• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Musk on USAID: ‘Time for it to die’

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,401
17,118
Here
✟1,478,561.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is no such thing in that article. It does, however, include Ukraine's accusation that russia was massing troops near the border (which they were and it would only accelerate in the 10 weeks that remained before the full-on invasion).
So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?
The "egging on" was in reference to Biden dangling the NATO carrot.

To your other part...
Not all of the obsession with Russia, but a decent sized chunk of it, and when that thought process wasn't resonating as well with people and US support for aid was lessening across the board, they injected some new talking points for why "it's a good thing" to re-rally the democratic base around the idea.


The proof is in the pudding... Progressives seem to have a distinct track record of almost-blindly supporting whichever entity is opposing the faction they see to be ideologically aligned with the conservatives.

The US convervatives back Guaido over Maduro, the progressives labelled it as a "US backed coup".
Conservatives back Israel, the progressive wing busts out their Palestinian flags
...that pattern goes back to Vietnam.

Given that they've already listed some ulterior motives, why should anyone take it in good faith that they have a sincere desire to "help Ukraine", as opposed to this just being another iteration of a long-time pattern?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Raised by bees
Mar 11, 2017
22,233
16,696
55
USA
✟420,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?
It is at most a convenient "apologetic" to use after the fact for the expansionist dictator that had already decided to invade.

Our job is to not fall for it.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,227
20,125
Finger Lakes
✟315,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did they stop teaching Cold War geopolitics at some point in the US schools or something? This is BASIC knowledge. I don't get this exchange that is going on.
Stop?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,227
20,125
Finger Lakes
✟315,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why would a subscription to Politico be essential to USAID jobs?
Don't confuse regular Politico with its sister Politico Pro. Among other things, PP aggregates new policies and programs in listings easily referenced.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,397
16,055
72
Bondi
✟379,381.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is desperate stuff you're now making up. Here's a tip: If you want to put something in quotes then assume that we'd like to see who said it. Don't make them up as if they represent actual positions of anyone. You can add links to support what you said to your next post. I especially want to know who suggested that the US decided that they could improve their image by backing Ukraine because Russia restricts freedoms to gay people. I want to know so that I can tell him he's an idiot.

Thanks in advance.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,401
17,118
Here
✟1,478,561.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's in the articles I linked in the post you quoted, did you not read them?




I'm not making those up, look through these links I provided earlier, each of those 3 reasons is listed.

So, when you hop on the phone to call the writers and think-tank members at the Wilson Center and American Progress to tell them they're idiots, can you conference me in so I can listen? lol ...just give me enough time to make some popcorn ahead of time.

The section of the piece you're looking for (when you call to criticize them) is the one listed under the section "To improve the image of the United States"

Specifically, paragraph 3 of that section.

You're welcome... you asked that I "add links to support what you said to your next post". I've done that now (even though they were links I had posted before), so we're good right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,397
16,055
72
Bondi
✟379,381.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's in the articles I linked in the post you quoted, did you not read them?
Nonsense. It most certainly did not say anything like the 'quotes' you used. Which was 'improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms'. The author was talking about the concept of a just war. The good guys v the bad ones. It's comparing a democratic society to an authoritative one and an example of an adherence to human rights in the case of the Ukraine - where gay rights was mentioned as an example.

If you'd have said' The US should support countries that support human rights and democratic ideals' then no-one would have argued. For Syzov to say that it would 'improve the image of the US' by doing so is something that he might think is a plus point but it wouldn't even get on my list. It's like saying that you should stop your neighbour from beating his wife because it'll make you look good. Really? But if you think that's a plus then you be you. Just make sure that they spell your name right in the local paper.

And then you mangling his opinion to say that it'll improve the US's image because 'they're supporting a side that allows more gay freedom' is, as I said, nonsensical.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,401
17,118
Here
✟1,478,561.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Don't confuse regular Politico with its sister Politico Pro. Among other things, PP aggregates new policies and programs in listings easily referenced.

To be fair, that's like saying "Don't confuse ExxonMobile with The Heartland Institute"

One feeds money to the other.

An apolitical entity can have subsidiaries or partner organizations (that are certainly political) and under those big corporate umbrellas, money becomes fungible.

That's the issue with Politico. While "Politico Pro" may be a mostly apolitical entity offering enhanced toolsets to subscribers, if that money ends up getting used to fund/supplement "regular politico" (an organization that certainly has a bias), then that's where the issue arises.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,401
17,118
Here
✟1,478,561.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nonsense. It most certainly did not say anything like the 'quotes' you used. Which was 'improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms'.
Let's review the 3 paraphrased quotes 1 by 1 in comparison to the articles and let the readers decide shall we...


"Strengthen our international position so we can swoop in on potential trading partners while Russia is busy/distracted with Ukraine"



"Improve our image by supporting the side that allows more LGBTQ freedoms"



"Nudges other countries to pivot away from Russia's fossil fuels and create more urgency for nations to start on clean energy transitions"




So, you were saying the pieces "didn't say anything like that"?

I'll wait lol
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
25,248
21,323
✟1,762,692.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married



Or maybe some of us simply believe that other countries should have the right to self determination and should be supported in defending their territory. Has the US been consistent on this point? Certainly not. However, I think most Americans, even today, do not want to return to the days of powerful nations invading the weaker neighbor....
 
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,800
14,084
Earth
✟248,461.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Mitt Romney was the last Republican* who didn’t like Putin.


*hyperbole
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Replaced by a robot, just like Biden.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,663
16,323
MI - Michigan
✟673,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mitt Romney was the last Republican* who didn’t like Putin.


*hyperbole

I remember when it was the Republicans who didn't like the "Putin's" of the world. Now we invite them to dvide the spoils of war.
 
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,665
7,223
✟345,203.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So Biden suggesting that NATO membership for Ukraine was a possibility shouldn't be viewed a provocation then?

No. Ukraine has been a candidate for NATO membership since the late 1990s. In 2017 Ukraine formally adopted - by parliamentary decree - a goal of admission into NATO. In 2019, that ambition was included in the country's constitution.

Conservatives back Israel, the progressive wing busts out their Palestinian flags

I think most of the Palestinian flag waving in recent months might have been due to the saturation bombing campaign against Gaza.

Given that they've already listed some ulterior motives, why should anyone take it in good faith that they have a sincere desire to "help Ukraine", as opposed to this just being another iteration of a long-time pattern?

The US has a national policy of supporting democracies (provided they're the 'right kind of democracies' [looking at you Monroe Doctrine]).n Sometimes it tries to create democracies were there were none - Afghanistan and Iraq being recent examples.

The policy is in its national interest - democracies tend to be stable, generally follow the international rule of law and their citizens buy lots of the goods and services that the US sells.

That's the 'ulterior motive' here - a stable Ukraine is a ally and trading partner and it keeps that part of the world stable. A destablised Ukraine (say one partly occupied by Russia and unable to afford to re-build after the war) is going to destablise that region further.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
10,645
10,392
the Great Basin
✟403,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Your first is a German Chancellor opining on what NATO "should" do, it wasn't a promise made to the Soviets. The second comment about the British Foreign Minister appears to be comments made in a meeting to determine what should be offered to the Soviets, not any type of promise made. Last, Baker appears to be making points in February that might be discussed in a treaty that ended up being signed in September. Again that did not make it into the treaty that was signed half a year later -- it was never a promise, just a point of discussion for the negotiators to talk about and one the Soviets never discussed, nor asked to be included in the treaty.

Last, just to note that all of this talks about the USSR -- about the security interests of the Soviets, of separating the USSR with their Warsaw Pact countries. Russia is not the USSR, Russia does not have a Warsaw Pact or had any similar agreement with those Eastern European countries. Instead, what Russia has done is repeatedly attack former Warsaw Pact nations (Georgia -- which Russia has attacked multiple times, Romania, Tajikistan, and Ukraine; and that doesn't include the various actions taken by Russia, using the SVR and GRU, in those countries to destabilize them and/or push closer ties with the Russian Federation. So Russia does not have similar security interests as the Soviet Union, they've actually attacked former Soviet allied nations making the other Eastern European nations nervous and anxious to have the security of NATO protection, in case Russia decided to attack them.
 
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Replaced by a robot, just like Biden.
Site Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
17,663
16,323
MI - Michigan
✟673,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Russia never attacked Belarus.
 
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,227
20,125
Finger Lakes
✟315,874.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Maybe it was just a lack of it being current events. In the late cold war we had to deal with M.A.D. even if it wasn't as bad as dr. stragelove days.
Yeah, I remember my third grade class (60s) had a guest speaker who told us about the horrors of Soviet life. Specifically, I remember being told how awful it was that women had to work while children went to daycare. I also learned that "when" I got married, i would be expected to stay home and do all the housework. Ironic.
 
Upvote 0