myata

Just say I'm f@cked up, my brain is. Would make way more sense. Several is the word for "most" the hundreds of them, right? It's quite astounding how partisanship distorts perception of the reality, regardless of the chosen side.

you won't get it until it hits you on your head. You just cannot see and get it that there can be things way more important, in the sense much more deep and far reaching consequences than political 'me no no me!' games. Maybe there is no other way. In the alternative reality, the majority of responsible Democrats would accept strengthened border security (makes sense) and the majority of responsible Republicans would support the only country holding the tyranny tide (necessary and critical). And with it, own future. Makes all the sense: only in the alternative, still sane universe.

So, pointing fingers is all you can do? At the time of possibly, existential challenge? That's some C-in-C speaking, right there? A winning strategy? And for the Republicans it's simple really: if the assistance is failed for no other cause but this mindless hostage game, every single name, in the House and Senate, will go on the list of those who walked away from their responsibility before the future. Every single one, no excuses or exceptions. It's being written as we speak. The future already knows.

Our ancestors got it, and did it all wrong. OK. The history is taking the note: as we speak.

U.S. assistance to Ukraine has 'ground to a halt' (Kirby) In the late 1990s, Ukraine gave up massive amounts of nuclear arms in exchange for guarantees of security. Now, couple of decades later, the true worth of the "guarantees" is in the plain sight of the world and the money have dried out. Too bad. But we are calling for. No: they aren't getting it after all. It's not about their little pre-election games, scoring couple of points here, giving one there. It's about the credibility, the word of a country: what is it worth now and for decades? generations? They aren't getting it because they are in a different world. No further comments why throwing useless words in the cold air. Two questions only: Who, given the evident reality and in their right mind, would give up nukes now? As opposed to getting them, at the first opportunity and as much as can be carried away? Where would any land, country that may feel insecure turn for protection and security from now and on, for the observable perspective? Silly, careless, naive, inhumanly wise, subtle or who knows: they just don't seem to get, or care what is really at stake here. Why don't we just try and find out. There's always a first.

The conclusion that is starkly clear these days is that the international system of humanity is not capable to investigate; prosecute and achieve resolution of such conflict. Even when it's transparently clear, like in the case of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, there's no resolution. That can be the final conclusion: we can talk, have opinions, argue but we cannot do much, by fact and for real. That being clear, is there much point in further talking? What end could it achieve?

This is an aside, but an important one. Note: this is all a product of the binary (FPTP) political system, logical and, based on the experience, practically unavoidable. First, it creates a political environment that is entitled and closed into itself. A normal parliamentary party has to compete transparently and on equal terms with many others; it has to show that it has something better and different. Not so in FPTP: one only has to kick their opponent harder (or wait till they screw up majorly) and exaggerate own virtues even if none exist. Truth, the priorities of the society don't matter - only winning is. FPTP sets political interests of the incumbents above the interests of the society and the objective truth itself. The logical result is an extreme partisan division and a cynical, self-absorbed political system. That's not all, by far. FPTP promotes the rise of marginal candidates who make the strongest, immediate impression, not necessarily those with the best policies, and quite often, the opposite. Winning is all; everything else is a distant second. Entertainment, game-style politics. Loud mouth, shallow on the substance: did you notice? More to come: having produced marginal candidates, FPTP legitimizes them to the broad society. A loud minority bent on a crazy idea or divisive agenda is sufficient to send their candidate to the front circle simply because they are shouting louder. Noise, sometimes random, becomes a winning factor. And if/once selected, the figure becomes a legitimate political candidate for the society: as approved by an incumbent in a resemblance of a democratic process. Next, FPTP helps the marginals win by grossly limiting the alternatives. If you don't like the other guy, you just have to vote for me. A shaking granpa or me the insane, but look I'm kind of cute too. Trumps are the natural, logical and unavoidable product of the binary politics. The founding fathers did their best but they couldn't know all for all times. Binary politics will erode, degrade and then finish the democracy. It's not going to get better. That just wouldn't be natural.

Resisting a brutal thug bent on annihilating any lawful order is "impossible". What do you expect from them? Ready for insane: embrace insanity.

He doesn't need to understand anything. He only needs a throat, a tongue and a large group in the population that is ready for the wild ride.

Some background: First, in the late 2021, before his invasion, Putin did not threaten Ukraine: his threats were addressed to NATO. A fact. For months now, the EU package of military aid to Ukraine has been in negotiations due to the position of some members. A similar bill in the U.S. has been blocked since late November, 2023. Several incidents of Russian aircraft and missiles over NATO territory were recorded, without any immediate consequences. Next, a question: why would an aggressive, brutal bully attack a victim they perceive as weak, that would not put up serious resistance? Answer: because they can. Because it would strengthen their power and a position among bandit peers. Because they could rob victim's property and resources. Because they could recruit or force victim's population into their armies or use it as slaves. So many good, worthy reasons. These by the way were the reasons that prompted Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. But what would happen if he wouldn't stop there? NATO added a couple of battalions to "strengthen" its Eastern frontier and a handful of tanks. Putin prepares a 200,000 strong cannon fodder army and 10,000 post-WWII tanks (Ukraine now ties over 400,000. Just think where they could be going next). He showers the place over with hundreds or thousands of outdated but still functional artillery units. Would the frontier hold? NATO would have a definite advantage in the air. But would it be enough to change the situation on the ground? One would need the will and the order to go for personnel concentration, logistics, transportation networks and centers, command and control centers deep inside Russia's territory: something NATO's been reluctant and terrified of even thinking about so far. Fighting this enemy with a hand and a leg tied? The result is pretty much predetermined. The territory, lost. Next we would try to assemble a force to drive the enemy out. But now, thanks to the experiences and in Syria, Ukraine and by Hamas they have an effective antidote: swarm the place with thousands of their cannon fodder. Take entire cities and even countries as hostages. You want to attack enemy troops concentrations? Scores, thousands of civilians - your Union's citizens would perish. Will you have the resolve and stamina? And what if not? The war drags on indefinitely: do you have the resources? The resolve and determination, the endurance and the will? Or you run out of steam and go for some superficial "settlement", to let you pretend business as usual only for a little longer. The alliance is eroded: some exit and make separate arrangements with the dictators. Others, sit on the fence. A few would fight still. But the outcome would be far less certain than today. Former allies are locked: some in their small islands, others in the corner of a remote continent. How long would those Elven heavens last before the dark tide covers them too and washes away? Note: all of the above has moved from the dark post-apocalypse literature to remote possibility to quite possible and technical in a matter of a few years. The problem is not in the concept anymore as only a couple of happy decades back, but in time and some technical detail. Would "let it go and just dance" help to send it away this time around? Now is our best chance for bold decisions and necessary acts we will have for a long time: until this new cloud clears away. It should be so easy to get. To who though? An ancient grandpa in his tall chair who could no longer tell the difference between his infinitely wise sermons and the reality? Or to a loud bottomless throat without any brain or morals attached? Last time we had the judgment, the resolve and the leaders and now?

Committees led by Republicans published in November of 2023 "The proposed plan for victory in Ukraine". It correctly, and factually unavoidably identifies the rising coalition of tyrants: Russia; Belarus; North Korea; Iran and possibly, China as the principal, and possibly the ultimate threat to the Free World. Achieving a decisive victory in Ukraine is the quickest and most effective way to neutralize it. Biden's administration has been persistent in avoiding decisive acts so far. The logic and reasons of insufficient action in contrast to great talking points are really obscure to me. One can guess old age indecision and reluctance of decisive acts. As a result of that lack of definitive position, not just Ukraine: we, the West as a whole can be at a tipping point into a future of rising darkness; violence and chaos. Great wise talking will do nothing to hold it off, Joe.

Who's looking for surprises or revelations here? The prolific lying clown will say anything; no bounds. He said one butcher tyrant was a genius, and the other, very honorable. He promised to dismantle NATO. This is the last, final low in a populist deformed and mutilated quasi-democracy. No constraints, bounds or limits left. From that sort of politics, one can expect anything.

Donald Trump told the president of the European Commission in 2020 that the US would “never come help” if Europe was attacked and also said “Nato is dead”, a senior European commissioner said. (The Guardian) According to Breton, Trump also said: “By the way, Nato is dead, and we will leave, we will quit Nato.” It that same strategy was tried back at the times of WWII, the West would have fallen piece by piece and we would be living in quite a different world now. Waking up to Nazi anthems. Quite possibly, in the North America too. A one-two calculation and no miracle interventions. Just at the time when a new dark Axis of tyrants is rising, this sounds more, way more than his regular loudmouth bullsh*t: an invitation into collective insanity. Once in a while, human populations like to give in to collective loss of sanity. Examples are just way to many to cite. There's something attractive in abandoning, leaving by the door that complex and awkward contraption called "intelligence" and just heading into a wild dance, no thinking, no responsibilities, just wave your hands and stomp, boom boom. In between, the civilization rekindles and we reach the level of advanced technology. What happens next? Kaboom! Interesting from the scientific, medical point of view is the position of some Republicans: with one part of their brain, they write the bill to protect NATO; with the other, push for the out-of-bounds of sanity loudmouth clown who pledges to annihilate it. Was there a word for that? Go on. And so, gerontocratic self-binding caution and indecision or plain out, in your face insanity? Which, which is the better one who could break the conundrum! This will be an interesting one to watch. What if it would go into our collective history as the final period? There has to be a reason we couldn't find intelligent aliens, right? And guess what? It's a leap one too!

They don't know the difference between the objective reality and imaginary "facts" that exist only in their imagination. Now a medical fact, diagnosis.

That's an ignore. There's no argument of any sense and the point is closed, period. On that level of intelligence and honesty he can talk to Vivek or other prolific liar buds.

Note that we were discussing made up "truths" vs objective evidence and the liars just keep pretending they don't understand. Isn't it cute?

Which is all one can observe, objectively, on the relevance of his arguments to the topic. None. Clean and pure, absolute zero other than bored to death ad hominem. Not much can be added here. Point closed.

So you tried to find the difference, just couldn't get over yourself? Note, not a single fact there. That's all there's to know isn't it? I hate it when folks are lying except when it's me.

Talks of Canadian talking heads about complexities of democratic politics are absurdly amusing. It's a cute game for them sure, they feed off it after all so makes all the sense. In the reality though, politics do not exist here. Two default political mega-corporations take turns ruling without any, factual zero effective checks. A majority or de facto PM can do virtually anything (just as we just observed) and there will be nothing to stop them. Including a criminal act quite possibly - "we just can't be sure if They can allow it themselves", the quote. They like to create funny little dances and rituals, take that personal, lapdog "ethics commissioner" so cute costs a fortune and some to the taxpayer but how else, and enjoy the show. And will chat it this way and that forever as if it mattered anything, one broken cent. OK, everyone needs to feed their little ones, do understand. Never the real thing, no. That could be dangerous. Change is dangerous, here.

Did he have any evidence for those claims? What was the substance of them, any, objectively speaking? Fox News admitted they were "false statements". If not, they have to be one and the same thing: the difference is only what completely made up "truth" comes out of one's finger. You need to see things for what they are, and "grow up".

How would it be so different though from " the election was stolen" claim, without a single piece of evidence thrown out by dozens of cases and still all of the MAGA and half of Republicans (seemingly) believe it? If one has moved from the standard of fact and objective truth, to "whatever serves me best becomes, is made into the truth", how much sense does it make to fish for the lowest bottom? There wouldn't be any, obviously. Every new low will be breached by the next enthusiast of false news and manufactured lies.

Are we still in a desperate need of ever more people here just to keep things going? Gosh I'm confused

"Something" may not be enough, you may know it from your daily life, no? What if you're trying to run out of a juggernaut's way, but can only walk "some" distance? Would it help, in the final analysis? The f@cking dilemma, look we're doing "something", or see, I just want to go insane, try to stop me. That has to mean something. It happened exactly like this the last time, and there was no good exit. Ooh. ignored as bombastic nonsense, why would anyone bother? Try talking to Vivek.

Let's try to think of it this way: how is going to go on, continue? The wise caution strategy I mean. So you fail those who would actually stand up, and then what: next? Where will it go? The bully goes back home, stuffed and satisfied; the things return to their normal cycle, you know partying, spending countless dough on useless stuff, talking issues to death in "security councils"? That kind of rosy fantasy, as it happened always and every time in our history? Or, having digested the latest victim, the bully shows up on your doorstep, next? And what then? Where would all the great wisdom go? In front of whom to wring thin shaking hands, cry and swear of great caution and restraint, the avoidance of you know? Who will attend the show and give it five star marks for thoughtfulness? This is exactly how it happened the last time, by the way. Whoever needed to think one step ahead.

That's a good one. So definitely Putin would very, very much love his opponents to see it that way and in that frame: a meek halfhearted dash at "supporting" nothing too serious though... or it's something terrible. For him it makes a lot of sense. For who else, though? That's a great excuse right there, kudos! But wait.. does the Time accept those as valid tender? At what time could you explain indecisiveness and inaction, at a critical point of history by caution and wisdom and It like, OK sure buddy, I'm in the wrong here. Are we pipe dreamin, again? All the way till the reality knocks right on our door? Not when we can choose to stand by our words and principles, but being dragged into the fight that cannot be avoided, no chance kicking and screaming?