171 thoughts on “Washington Is Prolonging Ukraine’s Suffering

    1. RE: “Russia has no ‘legitimate security interests’ that justify their naked aggression.”

      It doesn’t matter what you say. Russia obviously believes it does have such interests, and has gone to war to address them.

      Like

          1. What alternate universe are you talking about? I posted a source article. If you can dispute anything in it, go ahead any try. Otherwise, you’re just talking trash that is unworthy of this forum.

            Like

          2. The one you and your sources live in. I have spent more time on this forum looking at and calling out your “credible sources” then I have in posting solid stories and information (that you always attempt to denigrate).

            You and your pro-Putin sources are what I called them: FERTILIZER!

            Liked by 2 people

      1. “It doesn’t matter if you think Russia has “legitimate security interests” or not. Russia thinks it does.”

        Sure, they say they do. Nice smoke screen for aggression. But, the point here is that anyone who buys their bullshit – as Douglas Macgregor does – is not a credible analyst.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “Tell us how Douglas MacGregor — decorated American war hero and advisor to presidents — is not a credible analyst.”

            I already did. He buys and then uncritically passes on fascist propaganda. He has been carrying water for Putin for years.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I will make not claims about being credible but at least I do not daily carry water for America’s enemies, denigrate our country, spread silly lies, nor express my admiration and support for fascist tyrants, con men, and grifters.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. “Putin has a 75% approval rating in Russia.”

            Then the people of Russia are culpable as well. But I don’t actually accept that it is possible to do objective polling in a fascist police state. Too may tall buildings with windows.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “But Russia will act on its perception of its interest, not yours.”

            Yes, I am sure you got that one right. But, the point we are discussing is OUR policy. We should not act on the basis of there being ANYTHING legitimate about fascist aggression. OUR interests are best served by the defeat of fascism and the preservation of a world order based on respect for the law.

            Liked by 2 people

  1. A better analogy to Vietnam is that Russia is doing what we tried. To strong arm a win against an entrenched people defending their homeland.

    I think the Ukrainians would suffer terribly under the despotic thumb of Russia. The hatred is deep and historical. With that premise in mind, surrender is probably not an option.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. RE: “A better analogy to Vietnam is that Russia is doing what we tried.”

      I don’t see it. The issue isn’t Russia’s invasion. It is the current moment in which the U.S. continues to pledge support to a nearly defeated ally.

      Like

      1. The issue isn’t Russian invasion?

        Without that invasion, starting in 2014, there would not be a problem. Russians would be home carry grocery bags instead of coming home in body bags. Ukrainians would be going about their business.

        Recall what the DOD Secretary Rumsfeld said. We could take control with minimal troops and be met with flowers and Iraqi oil would foot the bill. Some generals said we needed 3-4 times as many to occupy. We got beat up after the “mission accomplished “ so that we needed a surge.

        At this point the Russians haven’t even taken the country yet.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. “Russia’s entire military budget is $65 billion.”

      Yep, a pipsqueak country playing out of their league. And a very significant portion of that budget is disappearing in graft. No wonder Ukraine – with NATO’s help – is breaking them.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. RE: “Russia’s entire military budget is $65billion.”

      It is not just the money. There is no sign Russia is experiencing any military supply chain or production problems. Ukraine, in contrast, can’t fight without NATO support, but U.S. and European supply chains and production can’t keep up.

      Like

          1. Here is a fact for you : Russia IS experiencing military supply chain and production problems. They are running out of tanks, modern munitions, missiles, and trained soldiers. They have been reduced to going hat in hand to Iran and North Korea because they cannot produce what they need themselves.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Funny how Russia INVADES Ukraine and it is Washington that is prolonging the suffering. Why is it pro-Putin lackeys insist that Putin holds ZERO responsibility for the invasion he ORDERED, starting in 2014.

    The suffering felt by Ukraine under Kremlin control will be much worse.,

    Liked by 2 people

      1. You really are gullible for fascist propaganda aren’t you?

        Nobody “started murdering” Russian speaking Ukrainians. Ukraine fought back against Russia aggression that came in the form of local anti-government militias, Russian troops out of uniform, and murderous mercenaries. People of all language groups have died as a result of this aggression going back to 2014. These are the facts. You can check them.

        And, if you do your research as if you cared about the facts you will learn that Donbas had NEVER been majority Russian in spite of Soviet efforts to colonize it with Russians.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. The facts are that the Ukrainian ultra nationalists violated the 3014 Minsk and 2016 Minsk II agreements and resumed shelling the Donbass cities.

          Ukraine had agreed to the self government of the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts but claimed it could do nothing to restrain the neo Nazi militias.

          Russia restrained them.

          Like

          1. It is not just in error, it is nonsense. Ukraine never gave up its sovereignty over Donbas. And Russia never kept its side of the bargain. Thousands of Russian soldiers and Wagner mercenaries died trying to take Donbas for Russia. They had no legitimate reason to be there. Any shelling that may have occurred was part of the ongoing civil war instigated and prosecuted by Russia.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “The facts are that the Ukrainian ultra nationalists violated”..

            They are not, nor were they, the Ukrainian government.

            Why do you hate Democracy so much, unless you get what YOU want? Why do you think you are so damned high and mighty, you claim the Ukraine is the aggressor when they have been invaded by its ruinous neighbor?

            Russia didn’t restrain ONLY the neo-Nazis. They are attempting to wipe out the entire country. When that is done in other places it is called GENOCIDE. And we should just sit idly by and do nothing. Because Don and John say so.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. The KKK is not the US government.

            So, is it OK if the US government stood aside while they shot up and burned Jewish neighborhoods?

            Neither Zelensky nor his predecessors did anything to restrain Ukraine’s Nazis.

            Russia stated its terms from the beginning, stay out of NATO and let the Crimea and eastern Oblasts which wanted independence go in peace. Ukraine chose to make it a nationwide war.

            Like

          4. Your analogies are, in a word, IDIOTIC.

            Russia’s stated terms are demands on a foreign neighbor are BUPKIS.

            Crimea and the Donbas were INVADED and taken over by Russia and then they made the demands. The Russia went ahead and invaded the ENTRIE F’ING country.

            You call yourself a lover of liberty. Yet only for me and not for thee.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Or possibly not a warmonger?

            Putin said there need be no invasion if those conditions were met, and said the action would end immediately if they were met early on.

            Are you claiming that after making those overtures, he would have invaded anyway had Ukraine comolied?

            Like

          6. “Ukraine chose to make it a nationwide war.”

            How is it with all your blather about tyranny and standing up against it you end up on the side of the war criminal fascist invader? The war is all Ukraine’s doing since they would not surrender their land, people and their sovereignty to the tender mercies of V. Putin. Yeah, sure.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Actually, Putin did not ask for the Oblasts to become part of Russia. He asked for their independence to be respected.

            It’s not Ukraine’s land, it’s the land of the people who live there.

            Like

          8. “He asked for their independence to be respected.”

            What part of Donbas has NEVER been majority ethnic Russian escapes your stable genius? And, it is worth remembering that both these Ukraine provinces have been annexed by Russia. The so-called “independence” was never anything but a way station on the road to Moscow’s rule.

            “It’s not Ukraine’s land, it’s the land of the people who live there.”
            That is NOT how international law and treaties to which Russia is a party see it. But since you hate our country so much, why don’t you declare the independence of your compound?

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “The fact remains that early on, that would have sufficed . . .”

            I will stipulate that if every demand of the fascist thug had been met, then – maybe – war could have been averted. Until the next land grab in Ukraine or elsewhere. Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Romania, etc. can read the handwriting on the wall even if you are blind.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “So, we should fight till the last Ukrainian because of what you think Russia MIGHT do later on.”

            Unlike you, I have never opined about what Ukraine should do. What I have said, and I will say it again, if they ask for our help we should give it. This is a war of democracy versus fascism. I am on the side of democracy. You are rooting for fascism. That could not be more clear.

            I do not expect you to change but I will continue to throw the bullshit flag on you parroted Russian propaganda.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “No, it’s a war between fascists. or at the least, corrupt thugs.”

            Oh, so Zelensky is corrupt now? In cahoots with Hunter Biden no doubt.

            I have tried to help you, but you still do not get the message. Repeating utter stupidities does not make them true. It only reinforces the fact that you have become a full-time fascist apologist. It is not a good look.

            What is it about Putin that you like so much? The way he murders his opponents and silences dissent? His multiple war crimes? His standing up for white European civilization against all those marauding Muslims and other brown people? What makes you so enthralled with this monster?

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “Still want to say Ukraine is not corrupt?”

            You said Zelensky was corrupt. You think he is selling weapons in Chad? I will bet a dollar against a donut that you have no idea what weapons you are talking about and no idea how they got to Chad. Who sold them? Were they Russian or Ukrainian. Or maybe the Wagner group?

            Or did it even happen?

            https://www.polygraph.info/a/fact-check-buhari-claim-ukraine-war-feeds-arms-to-west-africa/6863147.html

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “We” are not fighting. WE are supporting a liberal democracy fighting for its survival. And it is up to the Ukrainians to decide. Not Don Tabor or John Roberts, sitting in their very comfortable homes, enjoying a peaceful holiday season with whomever they choose to spend it with. ANn not under the threat of missiles, bombs or suicide dromes.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. …”after this much harm has been done.”

            And who exactly caused this harm? Is it President Zelensky, protecting the sovereignty of his country and the freedom of its people? Or Putin who launched an illegal and immoral invasion of his neighbor? And PELASE do not repeat your old saw about “no good guys here”. It is tiresome BS that any freedom loving individual would see through as pro-Putin (or at a minimum NOT anti-Putin) rhetoric.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. “Ukraine chose to make it a nationwide war.”

            Idiotic commentary. How did they choose a “nationwide war” when they were INVADED by Russian forcess?

            You are just so hateful of anything that does not comport to your own word view that you cannot see that there is ONE BAD GUY here. And his name is PUTIN. Yet, just like with Trump, you dig around to find ANY and EVER UNREASONABLE excuse to give him a pass for his illegal and immoral invasion of a neighboring country.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Amazing how a world leader with the status of V. Putin can’t match PR with a former TV actor. Nor is his army a great fighting force, but just a bunch of criminal sheep doing hte bidding of their master.

            It is also amazing that you are more supportive of the bad PR from Russia than you are of a democratically elected leader, defending the freedom of his country and his people from an authoritarian despot set on wiping out the people of Ukraine.

            Screw that!

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “Zelensky is just Putin with better PR.”

            So you have often said, but here is a pro tip – repeating something that is really, really stupid does not make it become true. Maybe you should reflect on their two careers before you make an ass of yourself yet again? One is a KGB thug who murdered his way to power and has committed uncounted war crimes to suppress separatist movements and to aid fellow fascists. The other is an actor who gained power by the votes of his countrymen in a time of crisis.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “. . . then outlawed opposing parties, news outlets and the Orthodox church.”

            In a war for survival Fifth Columnists must be suppressed. Doing what was needed does not make Zelensky a “thug.” It makes him a leader.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. “Advocating silencing political opposition is one of those fascist tells.”

            We are not talking about “political opposition.” We are talking about treason. Read the Constitution if you do no know what that means.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. “No, it is free speech, something you increasingly seem to disdain.”

            Free speech is an important value. So is surviving an invasion by a fascist dictator and his army of prison rejects and hired war criminals. Giving aid and comfort to the invader is treason. Look it up.

            You are trying – and failing – to come up with some sort of “whatabout” that takes attention away from the appalling human rights record of the regime you are cheering for. How much do YOU disdain free speech and every other basic human right to continue supporting the fascist aggressor?

            Liked by 1 person

          21. Your delusions about my motivation are tiresome, and they blind you.

            Disclosing troop movements or ammunition supplies would be speech that would be treasonous and can be blocked in time of war,

            But arguing for peace or negotiations and questioning the rightness of the cause is protected speech,

            Always.

            Like

          22. “Your delusions about my motivation are tiresome, and they blind you.”

            And yet you ARE doing your best to argue an indefensible position – that BOTH Putin and Zelensky are fascists and equally “bad guys.”

            You try to draw a bright line between legitimate exercise of free speech and giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no such bright line. And with the leader of the Orthodox Church prostituting himself to Putin his entire organization becomes suspect. That is the simple fact of the matter which the Ukraine government needs to deal with.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Yes, there is a bright line between treason and free speech, and if you muddle it, you wind up getting taken out of your house in the middle of the night and disappeared when YOUR positions don’t align with the regime in charge.

            Like

          24. Tactically and strategically useful information is treasonous.

            Criticism of the government and its policy, including continuing the war is not.

            The antiwar demonstrations against the Vietnam war. for example, were protected speech.

            Like

          25. “Tactically and strategically useful information is treasonous.”

            Spreading defeatism and otherwise undermining morale is strategically useful to the enemy when you have been invaded. Such “free speech” needs to be restricted when the enemy is at the gates. But go ahead, call me a fascist again. At least I don’t support actual fascists who have made referring to the war as a “war” a criminal offense.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. So, you would have suppressed the Vietnam protests? That was defeatism.

            How about those who argued against invading Iraq? Might we not have been better off had we listened to them? Is the world any more stable?

            Questioning the government is always a good thing.

            Like

          27. “The antiwar demonstrations against the Vietnam war. for example, were protected speech.”

            ANd when there were protests IN RUSSIA they were NOT protected. They were arrested or worse.

            Liked by 1 person

          28. Zelensky is protecting his country and people from invaders. WHat part of that do you not understand?

            You hate democracy. PERIOD. Unless You get what YOU believe is right, no one else is entitled to live in peace.

            Screw that.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. “All sane people hate actual democracies.”

            Full marks for candor. But please share, what other than the democratically expressed choice of the governed should determine public policy? The preferences of smart people like you, I suppose?

            Liked by 1 person

          30. The limits on the powers of government as established by our Constitution.

            In a democracy, the majority can vote to take a farmer’s crops to distribute as they choose.

            But our Constitution requires the government to buy them from the farmer at a market price.

            Like

          31. “The limits on the powers of government as established by our Constitution.”

            So, no answer. Just platitudes. And a silly denial that we are a democracy. Try again . . .

            “What other than the democratically expressed choice of the governed should determine public policy?”

            Liked by 1 person

          32. Again, the limits on government powers established by the Constitution.

            That’s not a platitude, it’s a guardrail against the tyranny of the majority.

            Like

          33. “That’s not a platitude . . . Blah, blah, blah.”

            You deny that we are a democracy. That is nonsense. We are a representative democracy. The only practical kind for a nation of 350 million people.

            You say that anyone who does not hate democracy is insane. That is nonsense.

            Liked by 1 person

          34. “No, we are a constitutional republic.”

            AND a Representative Democracy. DEMOCRACY. Get over it.

            When there is a question of public policy who should be empowered to decide it? Smart people like you? Or the majority?

            Liked by 1 person

          35. “Some things are none of the government’s business to decide. That’s why we limit government to specified powers.”

            Other than protection of specified rights, there are no defined limits on the powers of government. The Constitution’s enumeration of defined powers is not complete and that is made clear by the Tenth Amendment.

            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

            Liked by 1 person

          36. I don’t think that means what you think it means.

            The 10th Amendment tells that the Federal government has ONLY those powers enumerated in Article I section 8,

            The States have those powers not given the Federal Government in Article I section 8 but not prohibited to the States by Article I section 10.

            Those powers denied to states but not enumerated as Federal do not exist at all, and remain the domain of the individual.

            The powers of the States were intended to be far wider that those of the Federal government but the Federal government has unlawfully encroached on many of these State powers. Hopefully we now have a Supreme Court that is willing to take a scythe to the unlawful expansion of Federal Powers.

            Like

          37. You can interpret the Constitution your way, I will interpret it the way SCOTUS has for the last two hundred and fifty years. It is not a suicide compact. The ultra-narrow understanding of the role of the federal government which you hold dear would destroy the country in a heartbeat if actually applied. So, it won’t be.

            As for “unlawfully” I think you will find that virtually everything the federal government does has survived constant and uncounted challenges in court.

            Liked by 1 person

          38. In the 18th century, travel and information moved very slowly among the states. Most folks never left home. Allegiances were more state oriented than today. By far.

            Today if your are a native Texan, that might be a point of social chatter pride, but the allegiance is a lot weaker as moving around from state to state for business, military, climate preferences, family is very much the modern norm. People are raised in one state, move to another for education, a third for employment, and a fourth for retirement.

            Today we have laws that make a legal activity in one state a felony in another. This is pretty intrusive for a mobile society like ours. For one thing we have a massive amount of laws, both federal and state. Businesses sometimes need to have teams of lawyers and accountants just to do business in multiple states. Effluent dumped into aquifers or rivers move from state to state, and this was not even a consideration 300 years ago.

            True, simplifying laws in general would be wonderful. The 10 Commandments cover human transgressions pretty succinctly. But modern, industrial societies have huge and complex private and public sectors that overlap and intersect at Gordian Knot levels. And even the basics of not stealing is wrapped up in levels of legalities. Simple shoplifting to securities fraud are mired in complexities. Those should be singular, national and consistent. Yet, lawyers have to pass exams to practice in one state, then do it again for another.

            At some point federalism has become unwieldy, expensive and unfair. Voting and abortion are top of mind now, but they exemplify my point.

            Liked by 2 people

          39. That does not change what the Constitution says.

            If you think the Constitution has become unwieldy, it contains means for amending it. But ignoring it is not one of those ways.

            Like

          40. Just the fact that we cannot agree on the scope of a single sentence is an indication of the often vague or confusing parts of the Constitution. And hundreds, if not thousands, of Constitutional Court rulings bears this out.

            Jefferson said we should have a rewrite every generation. One would not expect a man to fit the clothes he wore as a boy, a paraphrase of TJ.

            Well, instead we have parsed, debated, and ruled on minutiae, passed Amendments with confusing and controversial parts and patched weak places like the VP role in Electoral results.

            Unfortunately for Americans, the partisan divide today would make a Constitutional convention almost impossible. So we disagree, debate and continue to let courts interpret what the founders meant then v. today. Or where a comma is placed as in 2nd Amendment opinions.

            A government beholden to semantics, grammatical quirks or what someone thought in the 18th century when we believed disease was the imbalance of 4 humors can only go so far.

            I see parallel to the Torah, the first few books of the Old Testament, and the Talmud, a massive volume of rabbinical rulings on God’s word. From a religious point of view, the Torah cannot rewritten unless God is willing to sit in on a convention.

            But men wrote the Constitution and men can make it better. Until then, slavish adherence to what modern scholars thought the Founders (also mere mortals BTW) meant, and are not even in agreement on that, can, and should, allow leeway to modernize via the judiciary. Marbury was the precedent.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          41. Again, you can amend that Constitution or call a convention and write a new one, but do the work, but if we simply ignore what you don’t like or pretend it says things it doesn’t is abandoning the Rule of Law.

            Like

          42. “…pretend it says…”

            That’s the problem. If we cant agree on the meaning in particular cases, what are we abandoning. Your interpretation? Mine? Joe Bagodonuts?

            Amending takes years. A convention would take more probably. Meanwhile, if your interpretation is killing Americans, or mine is, are they just casualties of legal perfection?

            The Rule of Law is a bedrock principle, but often the “law is an ass”, per Dickens’, et.al. A just society does not make its citizens suffer because of legal foul ups or vagaries. That is why we have courts and why they are the final word. Unfortunately, American jurisprudence is packed with inequities favoring wealth over justice. Still, a bad or poorly written law cannot be the end all.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. Honestly interpreting the Constitution isn’t that hard, it’s just that most people don’t want that.

            If you believe in representative government, then the Constitution must be understood as it was by those who ratified it, as that is the only time the voice of the people was expressed. The same goes for each amendment.

            While the wording of the Constitution is sometimes vague, the Constitution and each amendment were extensively debated during ratification, and those records of the debate tell us what the legislators understood them to mean,

            For example, no one in 1789 thought “to regulate commerce between the States” meant getting the permission of the EPA to fill a low spot in my yard.

            Like

          44. Your wish to move back to the 18th or 19th Century is noted and your disdain for evolution is also noted.

            Even Jefferson understood that the world and country will change. YOU and your ilk want to back to White Male landowners being the only one allowed to vote and for Slavery to be returned to the states.

            Liked by 1 person

          45. Of course Jefferson and the Framers of the Constitution knew times changed, That’s why the Constitution has built in means to amend it.

            Slavery and limited suffrage were corrected by amendment, just as intended.

            You just don’t want to do the work to amend it, preferring to just ignore or distort it.

            But if we can’t know what the law means, the Rule of Law no longer exists.

            Like

          46. “Honestly interpreting the Constitution isn’t that hard”

            Disagreeing with you is being dishonest. Laughable.

            You blather about “honestly interpreting the Constitution” while completely ignoring some of the most straight-forward words in it because you do not like their implications for gun regulation. You need to get of your high horse.

            Liked by 1 person

          47. Such as?

            The way you interpret words in 2022 is irrelevant. None of the Constitution or its amendments were ratified in 2022.

            The people spoke through their legislatures at the time they ratified those provisions, Those provisions mean what they meant then because that is the only time the people spoke.

            Like

          48. “The way you interpret words in 2022 is irrelevant”

            The way YOU interpret words in 2022 is irrelevant

            The words “a well-regulated militia” mean the same thing now that they meant in 1789.

            Liked by 1 person

          49. “Scalia went into great detail about what it meant in 1789 in Heller, you should read it.”

            I have read it. And I have read the critiques of it by the dissenting Justices and others. It is a classic example of an activist judge cooking up something to support the desired outcome.

            There is no way that the framers of the Constitution wanted individuals to be armed with – to them – unimaginably powerful weapons of war. That is why they put them in the context of a “well-regulated militia” which, at that time, frequently kept their very primitive weapons and ammunition under lock and key in an armory.

            Liked by 1 person

          50. Actually, in 1789, the firearms possessed by many Americans, rifled flintlocks, were superior to the military muskets. The muskets were stockpiled for militia use more because of their being cheaper and the commonality of ammunition.

            Like

          51. “And contrary to Biden’s assertion, you could own a cannon in 1789, and in fact, to be a Colonel in some of the State’s militias, you had to.”

            You keep ignoring the key word, even in what you write. The key word is MILITIA as in “well-regulated militia.”

            Liked by 1 person

          52. And Scalia was quite clear that militia appears in the prefatory clause, not the active clause.

            Militia use was an example of why the right was important, not that it was the only reason.

            Like

          53. The historical context for the Second Amendment AND the words themselves make it crystal clear it was about the continuing existence of state militias and state slave patrols and not about enshrining some right of unlimited armed self-defense. That is an HONEST opinion. Honest people can honestly disagree. The Heller decision was 5-4. But you claim that ONLY your opinion is the honest one. That attitude is thorough obnoxious.

            Liked by 1 person

          54. That’s what I was talking about earlier. It is not clear what the 2nd actually means. So unclear that it has taken multiple cases to parse out a right.

            I’ll try to check, but is there any other right that has a reason spelled out as an example of why the right is necessary. Why didn’t the founders just say the right to bear arms won’t be infringed, period. Did they say that because religion is important to most we will have freedom of religion? Or because the government needs to be watched and criticized without danger to citizens, we have freedom of speech?

            Liked by 2 people

          55. I wish they had kept it simple too.

            But I think the reason is likely that had they written simply “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” the universal response in 1789 would have been “Duh!”

            The prefatory phrase is more about ‘why do we have to say this?’ than ‘why do we sya this?’

            Like

          56. “For example, no one in 1789 thought “to regulate commerce between the States” meant getting the permission of the EPA to fill a low spot in my yard.”

            You really think that is relevant? You think destruction of the environment should not be regulated because no one in 1789 was concerned about environmental protection? The population of the United States that year was less than 4 million – two orders of magnitude less than it is today.

            Liked by 1 person

          57. Maybe it’s a good idea, maybe not, But good ideas are not automatically Constitutional, clearly it is not within the Federal Government’s mandate. At most, it would be a state regulatory issue.

            But if you think it should be Federal power, amend the Constitution, don’t pretend words are there that are not.

            Like

          58. …”it’s a guardrail against the tyranny of the majority.”

            So you say when the Democrats are in the majority. When the Republicans are, they can trample any rights they want, because … they AREN’T Democrats.

            Yes. I repeatedly call you a hypocrite and for good reason. By your own words and actions, you are.

            Liked by 1 person

          59. Best I can tell, there are no “actual democracies” among the nations we have now. It keeps being brought up time and again, however, implying that there are. The closest we have are the occasional referendums, but they usually require some kind of legislative action to move forward.

            Liked by 2 people

          60. “Ther reason we have no actual democracies is that they are incredibly short lived.”

            More nonsense. Name ONE nation that was ever an “actual democracy” and did not survive because of this short-lived phenomenon that you claim.

            The reason that all democracies are representative democracies is simply the impracticality of a form of government that is barely suitable to meet the needs of a small town, much less a nation.

            Liked by 1 person

          61. “Socrates was killed because he lost a vote”

            So, you cannot think of a single “actual democracy” that existed but was short-lived. Athens, by the way, survived as an “actual democracy” for about 300 years before it was absorbed by conquering Macedonians.

            Liked by 1 person

          62. Russia is attempting genocide via massive attacks to destroy civilian infrastructure, including primarily power sources in winter.

            “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

            Where is the muddling of that pronouncement?

            Liked by 2 people

          63. As I have said before, we have never had to fight for our lives as a nation with a massive invasion on our land. Civil War would be the closest if we fudge on sovereignty definitions.

            Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, etc . were foreign policy actions with little or no risk to our homeland.

            Collaborators are always a problem when occupied by the enemy. The brutality of Russian occupation is as bad as it gets and not just random. It is part of the war strategy along the lines of ISIS. Rape, murder, torture and looting are encouraged to destroy civilian morale through terrorism.

            Now imagine that is happening in Chesapeake. You think your neighbor may be telling the enemy about your shooting range. Or just that you are Libertarian. He is doing this to try to minimize damage through surrender rather than resistance. This might give you a gist of what occupation or civil war does.

            We have been very fortunate over the centuries. Big oceans and two borders bolstered by rough terrain.

            Liked by 2 people

          64. How does that make speech about the wisdom of continuing a war improper?

            Or speech reminding the aggrieved Chesapeakians that we had been doing the same things to the invader’s families for the last 20 years.

            Like

          65. “How does that make speech about the wisdom of continuing a war improper?”

            Proper does not mean it will be accepted in a fight for your very life.

            Liked by 2 people

          66. Is there any country that wants to be occupied by a brutal dictator? Grasp the idea that Russia, long before Putin, was despised by Ukrainians. Stalin starved millions to death. They were overrun by Nazis one year in WW2 and then by Russia next. Both were brutal times.

            Follow that by the Soviets in Cold War. More dictatorship.

            This is not like the perceived lack of respect rural Republicans by coastal Democrats. That is just child’s play for political gain by people who think they are tough and play war in the woods.

            Putin is Satan in their eyes. And many would rather die fighting than knuckle under a corrupt fascist like Putin or his lackeys.

            Chechnya and Georgia were subdued by force and Ukraine won’t go that route if they can prevent it.
            The West helps Ukraine. Iran and N. Korea help Russia. Plus the evidence of effective genocide is becoming more obvious as Russia is focusing on civilians, not soldiers.

            I know Zelensky wears a green tee shirt, but he also does go in person to the front lines, as he did just before coming to Congress. That is a man, a leader who has more balls than most in our country. Certainly more that the sorry ass Republicans in Congress now.

            Liked by 2 people

          67. Putin does not, even now, want to occupy Ukraine. He never did.

            He was quite clear about Crimea and the eastern Oblasts and no more other than some continuity for the new border.

            It is Zelensky who insists it must be all or nothing, no matter what the people who live there want.

            Like

          68. “Putin does not, even now, want to occupy Ukraine. He never did.”

            More absolute bullshit. The initial Russian war aim was clearly the decapitation of Ukraine, the murder of Zelensky, and the installation of a puppet government. That government would have made them a de facto Soviet Republic controlled from Moscow. No more dreams of becoming part of Europe – Russian vassalage instead.

            Liked by 1 person

          69. So going to Kiev on day one was just a drill?
            The goal was to murder Zelensky and install a Russian stooge. That is occupying in most books. Russian troops would have to stay on to knock down the unending insurgencies.

            Putin wanted Ukraine just like Chechnya and Georgia.

            Now he is stuck. He invaded Crimea and Donbas, murdered Ukrainians by the thousands in the 8 years before the invasion.

            I would think that you might feel more than put out if your family was killed by invaders who then stayed on to ensure your loyalty.

            Liked by 2 people

          70. “Putin does not, even now, want to occupy Ukraine. He never did.“

            “Let me emphasize once again that Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space.

            “These are our comrades, relatives, among whom are not only colleagues, friends, former colleagues, but also relatives, people connected with us by blood, family ties.” V. Putin, 2/22

            So Putin is killing, raping, and torturing his “relatives”? And he makes no bones about “reintegrating” Ukraine. From his own words.

            Personally, I think a reasonable person would discount just about everything Putin says. After all, he invaded with 100,000 troops seizing cites then moving straight to the capital, 100’s of miles from Donbas.

            He took Crimea by stealth and force. Then he invaded Donbas. Then he added more Oblasts in a referendum of occupied portions. Then he conscripted both free and convicted countrymen. Then he conscripted again, and sent more prisoners to his touted Wagner Group. Now he is practicing genocide.

            Nice way to treat his own “relatives” that he wants to embrace.

            Liked by 2 people

          71. “Where is there such a war?”

            Uh, that would be in Ukraine which you may remember was invaded by the forces of Russia and is now subject to daily bombardment with the clear aim of genocide.

            As a matter of fact – something you obviously do not give a shit about – there have been a lot of efforts to talk peace. Ukraine offered serious concessions – specifically that Ukraine would not join NATO. Putin rejected the proposal. Blaming Zelensky for the failure to reach a peace deal is just plain Putin propaganda bullshit.

            Liked by 2 people

          72. Russian Times? Really?

            But sure. After Russia had proven to not be negotiating in good faith back in the spring, Ukraine is not willing to surrender anything to buy off the invader. Putin wants to negotiate as if he was winning the war. He isn’t.

            Liked by 1 person

          73. Lying liars continuing to tell lies.

            Terms were offered prior to the invasion and they were pushed aside by Putin.

            Yet you want to continue to blame those fighting for their right to exists.

            Liked by 1 person

          74. Yet Putin brought it to Ukraine. And you give him a pass and say that the Ukrainians should just give in to his maniacal demands.

            Ukraine says YOU are with the terrorists. And I tend to agree.

            Liked by 1 person

          75. And I would say the Ukrainian Nazis were the terrorists.

            And I would say you are full of shit. Your s0-called “Ukrainian Nazis” were actually Ukrainian patriots who would have had no reason for war if Russia with its troops, mercenaries and surrogates was not trying to exterminate them and seize their lands. Donbas was NEVER a majority ethnic Russian province in spite of Soviet efforts to colonize it with Russians.

            Liked by 1 person

          76. And you would be full of shit.

            The Nazi line, started BY Putin, continues to flow from the true haters of democracy on this forum.

            Who is committing war crimes? Who is targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure? The REAL terrorist here is Putin and his alleged army of mercenaries, rapists, murderers and thugs.

            Liked by 1 person

          77. Were they defending their country against invaders? In a war, you take the good with the bad that are willing to defend. UNlike the Russian forces who are either paid mercenaries or criminals released to do criminal things in another country. Give me the Azov brigade to defend and then deal with them once the invaders are repelled.

            Like

          78. From its formation in 2014, the Azoz Brigade attacked ethnic Russians in the eastern Oblasts seeking to drive them from their profitable farms, That’s how Pogroms work.

            Like

          79. “That’s how Pogroms work.”

            And Russia just had to send in soldiers and the Wagner group to protect those long-suffering Russians just like they had to do in Georgia, Crimea, and Chechnya.

            Facts matter very little to people like you but the fact is that the AZOV brigade did not even exist until Russia forces and their surrogates began the process of absorbing Donbas. It came into being AFTER Russian forces had begun the armed uprising that lead to the declaration of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in March 2014. The government of Ukraine began a counter-offensive in April 2014. The Azov Brigade was formed in May 2014 to join the fight. Its formation had NOTHING to do with “profitable farms” or a Pogrom. A majority of its members were Russian-speaking.

            Liked by 1 person

          80. …”and the Orthodox church.”

            You may want to consider this excerpt from The Bulwark piece shared by Ms. Radford:

            (In reality, the situation involving the Moscow-affiliated branch of the Orthodox Church—one of the two Orthodox denominations in Ukraine—is massively complicated; in wartime, there are legitimate security concerns about its clergy’s reported activities in support of the invaders. However, a quote Carlson attributes to Zelensky, threatening “economic and restrictive sanctions [on] any Christian caught worshiping in unapproved ways,” does not seem to have any source other than Carlson himself.)”

            And what you refer to as a “turf war between opposing thugs.” is an illegal and immoral invasion by one neighbor against another.

            Liked by 1 person

          81. In your pro-Fascist opinion, perhaps.

            You seem to be enamored with one of the two. (your claim) ‘thugs’ in this war.

            Why do you hate democracy for those outside of your circle?

            Like

          82. Delusional. Putin controls every aspect of politics in Russia. Zekensjy was elected in an actual election where the voices of the people were heard.

            You saying that Ukraine is as democratic as Russia is a bigger lie than Trump won.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. The Bulwark just compiled a list of all the right-wing sites, with all their BS, in one detailed article so this will save John the trouble of posting each one individually. The title of the article is “Putin’s Useful Idiots.”

    https://www.thebulwark.com/putins-useful-idiots-right-wingers-lose-it-over-zelensky-visit/

    “Disingenuous laments about the poor Ukrainians exploited by American and European globalists ring hollow and false when the vast majority of Ukrainians are so clearly determined to resist the invasion.”

    “The question of why the Trumpian populist right is so consumed with hatred for Ukraine—a hatred that clearly goes beyond concerns about U.S. spending, a very small portion of our military budget, or about the nonexistent involvement of American troops—doesn’t have a simple answer. Partly, it’s simply partisanship: If the libs are for it, we’re against it, and the more offensively the better. (And if the pre-Trump Republican establishment is also for it, then we’re even more against it.)”

    Anyone who listened to Zelensky’s speech yesterday and still does not support Ukraine is a shame and a disgrace to the human race. At the end, even Marjorie Taylor Green stood up and applauded. If you have swallowed so much of Putin’s propaganda you are to the right of MTG, then get the hell out of the United States of America. Move to Russia. You’ll be happier there.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. MTG may have stood and applauded (probably out of fear of Jewish Space lasers controlled by Zelensky), but I noticed one very absent party leader. Where was Kevin McCarthy?

      Pelosi, Schumer, and McConnel all walked with President Zelensky and Kevin McCarthy was NOWHERE to be found.

      His pandering to the populists seems to indicate that he will last no longer as Speaker than a snowball in a microwave.

      And Trump Junior continues to prove time and time again he has no coherent argument to support ANY position. Except maybe doggie-style with his girlfriend wearing a … prosthetic.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. I thought I remembered reading somewhere that Kevin had been exposed to COVID and was taking two weeks off to be in quarantine. But I can’t find the article now so I may have hallucinated it. Even if that was his excuse, the world knows the real reason he wasn’t there is because he is too ashamed to face Zelensky. And so he should be.

    I can’t help remembering all those Republicans who took “fact finding” tours of Russia a few years back and wondering what, exactly, happened on those tours. Did the Russians use those tours to gather kompromat? Or did they use those tours to explain that they already had kompromat… and what they expected in return for not revealing it?

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s