McCarthy opens impeachment inquiry

[ZiprHead]

Yes, we've been very mean to the Russians. Poor Russia. But that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are being killed. Not Americans. If we stop giving them weapons, it will be a blood bath. Shame on any person who is willing to allow Ukrainians to be killed to settle hurt feelings.

Either that is your option, or it is you painting a false picture of my opinion. So, do you really believe that or are you speaking out your nether regions?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

I find this to be a strange comment coming from a Libertarian. Russia has no business in the affairs of other nations that don't have any effect on Russia.

Do you apply that standard to all countries? Didn't think so.

No. I'm applying it to you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

And have you stopped beating your wife?

We haven't pushed our sphere of influence, countries have jumped to us because they are afraid of Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Zero. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine, his bullshit justification would have changed that's all. Baltic nations willingly joined NATO after the fall of the USSR for a very good fucking reason.

Disagree. Russia prefers to control puppets rather than invade. They only invaded when the puppet approach failed.

 

[ZiprHead]

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Zero. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine, his bullshit justification would have changed that's all. Baltic nations willingly joined NATO after the fall of the USSR for a very good fucking reason.

Disagree. Russia prefers to control puppets rather than invade. They only invaded when the puppet approach failed.

And when the puppet in Washington lost the election.

 

[bilby]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bad comparison is bad, and you should feel bad.

What's wrong with it?

Seems like quite an apt comparison to me.

Which explains why it received no response.

 

[Jarhyn]

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

Because failure to support South Elbonia against North Elbonian aggression will lead to a more dangerous and less free world in which the US will be both poorer and at greater risk.

You see a mugger attack someone weaker than themselves. You are stronger than either party. Why wouldn't you defend the victim against the attacker?

Any party that initiates violence against another party is a risk to the entire community, and as a member of that community you have many good reasons to intervene, not least your own selfish desire to live in a world where you are less likely to be attacked. This is true of the community of nations just as it is of your own local community of individuals.

I'm astonished that anyone could reach adulthood without understanding this.

All of this, 100%. And I might add that this logic leads somewhere interesting. Eventually, individual community members realize this and organize automatically against threats.

In response threats learn how to organize and shield their behavior seeking to enter the organs of the public body and weaken it.

With time the threat seeks to be entirely free of an organizing principle within the body that could reject it, but this leads to the failure of the entire host body as the now-cancerous threat invades organs without providing commensurate function. Eventually this lets the host be dragged down and generally killed, if not directly, by the harshness of the environment years before it would otherwise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And in spite of my efforts, we got drawn into the wrong argument. Here, let's restate the right one.

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

When did Biden get impeached for supporting Ukraine?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

GOP witnesses for the impeachment inquiry not setting much on fire with their statements.

I am not here to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud or even any wrongdoing.

I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.

They do note, however, that if you give them a shovel... they might find something.

Additional testimony from another GOP Witness.

Spoiler

 

[Shadowy Man]

And in spite of my efforts, we got drawn into the wrong argument. Here, let's restate the right one.

North Elbonia attacks South Elbonia. Why should the US use US money and US supplies and US lives to support either non-US side?

When did Biden get impeached for supporting Ukraine?

Stay tuned... if this first impeachment doesn't take perhaps that's the next.

 

[jab]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

Wow, what a well-sourced anecdote.
At the same time, I have to agree that the USA has been a very belligerent nation historically, intervening self-interestedly in other countries' wars, all while claiming to be doing the interventions for the other countries' own good and/or the good of the world. Try reading through a recent book Gangsters of Capitalism.

 

[jab]

It seems that the "Impeachment" is dead because you are all talking about Ukraine

Another way of saying that is we are giving this impeachment bullshit all the attention it deserves.

But doesn't the impeachment inquiry have to do, in large part, with alleged--and plausible--allegations of Biden family malfeasance in Ukraine while bidn was VP. Those allegations seem to me to be plausible.
Now, for you American Democratic supporters, please restrain your but--but--but what-aboutism. Yes, the Trump family appears to have been fabulously corrupt in international business dealings during the Trump presidency, and your Congress should have impeached them on that. But--but--but, the Trumps' ostentatious wading into the swamp with their business dealings doesn't retroactively redeem the undistinguished Hunter Biden's position in Ukraine. If anything Hunter's position, predating the Trumps, made their corruption more possible--and harder for Democratic politicians to attack.

 

[jab]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

Yes, we've been very mean to the Russians. Poor Russia. But that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are being killed. Not Americans. If we stop giving them weapons, it will be a blood bath. Shame on any person who is willing to allow Ukrainians to be killed to settle hurt feelings.

The real deal is that the US has great soft power, Russia does not. I understand that Russia would like to have a greater sphere of influence. It's just good for business. But if they want a greater sphere of influence, I have a suggestion: quit being assholes! If you want more friends on your border, quit stealing your neighbor's land! Quit bombing the shit out of them, targeting their infrastructure, stopping the flow of their shipments, raping their women, stealing their children. Yes, we've been very mean to Russia. But the Eastern European countries turning away from Russia is Russia's fault, not the west.

What's this aboot American politicians and militarys not being assholes internationally? Teddy Roosevelt's big stick was not a soft one--it was hard, man, hard, part of a set with Johnson's balls, of napalm, in Vietnam.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow, what a well-sourced anecdote.
At the same time, I have to agree that the USA has been a very belligerent nation historically, intervening self-interestedly in other countries' wars, all while claiming to be doing the interventions for the other countries' own good and/or the good of the world. Try reading through a recent book Gangsters of Capitalism.

The Gangster part is more revealing than the Capitalism part. Inequalities between, within and among societies is the norm and has understandable roots related mostly to the availability of resources and geography. State gangsterism isn't a capitalist invention.

 

[jab]

People are funny..,.

That's why I love stereotyping them.

but real humour, the insightful stuff, usually comes from observing idiosyncracies--departures from the expected stereotypes.
Trump is funny not so much because he fits businessman, narcissist, sociopath stereotypes but because he is deeply odd.

 

[jab]

Wow, what a well-sourced anecdote.
At the same time, I have to agree that the USA has been a very belligerent nation historically, intervening self-interestedly in other countries' wars, all while claiming to be doing the interventions for the other countries' own good and/or the good of the world. Try reading through a recent book Gangsters of Capitalism.

The Gangster part is more revealing than the Capitalism part. Inequalities between, within and among societies is the norm and has understandable roots related mostly to the availability of resources and geography. State gangsterism isn't a capitalist invention.

More what aboutism:
The argument of the book, with copious supporting evidence, is that American State Gangsterism has usually been on behalf of big, donor-class American capitalists.

 

[Patooka]

But doesn't the impeachment inquiry have to do, in large part, with alleged--and plausible--allegations of Biden family malfeasance in Ukraine while bidn was VP.

Nope. None of the allegations survive 5 seconds of scrutiny. Even the Republican's star witness* testified that Joe Biden did everything above board. Start with this video:



and then watch this video that was released today explaining why all this manufactured outrage from the Republicans is happening,



Look, all this bullshit has been debunked repeatedly to fucking exhaustion, so much so I'm just copy pasting why it is complete bullshit. There is nothing there.

*when I mean star witness, I'm referring to the one witness who actually testified, not the numerous witnesses James Comer claims has magically disappeared as if they never existed in the first place.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Here's the irony here: you claim to be anti-war. However, if the US government buried its head in the sand as you advocate, the world would be in much much greater conflict and war than today. You're okay with China and Russia invading only their immediate neighbors? Which ones are you okay with? I assume Taiwan and Ukraine are to be absorbed and its people thrown in gulags in your world view. How about the rest of Eastern Europe? And then what do you think the rest of Europe and Japan and South Korea would do in the US vacuum? They would dramatically rearm, add nukes and every other form of warfare that they could develop to stop the invaders. But you think you would be safe in your bubble of American isolation that you advocate? Doubtful. Clearly the rest of the world would be in chaos and conflict. You'd really want that?

The only way to stop war is to encourage stronger countries from not invading smaller ones. It's that simple. How to do this? Make it too costly for them. Band together. Create economic and defense alliances that will encourage the big guys to avoid war. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if it had been in Nato. If Nato breaks up, which is a very real possibility if Trump gets elected, Europe will be in war again. Russia wants the Baltics, Finland, Poland and other countries. Your positions are not anti-war.

You think "not getting involved" is the same as "burying its head in the sand". That shows just how good a job the war party has brainwashed the public into thinking the US should bomb anyone anywhere anytime lest the world descend into chaos without our "benevolent" leadership. It's easy to say "oh it is okay that we do it because we're the good guys", but I doubt the people getting bombed think we're the good guys.

I could go into detail about how all those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement, but that is actually the wrong argument to make because it concedes your core point that involvement is justified but sometimes goes wrong. Still, it is true that those threats you named are exacerbated by US involvement.

You think the solution to peace it to have the US at war with everyone you think of as a "bad buy".

Simple question: How many Ukrainians would be dead today if they didn't have weapons provided by the US and other allies?

How many would be alive today if the US hadn't been pushing its sphere of influence ever farther eastward towards Russia's borders?

Oh, but those deaths are worth it so don't count.

I can't find the story anymore, but a few decades ago some forgettable country was engaged in a civil war. Both factions kept drawing it out hoping for the US to get involved on their side. The problem was, the US failed to notice (for once) and didn't get involved on either side. Ultimately both sides got angry at the US, made peace, and tried to accuse the US of negligence and claimed reparations were owed.

Yes, we've been very mean to the Russians. Poor Russia. But that doesn't change the fact that Ukrainians are being killed. Not Americans. If we stop giving them weapons, it will be a blood bath. Shame on any person who is willing to allow Ukrainians to be killed to settle hurt feelings.

The real deal is that the US has great soft power, Russia does not. I understand that Russia would like to have a greater sphere of influence. It's just good for business. But if they want a greater sphere of influence, I have a suggestion: quit being assholes! If you want more friends on your border, quit stealing your neighbor's land! Quit bombing the shit out of them, targeting their infrastructure, stopping the flow of their shipments, raping their women, stealing their children. Yes, we've been very mean to Russia. But the Eastern European countries turning away from Russia is Russia's fault, not the west.

What's this aboot American politicians and militarys not being assholes internationally? Teddy Roosevelt's big stick was not a soft one--it was hard, man, hard, part of a set with Johnson's balls, of napalm, in Vietnam.

Where did I say that we are always the guys? The point is that Ukraine is moving west because they are sick of Russian bully tactics. My simple point is that Russia would have a greater sphere of influence if they weren’t such assholes to their neighbors.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It seems that the "Impeachment" is dead because you are all talking about Ukraine

Another way of saying that is we are giving this impeachment bullshit all the attention it deserves.

But doesn't the impeachment inquiry have to do, in large part, with alleged--and plausible--allegations of Biden family malfeasance in Ukraine while bidn was VP. Those allegations seem to me to be plausible.
Now, for you American Democratic supporters, please restrain your but--but--but what-aboutism. Yes, the Trump family appears to have been fabulously corrupt in international business dealings during the Trump presidency, and your Congress should have impeached them on that. But--but--but, the Trumps' ostentatious wading into the swamp with their business dealings doesn't retroactively redeem the undistinguished Hunter Biden's position in Ukraine. If anything Hunter's position, predating the Trumps, made their corruption more possible--and harder for Democratic politicians to attack.

Would you agree that allegations are not equal to evidence? If there is evidence, let’s get it out there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Russia would have a greater sphere of influence if they weren’t such assholes to their neighbors.

A-fucking-men.