politics
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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
You understand that stopping fighting would in no way benefit the average Ukrainian and I think most people would agree your nation no longer existing would be the least beneficial thing for Ukraine.
I'm genuinely curious: we all want the way to stop but I really do want to know what's your solution?
No, I do not "understand" this at all. The average Ukrainian would certainly be better off of the fighting stopped.
First off, Ukraine "no longer existing" isn't really on the table. Secondly, while a state no longer existing is obviously a bad outcome from the perspective of the state, whether it's good or bad for the average person, and to what degree, depends on the state and what the alternative is.
I'm not aware of very much that the Ukrainian state was doing to help it's people before the war, or what rights people living in the disputed territories would enjoy as part of Ukraine as opposed to if they were part of Russia, or vice versa. So I see very little case for supporting either side in the war, from the perspective of class interests as distinct from state interests.
Negotiate. Diplomatic approaches have been completely written off from start to finish, with Ukraine insisting on a complete withdrawal from all disputed territory as a precondition for talks, even from Crimea, which Russia already had before the war. Some territorial concessions are worth it to stop the meat grinder, because the amount of lives that would have to be sacrificed to reclaim all the territory are not worth the benefit.
How? Russia won't leave and they aren't tasting anyone well, kidnapping kids during the war kinda tells you everything you need to know.
It 100% is, give in this time and they'll do it again just like last time.
So you're ignorant but insist your opinion is correct?
They've tried, Russia says give up territory or die, no middle ground. This is very well documented.
That user is an accelerationist who wants Donald to drive the US into the ground so China can gain more global influence. They're deliberately unwilling to confront facts, as you can see by the suggestion of Ukraine negotiating with country notorious for failing to honor its treaties.
Every word you speak is a lie. Are you even capable of being truthful?
I mean judging by what I've seen it doesn't seem like they're wrong.
Your stance is at best naively idealistic or at worst incredibly ill informed, stupid and legitimately dangerous.
Source?
Source?
Y'all just casually lie about people constantly, all the time and none of you ever see anything wrong with it whatsoever. You're backing up someone who is blatantly lying, and who constantly lies about my positions. Back up their claims then, if you claim they're not a liar, if you claim that "it doesn't seem like they're wrong." Show me that you don't just blindly accept claims with zero evidence. Show me that you're not a liar just like they are.
Prove my point for me why don't ya.
That is accurate, their opinion of you isn't something I can verify but calling for Ukraine to surrender is actually accelerationist behavior so.....
In what way is that accelerationist?
If I were an accelerationist, I would want the US to overextend into as many conflicts as possible, and I would want those conflicts to last as long as possible, in order to weaken it. I don't, because I'm not, because that's a lie.
Do you have another phrase or word for advocating for Russian regional superiority knowing their intent on reunification of the former Soviet Union.
That's exactly what you are doing though bud, you just don't seem to see it. The Ukrainian conflict wouldn't end with Ukraine surrendering, Russia will simply move to the next country and force Ukrainians to fight for them.
I don't "know" their intent on reunification of the Soviet Union and neither do you. They say the same thing in every conflict we've ever been in, the enemy will keep expanding forever so we have no choice but to fight. Remember "Domino Theory" from Vietnam? How'd that play out? Remember how with the War on Terror, it was "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here." Well, we're not fighting them over there, so where are they? It's the easiest propaganda line ever because you don't need any evidence and you can apply it to anyone under any circumstances.
As for a word for what you're describing "isolationist" or "dove" would be most appropriate. Peacenik. Defeatist. Pinko. Hell, you could even go with coward, if you like. It's not as if there's a shortage of derogatory terms for people advocating peace, it's a very common thing to deride, historically speaking. Just go back and look at what people were calling me when I opposed the War on Terror if you need some inspiration.
You should, they're not quiet about it at all. None of those were invasions prior to us intervention, you can blame a lot of shit on the US but Ukraine ain't one.
Nope, isolationists and doves stfu because they don't want to be involved. You're neither peacnik nor pinko because Ukraines surrender attains no left leaning goal, it does just the opposite in allowing an authoritarian shithead to take over yet more of the world.... Again. This has nothing to do with the war on terror, not being shitty in one area doesn't mean you aren't shitty in another, get a grip.
Please elaborate how opposing military aid to a country on the other side of the world is not an isolationist stance. You just said, "because they don't want to get involved." That's my stance, I don't want to get involved.
I don't think you know what any of those terms mean tbh. Or rather, I think you know what they mean and are pretending that they don't mean what they do because you're acting in bad faith.
Again isolationists isolate themselves, meaning they don't meddle... Like insisting their opinion on a matter they have no legitimate interest in. You're involving yourself right now dumb dumb, if you don't want to be involved... Don't involve yourself.
That's not an argument, that's deflection.
That's a completely ridiculous take. That's not isolationism, that's political disengagement. How do you even manage to say something so wrong?
Isolationists do not disengage from matters of foreign intervention, we actively oppose it. That's what isolationism means, and you obviously know that.
If you actually had any confidence in your position whatsoever, you would have no problem saying that my position is isolationist and that isolationism is wrong. But instead, you're trying to use wordplay to shift definitions in an attempt to delegitimize my position, by adopting the completely insane stance that wanting non-intervention in a conflict is somehow inconsistent with isolationism.
This is very blatant bad faith.
Is the literal definition bud.
That's not a logical assumption dude, your lack of understanding of anything has nothing to do with the veracity of my position. Again, you're deflecting.
The complete post-truth doublethink the liberals are doing these days is shocking. There is no difference between MAGA Trump supporters and the vast majority of liberals these days. I don't think they are capable to be truthful any more.
It really shows what happens when the mainstream media is owned by oligarchs and use the right propaganda to hone in on the "emotional truths" of a group. For them it's about justice and and evil and a good. US supporting Israel commit genocide is evil. US supporting Ukraine become demcoratic is good. Russia attacking because of NATO expansion is evil.
So everything that doesn't fit with this narrative, that they are the good guys, is dismissed or rationalized. Easy when it just so happens if the arguments are made by their evil enemies. Historical facts simply don't matter.
That's also true, but I was talking more about the .world culture where you can just casually lie and make up whatever you like about the out group and everyone just goes along with it, with zero sources needed. It's very much an echo chamber where nobody cares about evidence or truth, not just in terms of politics and world affairs, but also with people and conversations. You can go full on Yeonmi Park with it so long as you're in the in-group talking about the out-group. I think it's brought over from toxic Reddit culture.
Well that is part of the defense mechanism. There really are trolls, bots, agitprop etc. So we now anyone who is using an argument that Trump or Putin ever made, must be an enemy (genetic fallacy). And is hence is "fair game" to attack and lie about to protect the narrative. Being called a bot is like the ultimate dehumanization.
I don't think it's reddit culture, it's bigger than that. People are just badly informed and the disinformation is total. Journalists who even slightly deviate are fired all over the world.
Maybe there is so much noise now that people rely more and more on mainstream media that are completely captured now.