In future, I will endeavour to provide the necessary "back-up" to my opinions presented here, in this blog, whenever I deem the effort to be appropriate.

I hope that will assist in your understanding!

Which is more bad news for Biden's new world order initiative.

Biden and team thought sanctions would cripple Russia, thereby bringing an end to the war in Ukraine. I hope they are finally working on plan B, now ... of course, I'm not holding my breath.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/countries-have-sanctioned-russia

Well, Kick, being aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine means much more than mere votes at the UN.

No shit, Elizabeth; however, it would be a nice start wherein you could attempt to actually provide some kind of back up to your multiple repetitive asinine claims. You've got to start somewhere, might as well start with data. If everyone else can do it; you could at least give it a try versus the same repetitive BS with not a scintilla of any data at all to back up your claims.

To find out where most of the world is on the issue of the war in Ukraine you will have to do some reading.

Oh, this shit again!? As if no one else here could possibly be informed!? You seriously have no idea what you're prattling on about.

I would suggest an expansive read through various media sources in order to get the fullest picture of what is going on - with respect to this issue and, certainly, with respect to any other issue surrounding this war.

I would suggest you have no idea how closely your repetitive pathetic claptrap resembles the QAnon crazies who claim to be "well-informed insiders" who "know things" by reading their "media sources" and "Q drops."

I can list the ones I use if you think it would be helpful.

I'm not kidding when I respond that you sound like a QAnon conspiracy-nut crazy... attempting to convert people to the Right-Wing Cult of Intellectual Failure... if only we'd read what you're reading. *laughs*

To find out where most of the world is on the issue of the war in Ukraine you will have to do some reading. I would suggest an expansive read through various media sources in order to get the fullest picture of what is going on - with respect to this issue and, certainly, with respect to any other issue surrounding this war.

I can list the ones I use if you think it would be helpful.

I reality, most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine.

In actual reality, I said (and I quote myself) "Putin's assistance in unifying a massive chunk of the world in support of independence for Ukraine is a success." I'm not at all surprised how you'd incorrectly misconstrue my use of the term "massive chunk of the world" with your phrasing (and I quote you) "most the world."

Not even a "good try," Elizabeth.

So you made the claim, "most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine," so now back it up.

Which nations are aligned with the West and which are aligned with Russia? For proof, you might want to start at the United Nations where they actually take a vote on these issues:

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine Wednesday and called for its troops to immediately and completely withdraw, as Moscow's military bore down on several Ukrainian cities with airstrikes and troops.

Of the 193 member states, 181 participated in the vote. Of those, 141 countries supported the resolution condemning Moscow and five were against it – including Russia and a tiny group of its allies — Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea. Thirty-five countries abstained, but their numbers do not affect the two-thirds majority needed for adoption.

https://www.voanews.com/a/un-general-assembly-overwhelmingly-condemns-russia-s-invasion-of-ukraine-/6467348.html

*
I would definitely call that "a massive chunk of the world." Let me know if you need "two-thirds majority" explained to you, and kindly stop redefining my comments. :)

I reality, most the world is NOT aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine.

Let me try to be as clear for you as I can be ...

You're not ever unclear, Elizabeth, you're actually quite transparent. While you may not realize it, you've got this (obvious) "hangup" with time and timetables coupled with a penchant recently with "all or nothing" thinking, specifically in regards to Russia's latest aggression with yet another nation on its Western border.

In my opinion, based on a general knowledge of the situation gained from a healthy variety of sources, Ukraine does not get back all of its disputed territory by way of battlefield victories.

Big Picture: #SSDD and your "sweeping generalization" again duly noted, it sounds like the Russian/USSR invasion of Finland on their Western border circa 1939/40, but they're nevertheless still standing.

The sooner the West understands that, the better for Ukraine and its future.

Your hangup with time/timetables is again duly noted. The "West" already is obviously infinitely aware of that since this (obviously) isn't Russia's first invasion of a nation on their border, and I cannot fathom how anyone would make the asinine claim that the West isn't aware of this unless that person was seriously missing the forest for the trees... also known as failing to grasp the "big picture."

Ukraine is in a fight for their very existence against Putin/Russia's determination to "own" them. Their inability to retain and/or regain all of their nation does not in any way constitute a failure... See, e.g., Finland.

So, to recap: Big picture; you're still missing it.

Regardless how the "ending" of Russia's latest aggression against Ukraine plays out in the near future and whether or not they retain/regain their entire country or "only" a ginormous piece of it, their fight for their independence and Putin's assistance in unifying a massive chunk of the world in support of independence for Ukraine is a success.

Say... you don't suppose Russia might henceforth into the future invade another nation and hasten Ukraine's entry into NATO? Rhetorical question. I know idiots who actually insisted ad nauseam that Finland would never be part of NATO. How short-sighted were they?

Nowhere To Hide - The question troubling Ukrainian Troops

Let me try to be as clear for you as I can be ...

In my opinion, based on a general knowledge of the situation gained from a healthy variety of sources, Ukraine does not get back all of its disputed territory by way of battlefield victories. The sooner the West understands that, the better for Ukraine and its future.

Again, I'm not questioning the amount of aid Ukraine is getting on a continuing basis ... just that it hasn't been enough to for them to make any headway.

They're still a sovereign nation not under the rule of Putin's Russia, are they not? Rhetorical question. That is "headway." Yes, I'm aware it's a counter-attack. Beats the hell out of being defeated by Russia in days, does it not? Again, rhetorical.

I'm also saying that, in the final analysis, this thing doesn't get resolved militarily.

Of course it gets "resolved militarily." Putin invaded Ukraine with the intent of "owning" them. Ukraine fought back "militarily" and is still a sovereign nation and still fighting back "militarily." Ukraine isn't making enough progress to please Elizabeth Miller of Canada? Cry me a river... tough shit.

The fact that "modern" warfare generally ends at a negotiating table doesn't mean it wasn't resolved "militarily." War is not an either/or situation; it's resolved by multiple means which definitely includes militarily.

So...you can't back it up?

Of course, she can't. Point to Bashi.

Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?

Cannot speak for Bashi, but I've been following it enormously closely, and you and your ignorant source are just incorrect. You're (sadly) still missing the big picture, and you seem to have been kidnapped by an uninformed imbecile.

Thanks for posting that piece on what is meant by 'client state' in the context of the relationship between the US and Ukraine over the course of the last many decades.

But, my reference to Ukraine having become a "US client state" was meant ONLY in the context of the current Ukraine war and how completely dependent Ukraine is now on the US for both military AND financial support. This war has left the Ukrainian economy in tatters and it will only get worse the longer this unnecessary war rages on.

So, in my opinion, Ukraine will be a US client state in the classic definition of the term for a very, very, very long time to come.

And, I base that opinion not on any linkable article I have read over the course of the last couple of years but just on my acquired general knowledge of the situation as it pertains to the US and Ukraine.

You and others here are free to disagree with my assessment and/or to put forward your own analysis. There is no need on my part or on the part of anyone else here to provide a link to "back-up" an opinion. I will provide a link whenever I deem it appropriate to do so. :)

https://www.ponarseurasia.org/is-ukraine-a-client-state-of-the-united-states/

No, I'm saying each war is unpredictable and unique and really doesn't care about anyone's interests or time tables.

And, this is a freakin' blog not a thesis paper. We are allowed to voice our opinions without providing a link to our every thought, you know. Geez Louise, Bashi!

Aren't you the one who often complains that there is a lack of serious discussion around here?

Interesting that...

And, this is a freakin' blog not a thesis paper. We are allowed to voice our opinions without providing a link to our every thought, you know. Geez Louise, Bashi!

Of course, you have completely misconstrued my reference to client state. Which Ukraine will be, forevermore. So much for sovereignty.

As you really haven't backed up anything, I have little to go on for your personal definition "client state" but the term has real meaning in geopolitics and I would need some real proof before I took you seriously on Ukraine being one to the US.

A lot of questions. Not much backing up...Are you moving into the late stage Michale school of Rhetoric?

So, you think Ukraine is anywhere near winning this war? Surely with the unprecedented and extraordinary military and financial support they have received and are receiving and will receive for as long as it takes from the US, primarily, and from other NATO countries, this war should be over by now, no?

Instead, Ukraine complains that they are not getting enough. Maybe they are beginning to understand what they won't be getting from the US/NATO AND that they won't be invited to join NATO in the near term nor long term nor ever if responsible heads prevail.

Of course, you have completely misconstrued my reference to client state. Which Ukraine will be, forevermore. So much for sovereignty.

Now, do I have to explain to you how I feel about Putin's actions in all of this?

Your quote:

endlessly providing just enough military and financial aid to prolong this war and transform Ukraine into a US client state ain't my idea of support!

I personally think that is total bullshit and have provided back up that the US has backed Ukraine more than any other country in the last half century or more By a rather large margin.

What's up with the "client state"? Are all NATO/EU members client states? Sounds like some serious tit for tat grade A Russian propaganda right there...

Your turn.

Let me try to answer your question with another one ...

What has Ukraine been able to accomplish - and what is your assessment of the current state of affairs on the battlefield - with all of the support they have been getting from, primarily, the US?

Got anything to back that up?

Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?

Got anything to back that up?

Seriously? Have you been following what's been going on there lately?

Got anything to back that up? Looks to me like the US has given extraordinary amounts of aid compared to all US aid recipients pretty much since the Marshall Plan...

I agree, wholeheartedly. But, alas, I'm not part of the electorate and that's where Biden's problem resides.

But, my first reaction is to say that 'support for Ukraine' can take many forms but, endlessly providing just enough military and financial aid to prolong this war and transform Ukraine into a US client state ain't my idea of support!

biden has gotten better economic results in two and a half years than anybody predicted...

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! And, that is why there is no better time than now to start changing the very, very, very longtime narrative that Republicans are the better stewards for the economy!!! Which I have been harping on about here since, well, since I've been here. Heh.

foreign policy is historically [Biden's] wheelhouse.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! Indeed, it was my interest in US foreign policy - which began during the Iran/Contra hearings - that actually lead me to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman/ranking member in the first place, circa 1987.

I haven't ALWAYS agreed with Biden on his foreign policy stances but I have always learned a great deal from him in that regard. Which is why I am so disappointed in how he has handled the Ukraine file and not just since he became president.

Speaking of Ukraine ... I'm sensing a gradual drifting toward a political settlement ... and, it's about damn time!

In both cases, it foments a contrarianism that is perhaps most visible on issues where there is a rare national consensus, such as support for Ukraine. In this case, the contrasting motivations of left and right populists lead both sides to reach the same position: one that “both-sides” the war in Ukraine, denies Ukrainians agency, and plays right into Putin’s hands. And this, despite the fact that there is nothing inherent in either far-right or far-left thought that leads to support for Russia or opposition to the plight of Ukrainians.

also, biden has gotten better economic results in two and a half years than anybody predicted, and foreign policy is historically his wheelhouse. remember when we all thought covid relief and inflation reduction were dead in the water? i think even for those who might disapprove of his decisions in the here and now, the guy has earned a little forbearance.

in that vein, will the negative nancy who kidnapped liz please return her unharmed?

sigh

"As we suffer through extreme heat in the US and across the globe, President Biden has been protecting fossil fuel profits instead of people. From the Willow project in Alaska to Gulf LNG exports, Biden props up dangerous oil and gas projects and the corporations that value their bottom line over our future. It has to stop.

"President Biden has even backed policies that gut bedrock environmental laws that protect communities from fossil fuel pollution."

This deserves to be on a bumper sticker!
" Donald grabbed Kevin ... which definitely qualifies Kevin as one. "

Kumbaya.

Wait. If a defendant lies on the stand about his personal culpability he risks a perjury charge on top of 187 years in supermax for the criminal acts that sh’he** denies?

**pron. Shuh’HEE

It seems that I’m in the mood to share my contribution to our ever evolving English/Murican language. No really it’s my pleasure. ;D y’all

BTW,

I hereby propose that we (the English speaking world) adopt Hizzer (pron. “HIH•zehr”) to replace the current manner of communicating this concept. Because why not?

Weaker of the House is so clever that it should (or has) gone viral. And I truly wouldn’t be at all surprised that YOU came up with it.

Or put another way, as I've said many times: Trump has the right to remain silent; he just doesn't have the ability.

Sho’ nuff you’re right! I can see Trump taking the stand if the docs case goes unfavorably and (against Attorney advice) tries a Hail Mary to save himself.

FYI the prosecution doesn’t have the power to get Trump on the witness stand. As memory serves, it has something about the 5th Amendment.
"
Yes, obviously one of the rights of the Fifth Amendment is that a person cannot be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," but the Defendant still has the fundamental right to testify in his/her own defense, which may not be waived solely through their attorney and may only be waived by the Defendant personally. The point of my comment was that the prosecution doesn't even "need" Trump himself on the witness stand since they've already got him multiple times (in multiple cases) incriminating himself on audiotape, videotape, and also in writing... and also that Trump himself could not exercise his right to defend himself without committing perjury. So what is his defense? He literally has no valid defense to multiple of the charges in the "documents case."

Or put another way, as I've said many times: Trump has the right to remain silent; he just doesn't have the ability. Trump's relevant statements wherein he confesses to taking the documents are admissible by the prosecutors... so what is Trump's defense in a court of law if he cannot take the stand to defend himself against his own admissions on audiotape, videotape, and in written form?

So, to recap: Trump cannot effectively testify in his own defense to rebut the overwhelming evidence against him that he's provided to the prosecution via his constant digging of holes and his utter inability to shut that hole in his face. The Trumptanic has met the iceberg.

According to the sources, McCarthy bit back saying, "Call me a pussy again, and I'll kick your ass."

"The sources" are wrong to claim McCarthy "bit back" because McCarthy is all bark and no bite. Also, Donald grabbed Kevin, and McCarthy let Trump do it, which definitely qualifies Kevin as one. Maybe it would have been nicer if Swalwell had referred to McCarthy as the "Weaker of the House," but Swalwell is nevertheless correct.

Both witnesses claim Swalwell responded with profane precision, telling McCarthy, "You. Are. A. Pussy."

Repeat after me: Weaker. Of. The. House.

A brief stare-down ensued before McCarthy finally let Swalwell pass, according to onlookers.

So then, no actual promised ass kicking ensued, and Kevin thereby proved Swalwell's dead on balls accurate assessment of him... although definitely not the first time Kevin proved himself to be as yellow as mustard:

The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.

~ Kevin McCarthy, House Labia Minora Leader,
January 2021

*
The shoe definitely fits Kevin.

He is now angling to make a very last-ditch effort to somehow claim all his calumny and lies directed at these two innocent elections workers did them no harm at all, and was somehow protected by "the First Amendment."

Rudy Giuliani should ask his friend Alex Jones how that worked out for him for repeatedly defaming the Sandy Hook families and their deceased children, causing his ring-wing nutjob conspiracy theory loons to commit all manner of harassment against them in the same manner the RWNJs did to Plaintiffs Moss and Freeman.

That idiotic "First Amendment" defense (in general) usually claims that a Defendant can say whatever they want because a "reasonable person" should not believe their conspiracy BS, and when it's a lawyer claiming that defense, they will generally claim they have a constitutional right to verbalize anything they choose about Plaintiff(s) because it is their "legal opinion" and therefore not defamation.

Since Joe and the Dems are hyping Bidenomics (finally!) why not contrast Bidenomics to Reaganomics? Reaganomics is the root cause of the decline of my Murica,! Something I watched since I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. Saint Ronnie said he wanted to shrink government down until it’s small enough to drown in the bathtub and that’s EXACTLY what they’ve been trying to accomplish since.

1- the universe is too big for Earth to be the only place life exists (heck, life probably is or was elsewhere in our solar system!)

2- any government that recovered evidence of extraterrestrials would DEFINITELY hide it, including our government.

3- the universe is 14+ billion years old and that’s a lot of time for life and civilizations to rise and shine. So IMO it’s a question of timing — do they happen to show up while our relatively new civilization is here?

Unless you are a billionaire or millionaire who only cares about your own economic well-being and not that of most of the American people, vote for the party that offers the best stewardship of the economy and country and put an end to the Republican cult of economic failure, once and for all!

Unless you are a billionaire or millionaire who only cares about your own economic well-being and not that of most of the American people, vote for the party that offers the best stewardship of the economy and country and put an end to the Republican cult of economic failure, once and for all!

While it's definitely not going to change any minds, I nominate Rep. Ted Lieu for adding portions of the trial transcript to the Congressional Record. Again, this is not for us, but for posterity.
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/07/he-raped-her-rep-ted-lieu-reads

I really don't understand who Chris thinks will be convinced to vote for a Democrat at this point because of something stupid/autocratic/egotistical that Trump said or did.

I kinda think he’s here with us, in spirit so to speak. I came of age watching Watergate unfold and I am really enjoying 2023. I am stocking up on popcorn and I’ll savor every moment of the Trump Trials, hoping I don’t have to wait another half-century for a 3rd GOP implosion in my lifetime.

BTW, Chris I know you’d looove for this to be Silly Season but between our indictment-o-rama & social media clickbait the lights are gonna stay on this time around.

Trump, of course, still maintains it is all a witch-hunt.

It's actually a "snitch-hunt," and one needs only to read the superseding indictment to understand they've definitely found some who are likely to be really great witnesses because Trump (according to him) only hires the best people.

The prosecution doesn't even need to get Trump on the witness stand since he isn't intelligent enough to apply the "first rule of holes," and his mouth is ever busily shoveling in overdrive... roll audiotape, roll videotape. What is your defense when you cannot take the stand without committing perjury? Rhetorical question.