Politics And Current Events

[Morkle]

Kennedy attracts more right wing loons than the left for his conspiracy talk. It’s either a negative for Trump or at the least, a wash.

[faftorial]

Kennedy attracts more right wing loons than the left for his conspiracy talk. It’s either a negative for Trump or at the least, a wash.

Judging by Ronna's reaction they see it as a negative to Trump. Cornell West will be the negative for Biden.

[tifosi77]

But Kennedy is just some crank with standard centrist opinions on things, except vaccines.

If these are wrong, please correct me. But here are some of the things I've heard him support:

• the CIA killed his uncle;

• there should be national ban on abortion after the first trimester;

• has a take on Ukraine that Shyster would dig (despite his son currently fighting in the "Ukrainian Foreign Legion" or whatever)

• appears to hinge much of his foreign policy positions on Soviet-era stuff;

• does not think HIV causes AIDS;

• does think benzos are responsible for school shootings;

• is........ if not a raging antisemite, then is at least not friend to the Semites......

I mean, what road is that middle of?

[Troy Loney]

Exactly

[Pavel Bure]

You missed the 5G nonsense but yeah he’s a crazy person.

[mikey]

He has a weird voice to the point that he cannot be president. Doesn't matter his views.

[meow]

Maybe we can dub Samuel L Jackson over his voice. AI can do all sorts of wild things.

[Shyster]

Shyster victim-blaming NATO is one of the more incomprehensible opinions on this board

Yeah, how dare the Russians put their country so close to our military bases. The outrage!

If Russia had military bases in, say, Mexico, Belize, Honduras, Haiti, and Bermuda and was inviting Mexico to join an alliance against the United States, the US government would be flipping the eff out. But we declare Russia is an enemy and surround them with military bases, and we expect them to do nothing. I'm not saying this justifies their attack on Ukraine, but it does, at least in part, explain it.

I find it fascinating that the progressives in here basically sound like Donald Rumsfeld circa 2002 or Bill Kristol circa... well... pick any point in Bill Kristol's entire life.

'Incomprehensible' probably isn't the word you're looking for, as I think it makes sense given Shyster's world view as he has articulated it over the years. That underlying world view itself, however...........................................................

You all know I'm a lawyer, and I'm the sort of lawyer that does lawsuits. For the civil suits I handle, 95%+ settle before trial, and every settlement results in both sides getting less than what they want. Every Plaintiff always wants everything, and every Defendant always wants to pay nothing. The question is whether continuing to fight is worth the time, expense, and uncertainly, especially if the outcome might be less than clear. My job is to represent my client's best interests, and that includes advising them that a settlement right be a better option—even if it means getting less than they want to paying something they didn't want to pay. I'm looking at Ukraine the same way. How much will the daily life of a wheat farmer in the Donbas actually change if the flag waiving overhead changes from blue and yellow to red, white, and blue? And would that farmer be better or worse off his his legs are blown off by a mine or his wife or children are killed by an artillery barrage? There's a real cost in blood to keep fighting, and I for one have doubts whether that price is justified. Again, I do not personally view "perpetual meat grinder" as a reasonable long-term solution.

[tifosi77]

Does every plaintiff murder the defendant if the defendant doesn't capitulate?

[Pavel Bure]

Yeah all those military bases around Crimea and Chechnya sure pushed Putin past the edge. Same thing with Ukraine.

[Shyster]

Does every plaintiff murder the defendant if the defendant doesn't capitulate?

Ukraine is more like a situation where the plaintiff started stabbing the defendant, and the defendant started stabbing back. Both are now wounded and bleeding, but the wounds are not yet fatal. If you were the defendant, would you prefer to keep stabbing—and risk death—or come to a mutual agreement to stop stabbing? Now, such an agreement would be arguably unfair to the defendant, because the plaintiff started stabbing first. But stopping stabbing means staying alive to get treatment, and keeping stabbing runs the risk of death. Is it worth it to keep stabbing? Some would say yes. Some would say no. But it's not an "incomprehensible" question to ask.

[shafnutz05]

Except the defendant has to live right next door to the plaintiff, which has been proven to be largely evil and bear no regard for human life. And will surely attack again.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I can’t imagine Shyster isn’t trolling

[meow]

The US spends 40% of the world’s defense/military budget. Why do we do this if we don’t use it to protect our allies?

[Shyster]

I can’t imagine Shyster isn’t trolling

I assure you I am not. I personally find it "incomprehensible" that all of you are dead-set that this war needs to continue and a negotiated peace cannot even be countenanced when troop deaths alone to date are likely nearing 200,000 on both sides, with only 500 square miles of territory changing hands in the last year. The war is a stalemate, and there are no indications that either side can win. All they are both doing is wasting the lives of their soldiers in pursuit of goals that neither side has the wherewithal to actually bring about. Russia isn't going to conquer Ukraine, and Ukraine isn't going to drive Russia out of the Donbas and Crimea. If either side could do so, they would have done so by now, because every day that goes by just depletes both militaries even further. And a long war of attrition does not favor Ukraine, because Ukraine has 1/4 the population of Russia.

[Pavel Bure]

I can’t imagine Shyster isn’t trolling

I assure you I am not. I personally find it "incomprehensible" that all of you are dead-set that this war needs to continue and a negotiated peace cannot even be countenanced when troop deaths alone to date are likely nearing 200,000 on both sides, with only 500 square miles of territory changing hands in the last year. The war is a stalemate, and there are no indications that either side can win. All they are both doing is wasting the lives of their soldiers in pursuit of goals that neither side has the wherewithal to actually bring about. Russia isn't going to conquer Ukraine, and Ukraine isn't going to drive Russia out of the Donbas and Crimea. If either side could do so, they would have done so by now, because every day that goes by just depletes both militaries even further. And a long war of attrition does not favor Ukraine, because Ukraine has 1/4 the population of Russia.

Okay so negotiated peace happens. In 3-5 years Russia does this again. Then what? More appeasing fascists?

This isn’t some court case where person A hates Person B and they can find an amount of money and never see each other again.

Why do you ignore the previous times in history that fascists were appeased in even the slightest way and then continued acting badly.

[Shyster]

Ukraine is the only non-NATO country that has a chance in hell to defeat Russia. That's why we need to continue throwing them money. If they lose or even capitulate, Russia will almost immediately attack smaller non-NATO countries like Moldova, Armenia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. And at that point, an actual world war might occur. The best case scenario for the world is to continue to support Ukraine, who is absolutely content fighting a battle for their homeland while also doing the Wests dirty work.

Moldova and Armenia are not members, but Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia have been NATO members since 2004.

[mikey]

What's the "fascist" use record in 24 hours here...?

[mikey]

The US spends 40% of the world’s defense/military budget. Why do we do this if we don’t use it to protect our allies?

Ukraine is an ally...? Or are you talking Israel...?

[Shyster]

Okay so negotiated peace happens. In 3-5 years Russia does this again. Then what? More appeasing fascists?

This isn’t some court case where person A hates Person B and they can find an amount of money and never see each other again.

Why do you ignore the previous times in history that fascists were appeased in even the slightest way and then continued acting badly.

I am not ignoring that history. There is a risk that war could start all over again. But if there is no peace, the war could still be going on in 3-5 years, with thousands more dead and nothing to show for it. I recognize that you believe I am ignoring a risk, but I think you are ignoring the undisputed fact that the last year of bloodshed and billions of dollars gone has produced no substantive change in the front lines.

[mikey]

Slippery slope/what-happens-when arguments never seem to matter when it's for left leaning causes...nice to see that they're back*

Anyhow, we'll probably eventually want to quit on Ukraine in order to focus on where the real gold mine is...

[CBear3]

Shyster, every post from you makes it sound like we’re forcing Ukrainians to fight against their will. They’re the ones that didn’t roll out the red carpet, they’re the ones fighting for their country. I think you always hope for a diplomatic solution and a peace agreement, and I think it’s wise to be doing that calculus either in the open or behind closed doors.

But the fact remains that Ukrainians want to continue this fight, even if it means losing a generation of young men on both sides because they know what living as a Russian state means (not you or I). And as long as they’re willing to fight I think we have a duty to assist in some manner.

[Shyster]

Shyster, every post from you makes it sound like we’re forcing Ukrainians to fight against their will. They’re the ones that didn’t roll out the red carpet, they’re the ones fighting for their country. I think you always hope for a diplomatic solution and a peace agreement, and I think it’s wise to be doing that calculus either in the open or behind closed doors.

But the fact remains that Ukrainians want to continue this fight, even if it means losing a generation of young men on both sides because they know what living as a Russian state means (not you or I). And as long as they’re willing to fight I think we have a duty to assist in some manner.

I agree they are not flighting against their will. If they want to keep fighting and dying, it's their choice. But I vehemently disagree that it is our duty to assist them. The US should not be "assisting" anyone in any war. Ukraine is not the 51st state (neither, for that matter, is Israel). It's not our role to fund their wars. From the libertarian platform: "The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. ... American foreign policy should emphasize peace with all nations, entangling alliances with none. We would end the current U.S. government policies of foreign intervention including military and economic aid; tariffs; economic sanctions; and regime change."

[tifosi77]

What is 'Aleppo'?

[Lelldorin]

I am quite sure that more Ukrainians have died due to Russian occupation so far, than those that have died in battle and explosions. And it is not even close. Additionally, Russia has kidnapped 100 000+ children to brainwash and make Russian...
Appeasing Putin would mean that they abandon all Ukrainians that are still alive in Russian occupied territories.

I agree that it is up to NATO if they want to support Ukraine with equipment/weapons, but it is up to the Ukrainians to choose whether they want to negotiate a peace or not.