How can We Blame Trump for Putin Invading Ukraine?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I spoke in the present tense. You would be hard-pressed to name any nation that at one time or other had notions of empire that did not do terrible things to the original inhabitants. British, Dutch, French, Spanish…but go farther back. How ‘bout them Romans? Or Genghis Khan? Human history is replete with atrocity. The point is that we are at least trying to be better than that; Russia is not.

I agree in general, certainly. But there's kind of a difference, too: Britain has long been shorn of virtually all of her colonies, with only a handful of realms that are not functionally independent from the "mother country". Spain, the Netherlands - all the great worldwide empires have long since spun off (or had taken from them) virtually all of those possessions.

But not the United States. The lands we stole (or forced a "cession" of) got incorporated pretty quickly into the nation as a whole, rather than maintained as colonies, making it that much harder to pry them out of our hands. Some took a while (Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma) to be converted to states. But it happened.

There are some exceptions - Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the string of islands in the Pacific. But compared with what we kept an incorporated into the US, they're a rounding error.

[BootmanLA]

11 hours ago, hntnhole said:

His goals are narrowly focused, and diminishing NATO, the EU, other Western Alliances (including - even centered on - the most powerful nation of those) is merely an effort to weaken the West to better enable him to expand the fevered dream of restoring Greater Russia. Being an opportunist, Putin merely seized upon what was for him, a happy event in the divided US.  Mr. Trump, hardy intelligent, but somewhat clever, was merely a lump of putty in Putin's hands, as the dictator of Russia sought to weaken the Western Alliances. 

One other thing I'd like to quibble over. Putin didn't just "seize upon... a happy event"; he helped create that event, and has been doing so for at least a decade, per our intelligence services. He's been gaming social media with sock puppets and botnets, not just promoting Donald Trump, but also advocating people to strongly oppose him - thus deepening the gulf between the two sides here. I'm not saying that without Putin Americans would all come together in peace and harmony; but I think it's undeniable his social media campaign to divide the country has made that infinitely harder. And yes, Hair Furor played right into his hands; Putin is a master manipulator and knew exactly what buttons to push for the last 20 years to get Trump on his side. 

[NEDenver]

On 4/7/2022 at 7:45 PM, TotalTop said:

Both of the two major parties in the USA are like this, and politicians both left and right only care about gritting as much $$$ as they can from people, staying elected or in power or in the public eye as though they are celebrities, and keeping the two party system in power when in the USA both of the parties have been the same for many decades now.

So, no, really.  The problem isn’t two parties grifting, the problem is first past the post voting.  Until you can get ranked choice voting through, nothing else is going to work.  In the meantime, third parties are the worst thing that could happen as they only siphon off votes from the party closer to it.  Any political campaign will require funding for advertising, staff, and legal expenses.  If you somehow got RCV enacted everywhere today, you’d still have politicians seeking donations.  CGP Grey has good voting system tutorial videos on his YouTube channel, go look them up.
 

Finally, it’s embarrassing to see someone write that both parties are the same they’ve been for decades.  The Democrats are much better on social issues than even a decade ago, but much better than the 90s when the HRC promised they could get Employment Non-Discrimination through, but only if we abandoned trans people.  At least there’s less trans hate now from the Democrats.  Meanwhile, Republicans have hitched their wagon to the cowardly Nazi team.  If you can’t see the difference in the two parties, you need to look much, much harder.  Sure, Democrats are disappointing, but Republicans are just evil root and branch, so that’s where we are near term.  Probably mid term, also.

[ErosWired]

19 hours ago, NEDenver said:

The problem isn’t two parties grifting,

W-e-l-l-l-l, it does seem now that federal authorities can’t account for certain gifts given to Trump by foreign governments…

He evidently failed to realize that they were gifts given symbolically to the United States through him, and not to Donald Trump personally. As a former federal Executive Branch employee, I can tell you that federal employees aren’t allowed to keep anything gifted by a foreign state - it goes to the agency or the Department. I’m sure they’ll turn up around Mar-A-Lago somewhere. ‘Grifter’ sums him up on so many levels.

[hntnhole]

10 hours ago, ErosWired said:

‘Grifter’ sums him up on so many levels.

May I add:     circus barker, draft dodger, petty thief, conman, inveterate cheat, habitual liar, extortionist, sociopath, vanity beyond comprehension, utterly tasteless in his choice of sexual toys, choices in gold-colored radiator paint, just to expand the repertoire a little bit.  I particularly like a moniker given him by our favorite Bootman:  "Herr Furor" - so perfectly apt in every (of several) connotations ... the creature is beneath contempt in every possible way. 

[Guest]

On 4/8/2022 at 5:31 PM, BootmanLA said:

Not any more, at least. But historically speaking, we've taken as much as we've legitimately acquired. The latter group would include the Louisiana Purchase and the Gadsen Purchase, as well as the purchase of Alaska. We accepted Texas after encouraging that territory to rebel against Mexico and declare independence; we "allowed" cessions from Spain (East and West Florida, southwest Louisiana), Great Britain (parts of Minnesota and North Dakota) and Mexico (most of the southwest, including California, Nevada, Utah, and most of Arizona and New Mexico); we essentially stole Hawaii; and we laid claim to much of the eastern "midwest" after the Revolutionary War because Great Britain just was largely fed up with North America.

And those are just the parts that make up the actual 50 United States. We took innumerable islands in the Pacific (and fewer in the Caribbean), some in trumped-up wars with failing states like Spain at the end of the 19th century.

And of course, that excludes the fact that we essentially seized most of the territory of the original United States from the native people who were there when we arrived, and when they objected, we either slaughtered them or relocated them by force.

 

A lot of the land was purchased from the natives completely legally.

The natives are doing fine with their casinos, and resorts.  Anyone with any sense left the rez long ago or only goes back to visit.  Natives in the USA are treated 1,000x better than they are in Canada or by non-native Canadians that is for certain, and European colonialism was by far the best thing to ever happen to them, as well as to other natives in all other regions of the world.

Edited April 10, 2022 by TotalTop

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

The natives are doing fine with their casinos, and resorts.

As long as you overlook the staggering effects of alcoholism, poverty, etc., yes, doing just fine.

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

colonialism was by far the best thing to ever happen to them

Said every ruthless conqueror ever.

 

Really, all in all, an indefensible post. Andrew Jackson would have been so proud.

Edited April 10, 2022 by ErosWired

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

As long as you overlook the staggering effects of alcoholism, poverty, etc., yes, doing just fine.

Said every ruthless conqueror ever.

 

Really, all in all, an indefensible post. Andrew Jackson would have been so proud.

As I wrote before, the natives with any sense leave the rez and only go back to work at a casino, visit, etc. Many native reservations that do not have casinos or resorts are basically worse than 3rd world shitholes.

In much of the deifying of indigenous communities around the world, Western leftists enjoying portraying these groups as some sort of happy-go-lucky individuals who created societies that were completely egalitarian, living at one with nature, and free of committing any acts of war, human atrocities, engaging in slavery, genocide, etc etc. 

When, in reality, these things and much more were all hallmarks of indigenous societies just as much as they were any other culture around the world. North, South, Central America and the carribean were not some huge kumbaya love fest before Europeans with our superior technology, genetics, languages, philosophies, religions, medicine, etc. arrived. The Iroquois and Mohawk subset were cannibals as were many other tribes, and this primitive barbaric practise stopped in the copper or bronze age in Europe.

 

Just because a community is indigenous doesn't mean that they are worthy of any level of additional "respect" or "appreciation" compared to any other culture... as their cultures were just as, if not more, guilty of committing atrocities than any European culture was. Virtually every indigenous community around the world engaged in some form of slavery, genocide against rivals, mass killing of innocent people, I mean, the Aztecs alone engaged in human sacrifice on a level that modern civilization can't even comprehend. The self-flagellation in Western society over indigenous cultures is misplaced... these are not cultures worthy of the high praise and deification they receive.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by TotalTop

[ErosWired]

@TotalTop - You use terms such as ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’, etc., but these are valuations based on a modern Western Cultural perspective. Our superior genetics? Seriously? Hold please, Mr. Hitler would like to speak to you on line one. The assumption you make is that your perspective is superior to all others. In fact, it is such judgments that indigenous cultures were primitive and barbaric that were used to justify their subjugation and genocide by any number of aggressors.

Another culture might look at the United States today and say - “They execute people - how barbaric.” From their point of view, we no doubt are. You are simply parroting reprehensible arguments made by conquerors down the ages to justify their callous aggression.

One might as well say: Him? He’s just a sleazy cumdump who didn’t know his place. That brutal rape by that superior Alpha Top was the best thing that could have happened to him.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

@TotalTop - You use terms such as ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’, etc., but these are valuations based on a modern Western Cultural perspective. Our superior genetics? Seriously? Hold please, Mr. Hitler would like to speak to you on line one. The assumption you make is that your perspective is superior to all others. In fact, it is such judgments that indigenous cultures were primitive and barbaric that were used to justify their subjugation and genocide by any number of aggressors.

Another culture might look at the United States today and say - “They execute people - how barbaric.” From their point of view, we no doubt are. You are simply parroting reprehensible arguments made by conquerors down the ages to justify their callous aggression.

One might as well say: Him? He’s just a sleazy cumdump who didn’t know his place. That brutal rape by that superior Alpha Top was the best thing that could have happened to him.

I am all for execution in the case of paedophiles, serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. where the evidence shows they killed or hurt someone and there is no doubt that they did this.  I am not for it in the case of manslaughter where the death of the other person was completely accidental.

Perhaps genetically superior is the wrong term? We are certainly much more adaptive and more resistant or even immune to diseases, bacteria, viruses, etc. than non-Europeans or mixed people are.

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.pasteur.fr/en/africans-and-europeans-have-genetically-different-immune-systems-and-neanderthals-had-something-do

[think before following links] https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050307/full/news050307-15.html

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by TotalTop

[ErosWired]

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Perhaps genetically superior is the wrong term? We are certainly much more adaptive and more resistant or even immune to diseases, bacteria, viruses, etc. than non-Europeans or mixed people are.

No. The studies you cite simply point to adaptation to environmental circumstances (that’s what natural selection is) and make it clear that immune response has developed along different genetic paths, via convergent evolution. Not superior - different. Besides, so what if someone from Europe is more resistant to HIV than someone from Africa? My white-as-paste body apparently didn’t get the fucking memo. And even if true, it has absolutely not one thing to do with whether they have value as human beings, or as cultures.

Everything you have posted above could have been pulled straight and unedited from a set of white supremacist talking points. Science has never legitimized white supremacy, and it never will.

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, TotalTop said:

I am all for execution in the case of paedophiles, serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, etc. where the evidence shows they killed or hurt someone and there is no doubt that they did this.  I am not for it in the case of manslaughter where the death of the other person was completely accidental.

Perhaps you shouldn't use legal terms like "manslaughter" when you clearly have no idea what they actually mean. "Manslaughter" is not the same thing as "completely accidental". Manslaughter is a crime; something that is "completely accidental" is not. JFC.

Manslaughter involves intent, but (though the terminology differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) it means that there was not "malice aforethought", which is ordinarily a requirement for murder.

And in any event, there's seldom any case involving a killing where all of the relevant elements are so clear that "there is no doubt that they did this." Even things like declaring someone a psychopath or a sociopath is a judgment call, made by some people where no doubt others would disagree.

[PozBearWI]

On 4/8/2022 at 5:59 PM, hntnhole said:

That may be closer to the truth.  Dictators are seldom very bright men (or women - gotta be inclusive, right?).  What they lack in mental capacity they make up for with making others fear them.  While Royal Families often suffer from what we would call "inbreeding" - for example, the House of Yamato has occupied the Chrysanthemum Throne for over a thousand years now, so it's likely the gene-pool is a little bit depleted.  The dictator of Russia does not possess that excuse: he's nothing more than a cunning, clever, but rather dull manipulator who managed to grab power. ( sound familiar?)  It's that talent for instilling fear, without the necessary intelligence backing it up that is so dangerous.  I do think, however, that if he contemplates using either nuclear or biological weapons, his lackeys would prevent it - knowing full well that their nation would be totally destroyed if he does.  Not that the West should rely on that supposition, of course not.  

Of course, we'll know when we know....  From the git go his rationalizations that he feared Ukraine or feared they would join NATO (which I believe is inevitable now).  I would not discount that Putin might resort to nukes.  I hope he doesn't.  There are a Sthit ton of reasons why he hould not use them.  But Putin isn't acting rationally.