Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
109 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 107 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,058 Year: 5,170/6,534 Month: 13/577 Week: 1/80 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The War in Europe
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(5)
Message 11 of 838 (892123)
02-26-2022 7:28 AM


Bret Deveraux on the war
Miltiary historian Bret Deveraux offers his opinions.

It’s not comforting reading - but this war could backfire on Putin.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 02-28-2022 11:12 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(4)
Message 40 of 838 (892215)
03-03-2022 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 2:25 AM


Here is a link to the article, and I can understand why LNA wouldn’t want to provide it.

First, it was published on the 25th, as the invasion was just starting. Necessarily all the polls were taken BEFORE Russia attacked.

And that’s not all:

But that hasn’t stopped influential figures on the right from taking a friendlier position on Putin. On Tuesday, Trump appeared on a conservative radio show and called Putin “smart,” “savvy” and a “peacekeeper.” Even after news broke of the invasion on Wednesday night, Trump called the attack “sad” but also defended Putin, saying, “I really don’t believe he wanted to do this initially. I think he wanted to do something and negotiate it. It just got worse and worse.”

I wonder why a Trumper like LNA might want to be quiet about that?

Tucker Carlson came out against the war but was pushing a pro-Putin message before it.

The article notes this:

Recent polling and the messaging of most Republican leaders show a mostly unified front against Putin, albeit with disagreement over the best way to respond to Russia’s assault on Ukraine. But the mixed messaging from influential sources like Trump, Carlson and the QAnon community threaten to chip away at that resolve. Clearly, some Americans already believe that Putin may not be the bad guy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 2:25 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 3:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 44 of 838 (892219)
03-03-2022 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 3:41 AM


Re: PaulK is missing the point (plus telling lies).
quote:
The dishonest "Trumper" line is actually retarded dishonest because it implies that some sort of common anti-war conjunction means that someone is a general supporter of the broader issue agenda of a politician

Yawn. It does no such thing. And I identified you as a Trumper weeks ago. It has nothing to do with any-supposed “anti-war” sentiments.

quote:
The bullshit is that he ignores the fact that Republicans have registered party members that have views that are not what liars like himself (and jar, Theodoric, AzPaul, etc.) claim.

Perhaps you’d like to show me where I claimed that all registered Republican voters supported Putin.

quote:
PaulK and his ilk have NOTHING to back up their false accusations. And the available evidence shows that they are ignorant or lying.

I think the quotes I produced from the 538 article do a great job of backing up the claim that there are significant pro-Putin voices on the right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 3:41 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 46 of 838 (892221)
03-03-2022 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 4:18 AM


Re: PaulK is missing the point (plus telling lies).
quote:
I get the feeling you don't mind piling up lies on top of lies.

Funny how you can’t find even one then.

quote:
I am not even sure if you are accurately describing Trump's views anyway.

That description would be the direct quote from the 538 article. So it isn’t mine, is it?

quote:
The Russian invasion started on the 24th, not the 25th.

You lied about when the 538 article was written; it was not written before the war, or on the same day it started. It was written a day after it started.


So, not a lie then. And the point about the polls is still correct.

quote:
You lied when you said Russia first invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022, anyway. It already happened in 2014!

Since I didn’t say that I can hardly have lied.

quote:
You lied when you said that it was unimportant that 20% of Democrats supported Putin before Feb 25 (24), 2022. I know you are a lying liar, because you then expressrd outrage at Tucker Carlson holding similar antebellum views.

I didn’t say that either.

Let’s also note that according to the 538 article they supported Putin’s handling of the situation in the Ukraine - before the invasion, when talks were going on, and the Russians were falsely claiming to have pulled forces back from the border. That’s not the same as general support for Putin. And it’s certainly not the same as Carlson’s support for Putin - as described in the 538 article. Perhaps you would like to read what it says? It IS your source - even if you refused to provide a link to it (I wonder why? Don’t you want people to read beyond the title?)

quote:
You hair splitting is obviously pure shit, but it misses the point that liars, like you, are trying to confuse everyone with lies about where certain Americans stand. It is poisonous and disgraceful.

Funny how you didn’t provide any examples of me doing that, then. Especially when I asked for examples. I very rarely - if ever - speak about the average Republican voter. So it would be very hard for me to confuse people about where THEY stand.

On the other hand you try to claim that 20% of Democratic voters had similar views to those expressed by Tucker Carlson. Perhaps you would like to support that? Or maybe you’re the one trying to “confuse everyone with lies about where certain Americans stand”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 4:18 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 4:43 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 50 of 838 (892225)
03-03-2022 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 4:43 AM


Re: PaulK is missing the point (plus telling lies).
quote:
The poll was taken February 19-21 by Morning Consult/Politico.
Biden, on Feb 18 said he was "convinced" Russia would invade Kyiv with A MILITARY FORCE!

So Biden got that right. Good for him. And certainly better than Trump’s comments - made after the invasion began - quoted in the article.

quote:
20% of Democrats then said that they at least somewhat agree with how Putin was handling the conflict with Ukraine.

So, presumably they disagreed with Biden. If you actually cared about the facts you would at least deal with that possibility.

quote:
These are facts.

And you’ll note that I am not disputing any facts.

quote:
(Not that "facts" are anything you have a concept of)

Then why am I not disputing any facts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 4:43 AM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 64 of 838 (892245)
03-04-2022 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 10:11 PM


Re: What happened to the "Fairness Doctrine"?
quote:
People here feel that 10% of Republicans holding a favorable view of Putin is just too much to stomach

They do? It isn’t good when Putin is a murdering fascist tyrant. But I haven’t seen anyone complaining about that. The influential voices speaking in favour of Putin is a bigger problem.

quote:
EvC has a mass of posters that have a fascist mindset, granted - but, even this lot clearly suffer from only hearing the imperalistic, expansionist, militaristic, "western" side in the debate.

The “imperialist, expansionist, militaristic” force in this discussion would be the Russians. And your projection is noted.

quote:
The country will buy the b.s. Democrats will swallow the imperalistic cool-aid, and feel that it is "too Republican" to try to learn about the various sides in the (POTENTIAL) "debate", so Democratic views will start to mirror the anti-Russian views of Republicans.

I would think that the fact that Russia is an imperialistic expansionist power that has launched a war against a peaceful neighbour has rather a lot to do with any negative impressions.

quote:
John McCain & Mitt Romney (and Hillary,too!) were defeated by a war-weary electorate, that seemed to be growing in suspicion when it came to nationalism, imperialism & propaganda.

Your list of hate figures is very telling,

quote:
But, there seems to be a reconstitution at work. Masterful never-ending propaganda has managed to brainwashed EVEN IN THE INTERNET AGE.

And it sucks.


There is plenty of Russian propaganda out there.

quote:
*Can we please have a revamped *fairness doctrine, with fully updated rules governing search engines, social media, etc. My revamped Fairness Doctrine would be based around ADDING INFORMATION, not censorship. Make people's world smarter, not smaller!

So you want more Russian propaganda, Covid disinformation, conspiracy theories etc. etc. Oh and all the bogus claims about how Trump won the 2020 election, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 10:11 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2022 2:04 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 66 of 838 (892247)
03-04-2022 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by LamarkNewAge
03-03-2022 10:11 PM


Re: What happened to the "Fairness Doctrine"?
Oh, and for your information the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media, and it was repealed under Reagan in 1987.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-03-2022 10:11 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2022 11:21 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 838 (892250)
03-04-2022 9:04 AM


Interesting Twitter thread.
If this is correct it explains a lot.

Essentially the Russian paratroopers - although they’re an elite unit - rely on fear rather than fighting capability. Against solid resistance they are not very effective. We know that they haven’t been successful in Ukraine.

Also, Russian logistics are terrible. The reason they have a massive convoy sitting in the road to Kyiv is that they don’t have the supplies to get it there. Long may that situation continue!


  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 78 of 838 (892259)
03-04-2022 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 12:12 PM


Re: What happened to the "Fairness Doctrine"?
A couple of comments

quote:
Every fight that American blacks fought for rights were described as "Russian disinformation".

Really? These days the Republicans call them “Critical Race Theory” and want all knowledge of them kept out of schools. So I guess you’re all for that.

quote:
No wonder the progressive South African President is factually pointing out that Biden & NATO are to blame for this war, NOT PUTIN.

So you’re fine with fascist imperialist militaristic expansionist regimes. They’re not to blame for invading their neighbours, it’s everyone else’s fault for not surrendering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 12:12 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 81 of 838 (892263)
03-04-2022 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 3:46 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
I’m not convinced by your claim that people of couloir support white fascists. Abstaining can have many reasons. Far fewer countries voted against the resolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 3:46 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 4:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 84 of 838 (892266)
03-04-2022 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 4:31 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
quote:
The people of color opposed the bullshit bullying from fascism (so they opposed fascists like you).

By which you mean that they support fascists like you.

We all know that you’re the one supporting fascism here. Calling other people fascist for disagreeing - which is exactly what you are doing - won’t fly. It’s like trying to prove that someone is a liar by lying about them. Oh wait, you did that too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 4:31 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 5:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 88 of 838 (892270)
03-04-2022 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 5:13 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
quote:
Look at numbers

Are they really that relevant? I don’t think that the Chinese people have much input into the Chinese government’s position. Plenty of Russians oppose the invasion.

quote:
Look at just a few countries that opposed the resolution, which calls for Russia to withdraw WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT TO LIMIT FASCIST NATO

How terrible. Calling for a white fascist nation to stop invading their neighbour without giving them anything. Again, you make your support for fascism obvious.

And Russia is a white nation in case you hadn’t noticed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 5:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 6:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 90 of 838 (892272)
03-04-2022 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 5:23 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
quote:
I care to strongly oppose white nationalists, like you.

You call people liars because you lie about them

You call people fascists for opposing fascist invasions.

So quite possibly you mean the same sort of thing here,

quote:
Your thoughts & views kill people

If Putin decides to invade his neighbour you blame people who wouldn’t give him what he wanted. So I guess you’re going to blame white nationalist murders on people who don’t give the white nationalisats what they want.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 5:23 PM LamarkNewAge has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 125 of 838 (892308)
03-05-2022 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by LamarkNewAge
03-04-2022 6:39 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
quote:
I am still hoing to give you complete list.

Since you won’t explain the relevance that would be a bit pointless.

How about providing evidence that China abstained because the Chinese people support white fascism?

quote:
You have this "white is might", mindset, so you will brush aside the majority of the world population that - based on the vote of their representatives - opposes your fascist policies.

And there’s more evidence of your fascism. The idea that governments dictate the opinions of their people seems pretty fascist to me.

And given the amount of projection in your posts, I can only conclude hat you see Russia as an example of “white might” and coloured “support” for Russia as an acceptance of their “rightful” place. Pretty sick racism.

quote:
We already heard you begin to dismiss Chinese, South Africans, Ecuadorians, etc.

By which you mean that I dare to suggest that the people have their own voices, which may not agree with their government. And that their governments may have reasons for abstaining - or even voting against - other than support for white fascism. Neither of which you will allow. So clearly this is just more projection on your part. People of colour aren’t allowed to think for themselves.

You may see yourself as representing the world of white fascism, but your dreams of support are just another “white might” racist fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-04-2022 6:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-05-2022 12:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17171
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 128 of 838 (892316)
03-05-2022 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by LamarkNewAge
03-05-2022 12:59 PM


Re: Half of world refuses to support Western railroading UN resolution.
quote:
You have over 4.1 billion people who have governments that refused to demand Russian withdraw, absent negotiations.

Yes, as I pointed out it is the governments that made the decision, not the people. And most abstained rather than vote against, which is hardly full support for the fascist invasion.

quote:
Tiny Belarus was the only country that is recognized as unquestionably "white".

Belarus is also a Russian satellite, so couldn’t vote for the resolution anyway. And isn’t Russia white?

Anyway, we have yet to see why this should be considered relevant - especially without considering the motivations of the governments.

quote:
*And I said the Chinese voted against your white supremacist world policies.
(As you know, but lie about)

I don’t have any white supremacist world policies. Nor did I lie about China. Indeed the Chinese government abstained on the vote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-05-2022 12:59 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-05-2022 2:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022