Think the dems will use this alot over the next 2 years?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Senate Filibuster
1,771 Views |
27 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by drahthaar
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
For the GOP, depends on the ask. Bringing troops home and less involvement in wars, they will be fine. Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not. IF Trump is smart and crafts his legislation correctly, he will get ALOT of wins. He goes Far Right MAGA, it will die in Fillibuster.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
FLBear5630 said:For the GOP, depends on the ask. Bringing troops home and less involvement in wars, they will be fine. Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not. IF Trump is smart and crafts his legislation correctly, he will get ALOT of wins. He goes Far Right MAGA, it will die in Fillibuster.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
Is there maga and far right maga?
Budget Reconciliation isn't subject to Filibuster. Expect a ton of "killing by defunding" to occur.
In January, R's should bring a bill in committee to expand the Supreme Court and to eliminate the filibuster just to call D's bluff and watch them go apest crazy.
"Oh! We were trying to reach across the aisle and support 2 policies you've supported."
"Oh! We were trying to reach across the aisle and support 2 policies you've supported."
Adriacus Peratuun said:
Budget Reconciliation isn't subject to Filibuster. Expect a ton of "killing by defunding" to occur.
That is accurate. Attended meeting yesterday in Grant funding based on new Admin. Defunding much of the social service programs like transit, connecting neighborhoods and social programs. More into hard infrastructure, technology, and operations. EV is likely to survive, but more as an alternative choice, not only choice.
Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Democrats will call every GOP bill entered "Far Right MAGA." Every proposed change will be fascist, racist, this-or-thataphobic, etc.....FLBear5630 said:For the GOP, depends on the ask. Bringing troops home and less involvement in wars, they will be fine. Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not. IF Trump is smart and crafts his legislation correctly, he will get ALOT of wins. He goes Far Right MAGA, it will die in Fillibuster.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
Yeah, they lost the popular vote, so they are not going to burn cities or anything, but do not get into the world of wishful thinking about Dems seeing the light & getting on board. They are doing to do everything they can to stop everything.
Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
You imply that there is an argument for all ethnic Russian territories to be Russia, but if you look at the history of Russia, you see there were huge blocs of ethnic Russians who were independent, and even when conquered, not happy about being "unified."
I specifically did not imply that. And Russia never took issue with Ukrainian independence, for example. They sought a solution whereby the Donbas would remain part of Ukraine and the rights of ethnic Russians would be protected.Porteroso said:Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
You imply that there is an argument for all ethnic Russian territories to be Russia, but if you look at the history of Russia, you see there were huge blocs of ethnic Russians who were independent, and even when conquered, not happy about being "unified."
Actually, there is evidence. Read Gorbachev in the 90's and Putin since 2012. They did give up their empire and Putin said it was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century, a century that included 2 World Wars and the Holocaust. Then he invades Crimea... So, there is a pretty good case.Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
It was a tragedy in some ways, particularly for Russians who were suddenly left outside the federation. But have you read the whole speech? He is admitting this tragedy in order to advance an argument for democracy and progress. It's meant as a rebuttal to the more reactionary elements in Russia who refuse to move beyond the past:FLBear5630 said:Actually, there is evidence. Read Gorbachev in the 90's and Putin since 2012. They did give up their empire and Putin said it was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century, a century that included 2 World Wars and the Holocaust. Then he invades Crimea... So, there is a pretty good case.Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
Quote:
Esteemed Federal Assembly, esteemed citizens of Russia, a number of fundamental ideological and political issues will be raised in my message for 2005. I believe that this discussion is necessary at the current stage of Russia's development. The most topical socioeconomic tasks, including specific nationwide projects, were identified in my last message. I intend to develop them in the budget message and a number of other documents. At the same time I would ask you to regard the previous and current messages as a single action programme and our joint programme for the next decade.
I regard the development of Russia as a free and democratic state as our main political and ideological task. We utter these words quite often. However, in practical terms, the profound meaning of the value of freedom and democracy, justice and legality is shown quite rarely in our everyday life. But such analysis is needed. Increasingly often the objectively complex processes under way in Russia are the subject of intense ideological discussions which bear precisely on the topics of freedom and democracy.
Sometimes we hear the opinion that since the Russian people has been silent for ages, it does not know or need freedom and for this reason our citizens are said to need constant supervision from above. I would like to return those who think so to reality, to the real world.
Let me remind you again of how modern Russian history began. First of all, it should be acknowledged, and I have spoken of this before, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. And for the Russian people, it was a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation.
Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration spread to Russia itself. Citizens' savings lost their value. The old ideals were destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or simply hastily reformed. The country's integrity was disturbed by a terrorist intervention and the ensuing capitulation of Khasavyurt [Chechen peace deal of mid-1990s brokered by the late Aleksandr Lebed and the late Aslan Maskhadov].
With unrestricted control over information flows, groups of oligarchs served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty started to be accepted as the norm. All this evolved against a background of the most severe economic recession, unstable finances and paralysis in the social sphere.
It seemed to many at the time that our young democracy was not the continuation of Russian statehood, but its final collapse, the prolonged death throes of the Soviet system. Those who thought so were mistaken.
Indeed it was during that period that extremely significant events took place in Russia. Not only was the energy of self-preservation in evidence in our society, but also a will for a new, free life. During those difficult years, the Russian people had to simultaneously defend state sovereignty and choose a definite new direction in the development of their 1,000-year history.
The most complicated tasks had to be accomplished: preserving our own values without the loss of definite achievements, while confirming the capacity of Russian democracy to survive. We had to find our own path towards building a democratic, free and just society and state.
Speaking of justice, I certainly don't mean the infamous system of taking everything from people and dividing it up. I mean opening up wide and equal development opportunities for everyone, success for everyone, a better life for everyone. In the end we must become a free society of free people on the basis of implementing these principles. In this connection it would not be out of place to recall how the aspiration for freedom and justice has shaped Russian society throughout history and how it has matured in the public consciousness.
First of all, Russia has always been and of course will remain the largest European nation. For centuries, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy that were gained through suffering and won by European culture, have been a determining value and a guiding principle for us. For three centuries, together with other European nations, hand in hand with them, we have gone through a process of enlightenment and experienced difficulties in setting up parliamentary rule, municipal and judicial power and forming similar legal systems. Step by step we have been moving towards shaping human rights, towards equal and general suffrage, towards an understanding of the need to care for the weak and the indigent, towards emancipation of women and other social gains.
I shall repeat: we have been doing all this together, in some things falling behind and in other things going ahead of all-European standards. I am convinced that for modern Russia democratic values are no less important than striving for economic success and people's social well-being.
Firstly, only in a free and just society does every law-abiding citizen have the right to demand for himself reliable legal guarantees and state protection. There is no doubt that ensuring people's rights and freedoms is critically important both for economic development and for public and political life in Russia. The right to be elected or appointed to a state post, as well as the right to access to public services and public information must be available equally to all citizens of the country. Anyone who breaks the law must know that punishment is inevitable.
Second, it is only in a free society that every citizen capable of working has the right to compete on equal terms, to be free to choose partners for themselves and to earn accordingly. The prosperity of every individual should be determined by their work and abilities, their qualifications and efforts. And they themselves have the right to spend their earnings at their own discretion, including bequeathing them to their children. Therefore, adherence to the principles of fairness is directly linked to equality of opportunity. This should, in turn, be ensured by the state itself.
Third, the Russian state is - if it wants to be fair, it must help citizens who are unable to work and who are poor, the disabled, pensioners and orphans, ensuring that such people lead dignified lives and that the main benefits are accessible to them. All these functions and responsibilities have been directly entrusted to the state by society.
Finally, a free and just society has no internal boundaries or restrictions on movement and it is itself open for the rest of the world. This allows our country's citizens to benefit from the riches of all human civilization, including achievements in education, science, world history and culture.
It is precisely these values of ours that also determine our desire for an increase in the state independence of Russia and the strengthening of its sovereignty. We are a free nation and our place in the modern world, I want to stress this particularly, will be determined only by the degree of our strength and success.
nm
And then Putin...Sam Lowry said:It was a tragedy in some ways, particularly for Russians who were suddenly left outside the federation. But have you read the whole speech? He is admitting this tragedy in order to advance an argument for democracy and progress. It's meant as a rebuttal to the more reactionary elements in Russia who refuse to move beyond the past:FLBear5630 said:Actually, there is evidence. Read Gorbachev in the 90's and Putin since 2012. They did give up their empire and Putin said it was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century, a century that included 2 World Wars and the Holocaust. Then he invades Crimea... So, there is a pretty good case.Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.Quote:
Esteemed Federal Assembly, esteemed citizens of Russia, a number of fundamental ideological and political issues will be raised in my message for 2005. I believe that this discussion is necessary at the current stage of Russia's development. The most topical socioeconomic tasks, including specific nationwide projects, were identified in my last message. I intend to develop them in the budget message and a number of other documents. At the same time I would ask you to regard the previous and current messages as a single action programme and our joint programme for the next decade.
I regard the development of Russia as a free and democratic state as our main political and ideological task. We utter these words quite often. However, in practical terms, the profound meaning of the value of freedom and democracy, justice and legality is shown quite rarely in our everyday life. But such analysis is needed. Increasingly often the objectively complex processes under way in Russia are the subject of intense ideological discussions which bear precisely on the topics of freedom and democracy.
Sometimes we hear the opinion that since the Russian people has been silent for ages, it does not know or need freedom and for this reason our citizens are said to need constant supervision from above. I would like to return those who think so to reality, to the real world.
Let me remind you again of how modern Russian history began. First of all, it should be acknowledged, and I have spoken of this before, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. And for the Russian people, it was a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation.
Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration spread to Russia itself. Citizens' savings lost their value. The old ideals were destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or simply hastily reformed. The country's integrity was disturbed by a terrorist intervention and the ensuing capitulation of Khasavyurt [Chechen peace deal of mid-1990s brokered by the late Aleksandr Lebed and the late Aslan Maskhadov].
With unrestricted control over information flows, groups of oligarchs served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty started to be accepted as the norm. All this evolved against a background of the most severe economic recession, unstable finances and paralysis in the social sphere.
It seemed to many at the time that our young democracy was not the continuation of Russian statehood, but its final collapse, the prolonged death throes of the Soviet system. Those who thought so were mistaken.
Indeed it was during that period that extremely significant events took place in Russia. Not only was the energy of self-preservation in evidence in our society, but also a will for a new, free life. During those difficult years, the Russian people had to simultaneously defend state sovereignty and choose a definite new direction in the development of their 1,000-year history.
The most complicated tasks had to be accomplished: preserving our own values without the loss of definite achievements, while confirming the capacity of Russian democracy to survive. We had to find our own path towards building a democratic, free and just society and state.
Speaking of justice, I certainly don't mean the infamous system of taking everything from people and dividing it up. I mean opening up wide and equal development opportunities for everyone, success for everyone, a better life for everyone. In the end we must become a free society of free people on the basis of implementing these principles. In this connection it would not be out of place to recall how the aspiration for freedom and justice has shaped Russian society throughout history and how it has matured in the public consciousness.
First of all, Russia has always been and of course will remain the largest European nation. For centuries, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy that were gained through suffering and won by European culture, have been a determining value and a guiding principle for us. For three centuries, together with other European nations, hand in hand with them, we have gone through a process of enlightenment and experienced difficulties in setting up parliamentary rule, municipal and judicial power and forming similar legal systems. Step by step we have been moving towards shaping human rights, towards equal and general suffrage, towards an understanding of the need to care for the weak and the indigent, towards emancipation of women and other social gains.
I shall repeat: we have been doing all this together, in some things falling behind and in other things going ahead of all-European standards. I am convinced that for modern Russia democratic values are no less important than striving for economic success and people's social well-being.
Firstly, only in a free and just society does every law-abiding citizen have the right to demand for himself reliable legal guarantees and state protection. There is no doubt that ensuring people's rights and freedoms is critically important both for economic development and for public and political life in Russia. The right to be elected or appointed to a state post, as well as the right to access to public services and public information must be available equally to all citizens of the country. Anyone who breaks the law must know that punishment is inevitable.
Second, it is only in a free society that every citizen capable of working has the right to compete on equal terms, to be free to choose partners for themselves and to earn accordingly. The prosperity of every individual should be determined by their work and abilities, their qualifications and efforts. And they themselves have the right to spend their earnings at their own discretion, including bequeathing them to their children. Therefore, adherence to the principles of fairness is directly linked to equality of opportunity. This should, in turn, be ensured by the state itself.
Third, the Russian state is - if it wants to be fair, it must help citizens who are unable to work and who are poor, the disabled, pensioners and orphans, ensuring that such people lead dignified lives and that the main benefits are accessible to them. All these functions and responsibilities have been directly entrusted to the state by society.
Finally, a free and just society has no internal boundaries or restrictions on movement and it is itself open for the rest of the world. This allows our country's citizens to benefit from the riches of all human civilization, including achievements in education, science, world history and culture.
It is precisely these values of ours that also determine our desire for an increase in the state independence of Russia and the strengthening of its sovereignty. We are a free nation and our place in the modern world, I want to stress this particularly, will be determined only by the degree of our strength and success.
And then Putin tried to resolve the Ukraine issue by way of the Minsk Agreements, which would have preserved Ukrainian sovereignty, but the US and Europe stalled those agreements and hid behind them in order to build up Ukraine's military and ultimately bring it into NATO…in violation of Ukraine's professed neutrality.FLBear5630 said:And then Putin...Sam Lowry said:It was a tragedy in some ways, particularly for Russians who were suddenly left outside the federation. But have you read the whole speech? He is admitting this tragedy in order to advance an argument for democracy and progress. It's meant as a rebuttal to the more reactionary elements in Russia who refuse to move beyond the past:FLBear5630 said:Actually, there is evidence. Read Gorbachev in the 90's and Putin since 2012. They did give up their empire and Putin said it was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century, a century that included 2 World Wars and the Holocaust. Then he invades Crimea... So, there is a pretty good case.Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.Quote:
Esteemed Federal Assembly, esteemed citizens of Russia, a number of fundamental ideological and political issues will be raised in my message for 2005. I believe that this discussion is necessary at the current stage of Russia's development. The most topical socioeconomic tasks, including specific nationwide projects, were identified in my last message. I intend to develop them in the budget message and a number of other documents. At the same time I would ask you to regard the previous and current messages as a single action programme and our joint programme for the next decade.
I regard the development of Russia as a free and democratic state as our main political and ideological task. We utter these words quite often. However, in practical terms, the profound meaning of the value of freedom and democracy, justice and legality is shown quite rarely in our everyday life. But such analysis is needed. Increasingly often the objectively complex processes under way in Russia are the subject of intense ideological discussions which bear precisely on the topics of freedom and democracy.
Sometimes we hear the opinion that since the Russian people has been silent for ages, it does not know or need freedom and for this reason our citizens are said to need constant supervision from above. I would like to return those who think so to reality, to the real world.
Let me remind you again of how modern Russian history began. First of all, it should be acknowledged, and I have spoken of this before, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. And for the Russian people, it was a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation.
Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration spread to Russia itself. Citizens' savings lost their value. The old ideals were destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or simply hastily reformed. The country's integrity was disturbed by a terrorist intervention and the ensuing capitulation of Khasavyurt [Chechen peace deal of mid-1990s brokered by the late Aleksandr Lebed and the late Aslan Maskhadov].
With unrestricted control over information flows, groups of oligarchs served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty started to be accepted as the norm. All this evolved against a background of the most severe economic recession, unstable finances and paralysis in the social sphere.
It seemed to many at the time that our young democracy was not the continuation of Russian statehood, but its final collapse, the prolonged death throes of the Soviet system. Those who thought so were mistaken.
Indeed it was during that period that extremely significant events took place in Russia. Not only was the energy of self-preservation in evidence in our society, but also a will for a new, free life. During those difficult years, the Russian people had to simultaneously defend state sovereignty and choose a definite new direction in the development of their 1,000-year history.
The most complicated tasks had to be accomplished: preserving our own values without the loss of definite achievements, while confirming the capacity of Russian democracy to survive. We had to find our own path towards building a democratic, free and just society and state.
Speaking of justice, I certainly don't mean the infamous system of taking everything from people and dividing it up. I mean opening up wide and equal development opportunities for everyone, success for everyone, a better life for everyone. In the end we must become a free society of free people on the basis of implementing these principles. In this connection it would not be out of place to recall how the aspiration for freedom and justice has shaped Russian society throughout history and how it has matured in the public consciousness.
First of all, Russia has always been and of course will remain the largest European nation. For centuries, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy that were gained through suffering and won by European culture, have been a determining value and a guiding principle for us. For three centuries, together with other European nations, hand in hand with them, we have gone through a process of enlightenment and experienced difficulties in setting up parliamentary rule, municipal and judicial power and forming similar legal systems. Step by step we have been moving towards shaping human rights, towards equal and general suffrage, towards an understanding of the need to care for the weak and the indigent, towards emancipation of women and other social gains.
I shall repeat: we have been doing all this together, in some things falling behind and in other things going ahead of all-European standards. I am convinced that for modern Russia democratic values are no less important than striving for economic success and people's social well-being.
Firstly, only in a free and just society does every law-abiding citizen have the right to demand for himself reliable legal guarantees and state protection. There is no doubt that ensuring people's rights and freedoms is critically important both for economic development and for public and political life in Russia. The right to be elected or appointed to a state post, as well as the right to access to public services and public information must be available equally to all citizens of the country. Anyone who breaks the law must know that punishment is inevitable.
Second, it is only in a free society that every citizen capable of working has the right to compete on equal terms, to be free to choose partners for themselves and to earn accordingly. The prosperity of every individual should be determined by their work and abilities, their qualifications and efforts. And they themselves have the right to spend their earnings at their own discretion, including bequeathing them to their children. Therefore, adherence to the principles of fairness is directly linked to equality of opportunity. This should, in turn, be ensured by the state itself.
Third, the Russian state is - if it wants to be fair, it must help citizens who are unable to work and who are poor, the disabled, pensioners and orphans, ensuring that such people lead dignified lives and that the main benefits are accessible to them. All these functions and responsibilities have been directly entrusted to the state by society.
Finally, a free and just society has no internal boundaries or restrictions on movement and it is itself open for the rest of the world. This allows our country's citizens to benefit from the riches of all human civilization, including achievements in education, science, world history and culture.
It is precisely these values of ours that also determine our desire for an increase in the state independence of Russia and the strengthening of its sovereignty. We are a free nation and our place in the modern world, I want to stress this particularly, will be determined only by the degree of our strength and success.
Sam Lowry said:And then Putin tried to resolve the Ukraine issue by way of the Minsk Agreements, which would have preserved Ukrainian sovereignty, but the US and Europe stalled those agreements and hid behind them in order to build up Ukraine's military and ultimately bring it into NATO…in violation of Ukraine's professed neutrality.FLBear5630 said:And then Putin...Sam Lowry said:It was a tragedy in some ways, particularly for Russians who were suddenly left outside the federation. But have you read the whole speech? He is admitting this tragedy in order to advance an argument for democracy and progress. It's meant as a rebuttal to the more reactionary elements in Russia who refuse to move beyond the past:FLBear5630 said:Actually, there is evidence. Read Gorbachev in the 90's and Putin since 2012. They did give up their empire and Putin said it was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the century, a century that included 2 World Wars and the Holocaust. Then he invades Crimea... So, there is a pretty good case.Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.Quote:
Esteemed Federal Assembly, esteemed citizens of Russia, a number of fundamental ideological and political issues will be raised in my message for 2005. I believe that this discussion is necessary at the current stage of Russia's development. The most topical socioeconomic tasks, including specific nationwide projects, were identified in my last message. I intend to develop them in the budget message and a number of other documents. At the same time I would ask you to regard the previous and current messages as a single action programme and our joint programme for the next decade.
I regard the development of Russia as a free and democratic state as our main political and ideological task. We utter these words quite often. However, in practical terms, the profound meaning of the value of freedom and democracy, justice and legality is shown quite rarely in our everyday life. But such analysis is needed. Increasingly often the objectively complex processes under way in Russia are the subject of intense ideological discussions which bear precisely on the topics of freedom and democracy.
Sometimes we hear the opinion that since the Russian people has been silent for ages, it does not know or need freedom and for this reason our citizens are said to need constant supervision from above. I would like to return those who think so to reality, to the real world.
Let me remind you again of how modern Russian history began. First of all, it should be acknowledged, and I have spoken of this before, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. And for the Russian people, it was a real drama. Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation.
Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration spread to Russia itself. Citizens' savings lost their value. The old ideals were destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or simply hastily reformed. The country's integrity was disturbed by a terrorist intervention and the ensuing capitulation of Khasavyurt [Chechen peace deal of mid-1990s brokered by the late Aleksandr Lebed and the late Aslan Maskhadov].
With unrestricted control over information flows, groups of oligarchs served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty started to be accepted as the norm. All this evolved against a background of the most severe economic recession, unstable finances and paralysis in the social sphere.
It seemed to many at the time that our young democracy was not the continuation of Russian statehood, but its final collapse, the prolonged death throes of the Soviet system. Those who thought so were mistaken.
Indeed it was during that period that extremely significant events took place in Russia. Not only was the energy of self-preservation in evidence in our society, but also a will for a new, free life. During those difficult years, the Russian people had to simultaneously defend state sovereignty and choose a definite new direction in the development of their 1,000-year history.
The most complicated tasks had to be accomplished: preserving our own values without the loss of definite achievements, while confirming the capacity of Russian democracy to survive. We had to find our own path towards building a democratic, free and just society and state.
Speaking of justice, I certainly don't mean the infamous system of taking everything from people and dividing it up. I mean opening up wide and equal development opportunities for everyone, success for everyone, a better life for everyone. In the end we must become a free society of free people on the basis of implementing these principles. In this connection it would not be out of place to recall how the aspiration for freedom and justice has shaped Russian society throughout history and how it has matured in the public consciousness.
First of all, Russia has always been and of course will remain the largest European nation. For centuries, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy that were gained through suffering and won by European culture, have been a determining value and a guiding principle for us. For three centuries, together with other European nations, hand in hand with them, we have gone through a process of enlightenment and experienced difficulties in setting up parliamentary rule, municipal and judicial power and forming similar legal systems. Step by step we have been moving towards shaping human rights, towards equal and general suffrage, towards an understanding of the need to care for the weak and the indigent, towards emancipation of women and other social gains.
I shall repeat: we have been doing all this together, in some things falling behind and in other things going ahead of all-European standards. I am convinced that for modern Russia democratic values are no less important than striving for economic success and people's social well-being.
Firstly, only in a free and just society does every law-abiding citizen have the right to demand for himself reliable legal guarantees and state protection. There is no doubt that ensuring people's rights and freedoms is critically important both for economic development and for public and political life in Russia. The right to be elected or appointed to a state post, as well as the right to access to public services and public information must be available equally to all citizens of the country. Anyone who breaks the law must know that punishment is inevitable.
Second, it is only in a free society that every citizen capable of working has the right to compete on equal terms, to be free to choose partners for themselves and to earn accordingly. The prosperity of every individual should be determined by their work and abilities, their qualifications and efforts. And they themselves have the right to spend their earnings at their own discretion, including bequeathing them to their children. Therefore, adherence to the principles of fairness is directly linked to equality of opportunity. This should, in turn, be ensured by the state itself.
Third, the Russian state is - if it wants to be fair, it must help citizens who are unable to work and who are poor, the disabled, pensioners and orphans, ensuring that such people lead dignified lives and that the main benefits are accessible to them. All these functions and responsibilities have been directly entrusted to the state by society.
Finally, a free and just society has no internal boundaries or restrictions on movement and it is itself open for the rest of the world. This allows our country's citizens to benefit from the riches of all human civilization, including achievements in education, science, world history and culture.
It is precisely these values of ours that also determine our desire for an increase in the state independence of Russia and the strengthening of its sovereignty. We are a free nation and our place in the modern world, I want to stress this particularly, will be determined only by the degree of our strength and success.
And when did NATO take the field? Putin wanted to change the agreed terms from the 90's and he took what couldn't negotiate.
the best way to counter that claim is to keep the bills as clean as possible.whiterock said:Democrats will call every GOP bill entered "Far Right MAGA." Every proposed change will be fascist, racist, this-or-thataphobic, etc.....FLBear5630 said:For the GOP, depends on the ask. Bringing troops home and less involvement in wars, they will be fine. Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not. IF Trump is smart and crafts his legislation correctly, he will get ALOT of wins. He goes Far Right MAGA, it will die in Fillibuster.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
Yeah, they lost the popular vote, so they are not going to burn cities or anything, but do not get into the world of wishful thinking about Dems seeing the light & getting on board. They are doing to do everything they can to stop everything.
The fewer riders the better
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
There is really only one Senator I can confidently say is "America First" and that is Rand Paul...
Anyone who thinks that every ethnically Russian person wants to be part of the current Russian Federation has clearly never been to Kharkiv Ukraine [even before the war] where they were very happy to not be part of Russia and now despise Russia with every fiber of their being.
The_barBEARian said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
There is really only one Senator I can confidently say is "America First" and that is Rand Paul...
Mike Lee has been pretty good
That's where leadership matters. the stand-alone bills put moderates in swing state districts in a lot of tension. Prior leadership has tried to protect their centrists from that kind of pressure by crafting big omnibus bills.LIB,MR BEARS said:the best way to counter that claim is to keep the bills as clean as possible.whiterock said:Democrats will call every GOP bill entered "Far Right MAGA." Every proposed change will be fascist, racist, this-or-thataphobic, etc.....FLBear5630 said:For the GOP, depends on the ask. Bringing troops home and less involvement in wars, they will be fine. Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not. IF Trump is smart and crafts his legislation correctly, he will get ALOT of wins. He goes Far Right MAGA, it will die in Fillibuster.TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
Yes, yes they will.
Will be interesting to see which of our "R" senators go against the will of the the people and choose to side with the establishment over the the next 4 years on key legislation. The globalists still own people in the Republican party so we know it'll happen.
Yeah, they lost the popular vote, so they are not going to burn cities or anything, but do not get into the world of wishful thinking about Dems seeing the light & getting on board. They are doing to do everything they can to stop everything.
The fewer riders the better
Returning to regular order would be a good first step.
read Article 5 again. It does not require us to send our soldiers into combat anywhere.Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
A common enemy is usually enough to make an alliance valuable to its members.
If we demand adoption of our constitutional liberties as the price of alliance, we will have no allies.
Sam Lowry said:There were 25 million reasons for nations to voluntarily be in Russia's orbit, namely the ethnic Russians who lived in the post-Soviet states. That is not to say Russia had a claim over those states. But it did have a legitimate interest there.FLBear5630 said:Would we? I am not sure. The US hammer is the only thing keeping both Russia and China in check. I agree with Trump that they should pay their fair share. I agree they should be able to stand on their own better. However, you remove the US from the equation, we are back in 1939. Russia has never been satisfied with their borders and their influence. There are very few, if any, reasons for Nations to voluntarily be in their orbit, so their history is one of force.Sam Lowry said:People like Colin Powell wanted to scale back our commitment to NATO following the Cold War and allow Europe to stand on its own two feet. We'd be living in a much more stable, secure, and peaceful world today had that been done.FLBear5630 said:Realitybites said:Quote:
Pulling out of NATO or Alliances, they will not.
About NATO. This was an alliance crafted in a different time for a different world. I traveled to many NATO countries in western europe when the alliance was only a few decades old.
They, their populations, and their politics are nothing like they were a half century ago. You just saw Jews beaten in the streets of Amsterdam. You are seeing the government in the UK arresting citizens for silent prayer. France has no go zones where Muslims rule.
Do you really think it is wise to be part of a perpetual treaty that requires us to go to war in a changing world? Or should our treaty obligations change to reflect the world as it changes? My preference is to withdraw from NATO because we should not be allied militarily with nations so alien to our constitutional values.
But if you want to keep NATO to keep the gravy train for the MIC at least get rid of article 5 so we regain sovereignty over our warmaking obligations.
Gravy train? NATO has been the center piece of US/European security for decades. It has done its job and prevented another WW, allowed stable trade and a framework everyone understands. Should it change? It should and has. Should the basic premise of attack one, attack all go away? No. NATO is what has kept Russia having to pick around the edges. Without it Ukraine is Poland, Czech, or Germany. NATO is a very successful alliance. We should be doing it more with our Pacific allies.
To believe we are back in 1939 is to believe Russia voluntarily gave up its empire and sought friendship with the West only to renew hostilities and reconstitute that empire a few years later. It makes no sense, and there's no evidence of it.
That was part of Hitler's rationale also: ethnic Germans living outside Germany.