Director Of National Intelligence Nominee-Tulsi Gabbard

[DarkNoon]

Ukraine had been subjugated by Russia for almost a century. Where was the fight in the west to remedy that then.
Where was the west when our government and media ignored the Holodomor mass starvation and truly genocidal deaths.

Whataboutism & I think a red herring? Get strawman and red herring definitions mixed up.

 

[OReid]

Whataboutism & I think a red herring? Get strawman and red herring definitions mixed up.

Maybe so, the argument of the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That there was an active policy of using a color revolution in Ukraine are fairly well documented.
That we were not prepared for Russias reaction is fairly self-evident also

 

[DarkNoon]

Maybe so, the argument of the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That there was an active policy of using a color revolution in Ukraine are fairly well documented.
That we were not prepared for Russias reaction is fairly self-evident also

Right so by every means we need to bend over backwards for Putin and give him everything he wants. Makes total sense to me... (sarcasm)

 

[Torch]

Maybe so, the argument of the bombing or Hiroshima and Nagasaki

That there was an active policy of using a color revolution in Ukraine are fairly well documented.
That we were not prepared for Russias reaction is fairly self-evident also

I thought we (the US) read the situation correctly. We tried for 8 years to deliver implements of war to the UA, with Congress approving and Obama block. We did however send blankets (At least these were not festooned with smallpox).

We warned everyone at the end what was coming, We finally shipped mountains of MRE’s, Javelins and AT-4’s. We trained them and the UA put them to incredible effect. So I think we (the US) was prepared but the UA was not.
I’m a big fan of “I need ammunition, not a ride!” Zelenskyy. However the US has NEVER missed a presidential election. Not even delayed. American Civil War and WW2 were certainly huge hot messes to get the votes counted, but we did. Every single war every single time, on time.

So for the UA to not hold election but report to represent the people close enough to conscript them and send them to war is simply mystifying to the United States. Actually, it’s just staggeringly stupid of them. They really do look like a dictatorship when they pull crap like that.

 

[Socom7]

So for the UA to not hold election but report to represent the people close enough to conscript them and send them to war is simply mystifying to the United States. Actually, it’s just staggeringly stupid of them. They really do look like a dictatorship when they pull crap like that.

Russia loves elections. Just not in Russia. I understand Trump wants to get rid of Zelensky, but an election in Ukraine right now would be an absolute disaster, and whatever outcome materializes could be exploited by your enemies to undermine the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. That is, unless someone in the USA regards Ukraine as their enemy and Russia as their ally, but that's - excuses le mot - batsh*t insane.

More broadly: every democratic election that takes place anywhere in the world offers Russia (or other malicious actors) an opportunity to interfere and make hay.

Even more broadly: democracy is now dead as a viable political system. This is the only reasonable conclusion given that democracy produces leaders such as Donald Trump. I understand the MAGA crowd might not see it that way, but they're, shall we say, in a minority here.

 

[OReid]

Russia loves elections. Just not in Russia. I understand Trump wants to get rid of Zelensky, but an election in Ukraine right now would be an absolute disaster, and whatever outcome materializes could be exploited by your enemies to undermine the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. That is, unless someone in the USA regards Ukraine as their enemy and Russia as their ally, but that's - excuses le mot - batsh*t insane.

More broadly: every democratic election that takes place anywhere in the world offers Russia (or other malicious actors) an opportunity to interfere and make hay.

Even more broadly: democracy is now dead as a viable political system. This is the only reasonable conclusion given that democracy produces leaders such as Donald Trump. I understand the MAGA crowd might not see it that way, but they're, shall we say, in a minority here.

So elections mean nothing or is it only when they don’t serve your world view.

I would have wished Zelinski hadn’t suspended elections. I am not familiar enough with the situation regarding holding an election in Ukraine right now.
But it has not served him well in his argument for support.
But I simply can’t know enough to judge him for it.

It’s like WTF is an “electoral autocracy”
It’s not necessarily out right election rigging because that needs incidents to validate.
Most commonly it control of press. Well who exactly determining who has that control? Or is it suspension of parties because they espouse hate speech which is so prevalent in many western nations this last decade. Or is it utilizing the court system to overwhelm and silence a political figure.

Election autocracy is perhaps one of the most nebulous and vague political charges of the 21 century.
Don’t like Orban charge his nation of electoral autocracy. The same charges have been leveled at Poland. All while western gov overtly work at prohibiting or banning opposition political parties.

Who is trying to influence elections in Hungary more Russia or Brussels?

Again it all goes back to Russia does this, the Chinese do this, Islamist do this, and the west is doing it more and more as well. We did it routinely in Israel to try and keep Netanyahu out of office.

Oceania Eurasia Eastasia. God how scary is that when superimposing it premise on the world today.
Who remembers what INGSOC from 1984 means “English Socialism”

Is democracy dead in the world today. Well I would say there has been a very concerted effort by multiple entities across the globe to in fact kill democracy.
From nefarious actors like Putin or the CCP. To globalist groups like the UN EU WEF to others who just want to see it die so that they alone can stay in power.

But I would say democracy, or more accurately representative democracy is beleaguered and tested. But it is not dead. Some nations or governments currently in existence will die and out of those ashes there is always the hope fair representative gov will be born that reflect the will of it populous.
Let’s just hope they don’t get plucked up or die for lack or water and sunlight.

 

[Socom7]

So elections mean nothing or is it only when they don’t serve your world view.

I would have wished Zelinski hadn’t suspended elections. I am not familiar enough with the situation regarding holding an election in Ukraine right now.
But it has not served him well in his argument for support.
But I simply can’t know enough to judge him for it.

It's very simple: the Ukrainian constitution prohibits elections while the country is under marshal law. The same thing happened to Great Britain during WW2 - there was no election between 1935 and 1945 (a period of 10 years) - and nobody made a fuss about Churchill's rule being "illegitimate". Sorry to be blunt, but saying "I don't know...", "I am not familiar..." etc. just sounds freakin' dishonest.

But I would say democracy, or more accurately representative democracy is beleaguered and tested. But it is not dead.

I appreciate your optmism, but do not share it.

Some nations or governments currently in existence will die and out of those ashes there is always the hope fair representative gov will be born that reflect the will of it populous. Let’s just hope they don’t get plucked up or die for lack or water and sunlight.

Yeah, that is a concern, isn't it...

 

[OReid]

Even more broadly: democracy is now dead as a viable political system. This is the only reasonable conclusion given that democracy produces leaders such as Donald Trump. I understand the MAGA crowd might not see it that way

So because you don’t like Trump or his election. And his supporters are a minority where ever “here” is.
Even though he was elected with a majority and according to our constitution. democracy is dead in the US. The US was never a pure democracy so it didn’t die here is was never intended to be here.

Is this due to Russian interference? You know how often and long those charges have been made and never successfully defended in law or real world in the last decade in the US.
It’s like as your referenced “crying wolf” over and over not for truth but for political gain.

It is real but the severity of it has become a joke and misnomer for “I got nothing else to refute them with” a talking point!

Just like charges of racism or treason have been used so liberally and factually incorrect so often no one believes or cares.

Maybe just maybe the majority of the US public doesn’t agree with your world view of political aims. That’s not tyranny or autocracy it’s a representative republic which is what we are, and struggle to maintain.

 

[Socom7]

The US was never a pure democracy so it didn’t die here is was never intended to be here.

That is a very bold statement, but I suppose we're moving on from "it's absolutely not fascism, WTF are you talking about?" to "okay, so maybe it is fascism, WTF are you gonna do about it?"

A very natural progression, if I say so myself.

PS. Hitler was democratically elected.

 

[OReid]

That is a very bold statement, but I suppose we're moving on from "it's absolutely not fascism, WTF are you talking about?" to "okay, so maybe it is fascism, WTF are you gonna do about it?"

A very natural progression, if I say so myself.

PS. Hitler was democratically elected.

Not even in the

That is a very bold statement, but I suppose we're moving on from "it's absolutely not fascism, WTF are you talking about?" to "okay, so maybe it is fascism, WTF are you gonna do about it?"

A very natural progression, if I say so myself.

PS. Hitler was democratically elected.

this is a meaningless response. Not acknowledging US constitutional organization.
The latter part of post held no coherent meaning

 

[Torch]

…democracy is now dead as a viable political system. This is the only reasonable conclusion given that democracy produces leaders such as Donald Trump.

Opinion vary. I think democracy produced exactly what I wanted and voted for. In fact If I have a complaint it’s that not enough is being done fast enough. Losers always seem to whine for the entire term they lost. It’s always the end of the world and the end of Democracy. Newsflash, the United States of America is not a democracy, never was. It’s a Republic.

I understand the MAGA crowd might not see it that way, but they're, shall we say, in a minority here.

Right here and now CNN ( FYI opposition news if you are not USA) just said their latest poll shows Trump +2 on approve ratings. So just exactly how many world leaders have 52% after an election? Canada and the European democracies often have leaders rockin 30% Trudeau is under 30%. ( and he’s…gone)

So demonstrably NOT the minority.

So how can a European country call itself a democracy when 70% of the people didn’t vote for the leader? Israel is no better. It’s all coalition this and compromise that. Thats is those Democracies, and citizens, that don’t have monarchies and subjects (or free speech, or firearms. Hmmm associative? Causative? You decide)

In the US every once in a while, a party gets everything and they really jam through the works. The loudest voices today forget that Obama did the same thing. The check balances are that people get sick and tired of it and vote so you start losing your grip on the government. All you have to do is lose one, the House the Senate or the Judiciary and you’re finished. Just beautiful gridlock. Its a Wonderful thing, slamming the brakes on an out of control train.

Thats how the US operates. We go from one extreme to the other bouncing back-and-forth. It seems jarring, especially since we’re just leaving an era where we had a crossdressing transvestite sporting serious heels in the cabinet. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It’s just not something people are used to seeing.

Now we’re going the other way. No longer gonna put people in charge because they are living examples of the party line. We’re putting people in charge that can actually get the job done. And if they don’t, they’re fired.

Shrinkage CAN be is a beautiful thing. This is actually a tossup: what’s better; a hiring freeze or total gridlock? I am going to have with gridlock.

I’m sure the Democrats will ensure we have it in about 18 months when they take the House which is the traditional way of doing it. When that happens, if it was truly the end of democracy, the House would either be dissolved, ignored, or all of the participants arrested. I said we wait and see what happens. I know I’m betting on gridlock…and the Republic.

Oh did I mention gridlock?


Edited for content.
I was speaking into my phone, and I fell into a lazy rut of saying “you and yourself” in a royal sense comprising entire countries. Changed I don’t wanna be accused personal attacks. Here I bear malice towards none and with charity for some and a fair bit of firmness in the right…

 

[RiffRaff]

That is a very bold statement, but I suppose we're moving on from "it's absolutely not fascism, WTF are you talking about?" to "okay, so maybe it is fascism, WTF are you gonna do about it?"

The United States was founded as a representational republic, which is a form of democracy but not pure democracy. We're playing with semantics here. As far as fascism goes, we're not there yet. Maybe it's going it that direction, maybe we're going in some other direction. We can say for sure that the country is going to change. How much and for better or worse remains to be seen.

PS. Hitler was democratically elected.

No, he wasn't. He was appointed and then used that appointment to gain power. Go check your history.

 

[Winnitude]

No, he wasn't. He was appointed and then used that appointment to gain power. Go check your history.

Technically, he lost the election but attained a sizable enough minority power to absolutely fuck the system with deadlock, and then took power from there over the course of a few years of whittling away at the system. He attained significant progress in basically turning Germany into a dictatorship before he was ever appointed, using the powers given to him by the vote.

Eventually in 1933 he was appointed after abusing the powers of democracy to destroy democracy already for years prior, when Germany had effectively already been moved in terms of the machinations of the political system away from a democracy purely through constitutionally-OK means, forced to rule through order/decree with a broken legislature and anything in the legislature having to go through Hitler. The appointment was Hindenburg finally relenting to the power Hitler had already seized outside of the role.

Then, he was "democratically elected" with a mandate shortly after his appointment.

How Hitler Used Democracy to Take Power

The vital lesson of how Adolf Hitler took advantage of democracy to become a dictator.

time.com

 

[Socom7]

As far as fascism goes, we're not there yet. Maybe it's going it that direction, maybe we're going in some other direction. We can say for sure that the country is going to change. How much and for better or worse remains to be seen.

That, I would say, is an expression of exuberant optimism.

No, he wasn't. He was appointed and then used that appointment to gain power. Go check your history.

Oh come on. The Nazis became became the largest party in the Reichstag after the 1932 election, and it was traditional for Germany at that time that the leader of the largest party would be appointed chancellor. As indeed happened. So in that sense - no, Hitler was indeed not elected - because German chancellors were not elected in a popular vote - but the outcome that materialized was the result of a democratic election.

My point is obviously as follows: democratic elections sometimes produce undemocratic leaders, which is the primary mechanism by which democracy destroys itself.

 

[Socom7]

Technically, he lost the election but attained a sizable enough minority power to absolutely fuck the system with deadlock, and then took power from there over the course of a few years of whittling away at the system. He attained significant progress in basically turning Germany into a dictatorship before he was ever appointed, using the powers given to him by the vote.

None of which would have been possible if the electorate hadn't turned out in droves to vote for a bunch of guys who made absolutely no secret of their intentions (Beer Hall Putsch/Capitol Riot anyone...?)

 

[RiffRaff]

That, I would say, is an expression of exuberant optimism.

Fair point.

Oh come on. The Nazis became became the largest party in the Reichstag after the 1932 election, and it was traditional for Germany at that time that the leader of the largest party would be appointed chancellor. As indeed happened. So in that sense - no, Hitler was indeed not elected - because German chancellors were not elected in a popular vote - but the outcome that materialized was the result of a democratic election.

My point is obviously as follows: democratic elections sometimes produce undemocratic leaders, which is the primary mechanism by which democracy destroys itself.

THAT is exactly what happened. But that's not what you said, and some people less familiar with history might have just assumed what you said was true. It's not semantics; being elected and being appointed are not even close to each other. Your statement that outcome was essentially the same is well-taken, but let's not take shortcuts on our facts. That's how history gets rewritten.

 

[Socom7]

THAT is exactly what happened. But that's not what you said, and some people less familiar with history might have just assumed what you said was true. Your statement that outcome was essentially the same is well-taken, but let's not take shortcuts on our facts. That's how history gets rewritten.

You're right, but brevity is the soul of wit. Wasn't my intention to pen an essay on how the Nazis took over Germany - otherwise nobody here would read it (know your audience!) I merely wanted to point out the fact that it all began with a free election.

I will sometimes condense walls of text into brief statements which preserve the core of the argument without being deceitful. This is based on the assumption that nobody in their right mind derives their knowledge of history solely from the DWS forum.

 

[Winnitude]

You're right, but brevity is the soul of wit. Wasn't my intention to pen an essay on how the Nazis took over Germany - otherwise nobody here would read it (know your audience!) I merely wanted to point out the fact that it all began with a free election.

I will sometimes condense walls of text into brief statements which preserve the core of the argument without being deceitful. This is based on the assumption that nobody in their right mind derives their knowledge of history solely from the DWS forum.

I would say the way you phrased it summed up the events well enough if we can assume the people we are talking to have like highschool level background knowledge.
If a free election gave him the power he used to turn it into a dictatorship, and then another election where he won lead to the process which got him appointed as is traditionally what they do, install the winner as chancellor...
well if the mechanism for taking office after an election is appointment, the difference between that and being directly elected to the same position/office really is semantics as long as it's the same person who won being appointed.