What to do About Russia and Ukraine?
How do we stop such evil?
How could such evil exist in our modern world?
Our world which values love and peace.
Our world which knows that God is love
and that joy can be had by acknowledging God
and His jurisdiction over the world ...
over our lives
which he is responsible for ...
in that He created us.
Yet He is quiet ...
or do we ignore Him?
What would God say?
Jesus say?
Buddha say?
Krishna say?
Strangely, Putin goes to church
but, I doubt that he actually LISTENS to God.
God is saying,
" W H A T T H E H E C K ? ? ? !"This is why Americans MUST care about Ukraine.
"This is not just Russia's invasion of Ukraine," Zelensky said on Sunday. "This is the beginning of a war against Europe, against European structures, against democracy, against basic human rights, against a global order of law, rules, and peaceful coexistence."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/04/europe/u … index.htmlIn listening to former Sec Def William Cohen, I have been persuaded that we might as well face the piper now, rather than wait a year when we will be forced to.
I think these things:
1. Ukraine is not Putin's target - Western democracy is and that includes ours.
2. Putin has a lot to do with the divide in this country and the current destabilization of our democracy. He is acting through Trump and the Trump Republicans
3. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are Putin's next physical targets, at which point in time America and the other democracies it will be at the Rubicon
4. Putin will not go nuclear (or will not be allowed to) unless Russia itself is attacked
5. I now support a no-fly zone because we will HAVE to face-off Putin sooner or later. Since a showdown with Putin is a forgone conclusion, why put it off?
6. I am not yet there on putting boots on the ground inside UkraineIf there are those in decision making positions with that perspective we will have WWIII, nukes and all, in no time.
It seems increasingly fruitless to "negotiate" with a psychological impaired dictator who has broken international law. He has already shown that he does not negotiate in good faith. The humanitarian corridors were set but Russians immediately breached them. Shelling as Citizens tried to flee. They were forced to return to a city has no water, no heat, no food. It is also extremely troubling that Russians have control over at least one nuclear power plant. Especially when Putin's army has shown itself to be reckless and unskilled.
Putin's war machine is rolling, do we stop it now or when it gathers more momentum? I know it's speculation, but what's next for him? As long as he hangs the nuclear threat over the world that means he can indulge his thirst for power undeterred?
Even though the sanctions are working ( and some More quickly than expected) Putin has shown little regard for even his own people.
I'm hopeful and still believe that the Russian people can play a role. They are being dragged back to the cold war era very quickly. No money, no information and no way out. They have enjoyed relative freedom for many decades so I'm not sure how all this will sit with them as they begin to find out what is actually happening in Ukraine. They do have a history of revolution. Dictators are toppled from within.
Maybe there should be more done to foment the Russian people.
In any case, I think there is a growing support for a more direct intervention.
A last thought, How long will it be until Putin launches an attack on a NATO nation on his belief that we've already initiated war based on what we've done in Ukraine? Such as providing them with Intel on Russian activities?His last response is the very definition of capitulation - might as well reelect Trump and install Putin in the White House now. (for you Conservatives, that was sarcasm)
I do agree with you. If we aren't doing it now, we need to use every means possible to get information to the Russian people.
That reminds me of a series I watched last year, The Man in a High Castle. The plot line was that Hitler won WW II and certain Americans were resisting. Part of that was the man in the high castle making and distributing films of what life would have been like had the Allies won the war to show people why it is worth fighting back.
If we do as some suggest here, at least Europe, if not America, will need a Man in the High Castle.Hey, Esoteric, I saw "The Man in a High Castle", and interesting and scary speculation as to what could of happen if the tables turned.
They had discontinued another similar series, I forgot the name, where Charles Lindbergh became President over FDR in 1940. Anti-semitism was the theme and America was diplomatically in bed with Nazi Germany. Henry Ford, another anti-Semite was secy of State. It involved a Jewish family being coerced to relocate to "education camps".
Maybe, you have seen it?No, I haven't. I sounds very interesting (and relevant to today's America)
Lets consider your own statement here:
"Putin's army has shown itself to be reckless and unskilled."
"Putin's war machine is rolling."
They contradict one another.
Lets consider this:
'The Russian army's advance has stagnated, there is a 40 mile gridlocked line of vehicles on the highway.'
'The Russian army is going to keep rolling through Ukraine into Poland, Germany, France and take over the world.'
These statements contradict one another.
I don't blame you for having these jumbled up views of what is happening, the reports being produced by CNN, MSNBC, FOX are so filled with contradictory information, idiotic information, and bias its hard to know what is really going on.
This is why I watch no MSM news and only catch bits and pieces on Youtube in various videos I peruse.
If you watch too much CNN you end up like someone else on this Forum, completely out of touch with reality and labeling everyone that doesn't see the world in the extreme that CNN represents as an enemy.
Similar for someone who watches too much FOX.
So, here is my marginally informed view for you to consider:
The Russian army is not that good.
The Russian army is not that motivated.
The Russian army is having a tough go of Ukraine, that does not have [much of] an army, airforce, or navy.
If Russia were to try to invade any NATO country, those forces would be swiftly destroyed, the forces NATO/America has in Europe could take out the Russian army in Ukraine in less than 72 hours (just my evaluation of course).
Here's the problem... Putin has Nukes, lots of them, and probably has a couple on stand-bye to be launched with the press of a button. Despite whatever "restrictions" are supposed to be in place, Putin has had years to work around them.
We now have an additional problem... Putin also has control over Nuclear Power plants, he has the ability to destroy them, and poison vast regions of Ukraine and beyond.
The smart thing to do, is de-escalate the situation, force an Armistice, and wait for Putin to be overthrown, to die of old age, whatever and however long it takes for change to occur within Russia.
The dumb thing to do, is to try and resolve the issue today.
Yeah it sucks that thousands are being killed, that millions may be forced to live under Russia's thumb a while longer.
But that's a heck of a lot better than Ukraine becoming a Nuclear Wasteland and millions dying, or the world going up in mushroom clouds and all of us dying.
How different would things look on the ground in Ukraine today had Israel not vetoed Ukraine's bid for an iron dome?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-to … on-report/I'll be damned!!! So Israel is partly responsible for the massacre going on in Ukraine right now!
I didn't realize Israel had joined Trump in cozying up to Russia
Having said that, I see the timeframe is 2021. So, unless this happened in early January, that is on Biden for abiding by the law. It is time for him to ignore the agreement with Israel and send Patriot missiles to Ukraine and deal with the lawsuit later.
Drop them at the Polish border with a bunch of Stinger missiles for air defense and let the Ukrainians drive them to the action - sort of a mobile Iron Dome.
Putin says if NATO establishes a No-Fly Zone, it is part of the hostilities - DUH!
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 5da7d4cf30The aim should be not confrontation but accommodation and there's nothing wrong with it. After all, there was detente from the time of Kennedy to Reagan. As far as Ukraine is concerned, I think it's cooked its own goose.
Of course there is something wrong with accommodation when it is capitulation. I am guessing you don't understand Putin, or are on his side. He WANTS capitulation and not accommodation.
How did Ukraine "cook its own goose"? By not capitulating to a madman? It is obvious you will let Putin have his way with you, but peaceful Ukraine would not and should not.
Has Putin effectively declared war on America and Europe? What are the implications? Does that give the Allies permission to support Ukraine more actively?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pu … 022-03-05/"These sanctions that are being imposed are akin to a declaration of war but thank God it has not come to that," Putin said, speaking to a group of flight attendants at an Aeroflot training centre near Moscow.
Did you even read the article?
I just listened to a sobering analysis of the state of the Russian army from Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, former Commanding General of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army. He says he has spent 30 years studying the Russian army. I assume everybody agrees he is an expert on the subject. What I heard explains a lot about why Russia has done so poorly on the battlefield against a much, much weaker foe.
In layman's terms, the Russian military sucks from the top to the bottom. The officer corps is inept, they have nothing equivalent to professional soldiers akin to our NCOs from E-5 through E-9, and their enlisted forces are 1-year conscripts. While they do have modern equipment, they don't know how to use, employ, or maintain it. Their logistical capabilities are also quite deficient. He says that Putin uses his army as gloried domestic policemen; they apparently do not train very much for this type of armed conflict but to quell domestic disturbances.
It is understandable now why he has turned to war crimes - he can't defeat the Ukrainians on the battlefield.The general sounds like he has the credentials to offer his evaluation, (opinion). Let's hope he is right.
GA
The effort to get weapons to Ukraine is really ramping up. Almost all of the $350 million just approved has already been delivered and is being used by the Ukrainians.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/06/politics … index.htmlI wonder whether people realize what this means. Ukraine is destroyed and is not going to get back on the road for the next 30 years. Thousands of refugees and the country is divided. A look behind the scene will show that this is the American plan to destroy a beautiful country and the fact is, it is destroyed. Is that what the Ukrainian president wanted? It just about shows. that he's a puppet in the hands of the Americans. I wonder how he was so foolish ? that he could beat Russia and join NATO. Nothing of the sort has happened and mark my words Ukraine will never be made a member of NATO. The west will just sit back and enjoy the battle in Ukraine whether it is a guerrilla or anything but the fact is the country is destroyed. This is what happens when people forget the primary aim to the country.
What have you got against Ukraine? Did they do something to you?
Since you are not American, you may nor understand that is not the way we try to act. Sometimes we are successful, when we have good presidents in power, like Truman, and sometimes we don't, when we have bad presidents like Trump.So what?
You forgot to mention, however, that Trump helped set the stage for Putin's attack for the reasons already given.
You forgot to mention that Putin has been building up to this all through Trump's administration; he didn't do it in just a year.
You forgot to mention that Trump DID NOTHING to help the Ukrainians fight to take back their territory. In fact, he hurt their ability to do so.
Yes, you are right, Trump is NOT president, thank God. If he had been, Ukraine would be lost by now, maybe with his help.We have no way of knowing what Putin was thinking for the past years as well as we know not what he is thinking now. That's a fact.
You have no way of knowing if this mess would have occurred under Trump. We can factually say it did not.
We have one president, and we are living with many problems we did not have to live with under Trump. Fact.
And as I say almost weekly, here is a new problem to add to the pile. Next will be China taking Taiwan.
And then, who the hell knows.But, Trump gives no reason for any of us to believe that, based on anything he did or failed to do, this situation would not have occurred during the time he was in charge. If you have a theory, I would love to hear it. With his disrespect for the NATO alliance, I certainly could not see a positive outcome for the West facing Putin and this crisis during his watch.
If Putin attacked Ukraine during Trump's term, I am certain he would have done absolutely nothing to disturb the feathers of the man that he admires so much. It just turned out that all the planets did not align during the Trump administration, sheer happenstance, that is all.
Trump was and is a loathsome character. Why you think that this man actually had an ability to contain Putin, implying that both Obama and Biden were inept, is beyond me.
I had a lot more trouble with Trump during his term, inspite of the fact that Biden has not always been my cup of tea. But, again, that is just me.
Your assertions here are unfair and not rational.Credence, one of the characteristics of a high scoring RWA is resorting to irrationality (and sometimes violence) as more facts pile up proving their chosen leader is a false idol.
I have a picture of one such person in my hub on the subject which shows what appears to be an ordinary man at a Rand Paul rally stomping on some woman's head because she disagreed with him.Trump did sanction Russia heavily, he stopped Nord Stream 2 from being completed. He armed Ukraine with superior weapons. These are facts. You may not feel them as important. Trump was working to make the US energy independent and bought much less oil from Russia than we are currently purchasing. These are facts you may want to ignore But these Trump did keep Russia at bay.
I would not presume to say what Trump would have done if this crisis was on his time. But, he factually did arm Ukraine, stop Nord Stream 2, and was importing less offshore oil than we had in many many decades. He was exporting energy for the first time in 75 years.
We have one president, and we are living with many problems we did not have to live with under Trump. this is just a Fact.
You tend to only see the negative in regard to Trump, there were positives as well.
I have not seen anything positive since Biden walked into the White House.
The country is literally flailing. What assertions are not rational?
We have no way of knowing what Putin was thinking for the past years as well as we know not what he is thinking now. That's a fact.
(do we have a way of knowing what Putin is thinking, why irrational ?)
You have no way of knowing if this mess would have occurred under Trump. We can factually say it did not.
(Again do you know what Trump would have done in this crisis? Why irrational?)
We have one president, and we are living with many problems we did not have to live with under Trump. Fact.
( do we not have a new president? Are we not having problems such as inflation, a border problem, a huge deficit, a Congress that can't agree on anything, lack of confidence in the president, a brewing crisis in Russia, a failed withdrawal from Afghanistan.? Did we have any of these problems under Trump?) We had a pandemic, we had many dissatisfied with Trump as a human being. But did we have some pressing problems?)
I don't find any of what you have called irrational, irrational.
And as I say almost weekly, here is a new problem to add to the pile. Next will be China taking Taiwan.
This is my opinion, and I will get back to you on this one... Most likely in the next few months."Trump did sanction Russia heavily, " - That has been debunked several times now - he was FORCED to do what sanctions he did to and he broke the law by not imposing other Congressional mandated sanctions.
" he stopped Nord Stream 2 from being completed." - Then WHY is it completed, and has been awhile
"Trump bought much less oil from Russia than we are currently purchasing. " - You need to look at your data again - Trump's purchases increased for the last three years of his failed administration. Why didn't you acknowledge that?
"He armed Ukraine with superior weapons. "- Weapon - singular. And then he held up delivery. You should find a real example, not a phony one like that
"Trump was working to make the US energy independent " - DEBUNKED (again), we were already energy independent under Obama[
"These are facts you may want to ignore " - OF COURSE I ignore your so-called "facts" - every one was FALSE! Why do you keep promoting misinformation?
"I would not presume to say what Trump would have done if this crisis was on his time." - But since I have a mind and like to use it, I can take what I have observed Trump do and say, and draw legitimate conclusions. Isn't that why God gave us brains? To use them?
" he factually did arm Ukraine" - Factually, so did Obama, just not with Javelins.
"he stopped Nord Stream 2 from being completed." - As I said, that is a lie, it is completed.
"and was importing less offshore oil than we had in many many decades." - WOW! Another lie. Only Bush imported more oil than Trump https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH … _1&f=a
"He was exporting energy for the first time in 75 years." - You are certainly on a roll. FACT - Obama has that honor, not loser Trump
"We have one president, and we are living with many problems we did not have to live with under Trump. this is just a Fact." - Except, your so-called FACT is NOT one. Biden has spent a lot of his first year repairing the massive problems Trump left America with.
"You tend to only see the negative in regard to Trump, there were positives as well."- And I have highlighted the few good things Trump has done, on several occasions. The rest, however, is negative
"I have not seen anything positive since Biden walked into the White House." - You just proved you are amazingly partisan and worse than you claims I am
"The country is literally flailing. " - Again, pure irrational partisanship
"What assertions are not rational?" - Pick one, there is 99% chance it qualifies as not rational.
"We have no way of knowing what Putin was thinking for the past years as well as we know not what he is thinking now. That's a fact." - AGAIN, not a FACT. I will repeat myself - But since I have a mind and like to use it, I can take what I have observed Putin do and say, and draw legitimate conclusions. Isn't that why God gave us brains? To use them?
"You have no way of knowing if this mess would have occurred under Trump" - [i[That, I can agree with[/i]
"Are we not having problems such as" - Inflation - YES; Border Problems - SOME; A Huge Deficit - NOT ANYMORE; Congress that can't agree on anything, - NO; a brewing crisis in Russia - OBVIOUSLY; a failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. - YES
" Did we have any of these problems under Trump?) "- Inflation - Trump's POOR handling of the Pandemic made it worse; Border Problems - YES; A Huge Deficit - YES; Congress that can't agree on anything, - NO; a brewing crisis in Russia - YES; a failed withdrawal from Afghanistan. - TRUMP Is why it failed
Try presenting REAL facts.
Bull, all you have to do is listen to what he has been saying and doing for the last 20 years. Only those who choose not to hear, see, or think wouldn't know what he is up to.
One president - yes, and Trump thinks it is he.
We didn't have WWII under Trump, what is your point? We did have a failed response to a pandemic that left 300,000 dead not just under his watch, but because of his polices.
What we can factually say is Trump did nothing to prevent this from happening and, IN FACT, did things to give Putin the Green Light."Bull, all you have to do is listen to what he has been saying and doing for the last 20 years. Only those who choose not to hear, see, or think wouldn't know what he is up to."
This statement helps me put my finger on the problem I see with your form of logic. You assume to know what others are thinking. It is also evident that military strategists at this point will not presume to know what Putin will do, and won't rely on his past maneuvers.
We disagree with Trump's handling of the pandemic. So no reason to argue on that point. In my view, and I feel strongly about the subject, your statement sounds unintelligent - in light of facts. So, we would be at great odds to argue about that subject.
"What we can factually say is Trump did nothing to prevent this from happening and, IN FACT, did things to give Putin the Green Light."
Again Trump kept punishing sanctions on Putin, he would not submit as Biden did to let Nord Stream be finished. That was Biden. He kissed Putin's ass. e still is by purchasing gas from them still today... The funds from NATO countries that pay Putin for gas and oil have blood on their hands.
It was the Trump administration that secured weapon contracts and sold more weapons to Ukraine than any other president or nation.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/us … d=53450406
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a … d=65989898
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe … 1-billion/
It was Biden that gave the green light to Putin and is helping him pay for his war. It is very clear his weak policies, and reward of Nord Stream 2 along with his clear need to depend on others for oil, signaled Russia that it would be a great time to take Ukraine.
AS it most certainly signaled China to take Taiwan, while the getting is good. We are a laughing stock on the world stage, this fool has the world in what will become historic inflation. Can't wait for fo 2022, and 2024 to get the country back on solid ground.While I believe Americans have grown accustomed to looking for someone to blame when rising gas prices hit, the president has no control over what US oil companies do. Companies produce at their will to meet market demands or more likely shareholder demands. Presidential control is not as simple as what those posts suggest on social media and elsewhere.
The bottom line is gas prices fluctuate no matter who's in the White House, If you look at the past 16 years, prices were up and down no matter who was there.
So far, the major policies of President Biden, one being the cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline, has not been a factor, there is actually plenty of pipeline capacity to carry that crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Oil companies are not yet really looking to do new drilling. What they're looking to do is potentially reactivate drilling, and wells that they took out of service at the height of the pandemic. So, we're not at a point yet, where America has recovered and oil companies are opening the spigots. What they are doing is starting to restart production at some idled wells.
Also, Mr Trump claimed that he ended Nord Stream 2 . Nord Stream 2 was a completed, but not yet operational, pipeline during the time of Mr. Trump's administration.
Nord Stream 2 had to receive certification from German regulators before it became operational, a CRS report said. But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stopped the certification process on Feb. 22, the day that President Putin recognized two separatist territories in eastern Ukraine as independent states and sent Russian troops into the Donbas region of Ukraine.
Congress and successive administrations have opposed Nord Stream 2, and, as a result, there have been interruptions in construction of the pipeline, CRS said in a Feb. 8, 2021, report.
In December 2019, while Mr.Trump was in office, Congress approved a defense bill, signed into law by President Trump, that included sanctions against companies building the Russian pipeline. Pipeline construction was suspended in response to the sanctions. At the time, the pipeline was about 90% completed, according to a Dec. 18, 2019, CNBC news report. “Fewer than 100 miles of the approximately 760-mile long pipeline system (consisting of two parallel lines) remained to be laid,” CRS said in its February 2021 report.
“Some critics have said the sanctions are too little, too late, because the project is nearly completed,” according to the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C., think tank that focuses on international affairs.
Despite the U.S. sanctions, pipeline construction resumed again in December 2020, while
Mr. Trump was still in office.
So, he can claim credit for slowing the project but not ending it.
I am consistently finding that all of these issues are so much more complex than any media gives attention to. Media reports in concise little bites that can give its audience the "my side won" feeling although There's much more under the surface.
You must keep in mind that if the American generals were all that good, they would not have been defeated in Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. Not forgetting the Civil War in China which ended with the rout of the nationalists and the American generals who were advising him. Lt General Hussein of the Indian Army, Corps commander has in an interview pointed out that the Russians have achieved their objective already and that is the destruction of and Division of Ukraine and the fact that Ukraine will never be made a member of NATO.
All I can say is you need to study your American history.
Our "generals" did more than outstanding in Korea, even MacArthur - until he caused the Chinese to enter the war.
Both Afghanistan and Vietnam ended up as political wars. Again, the "generals" on the ground executed very well, given their constraints. For Vietnam, the same can't quite be said of the generals in the Pentagon, however. But in both cases, it was politics that lost the war.
I know nothing of an Indian general. For all I know, he is anti-American like his president his.
Interesting. Just heard Lt. Gen. Hertling just said that the number of airstrikes and artillery attacks are decreasing showing Putin is running out of air assets, artillery, and ammunition. Bringing in Syrian forces suggests he is running out of men as well. He also noted that 600 missiles have been used so far. 250 of those were used in the first day. They are running out of those as well.
He and Gen. Zwack noted that if this effort to supply Ukraine with Soviet-era planes succeeds, there is a possibility Ukraine may be able to obtain air parity, or close to it.Another sign why Putin is losing and why he has now become a terrorist worse than Osama bin Laden.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli … in-ukraine
(yet people on this site won't condemn him and even defend him)I have not noted one user here defending Putin or that has not condemned him. Very odd to see you post such a derogatory statement about others that post here.
As I have been saying, you very much seem to believe (for some reason) if you say it it is true.
I know that this will disappoint several of you here, but Biden has injected over 26,000 Stinger and Javelin missiles into Ukraine in the last few days. They are making their way to the front lines as I write to kill more Russian soldiers.
YES! I'm anxiously awaiting Poland to get their MiG-29s to Ukraine.
"I know that this will disappoint several of you here, but Biden has injected over 26,000 Stinger and Javelin missiles into Ukraine in the last few days. "
How rude...As I said, I have followed this thread closely, I have not noted any user favoring Putin to win this war.
Your type of honesty leaves much to be desired.Then you missed the several who counsel for Russia to win by withdrawing support from Ukraine. I would argue you haven't followed this thread that closely.
When you make such a statement you need to post the link to the comment. Your reputation proceeds you. You frequently make statements such as this with no proof. Then you just move on when asked to add the link to the accusation.
And you can argue all you please, I have followed this thread, and you have made very unfounded derogatory comments about other users that have added their opinions.There you go playing word games again. The "link" is the forum itself, lol. If you actually read things posted by Ken, Emge, Wilderness, you, and others, you would know exactly what I am talking about.
Not word games just find the comment and use the permalink option. I hope to see you prove your statement "Then you missed the several who counsel for Russia to win by withdrawing support from Ukraine."
Here, I simply copied a few examples I gave GA
"As I have been saying, there is no solution. I have been so very blunt. Putin will not be stopped, he will fight until he takes Ukraine or starts a world war."
"Sanctions will not work with this kind of tyrant."
"It seems very useless to talk strategy when it is to be very clear what the outcome of this crisis will ultimately be."
"That is why I say there should be accommodation with Russia. "
"The #2 matter is ending the conflict, if that is with an Armistice, if that means Ukraine loses two or three more provinces, so be it."
lies like " the West isn't trying to talk him off the cliff, the west is trying to push him off it... leaving him no choice but to retaliate." don't help
"Those who play with fire get burned themselves. NATO and the USA have played with fire by not giving simple guarantees to Russia and they will pay the price."
and so forth
Everyone of those is defeatist and implying all is lost an we should give up. That, by definition, is helping Putin win."Then you missed the several who counsel for Russia to win by withdrawing support from Ukraine."
But none of these statements indicate anyone counsel for Russia to win by withdrawing support from Ukraine.
All these statements were simply users sharing opinions on this horrible crisis, sharing scenarios views on what could occur.
Perhaps you need to take a moment and realize people have different ways of looking at a given situation. Some are very much realists, some are more likely to read into situations differently, and prefer to not offer a prediction or even a view of what's to come. No one needs to be pointed out due to the way they express their view. It's just a view...
Some of us including me did offer views on how we felt this was would go. I certainly was blunt about how I felt this might end. I certainly pray for a miracle. But a part of me is very realistic. I wish in my heart we could do something for the people of Ukraine. Both my husband and I lost loved ones to war...
I truely have looked back over most of the posts on this thread, I did not find anyone that was not empathetic for the people of Ukraine, and no one praised Putin. Honest opinions were shared on how this war could play out.
It would seem to you a defeatist attitude. In reality, we shared realistic views, that very much are unfortunately coming to fruition.
Russian Doctrine - "Escalate to DeEscalate" I guess I missed the import of that statement. Just listened to Sen. Angus King define it: It is in Russia's tactical plan to use tactical nuclear weapons if they are losing. I guess we will see nukes on the battlefield if someone doesn't take out Putin.
Peace.
It's what we need to strive for, however this can be best accomplished.
Maybe, just let them go at it
and sit still.I hope you don't mean let the carnage continue.
... well, that was before I was informed that Ukraine hates Russia to such an extent that they will fight until the last man is standing!!
I actually have an idea that perhaps Russia could regroup as the United States of the Soviet Union, (or Russia or Ukraine or some other such name, maybe Rukraine
).
- Study our Constitution, and use our system as a template. However, I was also informed that not all people can handle a democracy such as ours.
Well, that is a sad thing.
Can anyone else imagine a union of Russian states?
The size of the republic could be limited as to be not too big or too small, (well, smallness would not be an issue.)
- Agree to a certain number of states and a certain extent of area.
- Ukraine and Crimea and the others could be states with governors.
All states would be protected by the national government and benefit in so many ways. The independence of the people would be granted and a percolating economy would ensue.
.... as long a the greedy deep staters and elites of the world keeps their grubby hands out of all of our cookie jars.
More and more businesses are doing what Shell just announced - cutting of business ties with child killer Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/energy/s … index.htmlPoland is transferring its Migs to a US airbase in Germany, presumably getting ready to give them to the Ukrainians.
I heard commentary yesterday from one of our generals saying the Russian anti-aircraft defense systems should easily knock them out of the air. We will see.Kyiv is preparing big time to meet the Russians on their own terms Many are staying preparing to repel the evil empire.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/europe/k … index.html
And now we know all is lost for the Russian economy - McDonalds, Starbucks, and Coke is leaving Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/business … index.htmlToday's news was very disconcerting. It seems that Putin will use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Why do I assess that? Because it is Russian doctrine to use them when losing and Putin is losing (has lost, he just doesn't know it yet).
It was a forgone conclusion that Putin would invade. It was a forgone conclusion he would massacre civilians. Since Putin believes this is a war that he cannot afford to lose, I am guessing it will be a foregone conclusion that he will use tactical nukes since he is losing.
So what does America and the West do about that? Several on this forum will suggest just let it happen in order to avoid a wider war.What would you hope we do if Putin uses a Nuclear weapon in Ukraine?
realistically, what would you feel the US should do? You do realize that Putin did invade Ukraine, and is killing civilians, this is a fact. And he very well might use a nuclear weapon. No one can know what he will do.
No one on this thread has suggested we "let this happen in order to avoid war". We have our hands tied, it is odd you can't face this. Do you see anyone stopping Putin? Again how do you think we can do that?
You need to consider that comments like that are not warranted. It seems like your lashing out at others due to not being able to face what we are facing as a Nation. We have no real cards to play. This is where we stand at this moment. We have been pushed into a corner.
I hope to hear your solutions, should be very interesting.it seems President Biden approved sending anti-missile Patriot missile batteries to Europe for defense - they should go to Ukraine. Maybe Israel is still stopping the transfer
I wonder why Poland thought it necessary to send their jets to a US airbase before giving them to Ukraine? The US, unfortunately in my opinion, rejected that move. Can't Poland just give them to Ukraine directly?
The monolith face on NATO is already in tatters. Germany has just announced that it is not going to stop gas purchases from Russia and Poland has flatly denied the American plan to supply F-16 and give MIG-29 to Ukraine. All said and done I have repeatedly stated that Ukraine is destroyed for the next 50 years, who is responsible? This invasion need never have taken place if Biden had shown statesmanship and not given false hopes to Yelensky and given the security guarantee to Russia. I feel sorry for Ukraine.
... what do you mean by "security guarantee?"
... well, that would be a security guarantee, but one sided. Make Ukraine NEUTRAL already!
What does that mean to make them neutral?? How do you do that?
No NATO involvement. No ownership by Russia.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Ukraine will not fall to the temptations of western ways/Nato agreements/involvement. We will remain on friendly terms with you, who we were part of for so long.
Vladimir Putin: Russia will respect the sovereignty of Ukraine will not try to own or politically influence it in any way. And, by the way, please give us back access to the water way through your country to Crimea. It was very inconsiderate of you to deny us access by filling in the canal with cement.This is a fairy tale at this point in time.
well, I wonder why they filed in the canal with cement. Maybe they really didn't want Russians wandering through in their country.
- can't we all get along? In my fairy tale, yes.
You got something against fairy tales?
But what if that is not what Ukraine wants? Don't they have a right of self-determination?
They had an obligation to keep the peace. Peace was exceedingly vital for the lives and safety of their people ...
and the world.So to "keep the peace" you give up your sovereignty as a nation? Would you let your next door neighbor tell you what you can and cannot do?
Frankly, I would seek compromise with my neighbor.
We cannot deny the vulnerability of Ukraine in the face of an unreckonable force.
Of course we don't "deny" it. But we try to fortify it. Obviously the Ukrainians are a lot less vulnerable than the world (and especially Putin) gave them credit for.
In the long-run, Putin and Russia loses, that is now a given. The only question is how long will it take Ukraine to defeat him.
As much as i think the security interests of Russia were ignored by the West for too long, this is not the point.
If you listen to Putin - he wants the Russian empire back. What does that have to do with Nato guarantees?
If Mexico was stronger than the US, they would demand to give back California and invade? I know the history of Ukraine is tricky, but in modern times, this is no excuse for invasion.Exactly how were they "ignored"?? Unlike Putin, the West had not made a single aggressive move toward Russia. EVERYTHING they did was defensive in nature to try to protect the West from what is happening now. They should have brought Ukraine into the EU by now and maybe even NATO.
Putin has been told time and again the West is not interested in attacking him. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. And NATO has no right to tell Ukraine what it can and can't do or want.
That type of neighbor you have to deal with realistically.
Tend to reality, I always say, rather than pretend to illusion.The analogy is appropriate in order to put it in terms closer to home. Trump was one of "those" neighbors in Florida. He wanted a neighbor's property who didn't want to sell so he pulled a Putin (short of invading) and forced them to sell at a loss.
Bottom line, there are people like that who could be your neighbors.
Oh, we can fight off this Russia and this Python, Putin ... no problem!
We won't jeopardize the lives of our fellows, our countrymen and women and children and babies and infants!
Right. I would feel ashamed to be in Zelinkyy's shoes. I do not congratulate him. But, then, I am a woman crying for the children, mothers, and grandmothers who now find themselves in utterly displaced and miserable circumstances with no home to thrive in and no home to go back to ...
It has become clear to me that men and women are mere ants to the GIANTS in power. Ants to be eradicated, stepped on, or directed to whatever hole they are to go to.
And Biden its one of those GIANTS.
The middle class people of America are his ant farm.
PATRIOTS will resist..... and if we need to do something quick, furious and effective, that is what we should do.
NOW!
Trump would have.Trump would have (did) turn his back on Ukraine, there was nothing in it for him.
I wonder if the Ukrainians were able to capture some of this Russian convoy's equipment
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 … -conflict/Another thing the whiny Trump Republicans will start griping about is the cost of anything made with wheat going up. While America does produce a whole lot of it, Ukraine and Russia produce more. Putin will destroy the former while the world's sanctions will destroy the latter.
Not sure what you mean, did I have a hanging participle or something.
... and what more do you wish to add about the whiny Trump Republicans?
There is certainly a lot more to add, but that will do for the moment.
Oh, I didn't add a post about one of your hero's, Cawthorn, calling Zelenskyy a "thug" and the Ukrainian people "evil"Here is YOUR thug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcEq0TYG4So
PS
"According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation in the world. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (a scale of least to most corrupt nations), Ukraine ranked 122nd out of 180 countries in 2021, the second most corrupt in Europe, ahead of Russia." Wikipedia2017, wow. How about 2022 after Zelenskyy managed to reduce some of it?
As to the "Thug" video, I agree, Putin is a thug, actually a monster. But Rep (ugh) Cawthorn was talking about Zelenskyy..
There are some American's already living below the poverty level, do you consider it whiny when they need to choose between heating their homes and food? Your think in my opinion is shallow on this subject.
Many now can't afford the basics let alone new costs Biden's inflation has brought them.You are simply being obtuse. You know who the whiny ones are - well fed Trump Republicans (I think I even said that without the "well fed" part. Why didn't you pick up on that?
You keep lying that it is "Biden's inflation" and I will keep telling the TRUTH that his policies have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, Trump's policies set the stage for higher than necessary inflation. That said, I am not dumb enough to call it Trump's inflation when it is not. The CORRECT reference is the pandemic inflation and soon to be Putin's inflation.You have made excuse after excuse for Biden's inflation. All I can say is -- We had no inflation or energy problems under Trump... The truth is way before Russia started war inflation was at a 40 year high, and gas prices were steadily rising weekly. Blame, whoever, you please... I will stick with the stats before the Russian step foot into Ukraine.
Jan 21, 2021, we started on a steady decline due to very poor decision-making, and a man at the helm that can't problem-solve.
The country needs relief from this form of poor governing. As I have said from day one, he creates problems almost weekly, one after another.Inflation from my own little part of the country and personal experience:
Supply and demand, it’s as simple as that. We just went through a year when most businesses were shut down. Demand for everything fell off a cliff. Sales of my family's small scale manufacturing company fell by close to 80%. So, we stopped buying supplies and sent people home. Now things are picking up again and we’re having one hell of a job getting supplies, because all those people we weren’t buying supplies from, also sent people home and stopped making so much. So we’re paying more for things just to get them in competition with other people. High demand , low supply & prices have gone up appreciably. I believe this exact scenario played out from tiny companies to large corporations across our country during the last few years.
Given the circumstances of the past two years, Do I feel our outcome personally would have been any different under a D or am R President? I don't think so. The push and pull of supply and demand will always take precedence.uh ... it's failed energy policies that have caused our misery.
- As in no Oil Production!
- As in shutting down in-house Oil Production!
- As in prioritizing Greenness!
"It's hard being green!" says Kermit!
You can say that again!Nah, It was simple as people not coming to work because they had covid or for fear of covid and couldn't make raw materials. If only a few we're making the "widgets" needed We had to pay almost triple for it. Along with the cost of a transportation supply chain that had greatly deteriorated. It led to higher costs that were passed on in the end to the consumer.
"- As in no Oil Production!" - Then why is energy production increasing every month since Biden has been President? Yet it fell in 2020?
"U.S. production was almost 11.6 million barrels a day in December, up from a low of 9.7 mbd in February of 2021, " - https://www.eenews.net/articles/just-ho … -u-s-pump/
Then for 2022 - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/us-oil- … ergin.html
One statement DEBUNKED
"- As in shutting down in-house Oil Production!" - That is simply passing on disinformation.
A second statement DEBUNKED
"- As in prioritizing Greenness!" - As he should be. Not prioritizing it is simply bad policy.
While I don't blame Trump for the inflation happening, I do blame him for doing things that made it worse than it otherwise would have been. His polices exacerbated the disconnect between supply and demand.
That is something a Democratic president (or REAL Republican president) wouldn't have done, in my opinion.Funny, Esoteric, I distinctly remember during 2008 when gas prices on the average rose to $4.10 a gallon during George W. Bush's administration. What was the explanation for that then? I heard explanations about supply and demand by Republican then, why is that now not a tenable explanation, today?
Because that is inconvenient to their narrative. Truth and reason are good when it supports your view. When it doesn't then you lie and provide disinformation.
The answer for 2008 is Surging demand from developing economies, stagnant production, financial speculation, and tension in the Middle East The only real difference between then and now was the rampant speculation.
Pure, unadulterated fantasy brought on by a severe case of BDS and submersion into Right-wing propaganda.
Not a fantasy just pure facts. These are Biden's stats for his first year in office. Trump had gar prices low almost his entire time in office.
Fact gas prices steadily went up in Biden's first year. I have added my source.
I have added a chart that shows the monthly cost of gas per gallon. IT is a chart that offers exact stats and shows when Trump left office on Jan 21 2021 gas was $2.33. from that very day until today gas prices climbed to what it is today $4.32 a gallon,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/204 … ince-2009/
Another fact -- Inflation around the U.S. reached a new 40-year high
Rising costs of energy, housing and food drove the increase, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Inflation around the U.S. reached a new 40-year high in February, with consumer prices jumping 7.9% from a year ago — the fastest annual rate since the Reagan administration.
Rising costs of energy, housing, and food drove the increase, the Labor Department said on Thursday.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation- … ince-1982/
So again believe what you please, I have provided factual information.
All these stats show the increase in gas from Biden's day one in office
Here is a chart that shows monthly inflation stats which well proves inflation was out of control before Putin's war with Ukraine. I suggest you are spreading misleading information by insulating or should I say supporting Biden's blurb that Putin is responsible for rising gas prices and inflation. AS this chart shows we were at a 40 year high long before Putin troops shot one bullet.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta … lation-cpi
Again let me state with sources --- You have made excuse after excuse for Biden's inflation. All I can say is -- We had no inflation or energy problems under Trump... The truth is way before Russia started war inflation was at a 40 year high, and gas prices were steadily rising weekly. Blame, whoever, you please... I will stick with the stats before the Russian step foot into Ukraine.
NO FANTASY JUST UGLY FACTS."Trump had gar prices low almost his entire time in office" - FACT - Trump didn't "HAVE" diddly-squat. Like President Biden, he had little control over gas prices except when he raised them by sanctioning Iran after allowing them to build bombs again. So your fact is NO meaningful fact at all it is wishful thinking
"Fact gas prices steadily went up in Biden's first year. " - Since you have no concept of "cause and effect" this is also meaningless since, like Trump, President Biden has little if any control over the price of oil. What you offered is disinformation in fact's clothing So your fact is NO meaningful fact at all it is wishful thinking
"Another meaningless fact -- Inflation around the U.S. reached a new 40-year high. - [i]Yeo, you are right, inflation IS at a 40-year high.
What does that have to with the price rice in China (or however that saying goes). What are you trying to imply?
What you have provided is factual disinformation since President Biden ISN'T the CAUSE of any of it. You, of course, can continue to live in your world of made up "cause and effect" or join us in the real world where we KNOW what the REAL causes are.
I blink my eyes every few seconds and you take a breath every few seconds. I assert that me blinking my eyes CAUSES you to take a breath. That is EXACTLY what you are saying when you say JUST BECAUSE President Biden is president CAUSED inflation. That is simply dishonest and spreading disinformation along with very faulty analysis.Yes! Correlation tests for a relationship between two variables. However, seeing two variables moving together does not necessarily mean we know whether one variable causes the other to occur. This is why we commonly say “correlation does not imply causation.”
Yes, lets harken back to 2019... Polls showed that more Americans felt optimism, that they would be better off financially, than at any time in the previous 30 years.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/249164/ame … ances.aspx
Had the election been held in November 2019 Trump would have won re-election in a landslide.
But 2020 brought us Covid lockdowns and then the ensuing focus on riots, along with the vilification of Trump by the MSM and Social Media like nothing any President (American or Foreign) had ever seen.
You might believe that Trump didn't lose because of the lockdowns and hysteria being caused by the MSM, but that's a hard sell.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/17/poli … ion-model/
People are going to vote their wallets, as well as their feelings, if they feel optimistic, like they did in 2019 the incumbent will do well.
If people are dealing with chaos, lockdowns, fearmongering, then... they probably aren't going to be very happy with the incumbent.
The longer we contend with high inflation and the threat of WWIII the more people are going to blame Biden and the Dems. Facts won't matter.Times were not so great in 2019, Ken.
Trump, before the COVID probably would have been reelected in 2020 because with the noted exception of Jimmy Carter in 1980, the 1992 contest where GHW Bush lost, William Howard Taft in 1912 and Herbert Hoover in 1932, no incumbent who wanted to run for a second term has been disappointed since 1900.
LBJ, Calvin Coolidge and Harry S. Truman explicitly stated their intent not to run for a second term, in a strange coincidence all three of these men succeeded a predecessor who had died in office.
Bush I and Taft had the excuse of having to run against strong third party candidacies, taking enough votes from them to cost them the election.
So, Trump joins Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover in an exclusive sort of club. Each candidate had a national disaster that brought them down.
Trump- COVID
Carter -Iran hostage crisis
Hoover- the Great Depression.
Just a few interesting factoids that I wanted to share. You are right, facts ultimately facts do not matter, Whoever is holding the reins will be blamed.Solid.
Been chewing on this since I read it earlier in the day.
This is a rather unique election coming up then, in 2024.
Should things be improved in 2024... inflation back under control, WWIII averted, supply lines back in full swing and Lockdowns a distant memory... Biden would be a lock, as you have shown history proves.
Except for the fact that he will then be 82 years old... and I think 3 more years of being President is going to take a heavy toll on him.
If we are suffering a recession, if the supply line woes worsen, in short, if things aren't at least stable and steady come 2024, Biden has no shot.
It is my feeling that in 2012 things weren't looking too good, but Obama being the charismatic and articulate individual that he was, was able to side step some very poor decision making by the Democrat controlled Congress in his first term, as well as put the blame for the stagnant economy on his predeccessor Bush.
In 2024 if we are still feeling the lingering effects of 2020's Covid Lockdowns, and International unrest, I don't think Biden has the ability to divert the blame to anyone else, I don't think by 2024 when he is 82 he will be capable of getting out there and campaigning at all... let alone convince America that their woes are not his fault.Things will be very different around here by then, I predict.
The school-of-hard knocks will have taught us what we need to know to continue on with the good sense that we truly have.
In my crystal ball.
Precisely!!! Finally, somebody else who understands statistics
Faye, this is where human nature jumps in and plays a role... Humans always seek to figure and assign sense to a given situation. And sometimes variables are misconstrued by --- human nature. Oh and --- media.
Like I said he is the president, I expect him to solve problems, not create them. And again, Trump was a great problem solver. Plus he was always one to avert problems. Joe makes problems and then just ignores them. It is a waste of time even attempting to provide how Biden caused inflation, many economists have done just that. You may want to check out what some of them have to say about why they feel crucial mistakes have been made by the Biden administration.
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/555 … our-months
https://www.economist.com/united-states … iden-style
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biden- … 1645133557
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/581 … -inflation"Like I said he is the president, I expect him to solve problems, not create them." - Then you must secretly be very disappointed in Trump for he solved very few problems and created oh so many
For example, we have a problem with hate in this country. Trump didn't solve it on his first day in office (or even the first year) like you expect President Biden to. If fact, he made it much worse.
Trump didn't solve the problem in Afghanistan. If fact, he made it worse in his last six months in office which led to President Biden's horrible mess in withdrawing. Said another way - BUT FOR TRUMP, President Biden would have had a much easier time pulling out of Afghanistan.
Trump didn't solve the pandemic problem. In fact, save for getting Operation Warp Speed off the ground, he made the pandemic worse leading to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. It took President Biden to solve that problem which Trump created to get shots in arms such that the only people dying a lot from Covid are his supporters.Now, let's take a look at your examples.
The Hill - Written by Liz Peek, a conservative Fox personality
The Economist - The author of this Opinion is clearly conservative, based on his tone, but not overly so. Many of the things he brought up could have been twisted positive (remember, this is opinion, not FACT) but he chose to twist it negatively. He offered no facts that I could discern, but then opinion pieces don't need to, they are opinion, after all. All that said, I do agree with his conclusion:
It is certainly possible to exaggerate the gravity of his flaws. No administration is perfect. And Mr Biden’s troubles are only partly his fault. Most of the price rises were beyond his control. The main problem with his legislative agenda is that hardly any Republican will consider backing it. But the slenderness of his prospects of success has made his failings appear all the more damaging. He had so little margin for error. And yet he is error-prone. It is hard to see how success can come of that.
The Wall Street Journal - Behind a paywall.
The Hill - Liz Peek again."What you have provided is factual disinformation since President Biden ISN'T the CAUSE of any of it."
I am a conservative, why would I not appreciate her view? It would seem like you are saying conservative views should not be respected, only views of left-leaning media should be viewed as truth.
Plus I balanced my resources with WSJ. The Economist... "The Economist - The author of this Opinion is clearly conservative, based on his tone, " Not sure you get this. That article did not appear to be biased in the least.
Yes, these were opinion pieces, but well done and loaded with factual stats to help prove her opinion."Not sure you get this. That article did not appear to be biased in the least." - That is because you are already receptive to his point of view. There was nothing false about what he offered, but it wasn't balanced either, save for his closing. Had a left-leaning writer written the same piece, using the same examples, it would be praising Biden. The difference is word choice and syntax.
Taking FACTS and using them in an improper or disingenuous way is called disinformation. That is what she is doing.
For example, back in the day when Obamacare was taking a big propaganda hit, she would have correctly reported the FACT that a majority of Americans thought ACA was bad. If she leaves it at that, then she is guilty of disinformation. Why? Because she would have failed to disclose other relevant FACTS:
1. There was a massive Right-wing propaganda campaign against ACA in progress
2. Of those who said they didn't like ACA was because it "didn't go far enough". When you factor that fact in, then the majority of Americans that the idea of Obamacare was the right thing to do."It would seem like you are saying conservative views should not be respected, " - No, what I am saying is Trump Republican views often are disinformation (as are far-Lett views). Many opinion pieces in MSM have a bias, for sure, but are not outright propaganda as is opinion pieces coming out of sites like Fox
It's always good to search many views, many articles to see generally what borders on truth.
I agree, but I avoid known purveyors of disinformation, they are a waste of my time.
And most Americans like me, which is the vast majority.
Very true. CNN has some of the lowest ratings of all networks for a reason.
June 2021:
"Morning Consult trend data shows an erosion of media credibility during the past few years: Average trust declined by 11 points since 2017, with the aforementioned print, broadcast, cable and radio outlets all seeing between 9- and 14-point drops. Among Democrats, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal saw the sharpest declines of 14 and 12 points, respectively, while Republicans’ views of every outlet declined by double digits, led by 19-point plunges for NBC and MSNBC and 17-point drops for CNN, ABC and the Journal.
CBS and NBC saw the biggest declines — of 4 and 5 points, respectively — among all Americans over the past year, while Fox News took the biggest hit among Republicans, falling to 59 percent, an 8-point drop."
That it is Democrats, not Republicans, that showed an increase distrust in WSJ, tells me in near absolute terms, that it is Democrats turning away from reality to believe in false or biased narratives being propagated. There is no source of news in America more fair and fact filled than the WSJ...none.
I can also understand Republicans turning away from FOX, post Trump election, and especially post Trump defeat, FOX has become even more biased in its reporting than CNN or MSNBC. And bad bias is bad bias regardless of what side it is coming from.
Secondly, FOX has lost the "reporting aspect" it used to have, back when it was digging into why Benghazi really happened for instance, it was doing solid investigative reporting, while the rest of the networks were just chirping the official narrative the White House wanted them to put out.
Today, FOX is more opinion pieces and biased views from the likes of Tucker and Hannity, which is just as suspect as CNN due to bias.
With that said, CNN may be creeping back up in people's minds, I just think its going to take YEARS for them to be a respected source again.
From being the Clinton News Network, to being Trump is a Russian agent 24/7 for four years, to Chris Cuomo and all the latest drama, their reputation is shot.
Still, if they keep producing real news again (like this below) they will eventually restore their reputation.
CNN Poll: Most Biden detractors say he's done nothing …
Feb 10, 2022 · Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of how Joe Biden is handling his presidency, with most of that group saying there's literally nothing Biden has …
"What you have provided is factual disinformation since President Biden ISN'T the CAUSE of any of it."
He is left holding the bag, as most might ascertain. People consider the bottom line, and media help point out the bottom lines by providing all kinds of different scenarios to assign blame. They dredge up so-called experts and present all sides to what has caused inflation. They have charts, they add quotes, dates, and ultimately it's up to an individual to come up with their own view. I truely feel Biden's poor policies have caused inflation. You don't. Different opinions, in the end, will choose our next president. I am very realistic, I watched Biden from day one, I researched his policies as he proceeded to this date. You will never convince me he was not the bigger part that caused the 40 high inflation. Follow his policies, follow the dates, the very charts, and then listen to him all along with the many many months blame all kinds of variables for inflation, and now he is blaming Putin... Which yes this crisis will increase inflation from what we have been living with for months. He is responsible for the 40-year high inflation. He knew when he walked into the office we were starting to see a real supply chain crisis, he did nothing, and it snowballed into what we see today. He concentrated on BBB, new green deals, and sheer BS in a time of crisis. He did everything and more to sink energy, without considering the consequences.
He could have used his head, instead, he used his pen, and signed whatever he was told to sign IMO.
Russia attacks near Polish border. Maybe that will motivate Poland to transfer the fighters to Ukraine?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 … e-updates/Another major problem child-killer Putin is foisting on his people - a collapsed airline industry which is essential to business activity in Russia.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/business … index.html
It occurs to me that America should start putting in place plans, similar to the Marshall Plan for Europe, to reconstitute Russia after Putin is deposed and a friendly gov't is established - if that ever happens.
Not executing such a plan when the USSR collapsed is part of the reason we are where we are today.FINALLY, President Biden is going to revoke Russia's "most favored nation" trading status. This should have been one of the first sanctions.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics … index.htmlChild-killer Putin isn't destroying one nation, he is destroying two. Both Ukraine and Russia will be devastated by murdering Putin's war: Ukraine in all respects and Russia economically and militarily.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/europe/l … index.htmlMore examples of treason-like activity from Trump Republicans.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/11/europe/l … index.htmlFrom NPR. Urkainians aren't the ONLY ones fleeing their country.
MASHA GESSEN: So I was in Moscow until last Thursday. And all of that week following the full-scale invasion that began at 5 in the morning the previous Thursday, people that I know in Moscow started to feel panicked and, like, really panicked, not just about the state of the country and obviously the war, but also about needing to leave the country because there was a distinct sense that the borders were likely to close, that the country was just spiraling into some kind of North Korean scenario.
And so there's been a huge exodus from Russia in the last week and a half. It's that - recent estimates range at this point from 100,000 to 200,000 people who have left. And according to the Georgian authorities, between 20,000 and 25,000 of those people have arrived here in Tbilisi. So I actually followed some people who were leaving out of Moscow to Istanbul, which is one of the few places that you can still fly to from Moscow. And then I came here to Tbilisi to continue reporting on this exodus now.I'm constantly amazed at those who can defend Trump with a straight face. Almost a million dead because of his failure dealing with a pandemic. Start there, then tell us about all he did right (which will be a short list).
They are part of a cult that is probably stronger than the one Jim Jones created (and look how that ended).
I am not surprised that America's 80 million bigots have found someone new to attack - Slavs, Russian-American and Ukrainian-Americans.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ru … -rcna19155Good discussion here. I still believe they're still human and thinking about humanity. We hope for Putin to change his mind and put Ukraine to its independence and utmost democracy.
Russia strikes 12 miles from Polish border. I think it is appropriate that the Polish missile defense systems try to shoot them down. Who knows where the Russians targeted those missiles.
The military base that was attacked houses the International Peacekeeping and Security Center. No reports of foreign casualties - yet.
It was also where families living further east sent their children to keep them safe.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … 512c6fe322I'll bet Trump is really pissed off now that Putin is stealing all of the attention that he wants, lol
Interesting takeaways from Mar 13:
- Russian forces did not conduct offensive operations northwest of Kyiv for the third day in a row.
- Russian forces did not conduct attacks toward northeastern Kyiv and prioritized reinforcing their lines of communication and logistics routes.
- Russian and proxy forces successfully captured several towns north of Mariupol in Donetsk Oblast on March 13, the only offensive ground actions of the day. Interesting that they are still fighting in the Donetsk region after three weeks
- Ukrainian protests in occupied Kherson are likely expanding.
- Russia is diluting its international deployments in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh to reinforce operations in Ukraine and pulling additional forces from Russia’s far east.
- Ukrainian intelligence reported Russia will deploy preexisting pro-Assad Syrian units to Ukraine, in addition to previously announced plans to recruit new Syrian and Libyan mercenaries. These forces are unlikely to enable Russia to favorably change the balance of forces around Kyiv in the next week but may provide a longer-term pool of low-quality replacements.
- Russian ballistic missiles killed 35 Ukrainians at the Yavoriv military training center near Poland in a likely effort to interdict Western aid deliveries to Ukraine—following up on the Kremlin’s March 12 announcement it will treat international aid shipments as military targets.
- Uncoordinated and sporadic Russian offensive operations against major Ukrainian cities support the Ukrainian General Staff’s assessment that Russian forces face growing morale and supply issues and have lost the initiative.
- Putin is reportedly conducting an internal purge of general offers and intelligence personnel and recalibrating Russia’s war effort to sustain combat operations far longer than the Kremlin initially planned.
- Russian aircraft likely conducted an attempted false-flag attack on Belarusian territory on March 11.
- High casualties among Russian general officers indicate the poor quality of Russian command and control, requiring Russian generals to deploy forward and risk Ukrainian fire to command their forces.
- Ukrainian air force and air defense operations continue to hinder Russian ground forces maneuver by likely limiting Russian close air support and exposing Russian mechanized forces to Ukrainian air and artillery attacks.While the cost of this war to Ukraine's people, economy, military, and infrastructure has been enormous, it hasn't been cheap for pregnant women and child-killer Putin either.
Forbes doesn't say how "early on in the war" they are talking about, based on Ukrainian military estimates, it has cost Putin $8.5 billion! This is based on the loses of 141 air vehicles, 363 tanks, 1205 armored fighting vehicles, and hundreds of missiles. (I wonder how low their supply of missiles is getting because we know that in the Iraq War, our supply got critically low.)
In addition, it is estimated 12,000 Russia military have been killed and an unknown number of wounded, adding to Russian logistical nightmares.
https://www.timesnownews.com/business-e … e-90179719I feel sorry for the civilian and soldier casualties on both sides of this war. We can bet that none of the poorly payed, untrained conscripts on the Russian side wanted to go to war. Some didn´t even know what was going on.
From my professional life i have considerable experience with Russian industry. That is why i wrote earlier that Russia can do a 100m dash but not long distance. Every day of the war shows that Russia is using up their reserves. Soon it will not even last for a 50m sprint.
Putting numbers together, then the war has eaten up some 10% of total equipment of Russian Ground Force equipment. (1300 / 13.000). For example RF have received some 65 T90 tanks per year. This war has already consumed 16 T90 in 3 weeks (a generous 250 on a year scale). Knowing the performance of Russian industry it would take a real Stalin, not an imperial dreamer to ramp up production.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/a … pment.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ground_Forces
Euipment is not easy to replace. Forget reserves (as mentioned in Wikipedia). If active equipment is in questionable shape as could be seen, what to expect from reserve stock piles?
If destruction pace is kept up, then the Russian Forces will run out of stuff. The Unkrainians are fighting effectively an assymetric war. Attritian tactics problably wear down Russia more than Ukraine."We can bet that none of the poorly payed, untrained conscripts on the Russian side wanted to go to war. " - Hell, it seems that Putin hid that fact from them. Boy, must they have been surprised when real bullets started coming at them. "What the hell, over?"
"Every day of the war shows that Russia is using up their reserves. Soon it will not even last for a 50m sprint." - Which may be why they are begging China for help
"Attrition tactics probably wear down Russia more than Ukraine." - I never thought the Ukrainians would lose in the end, that Russia would succumb to an insurgency like they did in Afghanistan. It didn't start crossing my mind until a week ago that Ukraine might be able to beat them outright.
Despite all this, the Russians are going to win and from what I see in Southeast Asia is the first step in the downfall of American hegemony.
I also think the American hegemony, dominance will fade.
But in this specific war Russia is tripping over its own legs. All the West has to do is keep supplies up. I concede, this will gradually become more difficult to do, but i also think Russia will run out of aircraft and equipment before the supply stream can be cut off effectively.
We never saw an asymmetrical war with really modern equipment on the underdog side.I think Trump did away with American "hegemony" all on his own.
You should find this interesting.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/amer … d-reality/
Ex-US Ambassador to Ukraine says Trump Emboldened mother and child- killer Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/0 … an-vpx.cnnA few days ago someone brought up this subject --- Well here is a poll WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-of-th … 1646929607
"Fight for your country? Ukrainians will but Americans torn in new poll. That's a problem"
"In World War II, Winston Churchill famously declared, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." It appears that there may be even fewer to count on if a recent poll is accurate.
The Quinnipiac University poll asked Americans, "What would you do if you were in the same position as Ukrainians are now, stay and fight or leave the country?" Only 55% said that they would stay and fight for this country. That included only 40% of Democrats. "
"Overall 38% of Americans said that they would flee. It appears that this country is facing an existential crisis of faith, and we should have a frank discussion about why so comparably few Americans are now willing to pledge their lives in defense of this country."
"Quinnipiac has long been relied upon in polling in the United States and is one of the most cited polling outfits for the media.
It is important to note that, while the results were shocking overall, many did say that they would stand and defend the United States from any invader. When asked this question, 68% of Republicans and 57% of Independents say that they would fight. However, more than half of Democrats (52%) said they would flee before fighting for their country – 8% did not have an answer, a shrug that is equally alarming."I can't get behind their paywall. How did that poll break down between men and women?
I found it.
HIGHLIGHTS (Q:
- While the approval of Biden is in line with other polls at 38 - 51 (the RCP avg is 42.8 - 51.7), I see that the educated among us have a different view at 51 - 43. Still not anything to shout about, but it gives you an idea of where people that have more training critical thinking come down. Also, the older you are, the more likely you are to approve of Biden's job performance.
- As to Biden's response to Russia's invasion, I am surprised to see it is negative. That said, those with four years of college or more take the opposite view: 58 - 38. That says a lot.
- One explanation for the last result is this one on whether Biden has been Too Tough or Not Tough Enough with his sanctions. 58% say Not Tough Enough.(I am in that category.) Not surprisingly, Dems are split 46 - 46 on whether Biden has not been tough enough or About Right. Reps were split 74 - 14.
- On supporting accepting Ukrainian refugees into the US, the result is as expected: R - 66% and D - 91%; College vs No College breaks down to 91 - 77.
- Regarding the question about "what if this was America?". I am very disappointed by the Democratic response (40%) and surprised that the Republican response wasn't higher. (68%). As would be expected, there is a large difference between men (70%) and women (40%). Too be honest, I am not surprised by the 38% response for Blacks - why fight for a country where half of it hates you.
- To would you support shutting down Russian energy even if it meant higher gas prices here? Not surprisingly, Rs came in at 66% while Ds were much more supportive at 82%.
Even independents approved at 70%. Men were less receptive (69%) to Women's 73%. College grads were 90% vs HS grads or less at 74%.
- If Russian attacked NATO, should the US respond militarily? Rs - 82%, Ds - 88%, Is - 77%
- Rs and Ds both think Putin will use nukes (65 - 67) while independents, not so much (54%). The divide between Men and Women is much more stark at 48 - 72! Grad vs non-Grad is 56 - 65.Nothing mobilizes Americans more than invoking the evil of the other party.
In fact, I think that political prejudice has become our most accepted form of bigotry. Back in the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters had negative feelings toward the opposing party. That number now stands at 90 percent.(Pew)
What today’s voters see is not a candidate, or a set of policy proposals, but a party affiliation (Republican vs. Democrat), a political label (conservative vs. liberal), a symbolic color (red vs. blue).
But imagine a world without such labels.
Without the convenient labels and stereotypes to rely on, voters would be forced to assess their ballots without bias.
Yes, I know how far-fetched this sounds, given the death grip of our two-party duopoly.
I’m asking everyone to imagine what would happen if we didn’t have this partisan shortcut to rely on, this reflex to root for a blue wave or a red tide.
Here’s my hunch: we’d wind up focused much more on policy.
Because politicians are actually supposed to be advocates for particular policy remedies, not tribal representatives.
Without the convenient labels and stereotypes to rely on, voters would be forced to assess their ballots without bias.
Given our hyper-partisan moment, this stuff might sound kind of wonky. But elections are supposed to be a contest of ideas. where are the ideas? Particularly on the Republican side with no platform for the last several elections. Really nothing to offer except culture wars.
In a world without labels, candidates would be forced to appeal more to common sense and problem solving than tribal prejudice and partisan attacks.
Even if this reality seems remote at the moment, individual voters still have the power to reject binary thinking.
That power resides in our ability to turn away from labels and inflammatory tweets and yowling pundits, to reject the notion that we’re voting for a partisan. We should be voting, instead, for the candidates whose policy proposals most closely align with our values and goals.
That’s not a pipe dream, folks. It’s the essence of democratic accountability.'What today’s voters see is not a candidate, or a set of policy proposals, but a party affiliation (Republican vs. Democrat), a political label (conservative vs. liberal), a symbolic color (red vs. blue)."
Not sure I can agree --- I can honestly say, Biden had a very long list of policies he campaigned on. I looked over Biden's agenda and there was little I felt represented what I felt the country needed at this particular juncture in our history. I found them almost unrealistic due to what the country was going through at the time with all the problems COVID laid at our doorstep.
Biden's Agenda --- As the US faced challenges from coronavirus to racial inequity, Biden's pitch is to create new economic opportunities for workers, restore environmental protections and healthcare rights, and international alliances. Raise the minimum wage and invest in green energy, Among his proposals are an additional $200 in Social Security payments per month, rescinding Trump-era tax cuts, and $10,000 of student loan forgiveness for federal loans.,Criminal justice reform, grants for minority communities, Rejoin global climate accord, Expand Obamacare, Undo Trump's policies at the border, Universal pre-school, expand the free college, and much more.
Trump's agenda -- 2020
His 2020 pitch is to bring back the economy, boost jobs, protect US trade interests, and to continue with his hard-line stance on immigration.
Bringing back the pandemic-battered economy. President Trump has long campaigned on "America First" principles and has pushed for bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US. Ending the 'reliance' on China and protecting US manufacturing Mr. Trump first campaigned on the promise the US should put focus on its own economic interests though he has said "America First" does "not mean "America alone".'America First' and reasserting US sovereignty
As with trade, Mr Trump has also promised to put "America First" in US foreign policy. In the White House's words, that means "reasserting American sovereignty and the right of all nations to determine their own futures", with a focus on ensuring security and prosperity. Building the wall and curbing immigration Promises to curb immigration levels have been foundational to the president's political career.
He has promised to continue the construction of a border wall on the US-Mexico border - he has so far secured funding for 445 miles (716 km) of the 722-mile barrier, He also vows to eliminate the visa lottery and chain migration - meaning immigration to the US that is based on family ties - and shift to a "merit-based" entry system. Lower drug costs terminate the Affordable Care Act Promoting US energy, Defending the Second Amendment.
I was on board with Trump's agenda and felt his policies would benefit all Americans, and his agenda was realistic, doable... Biden pitched a lot of ideas that sounded like political promises that were not doable but meant to be shiny objects.
I can't agree that all just vote party, I think more and more people are voting on policies. Just looking for whatever they feel fits their own needs wants and needs for America. This has created a great divide. People's ideologies are evolving in very different directions."'What today’s voters see is not a candidate, or a set of policy proposals, but a party affiliation (Republican vs. Democrat), a political label (conservative vs. liberal), a symbolic color (red vs. blue)."" - Unfortunately, that is SO true. That said, at least on the Right, virtually the only selection is Trump-type Republicans - which makes the choice easy because there are no more Cheney's, Dent's, or Kitzinger's running. The same can be said in certain areas of some Blue States, all you get are AOC-types. But I would venture to say that in most Blue states you have a selection of moderate candidates available.
As I said, Trump's policies were mostly in line with what I felt would benefit Americans and America's needs at this time in our history.
So, I was not just willing to support a party, but policies I felt confident about.
I am not sure who will run in 2024, but I will go about that election as I have always done. Do my research, and jump on the candidate that best suits my own ideologies, and offers policies I can support, and associate with, connect with.
I have long rules out Biden. I am ashamed of him and his administration. But who knows who will be running, that is yet to be known. I will as I always do, consider both candidates very carefully. At this point, I just hope for two candidates that have more positives than negatives."So, I was not just willing to support a party, but policies I felt confident about.
Yes, me too! this is as it should be but The political climate is rapidly changing since 2020. That year, The Republican party had no platform. They put nothing forward, instead deciding to run on a cult of personality.
Since that time we've seen others in the party do the same. I'm thinking particularly of Gov. Younkin in Virginia. He ran solely on imaginary issues in education. Yep, The good old fall back of Critical Race Theory. Fear mongering toward parents who don't know any better.
Other than trying to push culture wars ("don't say gay, book banning & CRT) they generally are just falling back on blame and criticism of whatever Democrats do. Where are the ideas for the economy? Healthcare? The things that actually matter.
We can debate and criticize President Biden's ideas. But where are the GOP ideas and legislative plans?
There just seems to be a commitment to stonewalling the current administration.
What about a common commitment to good ideas? What about a patriotic, bipartisan commitment to helping Americans hard times?
I think our country needs two healthy political parties providing competition and balance to one another so the voters can make an informed choice.
The absence of ideas from Republican party may be evidence that the party is caught in the grip of extremists. To this day, a very alarming number of those who identify as Republican still believe that President Biden did not win the election.
Mitch McConnell says the GOP won’t have a legislative agenda for the 2022 midterms, why? What few ideas the party has are deeply unpopular. I feel like most of us in Mid-America have grown tired of the culture wars already. It's not relatable for the great majority. Don't Republican party donors and voters want a more cogent agenda beyond “obstruct Biden” and “troll the left.” But that doesn’t appear to be what the base wants, nor is it what the Trump wing of the GOP is willing or able to offer. Maybe someone else will.
Hey, My vote is always up for grabs but I need something to grasp onto. Contrived hysteria about the fabricated issues of cancel culture and the culture wars is not going to do it for me.I learned something the other day - the 2016 Republican Platform had a plank "strongly" supporting Ukraine, to include arming them with lethal weapons. When Trump got the nomination, he totally watered down the working and took out any reference to giving Ukraine lethal weapons.
Fancy that!
Let's compare agenda's:
Biden's pitch is to (and keep in mind, my comments reflect the fact that you think that 100% of Biden's polices (to paraphrase) are trash - you have said that MULTIPLE times
- create new economic opportunities for workers, Since you say there is not one thing about Biden's agenda you can support, I guess creating new economic opportunities for workers is high on your list of "good" things"
- restore environmental protections - It makes sense that as a conservative you think helping the environment is a bad things. Fortunately, most Americans approve of this item
- restore healthcare rights - I wasn't aware of this one, but for the same reasons listed above, you must disapprove of this as well[.i]
- restore international alliances. - [i]Fortunately, unlike Trump Republicans, having democrat allies is much better than having dictators as allies
- Raise the minimum wage - I actually oppose this in favor of an expanded EITC
- invest in green energy, - I can see why you hate this, it doesn't pollute the earth
- Add $200 in Social Security payments per month, - Wasn't aware of this one either, but I bet only conservatives oppose it.
- rescind someTrump-era tax cuts, - The Trump tax-scam was a bust, it didn't do any of the good your side said it would, and the loss of tax revenues drove up deficits. Reversing the give-away to the rich will help restore economic order
- rescind $10,000 of student loan forgiveness for federal loans., - I am not sure I agree with "forgiving" any student debt other than from those for profit snake oil schools like Trump University
- continue criminal justice reform - You supported this under Trump but now you oppose it because Biden wants to continue the effort? Makes no sense
- restore grants for minority communities, - [i[we definitely need to keep our foot on the necks of minority communities[/i]
- rejoin global climate accord, - Terrible idea, it might help save the planet
- expand Obamacare,
- undo Trump's inhumane policies at the border - Putin could learn a thing or to from Trump about how to treat people
- universal pre-school, - Only Trump Republicans hate this, why?
- expand the free college, and much more. Yep, anything that helps people and America should be axed
Trump's agenda -- 2020
- bring back the economy - As has been proven to you many, many times, Obama's economy was good to start with. Trump neither improved upon it nor made it worse. Before the pandemic, the economy had not changed very much.
- boost jobs - We could always use more jobs, but Obama had already set records in job growth. Trump did very well also, and Biden has done better.
- protect US trade interests - [i]I have yet to figure out what was wrong with our trade interests. All Trump did was bankrupt a bunch of farmers and make things more expensive in the US, and upset the global economy
to continue with his hard-line stance on immigration - Interesting, since Obama was being raked over the coals for doing just that! Plus, in the end, Trump only hurt the economy and people without solving a damn thing
- Bringing back the pandemic-battered economy - [i[Which was also President Biden's agenda item, lol[/i]
- President Trump has long campaigned on "America First" - Which turned out to be a Trump-only First policy
pushed for bringing jobs and manufacturing back to the US - Since this is his 2020 agenda, are you saying Trump lost jobs and sent manufacturing out of the country? I am confused
Ending the 'reliance' on China - Again, this is 2020 agenda so your are saying, truthfully, that he made America MORE reliant on China in his first four years.
- protecting US manufacturing - [i]Do you mean Trump wasn't protecting manufacturing from 2016 - 2020?
Mr. Trump first campaigned on the promise the US should put focus on its own economic interests though he has said "America First" does "not mean "America alone" - [/i]But he did go alone, didn't he.[/i]
- reasserting US sovereignty - When did we lose it?
- Building the wall and curbing immigration - Except he didn't even do that well, nor did he get Mexica to pay for what he little he did do (a MAJOR campaign promise he broke); which is very porous btw[i]
Promises to curb immigration levels have been foundational to the president's political career.
He also vows to eliminate the visa lottery [i]broken and chain migration broken- meaning immigration to the US that is based on family ties - and shift to a "merit-based" entry system broken. Lower drug costs broken[i] terminate the Affordable Care Act [i]failed
Bottom line, Trump made up most of these "problems" in order to pander to soon to be Trump Republicans who were ready to believe these fake problems. He CONNED you.
"What today’s voters see is not a candidate, or a set of policy proposals, but a party affiliation (Republican vs. Democrat), a political label (conservative vs. liberal), a symbolic color (red vs. blue)."
I did a deep dive last year into why/how a person chooses a political party and why/how a person votes the way they do. I came upon many revealing articles/studies mainly by psychologists and sociologists. One example is the strong need a person has to belong to a group.
That group could be their family, set of friends, church, social club like Elks club or Rotary Club or even Boy Scouts, and so forth. Once the choice is made comes the sociological pressures both for and against or some would say peer pressure.
So, a person becomes embedded in their choice always seeking to justify it while developing not just one bias, but several to many. Most are familiar with Confirmation Bias. There are 175 different cognitive biases, so one can see it is not a simple matter all of the time, yet it only takes one to choose a political party like being pro-Life, so the choice is to be Republican. And, they remain for life being one while always voting for that even if they don't know what the party platform is or what it means. That goes for policies too. It is simply a matter of Loyalty to a group.
Here are few links to some of the articles studies I discovered.
The Psychology of Voting by American National Election Studies
https://electionstudies.org/papers-docu … of-voting/
This is Your Brain on Politics by the Association of Psychological Science
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/ob … n-politics
Politics is Personal by the American Psychological Association
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/11/cover-politics
Why do people belong to a party? Negative views of the opposing party are a major factor by Pew Research
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … or-factor/
Types of Bias by CPD Online College
https://cpdonline.co.uk/knowledge-base/ … s-of-bias/
Russian forces were fairly static today with probing actions in most places. They did advance a little near Donetsk.
In looking at the latest map, it seems the Russians are trying to link up on the eastern border. They are advancing Northwest from Luhansk and Southeast from Kharkiv. This seems to be creating a large pocket of Ukrainian troops defending North of Luhansk and are getting close to being cut off.
If there are Ukrainian forces in that pocket, I wonder if they are making plans to get through the quickly closing gap to take up defensive lines along the NW to SE road M03 from Kharkiv to Donetsk in order to concentrate and preserve their forces on what amounts to an interior line.These LEADERS show more guts than any Trump Republican.
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/uk … eea8db4225Where's Biden? I did hear after the news broke that these brave leaders were headed into the war zone -- Biden WAS CONSIDERING A TRIP TO EUROPE. Photo OP? Laughable--- Day late buck short Biden. I hope they keep him right here where he can be controlled in a better fashion. He has done enough damage in my opinion.
So ashamed of this administration, so ashamed. IMO - They are floundering, stumbling through one of the biggest crises the US has seen since the last world war.
Russian soldiers ashamed of what child-killer Putin has done. Some captured Russian soldiers are reporting that if they retreat, they will be killed. Their only choices are to fight, surrender, or mutiny.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/u … index.htmlUKRAINE UPDATES:
- The terrorist Putin continues his indiscriminate slaughter of women and children.
- Ukrainian intelligence reports that Russia may have expended nearly its entire store of precision cruise missiles in the first twenty days of its invasion.
- Ukrainian forces repelled Russian operations around Kharkiv and reported killing a regimental commander.
- Ukrainian forces shot down 10 Russian aircraft—including five jets, three helicopters, and two UAVs—on March 16For instance:
"- undo Trump's inhumane policies at the border - Putin could learn a thing or to from Trump about how to treat people."
How heartless to declare Trump inhumane!!! Did you ever consider his intentions to keep germs, drugs, evil trafficking and gangs out of the whole of America??
"- universal pre-school, - Only Trump Republicans hate this, why?"
Because NOTHING IS FREE. Not to mention, we don't want schools and the state to replace mothers.
"- expand the free college, and much more. Yep, anything that helps people and America should be axed."
So, HIGH TAXES will help America?There are a multitude of studies on the myriad of benefits from pre-k. I'll cite one of the most powerful..The Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman has spent many years studying the results of small, randomized experiments with preschool in the 1960s and 1970s. The most famous such experiment was The Perry Preschool Project, which was conducted in Ypsilanti, Mich. The program provided two years of high-quality preschool for disadvantaged 3- and 4-year-olds.
Heckman and his colleagues found that the Perry Preschool had seismic effects on the kids who participated. They were much less likely to get arrested, go on welfare or be unemployed as adults. They earned significantly more. In a recent study, Heckman and his team found that even the kids of the kids who went to the Perry preschool had significantly better outcomes in life.
All in all, Heckman and his team estimate that every dollar the Perry Preschool project invested in kids had a return on investment of 7-10% per year, through increased economic gains for the kids and decreased public spending on them through other social programs when they got older. That's a substantial return, equal to or greater than the average annual return from the stock market, and much greater than most other things our government spends money on.
We need to invest in children from day one if we expect to compete globally and slow our increasing reliance on those who have been better educated outside our country to fill out skilled professions. Again, this is an investment in our country's future. Children benefit from a skilled teacher during these formative years. They offer value, they aren't babysitters designed to "replace" mothers.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021 … t-stronger"There are a multitude of studies on the myriad of benefits from pre-k. " - I don't think that was the point. I understood the comment to say "if mothers can't do it, then it shouldn't be done, no matter how beneficial.
Oh I know! Some mother's can and a lot can't or won't. So why let children fall behind immediately?
I don't know, but some seem to think it is a good idea.
"How heartless to declare Trump inhumane!!!" - The word is TRUTHFUL, not "heartless". Trump's pandemic policies led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Trump's abandoning our allies in Syria led to thousands of needless Kurdish deaths. Trump's withholding economic and material to Ukraine endangered countless lives and helped embolden his friend terrorist Putin to do what he is doing today. All FACTS!!!
"Because NOTHING IS FREE. Not to mention, we don't want schools and the state to replace mothers." - So your better plan is to let mothers keep their kids dumber than they ought to be. I see.
"So, HIGH TAXES will help America?" - What "high" taxes??? We have the one of the lowest tax rates in the world with the rich not paying their fair share.When the travel ban was announced we had not had a death reported in the US! Note restrictions for Americans that were told they could return from China.
SOURCE -- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho … vel-from-c
Jan 31, 2020 --- "How heartless to declare Trump inhumane!!!" - The word is TRUTHFUL, not "heartless". Trump's pandemic policies led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Trump's abandoning our allies in Syria led to thousands of needless Kurdish deaths. Trump's withholding economic and material to Ukraine endangered countless lives and helped embolden his friend terrorist Putin to do what he is doing today. All FACTS!!!"
This comment is flat-out outrageous and needs to be fully addressed.
In regards to the pandemic --- Let's look at facts.
Fact -- Trump quickly got ant American's to leave China and then closed travel from China. While he was called a racist, many Democrats faulted that move. Pelosi headed to China town, for a photo op, and to make a fool of herself.
Pelosi in China town https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCzoXhNM6c&t=26s
"The Trump administration declared a public health emergency in the U.S. Friday in response to the global coronavirus outbreak.
"Today President Trump took decisive action to minimize the risk of novel coronavirus in the United States," said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar at a White House press conference.
The risk of contracting the coronavirus is the U.S. is low — something that federal health administration officials emphasized repeatedly. "We are working to keep the risk low," Azar said.
The declaration of a public health emergency — which will become effective Sunday at 5 p.m. ET — enables the government to take temporary measures to contain the spread of the virus, which has been confirmed in seven people in the U.S.
The action means that U.S. citizens who have been in China's Hubei Province in the past 14 days will be subject to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they travel back to the United States.
Earlier Friday, federal officials announced that American citizens who were evacuated from Wuhan earlier in the week would be quarantined for 14 days at March Air Reserve Base in Southern California. The action represents the first time in 50 years the U.S. has instituted a quarantine order.
Coronavirus: CDC Puts Americans Who Left Wuhan Into 'Unprecedented' 14-Day Quarantine
In addition, the U.S. is temporarily suspending entry of most travelers arriving from China, or who have recently been in China, if they are not U.S. citizens.
"Foreign nationals other than immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have traveled in China in the last 14 days will be denied entry into United States," Azar said.
Further, U.S. citizens who have been in other areas of mainland China in the past two weeks will be subject to screening at the airport of entry and to heightened monitoring for 14 days.
In their Friday remarks, federal health officials pointed to the fast global spread of the virus as justification for the move. The World Health Organization declared a global health emergency on Thursday.
WHO Declares Coronavirus Outbreak A Global Health Emergency
U.S. officials also tried to explain their reasoning for an intense focus on this outbreak, which so FAR HAS NOT LED TO ANY death IN THE US. ., though it has led to more than 250 in China.
January 29, 2020
The White House Coronavirus Task Force is established with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar, as the head of the Task Force.
January 31, 2020
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, declares the SARS-CoV-2 virus a public health emergency and the White House 2019 Novel Coronavirus Task Force announces the implementation of new travel policies to be effective at 5:00 PM EST on February 2, 2020.
HERE IS A COMPLETE TIMELINE THAT SHOWS WHAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DID TO COMBAT COVID. This administration handle problems quickly and did a superb job dealing with this crisis. SOURCE CDC TIMELINE. https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
I for one am sick of hearing Trump did not handle COVID properly.
The real Question at this point is what did Biden do? HE DID NOTHING BUT CAUSE INFLATION WITH HIS CASH GIVEAWAY... Nothing.
In my opinion, anyone that makes the claim Trump handled the pandemic poorly has not done their homework. The facts are there in the timeline.
If we want to talk about Syria ,,, Let's talk red line, and chemicals being dropped on civilians. And Obama did nothing but hide. Seems That is a trait of recent Democratic presidents. When times get tough they head for the basement.
"Syria: Eighth Anniversary of the Ghouta Chemical Weapons Attack. Eight years ago, on the early morning of August 21, 2013, the Assad regime released the nerve agent sarin on its own people in the Ghouta district of Damascus, killing more than 1,400 Syrians, many of them children."
Who was president --- what did he do in response? Here is what Trump did when Chemical weapons were used on his watch ---
The chemical attack
The U.S. strike was in response to a chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, a rebel-held town in northeastern Syria just two days before, on April 4, 2017.
More than 80 people were killed, and images of adults gasping for air and babies on respirators drew world outrage.
The U.N.-backed Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons concluded in June 2017 that sarin was the nerve agent used in the attack.
Trump attack in 2017
Last year on April 6, Trump ordered an attack on the Shayrat airbase in central Syria. It was allegedly the base from which planes had launched chemical attacks on rebel-held areas.
The U.S. struck the base with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting runways and hangars. The strike killed several Syrians, according to local Syrian officials.
Obama just blamed congress...
In regards to Ukraine weapons, Trump sold more arms to Ukraine than any other president in our history. Dec 2017 Trump approved arms deal Oct 2019, trump approved arms sale to Ukraine. June 17, 2020
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 … d-sensors/
You need to back up such inflammatory comments. NO PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY HAS SOLD MORE ARMS TO UKRAINE.
Trump provided weapons that helped fight this very war they now find themself fighting. I am very much aware the current administration is arming Ukraine at present, so no need to waste your words on that count... Trump was arming them to the teeth! In hopes of preventing Russian aggression. He made a stab at problem-solving."When the travel ban was announced we had not had a death reported in the US!" - That wasn't the subject
"Trump provided weapons that helped fight this very war they now find themself fighting. " - Trump changed the Republican platform which called for giving those lethal weapons to Ukraine such that there was no mention of it in the final product. Tell me, why did Trump do that? (because of that, I am guessing he was forced kicking and screaming to supply those weapons to Ukraine over his mentor's wishes.)
"Fact -- Trump quickly got ant American's to leave China and then closed travel from China." - Not FACT, your statement is FALSE. Trump did not CLOSE travel from China. It leaked very badly. SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ … ans-china/
"many Democrats faulted that move." - SOURCE??
""The Trump administration declared a public health emergency in the U.S. Friday in response to the global coronavirus outbreak." - FINALLY, he was a day late and a dollar short and was FORCED to do so
January 22: While at Davos, Trump makes his first public comment on the coronavirus, downplaying the risk in comments to CNBC and CBS News correspondent Paula Reid.
To CNBC: We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.
To CBS: We do have a plan and we think it’s going to be handled very well. We’ve already handled it very well … We’re in very good shape and I think China’s in very good shape also.
January 30: The WHO declares the coronavirus a global health emergency.
43 DAYS LATER - March 13: Trump declares a national emergency in response to the coronavirus, freeing up billions in federal funding for the virus response. Yep, he acted fast alright, lol
SOURCE: https://www.vox.com/2020/6/8/21242003/t … s-response
"I for one am sick of hearing Trump did not handle COVID properly.
" - I, for one, am sick of hearing people say Trump handled COVID properly - [b]when CLEARLY he did not!
"The chemical attack" - Does this have something to do with Trump feeding the Kurds to the Turks? Not sure I see the connection
" Trump sold more arms to Ukraine than any other president in our history. " - Again, what is your point? He could have sold just one Javelin and claimed that title. The POINT is that Trump withheld lethal aid to Ukraine for a political favor, thereby putting at risk the lives of those on the front lines. That is very SICK, if you ask me. (also, while the SOLD aspect of your claim is still probably true, it PALES in comparison to what President Biden has given the Ukrainians.)
"Trump was arming them to the teeth!" - Then why were they so short when the Russians attacked?
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics … 817109.cms
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics … index.html
While Trump did give somewhat more aid to Ukraine, there was a "ramp up" period in 2014 and 2015, Even so, Obama provided an average of $200 million a year. Trump, on the other hand, provided an average of $350 million (with NO RAMP up) a year of basically the same stuff Obama provided (plus a few Javelins).
"He made a stab at problem-solving." - Yet he illegally withheld the aid for crass political purposes.Believe what you please. I offered the facts, and anyone else viewing my comment will see the facts. that's pretty much why I wasted my time with such a lengthy comment. To prove you argue facts with rediculous media opinions.
I well proved my point.Only in your own mind.
"I offered the facts" - You offered disinformation. I offered facts (obviously you didn't read what I posted, they were full of facts. I guess a timeline is not a fact in your opinion - interesting.You act like a five-year-old when people just won't play with you. I offered you a timeline from CDC. I would hope they have their facts straight. Again my source -- offers a detailed timeline on what Trump did by date. So if you feel they have printed something that is misinformation, I suggest you take that up with them... Your retort as "he said this, and then he said that... I offered a link to what he did, not what he said in a press conference. WHAT HE FACTUALLY DID. To sum it up we have very very different thought processes You grab onto words, and put them into a context that suits your narritive. Me, I grab onto actual deeds, the things Trump did to get us through a very big crisis. I give credit when due --- you just foment misinformation that you have twisted out of context, with the help of biased media outlets. Do yourself a favor, read the timeline... And perhaps you will be truely aware of what Trump did and the very date he did it. FACTs Not he said this, and it surely overrides his deeds.
https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
And, when bringing up the ridiculous statements that were found to be untrue --- need I post all the crazy crap Biden has stated over the past year? My God can't see why you would bring up --- Trump said this. Biden is a flat-out mess. when he speaks, let's leave it there.... I have no need to prove my point on that subject. LOL
And anyone reading my response recognizes that I debunked your disinformation with provable facts - which all of my sources contained.
What promotes a percolating economy?
Letting people earn and spend their own money according to their God-Given right to guide their own lives. Only low taxation enables freedom on SO MANY LEVELS!
Keep Your Own Money and Use it as YOU See Fit
Manage What YOU Earn According to Your Own Will.
Don't Sign Up to Give YOUR Money AWAY!None of that "percolates" the economy. But what it leads to is crumbling infrastructure, starving people, and a failed nation.
Furthermore, to keep the economy percolating:
Don't raise the minimum wage.
Don't invest in green energy.
Don't add $200 in Social Security payments per month.A full-time worker today cannot afford a modest, two-bedroom apartment in any county in the country. IMO Full-time workers should not fall below the poverty line. A raise in minimum wage would allow many to more easily afford their monthly expenses, such as rent, car payments, and other household expenses. That equals money flowing into the economy.
A shift to adding more clean energy to our mix is beneficial to our economy also. The clean energy sector was adding jobs 70% faster than the overall US economy. Multiple analyses have shown that stimulus support for key elements of a clean economy is a smart way to generate good-paying jobs, higher paying jobs.. One study found that clean energy investments create three times more jobs than an equivalent investment in fossil fuels. More money in people's paycheck, allows folks to put more money into the economy.
The economic rationale for investing in clean energy is clear, but the climate and health benefits make it a slam dunk. The health benefits are clear as well as climate impacts. We need to continue to reduce greenhouse gases.
Clean energy is popular on both sides of the aisle also. Extending clean energy tax incentives and investments has long been a priority for many Democrats, but recently, a group of Senate Republicans also voiced support for policies that will bolster jobs and innovation across the clean energy economy. At the same time, polling continues to reflect widespread bipartisan support for clean energy: According to a June 2020 Morning Consult poll, 66% of voters believe clean energy investments will strengthen the US economy and benefit workers.
Also, couldn't you imagine a more peaceful world in which oil wasn't equated to power?I'll keep tilting at windmills by saying again that an expanded EITC is much better than any minimum wage. BUT, since Congress doesn't have the smarts to pass, the minimum wage is the next best thing.
Not only do people think clean energy will improve the economy, many, maybe all, economists say so as well.Can you expound on how clean energy will improve the economy? From my desk, it appears that it will provide jobs...paid for via higher electric rates and taxes. As that money is no longer used to purchase other things, there can be no rise in GDP or any other wide ranging figure; only the cost of energy will rise and it will be offset by reductions elsewhere.
It will also increase the total spent on energy, but with the same caveat; all the "extra" money now spent on energy was destined to be spent elsewhere anyway.
So how does the economy improve by merely shifting costs (spending) from one thing to another? If that were "new" money being spent it would be different, but it is not; outside of the borrowing from the future to subsidize construction every dime was already earmarked for something else. A new car, maybe, or private schooling - it was all to be spent elsewhere, and those dollars simply shifted to clean energy rather than those other things.Perhaps the biggest economic benefit of renewable energy technologies is in the cost of the electricity that they generate. Once built, wind turbines, solar farms and other types of renewable energy produce electricity at low cost. This is a significant difference from electricity generated from fossil-fired power plants: in order to run a natural gas or coal power plant, utility companies need to purchase the natural gas and coal that will ultimately be burned by the power plants.
Additionally, The negative effects of climate change are expected to be an ongoing drag on the global gross domestic product (GDP). A Stanford study in 2015 attempted to project climate change's impact on GDP, and they concluded that there was a 51% chance that climate change would reduce the world's GDP by more than 20%.26 That's comparable to the Great Depression, where GDP fell to -26.7%.27 The only difference is that, in the case of climate change effects, the GDP reduction would be permanent. The same Stanford study found that there was a 71% chance that climate change would have at least some negative impact on GDP.
Also, a US Federal Reserve study examining GDP and temperature data across 124 countries has warned that rising temperatures will have a “very strong” negative impact on GDP growth.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com … 18EF000922That the cost of renewable energy is less than what is being paid now is true only in areas of very high energy costs. Most of my energy is from hydro plants, is very cheap, and clean energy can only increase costs.
How does global warming decrease GDP and, more importantly, decrease GDP per capita? I can't see any fewer products being purchased - how does GDP go down?
Global warming should either vastly increase the sale of air conditioners (increasing GDP) or the sale of additional, more northern, housing (again increasing GDP). The point is that it is quite easy to simply make the claim, but without at some explanation that claim is worthless. How does a warmer climate cut the growth of GDP?I did provide a link in my previous post. Climate change that produces prolonged drought for some, massive flooding with rising sea levels for others impacts our economy massively in terms of agriculture. The crops, livestock, and seafood produced in the United States contribute more than $300 billion to the economy each year. Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Changes in the frequency and severity of droughts and floods could pose challenges for farmers and ranchers and threaten food safety. Overall, climate change could make it more difficult to grow crops, raise animals, and catch fish in the same ways and same places as we have done in the past.
As we experience more extremely hot days, food prices are rising. Corn and soybean yields in the U.S. precipitously plummet when temperatures rise above about 84 degrees Fahrenheit.36 Those crops feed cattle and other meat sources and create spikes in beef, milk, and poultry prices. A 2019 study found that a warming ocean has pushed global sustainable fish yields down 4.1% from 1930 to 2010.37 Some regions experienced fish population losses of up to 35%.
And this is just the effects on the GDP in terms of agriculture. Many other studies go on to list the impacts caused by mass migrations of people looking to leave areas left infertile by climate conditions.
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insight … hange.htmlThere are a lot of things that impact climate change and drought.
I am sure you will find this a fascinating watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5uloOJ5m1o
And this is an even better story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAKPUQMw0
Isn't "hydro plants" considered Renewable Energy? So that needs to compared with fossil fuels as well.
" How does a warmer climate cut the growth of GDP?" - YES, virtually all studies say so.
I won't expound, it is self-evident to me. But Yale can,
https://cbey.yale.edu/research/key-econ … blic-lands
I see you support the destruction of earth.
Related Discussions
- 256
A Warning From Biden Or Just Another Confused Statement?
by Sharlee 19 months ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
- 299
Is Russia Going to Invade Ukraine? Should America care if they do?
by Readmikenow 7 weeks ago
I guess in this situation I do have a bias. I'm Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Ukraine more than once. I have a bias, but I may also have a bit more insight into the situation.Russa invaded Ukraine in 2014. The propaganda will say it was Ukrainian...
- 15
Ukraine – Yet more lies from governments and mainstream media
by sannyasinman 10 years ago
Contrary to what most world governments and mainstream media are telling you, there IS NO build up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, as these eye witness accounts from USA journalists will tell you . . http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukrain … dup-n67336Inform yourself. Look for the...
- 17
BTW the Ukraine war just Escalated, again
by Ken Burgess 3 weeks ago
Ukraine’s Invasion of Russia Could Bring a Quicker End to the Warhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/09/ku … otiations/Ukraine Changed the Course of the War with KURSK Offensivehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPs6V5Nv_AWhat will be the response... what will Russia do now that the war is in...
- 38
Presidential Debate. What do you think will happen?
by Readmikenow 4 hours ago
I think harris lacks a lot in debate skills. She avoids questions from the press. Interviews she has done are very few. With the one national press interview done by her she was accompanied by her VP. It was taped. harris will have a difficult time answering questions...
- 84
America Ready to Enter Into War with Russia - After November Elections
by Ken Burgess 22 months ago
The U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division has been deployed to Europe for the first time in almost 80 years amid soaring tension between Russia and the American-led NATO military alliance. The light infantry unit, nicknamed the "Screaming Eagles," is trained to deploy on any battlefield in...