| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska 20:42 - Aug 15 with 5059 views | ElderGrizzly |
While on a red carpet 🙄
They then drive off like best buddies in Trump’s car.
I don’t remember Zelensky getting such a warm welcome [Post edited 15 Aug 20:43]
|  | | |  |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 00:51 - Aug 17 with 518 views | Ryorry |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 19:53 - Aug 16 by mellowblue |
Err where have I mentioned surrender, you are painting a false narrative. A peace deal is not surrender. The insult bit was actually slightly tongue in cheek, it was a fair point you are making. Of course I can not speak for the brave Ukrainians, but I just do not see how it ends well for them. When wars reach a stalemate, it is a good time to look for solutions. They might not be achievable, but should still be tried. Maybe when the Western front was at complete stalemate during WWI, a negotiated deal then would have saved so much life. Historically we have negotiated peace treaties to bring wars to conclusions, rather than bludgeon it out to a finish. |
You wrote
“ Ukraine aren't winning this, which sadly leaves Putin the winner and this will have to be accepted.”
If that’s not surrender, what else would you call it? And don’t say “peace”, because it wouldn’t be that in anyone’s head except your own or that of a Putin apologist. |  |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 07:34 - Aug 17 with 447 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 20:56 - Aug 16 by lowhouseblue |
but people can be honest and decent yet still hold political views that are different from yours. can't they? that's really basic to a civil society. if you don't accept that and you can only understand politics in terms of people who disagree with you being morally and intellectually inferior to you, then you will never persuade anyone of anything. it's a close minded and intolerant mindset.
how does your stance differ from someone you disagree with thinking that they are intellectually morally superior to you? don't you see what a dead end that approach to politics is? |
Perhaps you missed my earlier posts above in the thread. I said it's possible for good people to hold different political views to my own. You have reframed my argument to make it sound absolute - I've not said ANY AND ALL views different to my own is immoral. What I am trying to convey is that there is a line, beyond which no decent person could support a political ideology or candidate. In my view, Trump crossed over that line long ago and anyone still supporting him (voting for him in 2016 was forgiveable for the uninformed, although I personally wouldn't have gone anywhere near him) is making a morally reprehensible choice. Ergo they are a bad person. It's as simple as that. |  | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:05 - Aug 17 with 403 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 18:02 - Aug 16 by Coastalblue |
I think it's much deeper than this, and not just in the States but they are ahead of the curve.
Look at Japanese culture ahead of the second world war, the indoctrination in country and honour, the unified belief that they needed to fight to the very last person standing.
We've gone through a similar thing in the West, except we're being constantly drip fed misinformation by the elite, the people with money.
Divide and conquer, blame immigrants or the working classes or the middle classes or people not like you, go fight them while we slowly but surely add to our portfolios and mop up the rest of the world.
It's easy to mock Americans who voted Trump, want to MAGA, know they are the greatest country in the world that saved everybody else twice and now defends the entire planet, but many are brought up being taught that from infants and have no reason to question it.
I'm not sure we are that much better on the whole, look at who's slowly but surely rising up the political system. |
Oh I'm not saying its unique to Americans, far from it (which is bl00dy scary). And I wouldn't say I'm mocking them (the Trump voters specifically), if anything I'm being harsher than that; I am aware I am judging millions of people, and I'm comfortable in this instance doing so because of how extreme the political situation has become (this what I am trying to get across to LHB in my other post). 49% (or whatever) of US voters somehow miraculously haven't been hypnotised into voting for Trump and his abhorrent platform though, so it is not excusable or impossible to resist. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:37 - Aug 17 with 362 views | lowhouseblue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 07:34 - Aug 17 by iamatractorboy |
Perhaps you missed my earlier posts above in the thread. I said it's possible for good people to hold different political views to my own. You have reframed my argument to make it sound absolute - I've not said ANY AND ALL views different to my own is immoral. What I am trying to convey is that there is a line, beyond which no decent person could support a political ideology or candidate. In my view, Trump crossed over that line long ago and anyone still supporting him (voting for him in 2016 was forgiveable for the uninformed, although I personally wouldn't have gone anywhere near him) is making a morally reprehensible choice. Ergo they are a bad person. It's as simple as that. |
so it's not absolute, but the 77 million people who voted for trump are not '"decent", they are "bad people", and are making "morally reprehensible choices"? previously some people might have been excused for doing so because they were "uniformed". i'm not quite sure how that differs from how i previously presented it.
you make no attempt to engage with people who voted for him and to understand what their priorities logic, or beliefs were. you don't identify points of disagreement but draw "a line" which makes them "bad people". i'm guessing you have other similar uncrossable 'lines' that make lots of other people who you disagree with on other political issues "morally reprehensible"?
understanding why people believe something different from you is different from agreeing with them. you can still disagree vehemently but you no longer need to dehumanise them and cast them as inferior.
you're right about the simple bit. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:46 - Aug 17 with 341 views | lowhouseblue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 23:56 - Aug 16 by reusersfreekicks |
He is well practiced at ignoring inconvenient facts and promoting false equivalence and both sideism. An apologist for the far right really |
quick, quick, he's saying critical things call him an "apologist for the far right". and squeeze in three of those phrases people use on social media when they don't have a reasoned response. that'll sort him. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:58 - Aug 17 with 312 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:37 - Aug 17 by lowhouseblue |
so it's not absolute, but the 77 million people who voted for trump are not '"decent", they are "bad people", and are making "morally reprehensible choices"? previously some people might have been excused for doing so because they were "uniformed". i'm not quite sure how that differs from how i previously presented it.
you make no attempt to engage with people who voted for him and to understand what their priorities logic, or beliefs were. you don't identify points of disagreement but draw "a line" which makes them "bad people". i'm guessing you have other similar uncrossable 'lines' that make lots of other people who you disagree with on other political issues "morally reprehensible"?
understanding why people believe something different from you is different from agreeing with them. you can still disagree vehemently but you no longer need to dehumanise them and cast them as inferior.
you're right about the simple bit. |
OK... let's play the game...
In your opinion, is there a line? Beyond which it would be morally reprehensible to vote for someone? Just so I'm clear on your view. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:00 - Aug 17 with 302 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:58 - Aug 17 by iamatractorboy |
OK... let's play the game...
In your opinion, is there a line? Beyond which it would be morally reprehensible to vote for someone? Just so I'm clear on your view. |
Just to add to this, I could start throwing out hypotheticals but before I do that I'll just see if you even think there is a line/limit. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:25 - Aug 17 with 262 views | blueasfook |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 10:12 - Aug 16 by Radlett_blue |
Ending the war is in the interests of both Russia & Ukraine. But for this to happen, there has to be some form of compromise. Putin isn't going to walk quietly away and say "hmm...that was a bit of a mistake". So Russia has to get something tangible in any negotiation or the war will continue. Ukraine will certainly need some guarantees about its future security, but who is going to back up these guarantees?
The real error in al this was the West, especially Europe, doing nothing when Putin annexed the Crimean peninsula, beyond some words and a few sanctions. This clearly convinced him that Europe wasn't prepared to go to war over Ukraine & subsequent events proved that view to be correct. |
Russia doesn't give a crap about Ukraine. The invasion was a political device to expose cracks in NATO and test its resolve. If you look at how last week's summit is being reported back in Russia, they see it as a victory that the US and Russia are dictating the future of Ukraine and the leaders of Europe along with Zelensky are taking a back seat. One source reported it as the US and Russia shaping the geopolitical future of the world and Europe have no say in it. Macron , Keir et al need to stand firm and not let Putin get his way. His ultimate aim is to weaken Europe politically. [Post edited 17 Aug 9:25]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:32 - Aug 17 with 244 views | lowhouseblue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 08:58 - Aug 17 by iamatractorboy |
OK... let's play the game...
In your opinion, is there a line? Beyond which it would be morally reprehensible to vote for someone? Just so I'm clear on your view. |
obviously we can both set up an infinite number of hypothetical political causes which it would be unavoidably immoral to support. but in reality parties have multi-dimensional platforms and their potential impact is often highly disputed. for a voter to be immoral you need to explain why they voted and what outcome they expected. imposing your own version of their motives or your own partial version of what a party will do, isn't enough - again it's back to my main point: that you need to engage with people you disagree with to understand their logic, and priorities and why they vote as they do. just framing them as immoral is a dead end. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:39 - Aug 17 with 233 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:25 - Aug 17 by blueasfook |
Russia doesn't give a crap about Ukraine. The invasion was a political device to expose cracks in NATO and test its resolve. If you look at how last week's summit is being reported back in Russia, they see it as a victory that the US and Russia are dictating the future of Ukraine and the leaders of Europe along with Zelensky are taking a back seat. One source reported it as the US and Russia shaping the geopolitical future of the world and Europe have no say in it. Macron , Keir et al need to stand firm and not let Putin get his way. His ultimate aim is to weaken Europe politically. [Post edited 17 Aug 9:25]
|
Thats an odd take.
Putin believes most of Eastern Europe is, by rights, Russian property. He is an imperialist. They want Ukraine under control. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:54 - Aug 17 with 199 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:32 - Aug 17 by lowhouseblue |
obviously we can both set up an infinite number of hypothetical political causes which it would be unavoidably immoral to support. but in reality parties have multi-dimensional platforms and their potential impact is often highly disputed. for a voter to be immoral you need to explain why they voted and what outcome they expected. imposing your own version of their motives or your own partial version of what a party will do, isn't enough - again it's back to my main point: that you need to engage with people you disagree with to understand their logic, and priorities and why they vote as they do. just framing them as immoral is a dead end. |
If you agree there is a line (and that's what you've said), then you can't have a problem with me saying there is one. Perhaps you disagree on where it is (that's fine), in this case I am saying that Trump is way over it. Im not sure you agree. Engagement with the voters is another thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't, as a pragmatic way to try and change minds. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:02 - Aug 17 with 157 views | MVBlue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:39 - Aug 17 by redrickstuhaart |
Thats an odd take.
Putin believes most of Eastern Europe is, by rights, Russian property. He is an imperialist. They want Ukraine under control. |
If you have read up on and tracked Putin over time, you will also know that he has an obsession with Ukraine. Look at Russia's influence in Ukraine. Do you remember the Orange revolution of 2004 which Yulia Tymoshenko (she with the braided hair) protested against corrupt voting and became Prime Minister. Then again in 2014 there was a second revolution when Viktor Yanukovych's decision to reject the European Union in favour of closer ties with Russia, he was revealed as a Russian puppet! The battles in Kiev square where the public rose up with saucepan helmets and makeshift barricades. The gold themed house of Yanukovych, remember any of this? Russia was controlling Ukraine. Then following the 2014 revolution what happened? The Russians took Crimea with unmarked soldiers. Look at all this history and Russian interference and intimidation of Ukraine. Look at the bread basket agriculture and resources and industry, Russia wants that, and also its beliefs that Russian speaking Ukranians are part of Russia and perhaps
all of Ukraine should be Russian. |  |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:05 - Aug 17 with 151 views | lowhouseblue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 09:54 - Aug 17 by iamatractorboy |
If you agree there is a line (and that's what you've said), then you can't have a problem with me saying there is one. Perhaps you disagree on where it is (that's fine), in this case I am saying that Trump is way over it. Im not sure you agree. Engagement with the voters is another thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't, as a pragmatic way to try and change minds. |
no, i'm saying that you cannot draw any line in respect of other people's morality, and in so doing call millions of people "bad",' "not decent", "morally reprehensible" and "uniformed", unless you properly understand why they voted and what motivated them. you draw your line based entirely on your political assumptions, in this case about trump, and then impose upon those voters a set of intentions and beliefs which may be quite unrelated to those they actually hold. you're just not interested in what they think and instead you impose on them motivations, and by implication "reprehensible morality", and then use that as label in order to avoid engaging in political discussion. if analysis of why trump won stops at 77 million americans being "morally reprehensible" we get nowhere. i apologise for using "you" - in a one to one discussion it's a short cut to describe a much wider tendency. as i've said all along - labelling people you disagree with politically as bad people is a dead end, they'll just think the same about you. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:15 - Aug 17 with 131 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:05 - Aug 17 by lowhouseblue |
no, i'm saying that you cannot draw any line in respect of other people's morality, and in so doing call millions of people "bad",' "not decent", "morally reprehensible" and "uniformed", unless you properly understand why they voted and what motivated them. you draw your line based entirely on your political assumptions, in this case about trump, and then impose upon those voters a set of intentions and beliefs which may be quite unrelated to those they actually hold. you're just not interested in what they think and instead you impose on them motivations, and by implication "reprehensible morality", and then use that as label in order to avoid engaging in political discussion. if analysis of why trump won stops at 77 million americans being "morally reprehensible" we get nowhere. i apologise for using "you" - in a one to one discussion it's a short cut to describe a much wider tendency. as i've said all along - labelling people you disagree with politically as bad people is a dead end, they'll just think the same about you. |
By that logic, if an actual Nazi ran for office, you're saying you can't judge someone to be immoral if they voted for them. (Yes, I'm going there. It seems to be the only way to get through to you). If you disagree with that then you're contradicting what youve just said. | | | |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:29 - Aug 17 with 114 views | lowhouseblue |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:15 - Aug 17 by iamatractorboy |
By that logic, if an actual Nazi ran for office, you're saying you can't judge someone to be immoral if they voted for them. (Yes, I'm going there. It seems to be the only way to get through to you). If you disagree with that then you're contradicting what youve just said. |
so someone stands explicitly on a platform of abolishing all human rights, exterminating a whole race, mass murder, and invading every foreign neighbour in an unjustified frenzy of imperialistic expansionism, and someone votes for that in full knowledge that that is the intended outcome and honestly believing that it will come about. yes, i would say that would be "reprehensibly immoral".
but that gives you the criteria that need to be applied - i am saying that you are not meeting those criteria and instead you are labelling trump voters without any knowledge of or interest in what motivated them and what outcome they were seeking. without understanding why they voted you are applying a test based entirely on your political take rather than theirs. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 12:01 - Aug 17 with 81 views | iamatractorboy |
| Clapping Putin as he arrives in Alaska on 11:29 - Aug 17 by lowhouseblue |
so someone stands explicitly on a platform of abolishing all human rights, exterminating a whole race, mass murder, and invading every foreign neighbour in an unjustified frenzy of imperialistic expansionism, and someone votes for that in full knowledge that that is the intended outcome and honestly believing that it will come about. yes, i would say that would be "reprehensibly immoral".
but that gives you the criteria that need to be applied - i am saying that you are not meeting those criteria and instead you are labelling trump voters without any knowledge of or interest in what motivated them and what outcome they were seeking. without understanding why they voted you are applying a test based entirely on your political take rather than theirs. |
Ok. So my line is drawn wayyy before that. My standard still has criteria, it's just they don't need to be as extreme as murdering a whole race of people. Which is why I'm saying I consider a vote for Trump, at this point, to be immoral. You dont. I'm not sure we're ever going to agree on this. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
