Friday Talking Points -- Starting The Nerd Prom Jokes Early
This week was supposed to begin (for us, since we measure weeks from Friday to Friday) with a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina last Saturday. After being cooped up in a courtroom all week listening to the lawyers haggle over jury selection, Trump was going to hit the campaign trail again to bask in the glow of adulation from his MAGA faithful (even the Proud Boys showed up!). That was the plan, at any rate.
But then the rally had to be cancelled at the last minute...
[...wait for it...]
...due to stormy weather.
[pause for rimshot]
We do apologize for that, but we thought it was worth starting off with some humor, after a particularly dry and seemingly-endless week of courtroom proceedings. Also, political humor is about to hit the spotlight this weekend, with the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner (also known locally as the "Nerd Prom"), so we thought we'd get in on the fun early.
The big story of the week, of course, was the Trump trial. This may be true until it concludes, in fact, so we may be in for weeks and weeks of breathless courtroom reporting as all the witnesses are called in turn. As of this writing, we're already on the third witness, but the big ones to come will be Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels -- which is when the media coverage will go into an absolute frenzy.
But this week there was an even bigger legal story, since on Thursday Trump's lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that a United States president should be able to order the military to stage a coup against the American government -- without facing any sort of criminal charges for doing so afterwards. Yes, you read that right.
But let's pull back and look at the bigger picture, because no matter what the court eventually decides they will have given Trump a big win -- precisely what he wanted, in fact. Because their dithering will have eaten up at least half a year, and their ruling seems almost guaranteed to delay the process of trying Trump in a court of law (for his role in the January 6th attempted insurrection) all the way beyond the presidential election.
Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to avoid this, it bears mentioning, but the Supreme Court refused. Smith tried to get the high court to jump into the fray very early on -- before the appellate court even heard the appeal -- since it was plain to see that the case was eventually going to end up at the Supreme Court anyway. They refused this request. Then after a month was wasted, the appellate court ruled. Their ruling denied all of Trump's insane theories of "presidential immunity," just as the trial judge had done previously. Trump's team filed a further appeal, and the Supreme Court wasted a few weeks before announcing they would hear the case -- in another seven weeks' time. So yesterday's hearing finally happened, after two more months of delay, and from all indications it looks like the court will hold its ruling back until the very end of its term -- in late June or perhaps even early July.
When they could have ruled on all of this back in January.
Their ruling will split some legal hairs about what presidential acts can be later criminally prosecuted, and this hair-splitting will be sent back to either the appellate court or the trial judge. This will set off a round of arguments about each and every "act" Trump performed, as his lawyers argue that they are all "official" acts of the president, rather than personal or purely political acts designed to keep him in office (even though the election had gone against him). All of this arguing will chew up more time, and then whatever the result is will likely be subject to an appeal -- where it may even wind up back at the Supreme Court. The high court could then decide that next year is early enough to hear the case again, meaning they could wind up wasting more than an entire year before the court case ever actually begins.
Even if an appeal doesn't gum up the works again, the haggling over official acts versus political acts will almost certainly waste so much time that the trial can't even begin until after the election.
Which is precisely what Trump wanted all along, of course.
To sum up (to use a lawyerly term), the Supreme Court is bending over backwards to prove the truth of the old adage: "Justice delayed is justice denied." And there's nothing anyone can do about it.
But let's get back to Trump's current criminal trial... one curious thing in the New York case is the judge's seeming reluctance to even address the issue of Trump repeatedly and continually violating the gag order the judge slapped him with before the trial actually began. The prosecution filed a motion to have Trump fined the maximum amount for each violation and even warn Trump that he could be incarcerated for contempt if he keeps it up. Astonishingly, the judge scheduled a hearing on the issue a week into the future. This hearing was held Tuesday morning, but no ruling from the judge accompanied it. Trump keeps violating the order, the prosecution keeps filing more motions pointing out each violation, and yet the judge has yet to even admonish Trump for any of it. The latest round of this was the prosecution pointing out more violations to the judge -- who decided that he'd hold another hearing. Next Thursday.
What is the problem here? The judge certainly isn't going to chuck Trump in jail to begin with, and he may not even fine him for the violations. All he'd have to do is tell Trump: "OK, you get a free pass for everything up until now, but from this point forward, here is what is going to happen if you continue to violate the gag order...." Then Trump would be on notice and would automatically trigger sanctions if he continued. But for some inexplicable reason, none of this has happened. The judge hasn't done anything, and now it looks like he won't until next Thursday, at the earliest -- all while the trial continues to unfold.
In another New York courtroom, meanwhile, a judge rejected Trump's motion to wipe out the $83 million judgment against him in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. Trump wanted this amount wiped out or reduced and asked for a whole new trial. The judge shot all of it down, meaning Trump's still on the hook for the $83 million, at least for now.
Out in Arizona, an indictment was handed down for not just all the "fake electors" who falsely tried to claim Donald Trump won the state in 2020 (and fraudulently sent in documents to Washington that stated all of this), but also for all the Trump henchmen who put the whole nefarious scheme together. Trump was not charged -- yet -- but merely named as an "unindicted co-conspirator." For those of you who are keeping count, this is now the fourth state which has charged people in the fake electors scam (the other three are Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada). In addition, Wisconsin still has an open investigation but hasn't indicted anyone yet.
One thing that will become more and more apparent as time goes by is that while Donald Trump is tied up in court, Joe Biden is out there campaigning in all the swing states. Biden seems to be having fun on the campaign trail, whether he's cracking jokes about Trump or slamming him for the current situation with abortion rights. Trump, to coin a phrase, seems to be campaigning "from his basement." As mentioned, his rally last week was cancelled and he spent the one day off from court this week (Wednesday) out on the golf course (which Team Biden gleefully pointed out). Trump reportedly has no rallies planned for this weekend either. He is trying to squeeze in a little campaigning as he goes to and from the courthouse (he has visited a bodega and a construction site), but this is all happening in New York -- a state which is impossibly out of reach for Trump. So it's not doing his campaign a whole lot of good, to state the obvious.
Perhaps as a result of this dynamic, Biden now seems to be inching up in the polls. This could also just be the fact that more and more people have finally accepted the fact that we are indeed going to get a repeat of the 2020 election, with Biden running against Trump. But for whatever reason, it's good news for Team Biden.
Biden is also doing his job as president (while Trump bizarrely pretends to be, by handing out "keys to the White House," even though he doesn't live there anymore). This week the bill to provide military aid to Israel and Ukraine finally got to Biden's desk for his signature, which is a real victory for Biden (the fact that it made it through a very divided Congress). It did also include a ban on TikTok, but one that won't go into effect until after the election (if it even does). Trump immediately tried to hit Biden on the TikTok ban, which is a complete flip-flop for him, since he issued an executive order in 2020 which tried to do exactly the same thing. This order was scathing, accusing "the Chinese Communist Party" of wanting to use TikTok data to "track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage." So Trump was for the ban before he was against it (because Biden is now for it too). Typical.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is (so far) clinging to his job, which may be challenged next week by Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's miffed that things are actually getting done in Johnson's House, and so far she's got two cronies who have also said they'll vote to oust Johnson from the speaker's chair. This may set up an extraordinary situation where Democrats are the ones to save a Republican speaker's job, so stay tuned for that interesting showdown....
There was some other good political news out of Arizona this week, as three Republicans in their state house chamber voted with all the Democrats to repeal the Draconian abortion ban from the Civil War era. This was always the smart move -- just get the whole thing off the table so it wouldn't haunt Republicans running in November -- but up until now Arizona Republicans had refused to take this obvious off-ramp. They've already got enough votes in the state's senate to pass the repeal (which could happen next week) and the Democratic governor has said she will sign it.
And a final bit of good news -- George Santos, after raising precisely zero dollars in the first quarter of the year, has announced he will not be making an independent run to return to Congress after all. Late-night comedians everywhere were saddened at the news, since it is so easy to write Santos jokes, and they were looking forward to doing so right up to November. Santos will be missed (by the joke-writers, at the very least).
Representative Summer Lee had an impressive victory in the Pennsylvania primary this week, easily defeating her challenger. Lee is a member of the Squad who supports a cease-fire in Gaza, and this contest was supposed to be close but in the end the race was called for Lee almost immediately -- and when the votes were counted Lee won by a whopping 21 points. So she deserves at least an Honorable Mention for her decisive victory.
Moving on to our main award... all week long we've wanted to write about this, but other subjects seemed more immediate. It's not that we particularly have anything to add to the story, but we really did want to run a headline that could have easily appeared at some point during the Civil War: "Union Victory In The South." But alas, we never got the chance, so we'll just mention it in passing....
Just after this column went to press last Friday, the news broke that the United Automobile Workers had scored a surprisingly strong victory. The workers in a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee had voted -- by an overwhelming margin -- to join the Union. Which is the first time workers in any southern state have voted to form a Union in an automakers' factory since the 1940s. So it was a big deal.
The U.A.W. has been trying to unionize the South for a long time now, with not a whole lot of success. But after its stunning victories over the big American automakers last year, the dynamic seems to be changing. Even six Republican governors from the South couldn't turn the tide (they released a statement right before the election full of dark warnings about lost jobs, which failed to move the needle at all). The Volkswagen workers voted by almost 3-to-1 to form their own Union.
What might have contributed to their success was the fact that Volkswagen itself wasn't stridently pushing against the concept. This factory was reportedly the only Volkswagen plant in the world that wasn't unionized, so it's not exactly a new thing to the company. Fresh off this victory, the U.A.W. is now moving ahead to bring their Union to other auto factories across the South, so we'll have to see whether they can build on their success or not. But either way, this week's vote was an important milestone for organized labor in general and should be celebrated.
So while he isn't a Democratic politician, we're comfortable with bending the award rules a bit (the U.A.W. has endorsed Joe Biden again, which is close enough for government work, as they say...) to hand this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to Shawn Fain, the head of the United Automobile Workers. Not only did he emerge victorious from the strike launched last year but he is now building on that victory by aggressively trying to get as many auto factories in the country unionized as possible. This week's victory in Chattanooga was historic, but hopefully it won't be the only one the U.A.W. chalks up in the South this year -- which would be even more historic.
[Congratulate United Automobile Workers President Shawn Fain via the Union's contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
This is the flip side of our Honorable Mention this week. Here's the story:
The Associated Press called the race in favor of [Representative Summer] Lee, who is in her first term in Congress, shortly after the polls closed Tuesday night. Her challenger, Edgewood borough council member Bhavini Patel, attracted support from Pennsylvania's richest resident, Republican billionaire Jeffrey Yass.
. . .
Patel had one significant source of financial support: Yass, whose super PAC, the Moderate PAC, laid out six figures on attack ads against Lee. Yass is a Republican megadonor who is reportedly on the shortlist for treasury secretary in a second Trump White House. For much of the primary, the Moderate PAC's founder, Ty Strong, tried to hide the extent of Yass' financial support. At one point, Strong insinuated that a sizable portion of the PAC's money came from two Pittsburgh developers. In reality, Yass' most recent donation, of $800,000, was 160 times larger.
Running as a stalking horse for a Republican billionaire is beyond disappointing, really. We are glad that Lee easily dispatched her challenger, but knowing who funded that challenger pretty much made Bhavini Patel the shoo-in candidate for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.
[We could not locate an official contact page for Bhavini Patel, and as a rule we do not link to campaign websites even after the election is over, so you'll have to search out contact information yourself if you'd like to let her know what you think of her actions.]
Volume 749 (4/26/24)
First, we have to mark the passing of Representative Donald Payne Junior this week, which will leave the House Democrats one more vote down for months (a special election will be called, but it might not happen until November, with the regular election).
Requiescat In Pace.
Most of our talking points this week deal with Donald Trump's legal shenanigans, with a heavy emphasis on what his lawyers argued in front of the Supreme Court. So without further ado, let's just get right to it.
Wouldn't it be nice?
File this under "what might have been," we suppose.
"It seems like a day doesn't go by where Donald Trump and all his minions aren't facing some new criminal charges against them, or defending them in court, or scheming to delay having to face the music in different courtrooms. Which all leads me to wonder: wouldn't it have been nice if all of this had happened last year? Wouldn't it have been nice if prosecutors had moved just a wee bit faster? Wouldn't it have been nice if the court system had actually moved faster than a glacier on Ambien? The American people may go to the polls this November without confirmation that Donald Trump is guilty of putting the country's national security secrets at risk or whether he feloniously tried to orchestrate a coup to remain in power. It has taken over three years to get to where we are now, and it may be another year before all the dust begins to settle. If all of these prosecutors had moved faster, we could have had plenty of time for all of Trump's delay tactics to fail and we could have seen all these cases tried by now. I mean, it really shouldn't take an entire presidential term to prosecute an ex-president for any crimes he committed while in office."
Um... no
The Supreme Court hearing this week provided plenty of astonishing moments when Trump's lawyers argued some rather jaw-dropping things. These next three talking points deal with the biggest of these.
"So Trump's lawyers just argued in front of the Supreme Court that an American president should be allowed to order the United States military to stage a coup d'état to stay in power, without ever having to face criminal charges for doing so. They even argued that this is what the Founders intended. So... men like George Washington and John Adams would have been OK with a future president using the military to attack the federal government? Um... no. Just: no. That is so laughably ridiculous it is hard to even put into words how dangerous a concept it truly is. But that is exactly what Trump's lawyers just argued before the highest court in the land."
Impeachment first? But what if...
This argument is just as ridiculous.
"Trump's lawyers have also be arguing that no president -- even after he leaves office -- can ever be charged with any crime for anything he did while in office if he hasn't first been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted in a trial in the Senate. But Republicans also believe that no one who has left office can ever be impeached. So what would stop any president from doing all sorts of illegal things in his last months in office? He or she would know that Congress wouldn't move fast enough to impeach, so this would be some sort of window of opportunity for any president to do anything. And we've already seen how bad this can get -- we've already had a president in the final months of office attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. If the Supreme Court rules for this absurd position (which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution), then it would give every president a big green light to do absolutely anything they wanted, just before they left office. That is an unbelievably dangerous thing to even contemplate, as we've already seen."
This law also applies to the president
This is equally as laughable.
"Trump's lawyers -- and at least one Supreme Court justice -- also seemed to be arguing that all the laws that are on the books simply do not apply to any president unless there is a clause contained within the law which explicitly states: 'this law also applies to the president.' That is an astonishingly radical concept. Presidents can murder people and that's fine because the murder statute doesn't state that presidents can't murder people? Presidents can take bribes and obstruct justice and attack the federal government and do any number of other crimes but they can never be charged with any of them unless that specific phrase appears? That is insane. But it is precisely what Trump's lawyers are arguing."
So far as I know...
This one is from Mitt Romney, of all people. Guess he's getting in on the comedy fun this week too! While being interviewed Romney was asked about Trump's current trial and came up with a great talking point:
I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump's character. And, so far as I know, you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.
With a cherry on top
This one stems from an archaeological find.
"Workers who are restoring George Washington's home Mount Vernon made a rather interesting discovery recently. They dug up two intact glass bottles from an old storeroom floor which contained 'pits, stems, sodden cherries, and gooey residue' in them. These were judged to be around 250 years old, from when Washington lived there. Which should remind everyone of the old fable of Washington and the cherry tree, obviously. In 250 years we went from 'I cannot tell a lie' to suffering through four years where the United States president was incapable of telling the truth."
The world's smallest violin
This is really cheesing Trump off, from all reports. So rub it in!
"Donald Trump keeps begging his supporters to turn up in enormous crowds in Manhattan to show their support for him outside the courthouse where he is being criminally tried. But the pro-Trump demonstrations keep shrinking. A sorry handful of people waste their days yelling at the hundreds of media reporters, but it seems that's all Trump can manage. Trump has always had an inferiority complex about crowd size, but this is a new realm of pathetic, even for him. Even Trump desperately begging people to show up hasn't changed anything. Pretty soon it'll be down to just one crazy guy standing there shouting MAGA slogans while everyone else just laughs at him. Poor Donnie... can't even raise a crowd in the double digits!"
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Also, political humor is about to hit the spotlight this weekend, with the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner (also known locally as the "Nerd Prom"), so we thought we'd get in on the fun early.
Thank you for the heads-up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umHtnyDAkjc
Colin Jost and President Biden... so Saturday Night Live must be a rerun. ;)
This will set off a round of arguments about each and every "act" Trump performed, as his lawyers argue that they are all "official" acts of the president, rather than personal or purely political acts designed to keep him in office (even though the election had gone against him).
Interestingly, however, Justice Barrett (Trump's own appointee) has already obtained the concession of Trump's lawyer that multiple acts in the indictment are actually private acts, and she reads directly from Special Counsel's brief arguing which acts could move forward regardless:
*
To my ears, that was a defining moment in the hearing wherein Trump's own lawyer admits those aren't "official acts," and we know Jack Smith would obviously not argue them at the SCOTUS if he did not have the evidence.
The prosecution filed a motion to have Trump fined the maximum amount for each violation and even warn Trump that he could be incarcerated for contempt if he keeps it up.
The Court's objective is to put the Defendant on trial, and he knows full well as soon as he makes such a ruling (while knowing full well Trump will keep prattling on and on regardless) will put the ball in Trump's court and paint himself into somewhat of a proverbial corner.
It's a passive-aggressive move wherein the judge concedes no power to the "troll" begging for it. The ball is in the Court's court, and the trial continues apace.
I think. :)
^^^^^ EDIT [2] ^^^^^
Full transcript of immunity hearing from SCOTUS:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf
FPC
Elizabeth wrote:
Seriously? You don't care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to die or have their entire lives upended while the Western powers support Ukraine with just enough military aid to keep the war going in the fashion that it has for the last two years, all in a so far failing attempt to weaken Russia?
And, where do you suppose Ukraine is going to find the numbers of soldiers it needs to keep the war going indefinitely?
Um, I actually l do care — never forget that that’s my DNA fighting and dying over there!
But to quote Beau of the Fifth Column foreign policy is like an international game of poker where everybody’s cheating — countries don’t have friends they have interests. And countries don’t have morals, again, they have interests.
Is it immoral to trade Ukrainian lives via slow walking aid? Of course it is! But as much as it pisses me off I recognize the realities of why it has been so.
As far as manpower goes both Poland and France are publicly floating the idea of stationing troops inside Ukraine! IMO just Poland by itself actively joining the war would be more than enough to rout the Russians completely out of 2014 era Ukraine. Poland and France know what happens next if Russia overruns Ukraine. (5:11)
Caddy,
So, is it morals or interests? I'm confused about what you think.
Poland won't be sending its own troops to Ukraine. Nor will any other NATO member. They all have interests, after all, that rise above what happens in Ukraine. Their primary interest in Ukraine is maintaining the status quo, for the time being.
Besides, the Polish authorities are busy right now trying to figure out how to send Ukrainian men of fighting age and ability now living in Poland back to Ukraine. ;)
As far as manpower goes both Poland and France are publicly floating the idea of stationing troops inside Ukraine!
Non-serious.
To clarify, a country’s interests will always outweigh silly things like morality.
France’s Macron publicly floated the idea of stationing troops in places in the Ukrainian rear such as in Odessa to free up Ukrainians for the front. And Poland just upped their defense related spending to 3.5% of their budget. Sweden and Finland rushed to join NATO and the Baltics and others such as the Czech Republic have fallen over themselves sending as much help as is possible.
D’ya think all those countries near Russia maybe know something that you don’t know? And for the record so you doubt Ukrainians would fight with rocks and sticks to defend their existence?
I’m essentially disabled and waiting for two back surgeries. I’ve always been a politics junkie and I spend the equivalent to a full time work week soaking this stuff up. You have to work full time which is why you’ll miss news items like Macron’s sentiments.
That doesn’t mean I’m not wrong about things — I AM wrong from time to time. But when I am wrong I don’t have the excuse of not having put in the time.
And for the record so you doubt Ukrainians would fight with rocks and sticks to defend their existence?
No, of course, I don't think that. And, that you might think I would doesn't surprise me, anymore.
Just because I work full time doesn't mean I don't have time to follow what's happening in the world. Why do you think I've been hanging around here for so long. Heh. Seriously, I find your comments of late, especially the last one here, to be quite condescending.
In any case, what you think about me doesn't excuse the constant insults to my intelligence, such as it is.
And, furthermore, I empathize with what you are going through physically. I have my own share of problems and vagaries of life that sap my energy, mental and otherwise.
All I ask is that the conversations here don't ALWAYS sprial downwards into name-calling, purposefully misunderstanding and misquoting and misinterpreting every comment I make. I don't think that is asking too much but, whatever.
Btw, I love following what Macron is up to and have been doing so since he stepped into the limelight of geopolitics.
He's a bit of a pie-in-the-sky kinda of guy. :)
Oh, and why do you believe that Russia's game plan includes taking over other European and NATO countries? Because things are going so well for them in Ukraine!? Please. This kind of talk is really far-fetched.
Elizabeth would you kindly spend five minutes and watch this fucking video, at last? There will be a pop quiz!
Also, I will try not to be so unpleasant or condescending in my comments — I’m very passionate and sometimes frustrated but I don’t want you and I nor Weigantia to devolve into that. Respectfully, I think there’s room for improvement in how we both comment, so as to enhance clarity and reduce the desire for invective.
Just. Watch. The. Video — five minutes!
You can't be serious. How many times do I have to watch this video and comment on it before you stop pestering me about it and move on to more serious conversations?
I have watched it once and have commented here on it once and that is the end of it. Stop badgering me about it!
Caddy,
You often ask me what happened to my unqualified admiration for Senator Biden (he'll always be Senator Biden to me) since he became POTUS. I've tried to explain but it's a complicated answer and I know I haven't come near to doing it justice here in Weigantia.
It's so ironic that I first became interested in following Biden's senate career on strictly US foreign policy terms back beginning in 1987 and yet Biden's foreign policy as president has left me completely disillusioned.
Today I'm catching up on some reading and just read this Nicholas Kristof piece in the New York Times and he, being a fellow Biden fan from way back, summed up part of our disillusionment rather nicely, if non-briefly ...
What happened to the Joe Biden I knew?
[16]
No you didn’t! You said you thought he talks in simplistic terms (1) and likely isn’t very nice to woman (2)
What you didn’t do is address a single one of his assertions. It’s like you missed the whole point of his presentation. REGARDING HIS ASSERTIONS WHAT DO YOU DISAGREE WITH? Point by point — it’s only five minutes and eleven seconds, for Peet’s sake!
(1) “Simplistic terms” is why this guy travels all over the world. It’s how he makes a living and why an Iowa boy made good, ending up living in New Zeeland and more recently beautiful Colorado (the guy films his YouTube segments hiking at 8,000-plus feet). He has authored three books on geopolitics to date.
I believe that the average Weigantian — most certainly including Brothers C.R.S. and Michale — is of higher intelligence than the average Joe. So it may seem that he’s “simplistic” to you, Liz.
Peter Zeihan is a “generalist” a geopolitical strategist because he knows a lot about the important stuff that affects geopolitics and he weaves it all together and puts it in terms that paying audiences can understand and make use of.
(2) Mr. Zeihan is unmarried and I’ve seen speculation that he is gay.
(wait for it)
Not that there’s anything wrong with that! So I don’t know that Zeihan’s treatment of women may even be much of a thing.
Assertion #1:
Russia has long and flat borders its length and breath and not enough productive land to support a population large enough to defend these borders.
Because of this Russia has been invaded from literally all directions starting with the brutal Mongols in 1250.
So for four centuries Russia’s geopolitical strategy has been to conquer bordering territories out to the point where they control various geographical “choke points” (e.g. The Baltics, the Vistula in Poland, the Bessarabian Gap in Romania, the Crimea etc.)
Positioning the Russian military at these choke points ensures the survival of Russia proper.
Ukraine has many resources (serious oil newly discovered in the Sea of Azov and “breadbasket of Europe” etc) but even more importantly Ukraine is on the way to two choke points. Heck, Putin in 2007 mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union (because they lost control of all nine choke points.
SO this war was always going to happen.
Russia quite understandably regards this war as an existential requirement which suggests that even if Putin falls out of a window this war will continue.
There it is Elizabeth Miller — I bleeping distilled that video for ya. In hopes you’ll offer more feedback and dissent than simply saying, “Yeah I watched it.”
AGAIN, what am I wrong about?
Okay, so what happens if I disagree with the assertions you make here regarding the war in Ukraine OR make my own assertions without saying that you're wrong about anything?
I'll tell ya what happens. You call me a Putin apologist and tell me to stop spewing Russian propaganda and otherwise insult my intelligence and imply that I don't have more than one brain cell.
Sorry, not into that, anymore.
Elizabeth Miller
22
I'll tell ya what happens. You call me a Putin apologist and tell me to stop spewing Russian propaganda and otherwise insult my intelligence and imply that I don't have more than one brain cell.
You forgot "appeaser" because that shoe definitely fits.
Sorry, not into that, anymore.
You appear to be very much "into that" since you apparently cannot stop yourself from repeatedly inferring that you're the only one here who cares about Ukraine. So I have a solution for you. If you don't want to hear our opinions of your opinions, you might consider the sentiments and solutions of the following poster and actually follow them:
Stop hijacking the headlining pieces (your term). If someone else chooses to do it and you choose to offer your opinion, don't whine if your opinion is met with another opinion.
In conclusion, Canada hasn't near done enough for Ukraine, and I don't believe there's a Canadian who actually cares anyway.
Stop hijacking the headlining pieces (your term). If someone else chooses to do it and you choose to offer your opinion, don't whine if your opinion is met with another opinion.
There you go, again, Kick.
I would LOVE it if, after offering my opinion, someone would meet it with another opinion without resorting to juvenile antics. But, alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards, around here. :(
Oh, and I borrowed that hijacking term from none other than our friend ... er, your friend, Joshua, so I can't claim it as my own. Ahem.
i'm everybody's friend here, well-informed and stubbornly ignorant alike.
as caddy so eloquently put it, the average weigantian IQ is certainly much higher than the average Joe. if it weren't, entrenched opinions that are impervious to rational argument probably wouldn't be so frustrating.
i'm everybody's friend here, well-informed and stubbornly ignorant alike.
Oh, that was very nicely done!
the average weigantian IQ is certainly much higher than the average Joe. if it weren't, entrenched opinions that are impervious to rational argument probably wouldn't be so frustrating.
Entrenched opinions, even if they are impervious to rational argument or blind to reality, aren't as frustrating as having your opinions purposefully misinterpreted and extrapolated beyond all original intent and meaning as mine have been on the issues around the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Though, I do understand that passions are running high here with regard to both wars and the fact that they are not going very well only add to the frustration.
It's probably a good thing that Chris doesn't write about the states of war - there would surely be more heat than light in response.
LizM --
I haven't seen your take on the Zeihan video. What did you say about it? I've seen a bunch of Zeihan videos but I don't think this particular one was among them. Vlad Vexler seems better informed.
Et tu, Brute ...er, Dan?
Heh. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :-)
Oh, man ... let me take a second look at it and get back to you, okay? Dinner first, though.
Elizabeth Miller
24
There you go, again, Kick.
I cannot tell a lie; I did chop down that cherry tree.
I would LOVE it if, after offering my opinion, someone would meet it with another opinion without resorting to juvenile antics.
Oh, I beg to differ. Your opinion has been met with hundreds of other opinions that didn't come near to approaching "juvenile antics" and your responses to those opinions being generally met with "nobody cares about this but me." (yawn) So I met your latest rebuttal opinion with another one of your own opinions, quoted practically in its entirety. If you'd like to characterize your own opinion as "juvenile antics," my response to that is: You're making my point for me.
But, alas, that doesn't seem to be in the cards, around here. :(
Keep continually pissing all over America and Americans and inferring repetitively you're the only on this blog who actually cares, and take a guess which cards you'll get dealt.
Oh, and I borrowed that hijacking term from none other than our friend ... er, your friend, Joshua, so I can't claim it as my own. Ahem.
Well, it is a dead-on-balls-accurate description of what you are doing regardless from which Einstein it came. You were quite correct to borrow it in your opinion you subsequently described as "juvenile antics."
Anyway, I had this idea that if my opinion was a borrowed quote of your very own and infinitely similar to your own oft repeated comments that you would have no choice but see the wisdom contained therein. Alas, they have obviously been met with (quite literally) "juvenile" name-calling.
In conclusion: What exactly has Canada done for Ukraine? Am I the only one here who cares? Nobody in Canada seems to give a flying duck. :)
Dan,
First off, I've just watched this one video of Peter Zeihan and the guy just rubs me the wrong way. Of course, he can't get into too much detail in a five-minute Youtube video but, still, what he glosses over is a lot.
His first observation about Ukraine being led by Nazis being ridiculous is pretty much on point. I'm not sure how Putin keeps a straight face when uttering his wildly exaggerated claims about the denazification of Ukraine but, that is not to say that Ukraine didn't and doesn't still have a problem with extreme right-wing nationalists embedded in official government structures - such as the Azov Regiment - that it will have to deal with before integrating into the EU.
Then he talks about how the argument that the US and NATO expansion are to blame for the situation Ukraine finds itself in being, in a word, BS. While that assertion leaves out a lot of history, when it comes right down to it, if you wish to lay blame and fault here, Russia and its misguided leader are the responsible parties.
He goes on to talk about the process of becoming a NATO member and that the US doesn't have sole control over what country can join the alliance. What he says here is also pretty much on point, though he leaves out a very important factor. Which is to say that while each sovereign nation makes its own decision about whether to apply for NATO membership, NATO itself also has its own strategic interest to consider and every right to decide against inviting a country to become a member.
He then lists all of the countries who have joined NATO or have expressed an interest in doing so since the end of the cold war and lumps Ukraine in with Finland and all the rest of them. He fails to say one word about the unique historical relationship Ukraine has had with Russia as part of the USSR and since its dissolution, not to mention the history of how the US, in particular and NATO, in general, have dealt with all of that. His rant leaves out a lot of pertinent history.
The above is an expanded version of my initial take. Oh, yeah, after my first viewing, I said something to the effect that I thought he sounded like a guy who would wish to impose his will upon women and their reproductive rights. That was just my general impression of him and his overall presentation and wild woodsy background. Admittedly, it was an outrageous assertion on my part and, truth be known, I was just having a little fun with Caddy after having just engaged in some comments related to abortion rights.
Now, aside from my take on the Zeihan video, my only real assertion during this latest episode of Russian aggression in Ukraine has to do with my disappointment in how Biden has handled the entire affair, dating back decades but primarily in the lead up to this war. He made a public statement that Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO was off the negotiating table in the months before the invasion and, in so doing, made sure we would never find out if the invasion could have been prevented if Ukraine's neutrality had been up for negotiation, as even Zelensky was willing to do, early on. That is my opinion. Others here fervently believe that Ukraine's potential membership in NATO was neither here nor there insofar as Putin's intentions were concerned and they could be right about that. All I have been saying is that Biden, surprisingly to me, at least, made sure we would never find out.
nypoet22
26
as caddy so eloquently put it, the average weigantian IQ is certainly much higher than the average Joe. if it weren't, entrenched opinions that are impervious to rational argument probably wouldn't be so frustrating.
The poet/Einstein and Caddy are correct, and I third that and reiterate:
Anyone who keeps insisting to the intelligent citizens of Weigantia that "2+2=5" should prepare themselves to be mightily frustrated. :)
You're making my point for me.
You are, indeed. ;)
Elizabeth Miller
28
Entrenched opinions, even if they are impervious to rational argument or blind to reality, aren't as frustrating as having your opinions purposefully misinterpreted and extrapolated beyond all original intent and meaning as mine have been on the issues around the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
This sounds quite similar to Trump over on Earth 2; his worldview isn't complicated either. Somebody should seriously tell that guy to stop whining about the temperature in the courtroom of which he has zero control.
Though, I do understand that passions are running high here with regard to both wars and the fact that they are not going very well only add to the frustration.
I won't presume to speak for everyone (like you just did), but -- for the record -- I have no passions or frustrations "running high" or otherwise.
It's probably a good thing that Chris doesn't write about the states of war - there would surely be more heat than light in response.
If you're looking for prattling on and on about the state of wars being fought globally and feelings about them, you're definitely in the wrong place... unless somebody refuses to stop hijacking the headlining pieces like they claimed they would. :)
Elizabeth Miller
32
[Biden] made a public statement that Ukraine's eventual membership in NATO was off the negotiating table in the months before the invasion and, in so doing, made sure we would never find out if the invasion could have been prevented if Ukraine's neutrality had been up for negotiation, as even Zelensky was willing to do, early on. That is my opinion.
You're dang right that is your opinion because it definitely doesn't represent the actual facts of the matter.
... it definitely doesn't represent the actual facts of the matter.
How so?
Cannot believe we have to keep explaining this, but the "invasion" of Ukraine by Russia didn't remotely begin in 2012, and your repetitive characterization that Biden could somehow have prevented that by not having made a public statement is comical since that ship had long since sailed.
Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2012; I have no reason to fabricate the facts of the matter, the events of which it would do anyone who doesn't understand this some good to research and educate themselves, but I digress.
Fast forward to July 2021, when Vladimir Putin published an essay titled (translated): "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians." In his essay, Putin reasserts his view that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people." Reader's Digest condensed version: Imperialism and loads of revisionist history bullshit.
Months later, Dmitry Medvedev, published an article (endorsed by the Kremlin) in the daily Kommersant that was laden with antisemitic verbiage wherein he agrees with Putin's essay and declares that until the Ukrainian government is replaced, there will be no negotiations with Ukraine.
Putin's personal adviser, Vladislav Surkov, also published an article on the website Aktualnye Kommentarii regarding Ukraine and multiple other former USSR territories wherein he questions the legitimacy of Russia's western borders, including those of Ukraine and each of the Baltic states and arguing that Russia should abolish the "wicked peace" of the borders that keep Russia confined.
On February 21, 2022, Putin attempts to rewrite history and states (translated) that "modern Ukraine was wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia." In point of fact, Lenin started a war with independent Ukraine in 1918 and replaced it with the "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" that became part of the USSR four years later in 1922, and also in fact, Boris Yeltsin removed the Lenin-created entity from the USSR in 1991 which contributed mightily to its own collapse. For Putin to attempt to do a rewrite/reclaim of Ukraine 100 years later seems like the preplanned stuff that dreams and history books are made of... whether absolute propaganda or not, but I digress.
On February 26, 2022 (two days after Russia further escalated their invasion of Ukraine), an article titled (translated) "The Advance of Russia and of a New World" by Petr Akopov was published by several Russian state news sites including state-owned RIA Novosti but was soon deleted. The article celebrated (translation): "Ukraine has returned to Russia" and condemned "Anglo-Saxons who rule the West" for "attempting to steal Russian land" and claimed that Putin's launch of the invasion resolved the "Ukrainian question" to establish a "new world order" with "Russia, Belarus and Ukraine" blah, blah, blah, "gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together—in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians." Victorious Russia. Oops. Delete. Delete. Delete. Pre-planned, pre-ordained "history" obviously celebrated quite prematurely. Convince me otherwise.
And now, questions to ponder:
Q: What year did Ukraine receive a Membership Action Plan (a prerequisite for membership) from NATO?
A: Never. (yes, trick question)
Q: So how much closer to joining NATO was Ukraine in 2022 than in 2008?
A: It's debatable but not really even close.
Q: So for what actual reason was Putin motivated to escalate Russian aggression since the "threat" of Ukraine joining NATO was nowhere near to happening?
A: Might want to (definitely) read Putin's essay and the articles of others in Russian media circulating before and around the time of Russia's escalation.
Q: But you can't actually read that "Putin's historic victory" article that had to be deleted, right?
A: Yes, you definitely can because it's archived. Translate it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html
Q: Didn't Zelensky offer to renounce NATO before the escalation of the invasion?
A: Yes. Zelensky isn't exactly the pawn of the West he's been made out to be. Dmitry Kozak conveyed Zelensky's proposal to Putin, who in rejecting it stated that Russia's goals had expanded to annexing Ukrainian territory.
Q: Could Zelensky unilaterally agree to NATO neutrality?
A: No. An amendment to Ukraine's constitution dated February 19, 2019, states unequivocally its determination to join NATO, and even if Zelensky was eager to agree to give up Crimea (and any other parts of Ukraine), he had no such authority. Article 73 of Ukraine's constitution states: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum."
Much of what I've posted you've obviously already definitely been told by others on this blog. You can continue to ignore the facts you've been provided multiple times in favor of the prattling nonsensical conspiracy bullshit or educate yourself, FFS.
Kick,
You will indubitably be surprised to learn that I have never disputed/argued with much of what you write here in any of my comments about the war in Ukraine on this blog site.
Of course, that is not to say that you paint the whole picture here and that you leave out a lot of history, much like the vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan.
But, you still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily refused to entertain the neutrality of Ukraine. We will never know what might have happened or if anything would have unfolded differently.
Now, take a good look at what has happened in Ukraine - and in Russia, for that matter - since this war began. It's not a pretty picture, as far as Ukraine is concerned, even if you think as I do that Ukraine has already won this war by preventing Putin from taking control of the whole country.
Things are not going well for Ukraine and they are getting worse. How long must the people of Ukraine suffer and how much of Ukraine's territory must be lost to Russia before it comes to a negotiated settlement?
Or, are you still under the illusion that Ukraine can win this war, outright?
Let me rephrase that third paragraph, just to be crystal clear about the only assertion I have made about this war:
You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded. We will never know what might have happened or, indeed, if anything would have unfolded differently if he hadn't been so dismissive at such a critical time.
And, THAT is all I have been saying - nothing more or less.
Now, I think our time would be better spent on a discussion of what is happening today in Ukraine rather than on what might have been, a discussion that really should have been over on the first day of the invasion.
Oh, and one last thing ... I still believe that Ukraine's membership in NATO has always been and continues to be a bad idea, for all concerned.
And, Sweden and Finland in NATO is a great idea, made so by Putin, himself!
^^^^^ EDITS TO [38] ^^^^^
Cannot believe we have to keep explaining this, but the "invasion" of Ukraine by Russia didn't remotely begin in 2022...
Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2022...
________________________
Okay, I meant 2022 when I said 2012; I have voice recognition software, and I misspoke the year.
[NOTE TO SELF: Coffee before comments.]
And I have more questions to ponder:
Q: Didn't Russia sign the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 stating they'd recognize Ukraine's borders and not use force to undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine?
A: Duh.
Q: Then in 2014, didn't Vladimir Putin annex Crimea following an illegal referendum?
A: Duh.
Q: And before the 2022 escalation, didn't Putin recognize the independence of the Donbas enclaves, begging more questions:
Why wouldn't Putin/Moscow pocket any type of concessions in 2022 and then later "lather, rinse, repeat"?
Would more of those written assurances, commitments, and/or guarantees from Russia be worth the paper on which it was set forth or would it be more valuable fashioned into a paper airplane?
"But, you still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily refused to entertain the neutrality of Ukraine. We will never know what might have happened or if anything would have unfolded differently."
This is an argument from ignorance. literally, that's what the entire class of fallacy is called.
Elizabeth Miller
39
You will indubitably be surprised to learn that I have never disputed/argued with much of what you write here in any of my comments about the war in Ukraine on this blog site.
No, I would not, and I would wager no one else on this blog would either. More likely than that would be one (or more) of us pointing out exactly where you've argued exactly what you're now claiming you've "never disputed/argued" because this blog is archived.
Of course, that is not to say that you paint the whole picture here and that you leave out a lot of history, much like the vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan.
Between you and I and the "vaunted Mr. Peter Zeihan," neither Peter or I would win the prize for failing to paint the actual history.
But, you still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily refused to entertain the neutrality of Ukraine.
That is a myth that never happened; it is literally Russian propaganda coming straight out of the Kremlin... lather, rinse, repeat... ad nauseam. You are conflating one thing with another.
We will never know what might have happened or if anything would have unfolded differently.
Speak for yourself. We obviously know what unfolded, and we obviously know the history. We also clearly know how to connect the obvious dots. If you cannot or will not, do not whine if people disagree with your oft repeated opinion based on false equivalency propaganda bullshit.
Now, take a good look at what has happened in Ukraine - and in Russia, for that matter - since this war began. It's not a pretty picture, as far as Ukraine is concerned, even if you think as I do that Ukraine has already won this war by preventing Putin from taking control of the whole country.
Give it up, Elizabeth. I don't even have to read what follows. Ukraine will go from "already won this war" to "losing this war"... and in whiplash fashion.
Things are not going well for Ukraine and they are getting worse.
Except Ukraine has "already won this war" (quoting you, not myself). Oh, FFS... pick a lane.
How long must the people of Ukraine suffer and how much of Ukraine's territory must be lost to Russia before it comes to a negotiated settlement?
As long as Russia keeps attacking Ukraine despite written assurances to the contrary. If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. If that's not a good enough answer for you, you should call the Kremlin and ask for "okurok" (cigarette butt) and ask him when he plans to stop the invasion... just don't expect a factual response from Vlad the Impaler.
Or, are you still under the illusion that Ukraine can win this war, outright?
When did you stop beating your wife!? *laughs* Your projection is side-splitting comedy. Who was it who very recently claimed that Ukraine has "already won this war"? Check your mirror for the person "under the illusion."
I reiterate: Appeasement is a policy of granting concessions to an aggressive foreign power and causes more death... not less.
Elizabeth Miller
40
Let me rephrase that third paragraph, just to be crystal clear about the only assertion I have made about this war:
Okay, without even having read it, that puny paragraph there is not remotely the "only assertion" you have made about "this war"... and far from it.
You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded.
Incorrect. Can you not grasp the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine long before 2022? And that Ukraine was officially neutral at that time in 2014 when Russia actually did invade (and not for the first time)? What part of the Russian invasion in 2014 do you not understand caused Ukraine to become more resolved that joining the NATO alliance (that has an open-door policy since inception) would be the best way to safeguard against further Russian aggression? Rhetorical questions.
So fast forward from the 2014 invasion of a neutral Ukraine to the 2021 amassing of 100,000+ troops on Ukraine's border, and the United States and NATO rejected Putin's demands that they guarantee Ukraine won't be admitted to the Western military alliance (among multiple many other demands) because NATO has always had an open-door policy.
You are simply conflating one thing with another.
We will never know what might have happened or, indeed, if anything would have unfolded differently if he hadn't been so dismissive at such a critical time.
Bollocks.
And, THAT is all I have been saying - nothing more or less.
This blog is archived. You have said a lot more and certainly not less by any stretch of the imagination and no amount of backpedalling will ever change that fact.
Now, I think our time would be better spent on a discussion of what is happening today in Ukraine rather than on what might have been, a discussion that really should have been over on the first day of the invasion.
The first day of the invasion wasn't recently, and mercifully, we haven't been discussing this since 2014 when Putin's man in Russia was run out of Ukraine by Ukrainians, which led to Russia's invasion of a neutral Ukraine despite all written assurances to the contrary.
And I definitely know a lot better how my time should be spent, and it would really be great if rather than anyone discussing "what is happening today in Ukraine," if you could cease and desist in imitating Russia circa 2014 and actually keep your written assurance to Weigantia, to wit:
How long must the people of Weigantia suffer and how much of the bandwidth must be lost to hijacking before it comes to a merciful end? :)
Good God, Kick ... that sure is a lot of words wasted on an idiot!
you're no idiot, elizabeth.
Oh, there are worse things to be ... thanks for showing some restraint. Heh.
Elizabeth Miller
48
Good God, Kick ... that sure is a lot of words wasted on an idiot!
Sometimes I have a lot on my mind. If I thought you were an "idiot," I would have kept every word of it to myself.
It appears to me that our impasse on this subject can be summarized as this:
* Russia, who made written agreement to protect Ukraine's borders, did exactly the opposite in 2014 when Ukrainians ran out Putin's puppet in Kiev.
* Russia in 2021 began further amassing 100,000+ troops along Ukraine's border with the absolute intent to escalate the invasion deeper into Ukraine while insisting to the entire world no such intent.
* Still denying intention to invade, Russia proffered a list of demands among which they insisted that the United States and NATO pledge to bar entry into the alliance to Ukraine and Georgia or any ex-Soviet states (forever). Since inception in April 1949, the NATO alliance has had an open door policy which does not allow any other country not in NATO to dictate who may be admitted.
* The United States and NATO (30 countries at that time, 32 currently) rejected Putin's demands (among others) that they bar entry to other nations, including Ukraine, and you are simply conflating that fact with:
Those are two entirely different things. Ukraine (or any country) is free to negotiate terms with Russia (or any country) and free to remain neutral like Norway and Sweden had decided up until recently. NATO continues to have an open door policy.
What is non-negotiable is NATO's open door policy. Ukraine -- Georgia, Norway, Sweden, etc. -- were obviously always free to choose to remain neutral.
Kick,
My bottom line is simply this ... Ukraine inside the fold of NATO is not and never has been a good idea.
After more than two years of this latest Russian aggression and essentially stalemated war, I surmise that Ukrainians may have become more open to the notion that closer ties with the EU but neutrality with regard to the Western military alliance - and all that that entails - is the best path toward a more secure, sovereign and democratic Ukraine.
Now, you are free to go ahead and misquote or misinterpret or misunderstand or worse this simply stated comment as you are so wont to do. ;)
Finally, we are all well aware of the process that must be followed by countries wishing to join NATO. That process includes the right of the organization as a whole to deny admission.
Elizabeth Miller
51
My bottom line is simply this ... Ukraine inside the fold of NATO is not and never has been a good idea.
If you ever wonder why anyone here would describe your comments as coming directly from the Kremlin, all you need do is read this one. I'll take "Things Vladimir Putin Has Said" for $1,000, Alex.
After more than two years of this latest Russian aggression and essentially stalemated war, I surmise that Ukrainians may have become more open to the notion that closer ties with the EU but neutrality with regard to the Western military alliance - and all that that entails - is the best path toward a more secure, sovereign and democratic Ukraine.
There are statistics gathered from polling: https://tinyurl.com/2pdztdcp
The majority of Ukrainians do not want to negotiate with Russia.
Now, you are free to go ahead and misquote or misinterpret or misunderstand or worse this simply stated comment as you are so wont to do. ;)
I don't desire or require a permission structure to interpret anyone's comments, and I don't generally misquote anyone either.
I don't misquote people unless by accident
Elizabeth Miller
52
Finally, we are all well aware of the process that must be followed by countries wishing to join NATO.
It appears you believe "we are all well aware," but it seems to me if you were actually well aware, then you wouldn't keep blaming President Biden repeatedly.
That process includes the right of the organization as a whole to deny admission.
"As a whole"? All NATO decisions are made by consensus among members and no other countries. Ukraine requested a NATO membership action plan (MAP) in 2008, and the alliance's member nations at that time did not agree by consensus to enter Ukraine into the alliance but did declare that Ukraine "will become" a member.
Elizabeth exactly WHY is having Ukraine in NATO is a bad idea?
For the record, again, I have never blamed Biden for the war in Ukraine. In fact, I don't play the blame game, as a general rule.
And, while it may be hard for some here to admit, NATO has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will.
Elizabeth Miller
56
For the record, again, I have never blamed Biden for the war in Ukraine.
Also for the record -- to state the obviously quite obvious -- what I said in [54] was "you keep blaming Biden repeatedly." What I definitely didn't say was you "blamed Biden for the war in Ukraine." My actual factual point was that you keep blaming Biden for some apparent language he used that, according to you, had he not used it may have led to some kind of different outcome wherein war may have been averted, to wit:
That was a direct quote from this very commentary, and you've been throwing out that accusation against Biden repeatedly on this forum for over two (2) years to date. Yes, you are repeatedly blaming Biden.
At this point, could you please post a quote of what Biden said that has you prattling on and on repeatedly blaming Biden? Seriously, please quote Biden's words.
In fact, I don't play the blame game, as a general rule.
Bollocks. You continually keep blaming President Biden (see above), and more increasingly you're blaming others on this forum for "misquoting" you, which I haven't seen anybody actually doing that.
Elizabeth Miller
56
And, while it may be hard for some here to admit, NATO has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will.
If NATO "has never seriously entertained the proposition of admitting Ukraine as a member and it likely never will" (quoting you with bold emphasis on never and never), then I have some thought-provoking questions for you:
* Why on Earth would anything Biden said about Ukraine and NATO admission being "non-negotiable" (your term) put your knickers in such a twist for over two years running if it was never and never going to ever happen?
* Why on Earth would Putin invade Ukraine (not for the first time) if NATO on their western border was never and never going to ever happen?
You're now perilously close to figuring out what we've been explaining to you for over two years (despite all your protestations and repetitive objections to the contrary) that the NATO issue was just a pretext for (more) war.
Also:
So, to recap: It's a good general rule to:
* Never say never.
* Never say never/never.
Kick,
You still cannot say with any authority what would have happened if president [sic] Biden had not summarily stated that Ukraine's membership in NATO was non-negotiable as he most certainly did during the weeks of diplomatic maneuvering before Russia invaded.
~ Elizabeth Miller
Nowhere in this quote do I blame Biden for anything. I have never blamed Biden. I don't play the blame game.
Those who do quite frequently play the blame game see blame in every comment. I think that is what's called ... wait for it ... projection!
Kick,
Why on Earth would anything Biden said about Ukraine and NATO admission being "non-negotiable" (your term) put your knickers in such a twist for over two years running if it was never and never going to ever happen?
I have always been quite clear about this. It is this duplicitous behavior by those who purport to support Ukraine's membership in NATO and talk about the prospects almost as a fait accompli, knowing that the reality of Ukraine in NATO is anything but, protestations to the contrary by the secretary general of NATO and others, notwithstanding.
Why on Earth would Putin invade Ukraine (not for the first time) if NATO on their western border was never and never going to ever happen?
It that a rhetorical question? Heh. Do let me know if there is anything more I can answer to assist in your understanding of realpolitik ... and me! :)
Elizabeth Miller
59
Nowhere in this quote do I blame Biden for anything. I have never blamed Biden. I don't play the blame game.
Again with "never." Well, we both know that's incorrect.
So you need "blame" explained to you? Here, let me help you by rubbing your nose in it and explaining the definition of blame: "he most certainly did." (direct quote from that paragraph you claimed wasn't blaming Biden).
Those who do quite frequently play the blame game see blame in every comment.
This is (again) a strawman argument and absolutely ridiculous. Obviously, no one here sees blame in "every comment," but your pathetic strawman argument is (again) duly noted. Epic fail.
However, you should allow yourself to own the fact that you actually do play the "blame game" in more ways than one: by claiming commenters here are misquoting you (nope) and that Biden/United States is not doing enough for [fill in blank] with various assorted issues, and you've been doing it for many, many years now regarding many numerous issues, up to and including accusing persons of being sexually repressed and therefore incapable of discussing such issues.
You've been doing it for years now; you could at least own it. :)
Elizabeth Miller
60
I have always been quite clear about this. It is this duplicitous behavior by those who purport to support Ukraine's membership in NATO and talk about the prospects almost as a fait accompli, knowing that the reality of Ukraine in NATO is anything but, protestations to the contrary by the secretary general of NATO and others, notwithstanding.
So you've always been quite clear about blaming Biden and NATO for "duplicitous behavior," even while claiming to not be blaming. Interesting.
It that a rhetorical question? Heh.
No, as I already explained, it was a "thought-provoking question." Allow yourself to respond.
Do let me know if there is anything more I can answer to assist in your understanding of realpolitik ... and me! :)
Like I need your permission. Heh. You could start by answering the "thought-provoking question" instead of avoiding the facts. You could also allow yourself to stop denying you do a lot of blaming on this forum; just own it.
Why are you so obsessed with the blame game. It's never been very productive, not to mention tedious. Oh, wait ...
Elizabeth Miller
63
Why are you so obsessed with the blame game.
"Obsessed"? Nope. I'm simply responding to your laughable implausible denials. It wasn't me who insisted, despite all evidence to the contrary, "I don't play the blame game"... that was definitely you.
I'm simply the one pointing and laughing at the obvious either:
(a) total lack of self-awareness, or
(b) outright blatant fabrication on an archived forum.
It's never been very productive, not to mention tedious. Oh, wait ...
Yes, your blaming has frequently "never been very productive" and is most definitely "tedious."
Good talk. :)
Good talk? Hardly.
Here is some free advice for the taking - spend less time on tedious responses to me and more time on engaging with other commenters here who actually appreciate your tactics.
Elizabeth Miller
65
Here is some free advice for the taking - spend less time on tedious responses to me and more time on engaging with other commenters here who actually appreciate your tactics.
Here is some free advice for you too:
* You frequently play the "blame game" on this forum, and I can easily prove it because this forum is archived.
* You do not (and never will) control me, my time, my responses, or highly likely any other poster on this forum for that matter, and you should seriously allow yourself to (finally) accept that fact for what it is.
Great talk. :)
I can easily prove it because this forum is archived.
Go ahead!
You know, this is rather amusing in that you telling me that I play the blame game is just like Trump telling everyone that they're guilty of election interference.
Can we say projection? ;)