EPTThe cursed legacy of New Public Management.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4798
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
The cursed legacy of New Public Management. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43764 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23754 Posts
On February 24 2025 21:50 ETisME wrote: It shouldn't be hard but it doesn't happen. Government has literally no competition, output/productivity measurement isn't easy, not to mention nepotism and bureaucracy. Look at UK with its almost 20% total employment being in the public sector. There had been plenty of talks about having something similar to review the public employment for years. the concept of DOGE shouldn't be that controversial, the only controversial is whether Musk should be leading it and how. The other day I saw an article about how government cannot be run like a company, and I just find the idea that people resist cutting public sector so wrong. At the end of the day, it still generates some values, it still has a cost, it must have a book to balance. As for Trump, it's always bound to happen, the world is going between deglobalisation and post-globlisation. There's a lot of blame on immigration, economic or political failure. But everyone knows the past decade has disrupted a lot of traditional values and people are wanting them to come back. you can see a lot of media that feed on nostalgic /heritage wear are more popular than ever. We going to see lots more localism in manufacturing globally. But Musk is leading it, and it has 1. What do you want the thing to do? 2. Is it doing said thing well? 3. If not, what alternatives do you have? If someone is already answering all 3 with ‘less government, more private sector’ before you properly assessing the lay of the land, it’s an ideologically-driven process This isn’t to say improvements can’t be made. I don’t think many are arguing to the contrary. I also find some of the things one could actually do, people tend to wholesale reject. Sometimes for perfectly reasonable rationales. It would be way more efficient to do tax, welfare payments etc with a system where you had a single state ID, and were mandated by law to link all your bank accounts to. Certainly an understandable reticence I reckon, but it clearly would work. Could work from home work if rolled out more broadly? Sure in some circumstances I imagine, but many people hate the idea of workers doing that. I reckon if you gave some of the people salivating at the prospect of cutting the government for Can bureaucracy be frustrating? Absolutely! Although it does exist in many cases for good reason too. It holds organisations to consistent processes, for uniform behaviours, to mitigate rogue actors and also to ensure outward accountability. The problem with running facets of the government like a company is well, they’re not really like a company. They have knock-on effects in too many other areas, a success in one may be a net negative for the state as a whole. Let’s take a hypothetical government-run Belfast Transport. It’s losing money so let’s raise prices and cut unprofitable routes so we’re in the black again. Ok so your books are now balanced, but what happens to all the people who don’t have a convenient route to pop in for a shop? Or folks who want to go into the town centre of a Friday or Saturday night and have a meal/drink? Plus of course the businesses that service those folks. That economic activity and its various links and multipliers starts to drop, and ends up dwarfing the initial savings you’ve made. Simplified hypothetical, although it’s not too far off current reality here and elsewhere in the UK/Ireland with the hospitality sector, only that’s just one factor besides COVID and the subsequent cost of living bumps since. Here’s some first-hand efficiency for you. The UK outsourced part benefits assessments (welfare in US speak) to a private company, set them certain targets to hit. Not only did it incentivise actually fucking over people erroneously, with all that that entails, it was less efficient too. For myself, with a chronic health condition, who’d touch base with a nurse who knew me for years, the process used to be filling out a wee form. First I’d say ‘as my condition isn’t curable, I still have that.’ Then my nurse would supply a short letter outlining that I was still engaged with services and my vague health status. Under the new system, I had to be reassessed. Which was done by some bloke clearly just out of college, who had no medical background whatsoever. Ergo yours truly went from mild/moderate on the scaling, to a score of zero out of 45 or w/e. I had a friend recovering from cancer who was also struck off temporarily in similar circumstances. My next step here? Why it’s tracking down me auld nurse to write the very same letter so I could appeal. She had moved jobs at this stage so she fell under a different healthcare jurisdiction, but as a favour and because to paraphrase her, she was sick of this shite happening to many of her clients, she popped along to another assessment to bolster me. Which hey, literally just reinstated where I was before. Except I had to spend time chasing this up, my nurse did, and even the company doing the assessment did as well. I’ll also add that myself, or friend are reasonably self-confident and articulate, in my case I had extra support, not everyone has the benefit of that. Services that did provide extra support, be they state-funded Citizen’s Advice, or equivalents in the charitable sector were also massively inundated with clients here, to the detriment of elsewhere. I’ll also add that in many cases these assessments weren’t for full-time disability cases, but for those whose health may fluctuate. People who are capable of and want to work, but It was such an unholy mess there’s a critically acclaimed feature film about it called I, Daniel Blake. Aggravating and heartbreaking it is absolutely worth a watch, and won awards for good reason. Us folks in the UK may whinge plenty about the sometimes arcane practices of the Civil Service sure, but those either personally affected or paying attention to things outside of our sphere have seen many a push to privatise, or push for efficiency actively make services worse. Our rail, Royal Mail, facets of the NHS etc etc. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4560 Posts
Right wingers have always had an extremely large megaphone and weren't afraid to use it whenever they could. It's all pure propaganda and brainwashing. Welcome to the dark side of post-modernism. | ||
KwarK
United States41942 Posts
On February 24 2025 22:58 Uldridge wrote: What? Demand is by definition elastic for health sector and extremely difficult to have a set supply-demand set up for. Seasonality, pan/epi/demics, etc. Your comment confuses me, maybe I'm stupid. I think their point is that consumer behaviour is largely involuntary. It’s very difficult to consider opportunity cost, brand loyalty, overall financial situation and goals, provider ratings etc., when deciding whether to get an appendectomy because in the moment you are in agony. Meanwhile a hospital, unlike a hotel, cannot make up for off peak demand periods by offering cheaper appendectomies to customers. The demand has variability but not the kind of elasticity that the free market relies upon for informed rational consumers to exercise meaningful choices. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41942 Posts
I was the weirdo for saying that I’ll wait to get my office redecorated until after we make some money. More experienced coworkers recognized that an impressively refurbished office is a status symbol that makes your peers think you’re more important than you are which is especially important when the business is losing money. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23754 Posts
On February 24 2025 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: For years, I had posted multiple times and chatted, every day, on Facebook - it was essentially the only social media platform that I had regularly (obsessively?) used - and over the past month or so, I've noticed a huge change in the kind of content I've been receiving in my newsfeed: a crazy amount of conservative spam/bots, factually-incorrect content, and malicious bigotry that I had never encountered before. I had suspected an enormous shift in the algorithm and in content moderation, probably to placate Donald Trump, and it seems like there is now official confirmation that Facebook - which was already flawed and problematic in many respects - will be going the way of Twitter, which is even worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf7XHR3EVHo I was listening to a backlog of a comedy podcast I’m rather fond of called the Bugle last night (would recommend btw) They will ham it up a little, but I did run into some stories I’d missed this past month or so. Including one where Zuckerberg came out and was talking about being more lax on moderation, as well as delivering more things like curated political content. Must confess I missed it, but it seems exactly what you’re experiencing. Also I’d almost 100% bet that it’s to placate Trump, or also his base in a ‘Republicans buy sneakers too’ way To quote the co-host ‘Less content moderation, more political content, what could possibly go wrong?’ I really wish platforms would stop doing this, or better segment follows from curated/pushed content. It’s fucking annoying and renders them miserable, frustrating experiences. It feels almost past the point where being judicious and manually avoiding feeding the algorithm doesn’t even work anymore. And they so reliably feed me stuff that aggravates me that I can only assume it’s intentional at this stage. It’s the equivalent of ‘oh so you like good-looking women, well evidently you like sex, here’s a load of hardcore gay sex on your feed’ (adjust for one’s orientation) | ||
|
oBlade
United States5271 Posts
On February 24 2025 13:07 Falling wrote: This is non-responsive to the question, really soft-footing around it. The question was not is Ukraine an infallible country and right about everything. The question was: "Is Trump correct to say that Ukraine the one to blame for Russia's invasion." I'm sure Poland was not an infallible country prior to getting carved up by Germany and USSR. Was Poland at fault for the German invasion? And there can even be nuance. US was pressuring Japan hard with their embargoes. However, would you say that US was at fault (and say nothing of Japan's role) that US started the war and ought to have negotiated a deal with Japan rather than waste all those American lives? Or are you still able to say that Pearl Harbour is 'a date that will live in infamy.' If Ukraine, Biden, and Europe could have done things to prevent the war, or end the war earlier, and didn't, that is their fault. If you put someone in a cage with a tiger, and it attacks them, it is your fault. Obviously the tiger is the one that did it. Because it's a tiger. However, from your own perspective, if you want to work in a framework of creating possible futures where the tiger attacks the person vs. doesn't attack them, it is your fault in the sense of you did something you shouldn't have done, or didn't do something you could have done. It may not be entirely your fault, or directly your fault, or criminally your fault, but that is nitpicking at how short sentences work and at no point has anyone said "only," and even omission does not imply "only." On February 24 2025 13:07 Falling wrote: This is also non-responsive. The question was not 'is elections preferable to the opposite'. The question was "Is Trump's characterization that Zelensky is a dictator correct?" (And in the context of Trump's silence on Putin's governance.) Emphasis added. The "silence" is selective listening and not 100% honest. On liquidputin.ru right now there might be two people going "Aha. We are lied to. Orange say Volodoya start war. See? Is not KGB asset." and another "Nyet komrad - vy he say Zelensky is dictator?" On balance Trump has moral clarity I trust here. You made me look this up because you're asking me apropos of nothing, and so let's not myopically view it as the only thing Trump has ever said about Ukraine and Russia. This is something he said in a speech during a public feud with Zelensky, after Zelensky is being inconsistent and two-faced and they are both shitting on each other. You know who knows Putin is a dictator? Everybody. Every single person knows he's a dictator and invaded Ukraine. Most people know, Trump certainly does, that neither he nor anyone else is going to move the world by sitting in their room and pouting "Putin bad" or repeating it to each other to feel better. He has said for years that Russia/Putin would have never invaded Ukraine had he been president, which there is evidence of as he's the only 21st century president during whose administration Putin didn't invade a country, and which statements clearly acknowledge the reality of how the war started i.e. by Putin invading. I do not need Trump to make a special primetime address revealing to the American people that he's discovered, "My fellow Americans... due to recent developments... I'm beginning to think Putin might be a dictator." In fact that would be what does more to weaken my confidence. History did not start a few days ago. Obviously he is trying to increase pressure on Zelensky to accept a deal in the wake of meetings this week - a deal possibly including things that you hate - but rebuilding Ukraine will take either cooperation or charity. I'd rather they cooperate with the US than with China. The more uncertain Zelensky's domestic political future looks, the more amenable he should be to negotiation (Unless of course he really is a dictator, in which case even in the collapse of his domestic political situation he'd still disallow elections yet not move to end the war). On February 24 2025 13:07 Falling wrote: Not everyone does it the American way and America did not have a good portion of their population unable to vote due to occupation. Keep in mind with the dictator answer, Britain did not hold an election until after Hitler blew his brains out and in WWI, Canada was so concerned about national unity that the two federal parties joined together into the Unionists party, so there was an election alright... but it would be like having a Repub-democrat candidate... and then the Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate for options. Those countries won WW2. The reason Ukraine doesn't have elections does not appear to be that they are so lockstep committed that the equivalent of 90-95% of them have formed a coalition of one mind, which is what separates it from your Unionists analogy just from the way you wrote it - I don't know that part of Canadian history. If you put democracy on hold for the long term preservation of a country, that works if ultimate victory is in the cards as a possible or likely goal. It isn't here. So basically the previous administration were using it as a black box where you add money, material, and Ukrainian and Russian bodies and try to use that to weaken a geopolitical antipole. Unfortunately for everybody, but most of all Ukrainians, Ukraine is not going to "win." They are not going to regain all the lost territory. Even if they did, by that time there would be nobody left to live in it. They are not going to attack a nuclear power and defeat it for Lindsey Graham. The fallacy is that every day the war goes on, Russia gets weaker. The truth is every day the war goes on, Ukraine gets weaker. The choices are not win or surrender. The choices are war and peace and lose. On February 24 2025 13:07 Falling wrote: Also non-responsive. "I take nobody's assessment at face value'... okaaaay. And so then what's the rest of the thought? Fill in the rest. If Trump says 'Zelensky is a dictator' and "Ukraine is at fault for the war" (And due to his silence, Russia is not) is not taken at face value, what does he actually mean according to you? Because I would say we can triangulate Trump's meaning with his actions which is no concessions for Russia, Ukraine must surrender and US gets to loot Ukraine's minerals. Because it's not whether you rely on Trump's assessment. Trump's judgment is at question here as it is his judgment (or Musk's) that will guide American policy- now more than ever before. Summary: So I will try again: Is what Trump saying reflective of reality. I'm trying to see if you agree with what Trump is saying he sees reality as. 1) Zelensky is a dictator (Not, elections are better than not.) 2) Ukraine is at fault for Russia's invasion- and no blame or concessions put on Russia. (Not, Ukraine is fallible.) And if you do not agree with Trump, is it enough that you seriously question his judgment in geopolitical matters? Ukraine in NATO is a concession from Russia. Any step backwards from the territory they control now is a concession from Russia. A DMZ is a concession from Russia. You started with asking me if I take some one sentence at "face value." I said I don't know and I don't. That means if you want someone to justify it based on your take of what its face value is, your later questions would be best directed at the WH Press Secretary or someone, a spokesman. If someone is in a fight with their friend, and their friend calls them an asshole, criticizing the friend's literal knowledge of proctology and the digestive system due to this category error, is not a fruitful way to approach the situation, while ignoring the bigger pictures. Like if your reading of "fault" or "blame" or whatever quote that is from is something like, "Blumpf is saying Zelensky forced Putin to invade his country!" - which I can't rule out is the presumption behind your questions because it has parallels with the Japan analogy you brought up - that's just not the situation. If he did say that somewhere, it's wrong. Otherwise, if Zelensky were the leader of a country I was a citizen or resident of, and more so if I was a supporter, I might be more vigilant defending him against the literalness of Trump's insult. But he isn't, so I'm not able to take that personally. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21339 Posts
Oh and lets not forget "Ukraine should have done more to not get invaded". | ||
|
KwarK
United States41942 Posts
On February 25 2025 00:04 oBlade wrote: If Ukraine, Biden, and Europe could have done things to prevent the war, or end the war earlier, and didn't, that is their fault. If you put someone in a cage with a tiger, and it attacks them, it is your fault. Obviously the tiger is the one that did it. Because it's a tiger. However, from your own perspective, if you want to work in a framework of creating possible futures where the tiger attacks the person vs. doesn't attack them, it is your fault in the sense of you did something you shouldn't have done, or didn't do something you could have done. It may not be entirely your fault, or directly your fault, or criminally your fault, but that is nitpicking at how short sentences work and at no point has anyone said "only," and even omission does not imply "only." Emphasis added. The "silence" is selective listening and not 100% honest. On liquidputin.ru right now there might be two people going "Aha. We are lied to. Orange say Volodoya start war. See? Is not KGB asset." and another "Nyet komrad - vy he say Zelensky is dictator?" On balance Trump has moral clarity I trust here. You made me look this up because you're asking me apropos of nothing, and so let's not myopically view it as the only thing Trump has ever said about Ukraine and Russia. This is something he said in a speech during a public feud with Zelensky, after Zelensky is being inconsistent and two-faced and they are both shitting on each other. You know who knows Putin is a dictator? Everybody. Every single person knows he's a dictator and invaded Ukraine. Most people know, Trump certainly does, that neither he nor anyone else is going to move the world by sitting in their room and pouting "Putin bad" or repeating it to each other to feel better. He has said for years that Russia/Putin would have never invaded Ukraine had he been president, which there is evidence of as he's the only 21st century president during whose administration Putin didn't invade a country, and which statements clearly acknowledge the reality of how the war started i.e. by Putin invading. I do not need Trump to make a special primetime address revealing to the American people that he's discovered, "My fellow Americans... due to recent developments... I'm beginning to think Putin might be a dictator." In fact that would be what does more to weaken my confidence. History did not start a few days ago. Obviously he is trying to increase pressure on Zelensky to accept a deal in the wake of meetings this week - a deal possibly including things that you hate - but rebuilding Ukraine will take either cooperation or charity. I'd rather they cooperate with the US than with China. The more uncertain Zelensky's domestic political future looks, the more amenable he should be to negotiation (Unless of course he really is a dictator, in which case even in the collapse of his domestic political situation he'd still disallow elections yet not move to end the war). Those countries won WW2. The reason Ukraine doesn't have elections does not appear to be that they are so lockstep committed that the equivalent of 90-95% of them have formed a coalition of one mind, which is what separates it from your Unionists analogy just from the way you wrote it - I don't know that part of Canadian history. If you put democracy on hold for the long term preservation of a country, that works if ultimate victory is in the cards as a possible or likely goal. It isn't here. So basically the previous administration were using it as a black box where you add money, material, and Ukrainian and Russian bodies and try to use that to weaken a geopolitical antipole. Unfortunately for everybody, but most of all Ukrainians, Ukraine is not going to "win." They are not going to regain all the lost territory. Even if they did, by that time there would be nobody left to live in it. They are not going to attack a nuclear power and defeat it for Lindsey Graham. The fallacy is that every day the war goes on, Russia gets weaker. The truth is every day the war goes on, Ukraine gets weaker. The choices are not win or surrender. The choices are war and peace and lose. Ukraine in NATO is a concession from Russia. Any step backwards from the territory they control now is a concession from Russia. A DMZ is a concession from Russia. You started with asking me if I take some one sentence at "face value." I said I don't know and I don't. That means if you want someone to justify it based on your take of what its face value is, your later questions would be best directed at the WH Press Secretary or someone, a spokesman. If someone is in a fight with their friend, and their friend calls them an asshole, criticizing the friend's literal knowledge of proctology and the digestive system due to this category error, is not a fruitful way to approach the situation, while ignoring the bigger pictures. Like if your reading of "fault" or "blame" or whatever quote that is from is something like, "Blumpf is saying Zelensky forced Putin to invade his country!" - which I can't rule out is the presumption behind your questions because it has parallels with the Japan analogy you brought up - that's just not the situation. If he did say that somewhere, it's wrong. Otherwise, if Zelensky were the leader of a country I was a citizen or resident of, and more so if I was a supporter, I might be more vigilant defending him against the literalness of Trump's insult. But he isn't, so I'm not able to take that personally. Your post is a steaming pile of horseshit and Falling was dumb for trying to engage you at all. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41942 Posts
On February 25 2025 00:20 Gorsameth wrote: oh joy oBlade going full comrade again with "Ukraine should just surrender and accept genocide" and "Russia gets to decide whether sovereign nations are allowed to join an organisation Russia is not a part of". Oh and lets not forget "Ukraine should have done more to not get invaded". Well everyone knows Putin is a dictator and Zelenskyy was elected in free and fair elections in line with the constitution. That’s why it’s so important that Zelenskyy be the one that a trump calls a dictator. And in any case Ukraine will never retake Kherson. Also Russia has no agency because you can’t ascribe agency to tigers and Russia identifies as a tiger. And that’s why we should spend more time with the tiger. Counterpoint. The Ukrainians are lions with a long and proud history of democracy and freedom (I will not be providing sources, do your own research). That makes them lions. Also their flag is yellow and lions are yellow. The idea that a lion would simply back down when threatened is clearly nonsense. And we cannot judge a lion for doing what a lion does. We must simply accept that the lion will fight for its pride. The Russian oblast of Kherson is clearly lost to them. They lost it years ago and the idea that they’ll ever somehow make it back across the Dnipro is a fantasy. They need to accept the L and cede the territory to Ukraine before more of their oil refineries are blown up. Every day this war continues Russia gets weaker. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7108 Posts
On February 24 2025 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: For years, I had posted multiple times and chatted, every day, on Facebook - it was essentially the only social media platform that I had regularly (obsessively?) used - and over the past month or so, I've noticed a huge change in the kind of content I've been receiving in my newsfeed: a crazy amount of conservative spam/bots, factually-incorrect content, and malicious bigotry that I had never encountered before. I had suspected an enormous shift in the algorithm and in content moderation, probably to placate Donald Trump, and it seems like there is now official confirmation that Facebook - which was already flawed and problematic in many respects - will be going the way of Twitter, which is even worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf7XHR3EVHo Social media has been aggressively peddling far right shit for years now, its one of the primary reasons for how fascism has been spread so wide. The amount of Prager fucking U commercials that YouTube has tried to serve me is wild. The tech industry has definitely been instrumental in unleashing and reinforcing the Nazi Plague we're living through. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23754 Posts
On February 25 2025 00:41 Zambrah wrote: Social media has been aggressively peddling far right shit for years now, its one of the primary reasons for how fascism has been spread so wide. The amount of Prager fucking U commercials that YouTube has tried to serve me is wild. The tech industry has definitely been instrumental in unleashing and reinforcing the Nazi Plague we're living through. Interestingly this does go in both directions, what academic research I saw on the topic showed it was a pretty mixed bag, and actually there was often left-wing biases that could come into play as well. I think some of that is going to be outdated pretty quickly though. The stuff I read preceded the Musk Twitter era and it’s sure as shit obvious which direction that’s going. Indeed, he’s charging for API access which conveniently makes it much more difficult to do further research. What research struggles to really model is with real people, and how social media intersects with other external sources of information, or how people end up in such rabbit holes of reinforcement that whatever suggestion algorithms are doing ends up being somewhat moot. Not to be contrarian or anything, I do basically agree. There’s been a shocking lack of collective effort from multiple spheres to deal with this clear problem and we’re all reaping the ‘rewards’ now. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7168 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9335 Posts
On February 24 2025 23:10 plated.rawr wrote: The public sector is 'inefficient' because it caters to mostly unprofitable tasks that still needs solving. Forcing increased efficiency wont magically make the pulic sector profitable. The cursed legacy of New Public Management. You have to spend money to make public sector work more efficient. 14 years ago in the UK, the tories decided they needed to stop spending so much, so they cut all the money they could from all public sector and told everyone to be more efficient. The result: There was an identical amount of wastage and efficiency, and the public sector immediately started failing at their jobs. You can't just tell people to be more efficient, it doesn't work, you need to spend money on the work environment, identifying and correcting specific things, connecting completely different areas of work together etc. etc. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11265 Posts
You started with asking me if I take some one sentence at "face value." I said I don't know and I don't. So because you do not take anyone's words at face value you are unable to derive any meaning at all? You are claiming ignorance. But as you broadly said you take no-one's words at face value, are you unable to derive meaning from anyone at anytime or is there a reason you are unable to find meaning here, specifically? Because I can offer up a couple of meanings consistent with his actions. 1) He truly believes those statements and so is seeking to extract as much loot from a dictatorship before leaving. 2) He does not actually believe in those statements but is most interested in forcing Ukraine to capitulate, let Russia carve it up and Trump can loot whatever is left with the mineral deals ala a modern day Molotov-Ribbentrop. Anything within those range of meanings are consistent with his actions. What is outside the range of meanings is that he believes that Ukraine is a wartime democracy whose borders have been unjustly invaded. If you put democracy on hold for the long term preservation of a country, that works if ultimate victory is in the cards as a possible or likely goal. This is post hoc reasoning. How could the British know that ultimate victory was in the cards in 1940 (when they were due for an election) when they fought Germany alone with only their Commonwealth allies in support? after Zelensky is being inconsistent and two-faced and they are both shitting on each other. Exactly how was Zelensky any of these things? Zelensky only said Trump lived in a disinformation bubble after Trump said Ukraine started the war. And Zelensky was open to a mineral deal but not for a vague promise of help from the US. The Budapest Memorandum showed Ukraine how much that is worth. But even if Zelensky was both, none of these make him a dictator. However, as you have only offered up justifications for why Ukraine got attacked by the force of nature, that is Russia and furthermore have only run out extended arguments on why wartime Ukraine ought to be running elections when asked about is "Zelensky a dictator'... but instead justifying not saying the same for obvious dictators (no 'evil empire' speech or 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall' for oBlade) I am satisfied that there is not much space between you and Trump when he states: 1) Zelensky is a dictator 2) Ukraine is at fault for being invaded... or more accurately what he stated: "You should have never started it.” At no point have I seen you reject Trump's framing but have either claimed ignorance as to what he meant or else have offered justification for why he said it. So the only point that I am curious on is your mail in suggestion. Are you suggesting a method of voting for wartime Ukraine that you believe with Trump that it is entirely crooked and should be abolished? Or do you think Trump is wrong about his mail in ballot claims which is why you are suggesting them for Ukraine? | ||
| ||
