash of you have turned the country into a dictatorship if you ever hold actual elections.
Congratulations, you stopped the fascists and have successfully turned the country into a fascist dictatorship....
So you have to stop it before it gets to where we are today, at a time where outreach and education can still turn the tide.
When was that?
The birther movement and Obamas election?
The Southern strategy?
Jim Crow?
The end of the civil war?
|
On July 04 2024 07:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Because that directly leads to the issue that the way to stop encroaching fascism is to get there first. How do you stop Trump from being elected despite everything against him barely moving the needle? By upending the entire democratic foundation of the country and arresting him for no crime and shipping him off to Guantanamo bay. Then you have to rig the election to stop a backlash from electing his replacement. So now we have a sham election and a dictatorship, and you cant stop being a dictatorship because the fascists are all still there waiting in the wings to ride the backlash of you have turned the country into a dictatorship if you ever hold actual elections. Congratulations, you stopped the fascists and have successfully turned the country into a fascist dictatorship.... So you have to stop it before it gets to where we are today, at a time where outreach and education can still turn the tide. When was that? The birther movement and Obamas election? The Southern strategy? Jim Crow? The end of the civil war?
Part of your problem is a fantasized version of "the entire democratic foundation of the country". That foundation was built on slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. Trump is probably more representative of the "foundations of US Democracy" than Biden is.
Another part is that the fascist revolution is already happening and they are openly threatening the population of the US that actually opposes it. Meanwhile libs are predictably siding with the fascists against "the left" that would actually try to stop it.
It's basically the "tolerance paradox" bullshit rehashed for fascism.
|
On July 04 2024 02:49 WombaT wrote:
Is there much conservative backlash to this most recent delightful Supreme Court ruling?
I mean obviously Trump cultists will love it, but those outside his thrall?
It would seem to be a worrying expansion of the office of the President for one, which is a frequent bugbear. There’s the obvious rule of law aspect to it, as well as the central issue of judicial activism.
A little late to this but there is some criticism of the exact extent of the ruling or maybe some of the vagueness but for the most part it's considered more right than wrong. And I think stepping back from only reading quotes in the hysterical (not the funny hysterical) dissent would provide some balance here. It didn't make him the president a king or able to send seal team six to hunt down his opponents or anything like that. Even ignoring what the "right" answer was, the Court had to pick between future prosecution of presidents all over the place causing paralysis or maybe giving the president latitude he may have had before but never officially been given or used. That's where the lawfare complaints come in. In years past (i.e. pre Trump) left-wing lawyers would have been MUCH more sympathetic to this argument, considering it's core concern was one they voiced often. This court has often sided against Trump, including in the election cases. The idea that they would give Trump a rubber stamp for what he wants to do is far-fetched. Finally, the arguments the lawyers on the other side gave at oral arguments were honestly really bad. The justices kept pushing them to explain how upholding the DC circuit ruling (that Trump had NO immunity at all) was anything but troublesome at they ended arguing that they agreed with the judgement even if not the reasoning. Ultimately, the case had to come out something like this even if it'd be nice to not have to draw these lines in the first place. I have no doubt whatsoever that if one of the parties in this lawsuit wasn't named Trump all 9 justices would have been able to come to some sort of compromise, kind of like they did in the ballot case. This isn't the end of democracy, but it's unfortunate it needed to be decided at all. it's a very difficult question.
|
On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too.
Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-)
|
On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-)
Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues
On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc.
and come away tilting their head a little bit.
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On July 04 2024 13:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 02:49 WombaT wrote:
Is there much conservative backlash to this most recent delightful Supreme Court ruling?
I mean obviously Trump cultists will love it, but those outside his thrall?
It would seem to be a worrying expansion of the office of the President for one, which is a frequent bugbear. There’s the obvious rule of law aspect to it, as well as the central issue of judicial activism.
A little late to this but there is some criticism of the exact extent of the ruling or maybe some of the vagueness but for the most part it's considered more right than wrong. And I think stepping back from only reading quotes in the hysterical (not the funny hysterical) dissent would provide some balance here. It didn't make him the president a king or able to send seal team six to hunt down his opponents or anything like that. Even ignoring what the "right" answer was, the Court had to pick between future prosecution of presidents all over the place causing paralysis or maybe giving the president latitude he may have had before but never officially been given or used. That's where the lawfare complaints come in. In years past (i.e. pre Trump) left-wing lawyers would have been MUCH more sympathetic to this argument, considering its core concern was one they voiced often. This court has often sided against Trump, including in the election cases. The idea that they would give Trump a rubber stamp for what he wants to do is far-fetched. Finally, the arguments the lawyers on the other side gave at oral arguments were honestly really bad. The justices kept pushing them to explain how upholding the DC circuit ruling (that Trump had NO immunity at all) was anything but troublesome at they ended arguing that they agreed with the judgement even if not the reasoning. Ultimately, the case had to come out something like this even if it'd be nice to not have to draw these lines in the first place. I have no doubt whatsoever that if one of the parties in this lawsuit wasn't named Trump all 9 justices would have been able to come to some sort of compromise, kind of like they did in the ballot case. This isn't the end of democracy, but it's unfortunate it needed to be decided at all. it's a very difficult question.
Cheers for the response, it’s nice to get the odd conservative perspective on the matters of the day too.
I believe it was Coney Barret amongst the conservative bloc who voiced a dissent on the vagueness aspect. Or particularly the definition of an official act versus and unofficial one and by extension the ruling on the inadmissibility of evidence if it were covering an ‘official act’, even if the offence being investigated was technically an unofficial one.
Which does seem a pretty reasonable objection, if you’re going to delineate between the President having protections acting in an official capacity and a personal one which, to some degree is potentially sensible, then how either is defined seems a pretty critical thing to do.
I mean I do get it’s also a veritable political hand grenade and handle with care, but that feels something of an oversight to say the least
|
Northern Ireland26021 Posts
On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit.
Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other.
I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd.
In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with.
|
On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with.
It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense.
|
The vagueness in the SCOTUS verdict makes them the ultimate champion of decisionmaking in the end.
Oh yeah, you got total immunity - if we the judges agree that your act was an official act. We are the masters, so don't fuck with us.. also Venmo your gratitude money in 3 businessdays or less.
I'd like Biden having Trump imprisoned for treason and his Jan6 and Document cases sped up.
You don't send idiotic goons to "hang Mike Pence" and you don't steal secret documents from the US of A.
If you do so, you obviously are a damn traitor and shouldn't be allowed to be president again.
|
On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense.
To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism.
There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed.
|
On July 04 2024 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense. To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism. There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed.
Doesn't it irritate you when police in the US kill some unarmed black guy and then both the police and media comb through the victim's life to find some misdemeanor to paint them negatively rather than a victim?
That's what I see when all your posts in the Russia-Ukraine thread are about some minor thing that's wrong with Ukraine, it's just weird to focus exclusively on that. It speaks to the agenda of the places you get your info from.
|
On July 05 2024 00:11 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2024 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense. To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism. There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed. Doesn't it irritate you when police in the US kill some unarmed black guy and then both the police and media comb through the victim's life to find some misdemeanor to paint them negatively rather than a victim? That's what I see when all your posts in the Russia-Ukraine thread are about some minor thing that's wrong with Ukraine, it's just weird to focus exclusively on that. It speaks to the agenda of the places you get your info from.
I'm pretty sure what's there is mostly me critiquing the US's involvement and support of radical-right elements to the point that NATO was repeatedly "accidentally" sending out propaganda promoting neo-nazis.+ Show Spoiler +the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.
In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups.
My personal perspective is that Ukrainians never should have listened to McCain saying the US was there for them, or made their revolution's ultimate success contingent on Western, but especially US, support. It basically immediately cost them Crimea and the US did nothing.
Now it's more than a decade later and everything is much worse than it was under Yanukovych. Ukraine's lost land, people, and treasure (they are basically entirely dependent on foreign aid now). Add to that the situation is bleak with problems mustering troops and the potential to lose US support (and their country) entirely with Trump being increasingly likely to win in November.
It's ironic that people are trying to use this to bludgeon me in the context of liberals being willing to hand the US to Trump and then Ukraine to Russia as a result. Meanwhile, I'm pleading with the libs to demand Biden do whatever is necessary to prevent that.
People that want Ukraine to survive 2025 should be with me on this.
|
On July 04 2024 22:49 KT_Elwood wrote:
The vagueness in the SCOTUS verdict makes them the ultimate champion of decisionmaking in the end.
The Constitution actually makes them that.
On July 04 2024 22:49 KT_Elwood wrote:
Oh yeah, you got total immunity - if we the judges agree that your act was an official act.
If the Constitution and applicable law cover it as an official act, then it's an official act. Lower courts should also be able to be smart enough to figure that out, but you also wouldn't expect something NOT to be appealed if you're stooping to trying presidents in court.
|
On July 05 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2024 00:11 Dan HH wrote:On July 04 2024 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense. To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism. There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed. Doesn't it irritate you when police in the US kill some unarmed black guy and then both the police and media comb through the victim's life to find some misdemeanor to paint them negatively rather than a victim? That's what I see when all your posts in the Russia-Ukraine thread are about some minor thing that's wrong with Ukraine, it's just weird to focus exclusively on that. It speaks to the agenda of the places you get your info from. I'm pretty sure what's there is mostly me critiquing the US's involvement and support of radical-right elements to the point that NATO was repeatedly "accidentally" sending out propaganda promoting neo-nazis.+ Show Spoiler +the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.
In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups. My personal perspective is that Ukrainians never should have listened to McCain saying the US was there for them, or made their revolution's ultimate success contingent on Western, but especially US, support. It basically immediately cost them Crimea and the US did nothing. Now it's more than a decade later and everything is much worse than it was under Yanukovych. Ukraine's lost land, people, and treasure (they are basically entirely dependent on foreign aid now). Add to that the situation is bleak with problems mustering troops and the potential to lose US support (and their country) entirely with Trump being increasingly likely to win in November. It's ironic that people are trying to use this to bludgeon me in the context of liberals being willing to hand the US to Trump and then Ukraine to Russia as a result. Meanwhile, I'm pleading with the libs to demand Biden do whatever is necessary to prevent that. People that want Ukraine to survive 2025 should be with me on this.
You made hundreds or thousands of posts in this thread arguing deontologically for a revolution in the US that could make things better or worse. Yet on Ukraine's self-determination you're making a 100% consequentialist argument that things were better as Russia's vassal. You shouldn't just swap moral philosophies based on which one fits better against the side the US government supports. I'm not trying to bludgeon you, I think you haven't noticed you're doing this.
I'm on board with playing dirtier to stop Trump, SCOTUS, and the project 2025 cultists but I haven't seen any good and timely ideas of how to do that yet, only Seal Team 6 memes. And I lack the imagination to come up with one myself.
|
On July 05 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2024 00:11 Dan HH wrote:On July 04 2024 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:On July 04 2024 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:
I’m seeing either bad faith or ignorant defenses of the immunity ruling. There are some facts that need to be reinforced here.
1: Fascism becomes too late to stop before an actual fascist takeover. Similar to how nuclear waste protections are responded to and repaired way before the final layer of protection is compromised, societies must prevent even somewhat approaching fascism.
2: Laws or rulings can’t be assumed as beneficial or moral. We have a wealth of history indicating very bad things can be legal. Laws and rulings need to be shown to be beneficial or moral. They do not have inherent moral or logical high ground. I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense. To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism. There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed. Doesn't it irritate you when police in the US kill some unarmed black guy and then both the police and media comb through the victim's life to find some misdemeanor to paint them negatively rather than a victim? That's what I see when all your posts in the Russia-Ukraine thread are about some minor thing that's wrong with Ukraine, it's just weird to focus exclusively on that. It speaks to the agenda of the places you get your info from. I'm pretty sure what's there is mostly me critiquing the US's involvement and support of radical-right elements to the point that NATO was repeatedly "accidentally" sending out propaganda promoting neo-nazis.+ Show Spoiler +the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.
In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups. My personal perspective is that Ukrainians never should have listened to McCain saying the US was there for them, or made their revolution's ultimate success contingent on Western, but especially US, support. It basically immediately cost them Crimea and the US did nothing. Now it's more than a decade later and everything is much worse than it was under Yanukovych. Ukraine's lost land, people, and treasure (they are basically entirely dependent on foreign aid now). Add to that the situation is bleak with problems mustering troops and the potential to lose US support (and their country) entirely with Trump being increasingly likely to win in November. It's ironic that people are trying to use this to bludgeon me in the context of liberals being willing to hand the US to Trump and then Ukraine to Russia as a result. Meanwhile, I'm pleading with the libs to demand Biden do whatever is necessary to prevent that. People that want Ukraine to survive 2025 should be with me on this.
The fact that they quietly deleted the photos speaks against the idea that there's a meaningful far-right propaganda effort.
Whenever an extremist element is discovered in an organization, news outlets blow it up regardless of how proportional it is. That's what the news does. It takes anything that's interesting, exciting or upsetting and blows it out of proportion. Especially nowadays because that's how they can produce article after article that people are interested in. The suspected group may have virtually zero extremist elements (within the 0-1% region), but regardless the presence of it is being used to paint the entire group as supporting/hiding/funding extremism. This an old trick by news outlets that always works on people.
There will always be far-right extremists in practically every country, and especially in the military. That's just how the far-right extremists do things. They love playing with guns and parading around their extremist imagery. It would be surprising if the Ukrainian military was entirely free of such elements. If you promote the nonsensical idea that Nazis are welcome in the Ukrainian military, you're playing right into Putin's hands. You're harming your own cause by posting this information and acting like it matters.
|
On July 05 2024 02:51 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2024 00:11 Dan HH wrote:On July 04 2024 23:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 19:46 Gahlo wrote:On July 04 2024 16:07 WombaT wrote:On July 04 2024 15:37 Turbovolver wrote:On July 04 2024 15:09 maybenexttime wrote:On July 04 2024 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2024 06:56 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]I don't think the question is about whether or not this is bad, but what to do about it. I may be misreading, but I gather he's trying to get at what this tweet encapsulates about the absurdity of posts like Kwark's. https://twitter.com/dreadconquest/status/1808346628631453741Basically that libs will not recognize or appropriately react to the threat until it is dragging them to the gallows and there's nothing they can do but beg to become an executioner themselves. Many of them will too. Ah, yes, chastising liberals for not using fascist methods to prevent a fascist takeover. And yet it is the far left which openly supports russian fascism all around the world, not the liberals. ;-) Yeah, one just needs to compare Russia and the US on GH's list of issues On July 04 2024 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
slavery, stolen land, racism, misogyny, wealth inequality, nepotism, corruption, etc. and come away tilting their head a little bit. Well GH is, last time I checked, American so there’s that. Russia also isn’t a pre-eminent global economic and political power like the US is so it’s only natural to focus on one more than the other. I mean personally I think the minority, albeit I’ll concede a sizeable minority on the proper left wing of the spectrum who are Russian sympathisers are beyond incorrect in that position, but I don’t really count GH among that crowd. In all my time nerding out about politics it’s the singular issue I’ve both disagreed with my fellow lefties on, and been baffled why it’s even their position to begin with. It's literally just "America bad, so anti-America means good" emotional nonsense. To me it feels a lot more like a modern version of libs "So you support Saddam?!?" response to the general skepticism of US militarism. There are weirdos in every corner of politics though, so maybe you guys are seeing something specific you're complaining about, but with nothing more than vague unsupported accusations they can't really be addressed. Doesn't it irritate you when police in the US kill some unarmed black guy and then both the police and media comb through the victim's life to find some misdemeanor to paint them negatively rather than a victim? That's what I see when all your posts in the Russia-Ukraine thread are about some minor thing that's wrong with Ukraine, it's just weird to focus exclusively on that. It speaks to the agenda of the places you get your info from. I'm pretty sure what's there is mostly me critiquing the US's involvement and support of radical-right elements to the point that NATO was repeatedly "accidentally" sending out propaganda promoting neo-nazis.+ Show Spoiler +the Ukrainian government and NATO allies have posted, then quietly deleted, three seemingly innocuous photographs from their social media feeds: a soldier standing in a group, another resting in a trench and an emergency worker posing in front of a truck.
In each photograph, Ukrainians in uniform wore patches featuring symbols that were made notorious by Nazi Germany and have since become part of the iconography of far-right hate groups. My personal perspective is that Ukrainians never should have listened to McCain saying the US was there for them, or made their revolution's ultimate success contingent on Western, but especially US, support. It basically immediately cost them Crimea and the US did nothing. Now it's more than a decade later and everything is much worse than it was under Yanukovych. Ukraine's lost land, people, and treasure (they are basically entirely dependent on foreign aid now). Add to that the situation is bleak with problems mustering troops and the potential to lose US support (and their country) entirely with Trump being increasingly likely to win in November. It's ironic that people are trying to use this to bludgeon me in the context of liberals being willing to hand the US to Trump and then Ukraine to Russia as a result. Meanwhile, I'm pleading with the libs to demand Biden do whatever is necessary to prevent that. People that want Ukraine to survive 2025 should be with me on this. You made hundreds or thousands of posts in this thread arguing deontologically for a revolution in the US that could make things better or worse. Yet on Ukraine's self-determination you're making a 100% consequentialist argument that things were better as Russia's vassal. You shouldn't just swap moral philosophies based on which one fits better against the side the US government supports. I'm not trying to bludgeon you, I think you haven't noticed you're doing this. I'm on board with playing dirtier to stop Trump, SCOTUS, and the project 2025 cultists but I haven't seen any good and timely ideas of how to do that yet, only Seal Team 6 memes. And I lack the imagination to come up with one myself. You'll notice I didn't say Ukrainians shouldn't have wanted a revolution. + Show Spoiler +If some Chinese politician showed up at the DNC protests promising to support the overthrow of Joe Biden I wouldn't want revolutionary socialists to blindly trust the revolution to China's support either (though they'd have far less relatively recent historical examples of why they shouldn't as far as foreign conflicts [Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam to name a few]).
You'll also notice none of the libs had any of their objections to socialist revolution in the US + Show Spoiler +1. There's opposition to socialism itself.
2. There's the notion that the status quo is imperfectly optimal and just needs modifications within it's own parameters (this would include reformism with socialism/communism as it's ultimate goal/ideal).
3. There's fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc.
4. There's the uncertainty that a revolution would be successful in overcoming the existing system that comes with fears of the consequences of a failed revolution (like the sacrifices being made in vain/retaliation for insolence).
5. There's fear of a successful revolution that removes the existing power structure only to replace it with something similar/worse.
You're right about people swapping philosophies, but it's the libs that unquestioningly support Ukraine's revolution rationalizing supporting neonazis while shitting on the idea of one in the US to stop a fascist Trump from becoming King.
EDIT: Hell they're openly saying lately that they won't even want one under King Trump. They'll keep insisting on trying to vote their way out of a monarchy.
|
You're a clown, GH. Do you even realize you're just parroting russian propaganda or are you doing this deliberately?
|
On July 05 2024 01:51 oBlade wrote:
If the Constitution and applicable law cover it as an official act, then it's an official act. Lower courts should also be able to be smart enough to figure that out, but you also wouldn't expect something NOT to be appealed if you're stooping to trying presidents in court.
That's my point. Appeal alll the way up to SCOTUS everytime and for a small "gratitude" you can make them find a way for you. Maybe the evidence against you was found because you were performing an official act, and then it doesn't count.
Anyway. I get the idea that nothing "in the law" has changed, but SCOUTS planted a fundamental distrust in their restraint to not be partisan in theses sensitive topics.
Alito, Thomas and families openly supported insurrection and treason. They were onboard with a president trying to steal an election by interference, and if that doesn't work..plainly send the goons to stop yout VP from conceding and handing over the office.
They can't be removed from office they just sit there and wait to play their part, and that's fucking scary.
The "Social contract" is broken.
|
On July 05 2024 05:09 maybenexttime wrote:
You're a clown, GH. Do you even realize you're just parroting russian propaganda or are you doing this deliberately?
He's stuck in a socialist utopian worldview, and casts all of world history to that lens. One that I am very partial to, but scoff when you downplay or take sides with any authoritarian Soviet or CCP regime. The Bolsheviks obliterated workers rights and purged all other socialist and anarchist parties within a couple years, and claimed de facto "we are the workers party".
Only pure Tankies think they had anything to offer other than shitting all over what Marx and other early socialists were trying to achieve. The US has more "socialist" programs for workers and civilians than anything in Russia or China. Not as good as the Nordic countries or elsewhere, but the world isnt black and white "capitalism bad, communism good".
Ukraine's "revolution" was as straightforward as they get, a dying empire makes way to an inevitable independent state. And they literally gave up their nukes to guarantee they never got invaded by Russia again, and look how that turned out. Ukrainians have been trampled on by empires for a hundred hundred years, how can you not support freedom and autonomy against a gangster state like Russia?
|
I've never seen a group of people more inept than democrats. If Biden stays in the race Trump wins 100%, it's RBG all over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
