10-20-2022, 12:20 PM
(10-19-2022, 07:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Thanks. I'll be fine. I'd say most people here see the situation as bad, but not quite as catastrophic as some outside observers make it out to be. For sure, heating is going to be expensive, many people like me will have to restrict themselves on many fronts, but most of our countries are still rich and can afford financial support for most people that are in danger of freezing. Not for all of them, apparently, there will be suffering and there's no making light of that. But there might be a positive within the negative as well, at least for us in the west. The long overdue switch to renewables is accelerated greatly, and the end of these Nordstream pipelines and our dependence on Russian gas actually is to be welcomed. I think in the long run we sure need to be concerned, but not overly afraid.
I understand your concern about your friends, but I'd be cautiously optimistic they will get by. Maybe not while in party mode, but still.
I hope it goes as well, if that's the right word, as you believe it will.
Quote:On that I have a different perception. All the witnesses in the impeachment hearing, namely ambassador Taylor, Gordon Sundland and a Mr. Holmes (maybe I forgot some), testified as much. That the already approved military aid was dependent on Ukraine announcing investigations into Biden. That was officially known (everyone was in the loop, said Sundland) and the one known condition, not a secret motive.
The reason stated at the time, not what came out later.
Quote:I can understand why questions about corruption take a backseat given the current situation. Why would anyone slam Selenski with Ukraine's corrupt past right now? I'd say there's a bigger fish to fry currently and going after Selenski about that right now would look quite weird.
Selenski himself might be corrupt or not, but right now that really is of no concern, I'm with the left on that one. And fascism was an issue right after the ill-advised Klitschko revolution, but that was just a certain period of time. Selenski and his staff are distinctly not fascists.
Take a back seat, absolutely. But, flushed down the memory hole like it never happened? Also, if you even dare bring it up you're a Putin apologist.
Quote:It is not. Raising doubts whether Assad really ever used chemical agents, however, is dubious. At one point she seemed to support him staying in power. Well, imho a weird position.
Well, it was absolutely her stated reason. Also, wanting him to stay in power can be just as simple as not wanting to introduce more instability into a region that is already extremely volatile. Look what happened after the second Iraq war. There is definitely an argument to be made that it would have been better to keep Saddam in power.
Quote:I also have to say that I personally get very angry at folks that blame NATO, the west and Biden's warmongering for the war in Ukraine. Or imply that the US is running secret biolabs in Ukraine, things that Russia TV gladly picks up. Same thing goes for her claiming the restrictions of free speech in Russia are not so different from those in the US. She also called Adam Schiff a "domestic enemy" of the US, which just takes it a thousand steps too far for me, especially when adding that him and Brennan are a bigger threat than the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Oh and she claimed that the Mar-a-Lago search warrant has the hallmarks of dictatorship.
No, Putin shoulders all the blame for this aggression, and the annexation of the Crimea before that. But US policy definitely contributed heavily to creating the situation that allowed Putin to both thrive and take those actions. I've said it here numerous times, post cold war policy towards Russia was an utter failure. We had a once in a century chance to turn a former foe into a fast friend without major bloodshed. Instead we treated them like a vanquished foe barely worthy of consideration. Even something as simple as renaming NATO so the alliance wasn't connected to an anti-Russia past would have been helpful.
Quote:But hey, you apparently like her and I'm not inclined to convince you otherwise. It's just difficult to make this an objectifiable appreciation. Eg. I for one don't think Gabbard single-handedly sunk Harris' campaign that possibly started on the bottom of the ocean to begin with. I saw the clip of her takedown and don't really see the brilliance, but sure I don't need to.
I like some of her points/positions. You're never going to find a politician that you agree with completely. I do find some of her positions and statements objectionable. But I am impressed with her willingness to have her own opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was/is with the Dems. We are constantly lamenting people putting the needs of the party over that of the country. Well, she is a prime example of rejecting that idea.
Quote:I guess one can see it that way. And yeah the proposal you linked is radical, not just by US standards, but I did not really see AOC coming up there? As far as I know she's not a member of the socialist party. She's affiliated with the democratic socialists, which might be radical enough for you, but I can't quite connect her to the pamphlet you linked.
Yes, forgive the error, you dirty socialists all look alike to me.
The democratic socialists also advocate for seizing the means of production, so while they may not be as radical as the group I erroneously used they still fit the bill for making my point.
