Could someone please explain the rationale behind this? From what I gather it amounts to "well yeah Putin sent his army and started the war, but he was forced to by NATO/USA/Biden personally/Zelensky personally, THEY are the real warmongers!" But when I ask why, and what would have happened to Russia if he didn't start the war, they don't actually answer and just smile knowingly like I'm some kind of moron for not figuring it out by myself.
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
189 points (99.5% liked)
politics
19050 readers
3833 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have shared this quote so many times. It doesn't stop being relevant.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre shook me years ago with No Exit. That plot was so well done and interesting!
Years later, I read this quote. And once again, I'm amazed at his ability to word things in such an understandable and insightful way. I've read this quote many times but never seen it credited to Sartre before... that's so awesome.
I'm pretty sure his voters think he's the last great hope or something so they don't care whatever he says or how deranged he is. They will vote for him anyways.
So to be fair, this is consistent with what was always his stated position. Trump has said from day one that Zelinskyy should have just ceded the disputed territory to Putin based solely on Putin's pinky swear that he won't come looking for more. So since Zelinskyy didn't accept Putin's demands before the tanks rolled in, it's therefore his fault the war began. See? He's not saying Zelinskyy invaded Russia or something. He's just doing some classic victim blaming.
So much for "Fight, Fight, Fight."
Ukraine gave up its nukes years ago on a pinky swear Russia would leave it alone. They'd have to be Trump-level stupid to think if they just give up one more thing this time Russia will keep its word.
From the party of the "Castle defense" laws.
classic "she made me give her a black eye!" defense
More like, "Did you see how she was dressed? She was asking for it!"
Should give us a clue, how Donnie would end the war on his first day in office with one phone call to Vlad (and very likely an Executive Order to stop all military aids).
Would be the start of the great nation “South Belarus” (so Ukrainians get a pretty good idea, how they’re supposed to identify)
Archive link because of the paywall: https://archive.ph/RrVDi
@ OP: please add archive links for accessibility purposes
Will do in the future! I forget because of the bypass paywalls extension. Thanks for covering this one!
Asshole this guy.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/us/politics/trump-zelensky-putin-ukraine-war.html