The All Things Political Topic - Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities

[BruceVC]

15 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

NATO PoV is that these are Ukrainian provinces.
What will they call Russian 'peacekeepers' moving in?

And more importantly what will they be willing to do about it.

Okay, I see what you mean. Yes it could complicate the situation 

[BruceVC]

30 minutes ago, Elerond said:

That depends on what is your definition of going home.

It is like "Russian troops have been pulled back 1,500 kilometres from the Finnish-Russian border in the spirit of peaceful relations"  event though their closest naval air base is just 60 km from Finland's eastern border. And their later explanation also is bit clumsy. 

Elerond whats your overall opinion on this Ukrainian development, do you think Russia is justified to demand Ukraine isnt allowed to joining NATO and deploying troops to the border because of the history or do you think Putin is going too far  ?

[majestic]

Wait what, is #newhitler not invading the Ukraine tomorrow then? How disappointing. It's almost as if that spiel repeats itself roughly every year.

Oh, wait...

[Raithe]

For other random things:

CNN - Trump Organisations accounting firm says 10 years of financial statements are unreliable and would no longer be their accountants

 

Quote

 

"We have come to this conclusion based, in part, upon the filings made by the New York Attorney General on January 18, 2022, our own investigation, and information received from internal and external sources," Mazars wrote in a letter to the Trump Organization chief legal officer, advising them to no longer rely on financial statements ending June 2011 through June 2020.
"While we have not concluded that the various financial statements, as a whole, contain material discrepancies, based upon the totality of the circumstances, we believe our advice to you to no longer rely upon those financial statements is appropriate."

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Raithe

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

10 minutes ago, majestic said:

Wait what, is #newhitler not invading the Ukraine tomorrow then? How disappointing. It's almost as if that spiel repeats itself roughly every year.

Oh, wait...

You naughty majestic ! But their is always next year ?

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond whats your overall opinion on this Ukrainian development, do you think Russia is justified to demand Ukraine isnt allowed to joining NATO and deploying troops to the border because of the history or do you think Putin is going too far  ?

There is never good justification for power politics, but Russia is taking opportunity given them discord in west 

[Zoraptor]

Hey guys, Tyson Fury is meant to come to my house and punch me on the nose today.

If he doesn't, it's because I've successfully deterred him.

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well, it'd be like NATO and Kosovo.

In terms of response South Ossetia/ Abkhazia is probably a closer comparison since they're pretty much direct equivalents, just Georgian, though they were justified as legal thanks to the stupidity of Kosovo's 'unique case'. Also had more of the genuine genocide adjacent about them since the Georgians were confirmed to have ethnically cleansed 100k ethnic Ossetians. Not that you'll see that particular fact mentioned very much; and that isn't the case for novorossiya no matter the rhetoric of Bandera fans.

3 hours ago, pmp10 said:

What will they call Russian 'peacekeepers' moving in?

And more importantly what will they be willing to do about it.

They'll throw a wobbly about Russian peacekeepers moving in.

They'll do nothing about it except maybe some toys coming out of the cot. Doesn't make any practical difference anyway, that's the effective status quo already.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Zoraptor

[Sarex]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I am not sure you can classify the NATO bombing campaign as an invasion?

They did try it in Kosovo but got their ass handed to them.

edit: To invade by land if that wasn't clear.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Sarex

[pmp10]

52 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

They'll throw a wobbly about Russian peacekeepers moving in.

They'll do nothing about it except maybe some toys coming out of the cot. Doesn't make any practical difference anyway, that's the effective status quo already.

Moving troops into Donetsk would mean burying Minsk accords for good.
New agreement is unlikely to be made quickly without some application of violence.

Besides, in this case the escalation scenario practically writes itself.
Regular artillery exchanges will no longer kill 'separatists' or 'little green men' but Russian soldiers.
And that of course demands retaliation.

I don't see how NATO could ignore that.

[Gromnir]

The Conservative Case for Avoiding a Repeat of Jan. 6

worth a read. j. michael luttig was, for a couple decades, one o' the more influential "conservative" legal voices in the US. virtual all o' his clerks ended up also clerking for Scalia or Thomas. am not indulging hyperbole neither. judge luttig were also on the short list o SCOTUS nominees during the bush (younger) admin in spite o' fact he had written an opinion chastising the administration and luttig were pulling no punches in the effort. he also wrote a couple particular influential dissenting opinions which would form basis o' SCOTUS opinions overturning appeals decisions.  

in the past, if luttig spoke, folks such as ted cruz would listen... intently. all the more impressive were luttig cache as he were not having ivy league pedigree. 

am not expecting republicans to agree with luttig today, 'cause is only room for one voice in the gop: trump. even so, is gonna be a few influential conservatives who read the linked opinion piece and find it a compelling argument even if they may not public make such an admission.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

25 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Moving troops into Donetsk would mean burying Minsk accords for good.

Ukraine has buried the Minsk Accords already. They've publicly said they can't/ won't implement them on their side and they want the agreement replaced. At least formally, they probably accept that practically there won't be a renegotiation as they have no leverage.

Russian peacekeepers were in Georgia for 16 years with no real issues in terms of escalation. They've been in Transnistria for 30 years too. It took Sakashvili directly attacking them in a sustained manner to get a (per OSCE, ad hoc, unprepared) response in Georgia, and that was very much the consequence of Sakashvili's deliberate choices. The design for them being present is very much to freeze the situation. Recognition is an escalation, but it's a more or less rhetorical one compared to, say, recognising their independence then having them join the RF (which happened with Crimea; but hasn't with South Ossetia or Abkhazia)- it's also a door that was very much opened by NATO itself deciding that chopping up countries was legitimate. It may even be designed to put pressure on Ukraine to implement Minsk, which could effectively give Russia its desired veto over NATO membership.

 

[Gromnir]

appeal just became less likely to succeed, although there will be a push to get this to SCOTUS especial given the telegraphing by Alito and thomas.

am kinda ambivalent. actual malice ("knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth-- is alleged and proved,") standard deserves a closer look, but am concerned how palin's lawyers were arguing. 

the most significant misconception am believing most people have regarding palin's case is they believe it is a freedom o' the press issue, and that ain't true. the defamation standard when is a matter o' public interest or involves public figures is not press specific. if you make social media posts regarding palin which is untrue, then actual malice is just as relevant to you as the ny times. the thing is, palin's lawyers is suggesting that if a plaintiff is able to convince a finder o' fact that the publisher o' an untruth exhibited a kinda skew or bias against a public figure, then actual malice shouldn't be the standard. consider what that means for some o' you posting nonsense on the arse end o' the internet. 

the recent bs reporting by fox and gop members regarding the recent durham filing is one reason am thinking the actual malice standard need be reexamined, 'cause unlike the ny times which immediate posted a correction in the palin situation, is no way folks like marco rubio and tucker carlson is unaware o' the web o' lies they is spinning. the wh s'posed being spied on in the relevant durham filing were the OBAMA wh, which is just the most obvious misrepresentation being made by many. read newsweek articles or listen to hannity and you are justifiable gonna come away thinking the clinton campaign did something illegal and spied on President trump. newsweek and hannity gotta know that they is misrepresenting by purposeful leaving out key facts. 

and is not as if msnbc and their pundits haven't done similar... though probable not to the extreme we has seen with the recent rash o' durham coverage which is kinda similar to the domnion nonsense which got fox and others in trouble not so long in the past.  

palin lost and her efforts to appeal took a double-hit 'cause judge were gonna dismiss regardless o' jury finding, but the jury also returned with a decision o' no defamation by the nyt... and fox breathes a sigh o' relief. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Keyrock]

You know you're through the looking glass when Tucker Carlson is the voice of reason. What is happening? What planet am I on? When did Coke become Pepsi?

[Gromnir]

same planet.

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

as a matter o' law, no reasonable person takes tucker serious. therefore, if you take tucker serious, you are by definition an unreasonable person 'ccording to judge vyskocil.

same planet. not a trek mirror universe. if you mistake coke for pepsi, it ain't cause the world changed.

HA! Good Fun!

[Keyrock]

That article is 2 years old and only helps to prove my point that it's so surprising that Tucker Carlson, of all people, is the one that doesn't sound like a raving lunatic right now.

I was referring to Tucker being one of the very few people in the corporate media saying "Hold on, let's not rush to war in Ukraine." Meanwhile, lots of pundits are beating the war drum while Ratheon and Lockheed-Martin salivate.

It's a strange world where CNN and MSNBC have gone so far off the deep end that thry make the propagandists at Fox News seem reasonable by comparison. It's a bizarro world.

[Gromnir]

26 minutes ago, Keyrock said:

That article is 2 years old and only helps to prove my point that it's so surprising that Tucker Carlson, of all people, is the one that doesn't sound like a raving lunatic right now.

I was referring to Tucker being one of the very few people in the corporate media saying "Hold on, let's not rush to war in Ukraine." Meanwhile, lots of pundits are beating the war drum while Ratheon and Lockheed-Martin salivate.

It's a strange world where CNN and MSNBC have gone so far off the deep end that thry make the propagandists at Fox News seem reasonable by comparison. It's a bizarro world.

not sure what you have been watching. please give examples o' specific pundits (and not fringey examples) advocating war 'cause what we have been seeing is a whole lotta people worried that there could be a war in europe with no way to prevent it save prayer. btw, tell folks a real response to a russian invasion would be appropriate is not same as advocating war.

tucker, meanwhile, were telling us that zelensky is a dictator and that there is no good reason to side with the ukranians. sure, there were pundits suggesting that the situation on the ground looked like a prelude to a russian invasion, and gosh, if the US had annexed baja california in 2014 (just look at the name o' baja, clear there is historical and cultural justification for such an annex) and then in 2021 sudden decided to hold 100k troop exercises along the rio grande, the absence o' concern from mexico woulda' been jaw dropping. 

two years has not changed tucker. if tucker is no longer transparent unreasonable, then that means his lies is actionable. tell us the clinton campaign were spying on the trump wh is not true, and but for fact tucker is nothing save an outlandish purveyor o' infotainment, his untruths would leave fox culpable. am thinking as such tucker and fox will argue his opinions is just as outrageous today as two years ago.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir
can't spell california... go figure

[Gromnir]

for @Gorth in case he didn't read the link, and 'cause he expressed some confusion.

More than two years later, in December 2018, Carlson began presenting Trump as the victim of extortion. Seeking to discredit former Trump attorney Michael Cohen's tale of hush payments — and alleged campaign finance law violations — Carlson first told viewers, "Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed."

But they aren't undisputed. They're not even facts.

He then proceeded to say, "Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money. Now that sounds like a classic case of extortion."

Pictures of former adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and McDougal flashed on screen. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 on behalf of Trump, who denies that either affair occurred.

In reality, McDougal never approached Trump. She and her representative had spoken to ABC News and to the National Enquirer because, she said, she feared word of the affair would leak out during the campaign anyway and she preferred to be the one to tell the story. It wasn't publicly known that David Pecker, then the CEO of the tabloid's parent company, had promised Trump he would help keep stories about extramarital affairs from seeing the light of day.

Carlson and Fox never corrected that significant error, as The Washington Post's Erik Wemple underscored.

...

is why am suggesting actual malice need be reexamined. please note the linked article observes how rachel maddow and msnbc used a similar defense, so is not just a tucker problem. in the polarized landscape o' US 2021,  finding a reasonable person is increasing difficult as tribal dogma has replaced critical thinking and skepticism. courts is needing ignore reality-- they pretend as if a significant number o' seeming normal people is not willing to choke down infotainer bile, believing they is instead drinking the nectar o' Truth simply cause such outlandish bs aligns with their own biases. is a problem. in the US, everybody has a right to say crazy things 'bout public figures and matters o' public interest. lies s'posed cross the line, but is becoming increasing difficult to identify the line.

whatever folks think o' Gromnir, we have been kinda consistent in our defense o' First Amendment protections over the decades. however, the recent Courts has moved to weaponize the First Amendment in ways we woulda thought unthinkable a few years past. use free exercise o' religion clause as the basis for declaring unconstitutional size limits on indoor gatherings related to covid-19 mitigation efforts?

what?

really? 

in the past such woulda' been ok unless you plaintiffs could show there were a specific effort to limit religious practice. what changed? such change occurring by means o' a shadow docket decision means we don't know the why.

is leaving this tired old First Amendment warrior a bit disappointed.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 16, 2022 by Gromnir
added a period... and we musta butchered "difficult" something terrible to have it auto-correct as different

[pmp10]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Ukraine has buried the Minsk Accords already. They've publicly said they can't/ won't implement them on their side and they want the agreement replaced. At least formally, they probably accept that practically there won't be a renegotiation as they have no leverage.

And yet Russian diplomats keep insisting on implementing them, in the very least they are a useful wedge to drive between Ukraine and NATO.

[Gorth]

21 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Pictures of former adult film star Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and McDougal flashed on screen. Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 on behalf of Trump, who denies that either affair occurred.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"... oh wait, wrong president. Thanks for the clarification, went back and read the linked article again (with a bit more background knowledge)

 

[rjshae]

Prince Andrew reaches a settlement with Virginia Giuffre in sexual abuse lawsuit

Quote

Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew have agreed to a settlement that will end Giuffre's lawsuit, which had accused Andrew of sexually abusing her when she was a minor. The two sides of the legal dispute jointly informed a federal court about the development on Tuesday.

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

'Bout what I expected. The Royals want it all to vanish.

[BruceVC]

29 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

And yet Russian diplomats keep insisting on implementing them, in the very least they are a useful wedge to drive between Ukraine and NATO.

Yes its more spin and propaganda from Russia, nothing usual about that 

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Gorth said:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"... oh wait, wrong president. Thanks for the clarification, went back and read the linked article again (with a bit more background knowledge)

 

Gorth please dont be unfair to Trump, she is a porn star ...who wouldnt say yes 

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Prince Andrew reaches a settlement with Virginia Giuffre in sexual abuse lawsuit

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

'Bout what I expected. The Royals want it all to vanish.

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/virginia-giuffre-would-refuse-out-of-court-settlement-with-prince-andrew-report-articleshow.html

Yet originally her lawyer said its unlikely she would accept a financial settlement because she wanted it to go public and she wanted to be vindicated

I wonder what changed? Maybe the size of the cheque ?

Their are many examples since the MeToo movement started where women have refused settlements and bravely  gone to court. I am disappointed she didnt stand by her original  principles 

[Zoraptor]

If beating the war drums includes frenzied handwaving we've had two nights (Ukraine time) of US journalists saying that they've got the good oil from their Pentagon sources that the Russians were moving to firing positions and war was absolutely imminent. CBS even managed to have new intelligence from US officials about the Russians deploying to firing positions, on both nights.

Hardly surprising, lest we forget the only organisation punished for inaccurate reporting in the lead up to the 2003 Gulf War was the war skeptical BBC. All the dodgy intelligence used then was laundered freely through 'respected' outlets like the NYT. Indeed launderers in chief like Michael Gordon are still employed, and still writing on foreign affairs. In much the same vein.

31 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

And yet Russian diplomats keep insisting on implementing them, in the very least they are a useful wedge to drive between Ukraine and NATO.

Not really NATO. Its most prominent player by far has been pledging undying and unyielding support for Ukraine's current position and no compromising.

France and Germany though sure, since it was their diplomatic baby, even if they're largely sidelined in the current narrative in the anglosphere. They don't have any leverage over Ukraine to get them to implement though, not when the US and UK are shouting about compromise being treason.

[pmp10]

11 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

France and Germany though sure, since it was their diplomatic baby, even if they're largely sidelined in the current narrative in the anglosphere. They don't have any leverage over Ukraine to get them to implement though, not when the US and UK are shouting about compromise being treason.

That shouting can't last forever tho, media is bound to get bored eventually.
The diplomatic rumors I heard is that major backing down by Ukraine is only a matter of time and face-saving pretenses.