The Ukraine Crisis

[kalm]

You know that it has to be hurting Ukraine financially and it will for years. If you were a company thinking about moving a manufacturing plant, for example, to the Ukraine would you make that investment now? Would you anytime in the foreseeable future?

Biden has been wrong on just about everything his entire career. Why would he be any different now? But at least he doesn't tweet mean things.

Wife and I were discussing this last night.

How Biden helped create the student debt problem he now promises to fix

In the lead up to the 2005 bankruptcy act, Biden tried to justify his support for the legislation by pointing to abuse of the bankruptcy system by people who should at least pay back some of their debts. By requiring better-off borrowers to repay what they could afford, private lenders would be able to reduce their interest rates to the benefit of all consumers.

Neither claim was born out by events. Later reviews found that the level of abuse in the student loan system was relatively insignificant; nor did the removal of bankruptcy protections from private student loans lower interest rates.

“The evidence is not there – making bankruptcy laws more protective of lenders did not lead to more access and cheaper credit,” Jacoby said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... 5-act-2020

The Senator from MBNA

College isn’t for everyone but it’s one hell of a profit making scheme.

[BDKJMU]

NYT puff piece on Russia’s current military capabilities.
https://news.yahoo.com/russias-military ... 21425.html

“cross-domain coercion” — blending the real or threatened use of force with diplomacy, cyberattacks and propaganda to achieve political aims.

If that isn't exactly the case, i'm not sure what is.

I know I harp on this subject, maybe b/c I've seen so much of it, but the cyberattacks are the ones that truly scare me - not a standing army of 400,000. The sophistication is extraordinary.

Ukraine was hit by a cyber attack 2 days ago - a relatively minor one but an attack nonetheless. The 2nd one since an attack 2 weeks ago, which a was oddly unsophisticated, that defaced 70 or so government websites that said, " be afraid and expect worse." It's been tied to the Russian Military and coming from Belarus.

Somewhat along those lines..
Cord-cutting, Russian style: Could the Kremlin sever global internet cables?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... et-cables/

[Ibanez]

If that isn't exactly the case, i'm not sure what is.

I know I harp on this subject, maybe b/c I've seen so much of it, but the cyberattacks are the ones that truly scare me - not a standing army of 400,000. The sophistication is extraordinary.

Ukraine was hit by a cyber attack 2 days ago - a relatively minor one but an attack nonetheless. The 2nd one since an attack 2 weeks ago, which a was oddly unsophisticated, that defaced 70 or so government websites that said, " be afraid and expect worse." It's been tied to the Russian Military and coming from Belarus.

Somewhat along those lines..
Cord-cutting, Russian style: Could the Kremlin sever global internet cables?
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... et-cables/

That would be a smart move. And I wouldn't put it past Russia to launch cyber attacks against the US or any NATO country at the same time. Cause massive disruption (but I would only expect this as a last case scenario. That's begging for total warfare).

Remember SolarWinds? The malicious code was dormant before it was executed. If you recall the breach most likely occurred in Feb 2020 but wasn't discovered for much later and addressed, nearly December 2020. Everyone pointed to Russia (except Trump who said it was China )

[SDHornet]

Regime narrative actually being questioned by the press, and that narrative is crumbling in real time. What a time to be alive.

[SDHornet]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

[CAA Flagship]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

Do these guys look old to anyone?

[CID1990]

Regime narrative actually being questioned by the press, and that narrative is crumbling in real time. What a time to be alive.

A couple observations here-

As far as Russian plans go, false flag operations are in their wheelhouse - they are nothing new. If they were planning on putting something like this together it would not surprise me at all.

I believe there is credible evidence out there, developed both by us and the UK, that this may be on the table. My guess is that the actual existence of notional plans was declassified in order to pre-empt Putin. But the actual nuts and bolts of this would still remain classified to protect sources and methods. So it would make sense that the spox would be able to talk about the plan without being able to give the details behind it.

All that being said ^^^

This is a really good example of government arrogance and we see it more and more from this younger generation of millennials and even some older bureaucrats who should know better (like the White House spox). They don’t like being questioned and they get pugilistic and snarky the minute anyone dares to try to dig a little deeper with legitimate questions.

I could have easily handled that press conference even with my limited public speaking abilities. It would have been very easy to explain why some things are being made public and other details are not. But instead, this guy decided to get defensive and petty and all that does is make the credibility of what he said even less credible.

I can’t wait until we start seeing Gen Y’ers in these jobs. Then we’ll see some actual weeping and gushing about mean insensitive reporters. Its gonna be great.

Dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.

There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%.

There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%.

While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office.

Breaking things out:

There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons .

Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict.

There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

[GannonFan]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.

There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%.

There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%.

While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office.

Breaking things out:

There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons .

Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict.

There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

Hey, remember, 5 years of those wars under a Republican president were the Civil War years, brought on by Democrats in the South starting it with all their secession stuff to preserve slavery. If you flip that, it brings the number a little closer even more.

[Ibanez]

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

Hey, remember, 5 years of those wars under a Republican president were the Civil War years, brought on by Democrats in the South starting it with all their secession stuff to preserve slavery. If you flip that, it brings the number a little closer even more.

Republicans were the aggressors there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_the_West

[SDHornet]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.

There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%.

There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%.

While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office.

Breaking things out:

There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons .

Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict.

There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

Ok JSO. Now explain why Donk perpetuated the Dubya Wars, and why Obomba turned 2 wars in to 7. I'll wait.

[Ibanez]

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

Ok JSO. Now explain why Donk perpetuated the Dubya Wars, and why Obomba turned 2 wars in to 7. I'll wait.

You’re mistaken if you think I’m arguing against your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Regime narrative actually being questioned by the press, and that narrative is crumbling in real time. What a time to be alive.

I think the biggest take away from that is that it debunks the myth that the mainstream media only challenge Republicans and/or conservatives.

And what narrative do you think is crumbling? Do you think Russia is justified in what it is doing? Do you think that the fact that they are not willing to disclose sources and methods proves they don't have sufficient evidence to conclude the Russians are planning to do what they said they are planning to do?

When intelligence conclusions are reported and wrong, everybody remembers it. What about when they are right? How often are they wrong as compared to how often they are right? I don't know right now. Do you?

They are dealing with uncertainty. They can't afford to be absolutely certain with respect to everything before they act. There is always the risk of acting when there is nothing there vs. the risk of not acting when there is something there.

And do you seriously doubt that Russia would do something like that?

[SeattleGriz]

Ok JSO. Now explain why Donk perpetuated the Dubya Wars, and why Obomba turned 2 wars in to 7. I'll wait.

You’re mistaken if you think I’m arguing against your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He called you JSO.

[JohnStOnge]

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

Ok JSO. Now explain why Donk perpetuated the Dubya Wars, and why Obomba turned 2 wars in to 7. I'll wait.

Why are you asking me? I didn't post that. As far as wars go: I have never sat down and tried to determine if one Party's President being in power was more likely to be involved in war than another Party's President.

What I CAN say is that: If a war starts in association with this Russia/Ukraine thing, it won't be because the United States starts it. If we get involved directly and militarily, it will be because our NATO treaty requires that. There is no indication that the United States is going to take military action on behalf of Ukraine

Maybe we can say that it's possible that if Trump was in office this wouldn't be happening because Trump's head was up Putin's rectum. But, otherwise, the United States is not starting any war.

[AZGrizFan]

This thread jumped the shark in a period of 5 posts.

[Gil Dobie]

Putin flaunting his ally at the Olympics.

[CID1990]

Regime narrative actually being questioned by the press, and that narrative is crumbling in real time. What a time to be alive.

I think the biggest take away from that is that it debunks the myth that the mainstream media only challenge Republicans and/or conservatives.

And what narrative do you think is crumbling? Do you think Russia is justified in what it is doing? Do you think that the fact that they are not willing to disclose sources and methods proves they don't have sufficient evidence to conclude the Russians are planning to do what they said they are planning to do?

When intelligence conclusions are reported and wrong, everybody remembers it. What about when they are right? How often are they wrong as compared to how often they are right? I don't know right now. Do you?

They are dealing with uncertainty. They can't afford to be absolutely certain with respect to everything before they act. There is always the risk of acting when there is nothing there vs. the risk of not acting when there is something there.

And do you seriously doubt that Russia would do something like that?

No, it doesnt debunk any myths.

The incompetence of the Biden administration is so glaring… so IN YOUR FACE blatant that traditional outlets have no choice but to start asking questions.

And keep in mind- this is the AP… with a seasoned actual journalist. Not CNN, not NBC, not even CBS is drilling this down. This AP guy is older and has been covering State Dept pressers for like 20 years. He is anything but “mainstream media”

Get out if your bayou bubble and look around


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Another Donk POTUS starting a war. Where's the outrage from the anti-war leftists on this board?

I've heard that comment from no less than a dozen people. I've looked into it a few times lately and seems the two are roughly neck and neck. Excuse the source but the guy does a decent breakdown and gives both parties their just credit and blame and he's using Wikipedia for source material.

There have been 93 War Years under Democratic presidents, for 46.5%.

There have been 107 War Years under Republican presidents, for 53.5%.

While the raw numbers seem a bit bad for Republicans, the percentages work out to be about the same time as each party has held the White House, and are actually being a bit damning for Democrats since they were very slightly more likely to be engaged in a “war year” while in office.

Breaking things out:

There have been 30 “defensive” Democratic war years, for about 15% of the total.

There have been 25 “defensive” Republican war years, for about 12.5% of the total.

There have been 64 “offensive” Democratic war years, for about 32% of the total.

There have been 81 “offensive” Republican war years, for about 40.5% of the total.

So, Democrats are very slightly more likely to have been involved in “defensive” wars — wars launched in response to blatant acts of war, or sanctioned by a broad political alliance for humanitarian or political reasons .

Republicans are more slightly likely to have been involved in “offensive” wars — wars of imperialism, or wars launched without reasonable attempts to deescalate a political conflict.

There is no question that Democrats have been in power during the three big, “defensive” wars of the 20th century — the World Wars and Korea. Democrats are also responsible for starting and escalating the Vietnam conflict; the US’s first big “war of choice” since WW2.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/7 ... epublicans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ted_States

You should properly post you links.
Signed Gil.

[JohnStOnge]

I think the biggest take away from that is that it debunks the myth that the mainstream media only challenge Republicans and/or conservatives.

And what narrative do you think is crumbling? Do you think Russia is justified in what it is doing? Do you think that the fact that they are not willing to disclose sources and methods proves they don't have sufficient evidence to conclude the Russians are planning to do what they said they are planning to do?

When intelligence conclusions are reported and wrong, everybody remembers it. What about when they are right? How often are they wrong as compared to how often they are right? I don't know right now. Do you?

They are dealing with uncertainty. They can't afford to be absolutely certain with respect to everything before they act. There is always the risk of acting when there is nothing there vs. the risk of not acting when there is something there.

And do you seriously doubt that Russia would do something like that?

No, it doesnt debunk any myths.

Yes it does. You just don't want to accept the reality because you've bought into the myth. Yes, Conservatives and Republicans get challenged more. But that is because, at this time in history, they lie more.

The incompetence of the Biden administration is so glaring… so IN YOUR FACE blatant that traditional outlets have no choice but to start asking questions.

I don't know where the Biden Administration ranks in terms of competence but it certainly ranks ahead of the Trump Administration.

And keep in mind- this is the AP… with a seasoned actual journalist. Not CNN, not NBC, not even CBS is drilling this down. This AP guy is older and has been covering State Dept pressers for like 20 years. He is anything but “mainstream media”

The AP guys is mainstream media. AP is as mainstream media as mainstream media gets. I do not classify CNN as mainstream media. They are closer to that than Fox News is. But they clearly have significant bias.

As an FYI, by the source i use, AP is a "least biased" entity with a "very high" factual reporting rating. But it is CLEARLY part of the mainstream media.



[/quote]

[Skjellyfetti]

Hey, remember, 5 years of those wars under a Republican president were the Civil War years, brought on by Democrats in the South starting it with all their secession stuff to preserve slavery. If you flip that, it brings the number a little closer even more.

The Civil War was 4 years, professor Ganny.

[AZGrizFan]

No, it doesnt debunk any myths.

Yes it does. You just don't want to accept the reality because you've bought into the myth. Yes, Conservatives and Republicans get challenged more. But that is because, at this time in history, they lie more.

The incompetence of the Biden administration is so glaring… so IN YOUR FACE blatant that traditional outlets have no choice but to start asking questions.

I don't know where the Biden Administration ranks in terms of competence but it certainly ranks ahead of the Trump Administration.

And keep in mind- this is the AP… with a seasoned actual journalist. Not CNN, not NBC, not even CBS is drilling this down. This AP guy is older and has been covering State Dept pressers for like 20 years. He is anything but “mainstream media”

The AP guys is mainstream media. AP is as mainstream media as mainstream media gets. I do not classify CNN as mainstream media. They are closer to that than Fox News is. But they clearly have significant bias.

As an FYI, by the source i use, AP is a "least biased" entity with a "very high" factual reporting rating. But it is CLEARLY part of the mainstream media.

Talk about “buying into the myth”…..your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?

[SDHornet]

Yes it does. You just don't want to accept the reality because you've bought into the myth. Yes, Conservatives and Republicans get challenged more. But that is because, at this time in history, they lie more.



I don't know where the Biden Administration ranks in terms of competence but it certainly ranks ahead of the Trump Administration.



The AP guys is mainstream media. AP is as mainstream media as mainstream media gets. I do not classify CNN as mainstream media. They are closer to that than Fox News is. But they clearly have significant bias.

As an FYI, by the source i use, AP is a "least biased" entity with a "very high" factual reporting rating. But it is CLEARLY part of the mainstream media.

Talk about “buying into the myth”…..your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?

TDS is a hell of a thing.

[CID1990]

No, it doesnt debunk any myths.

Yes it does. You just don't want to accept the reality because you've bought into the myth. Yes, Conservatives and Republicans get challenged more. But that is because, at this time in history, they lie more.

The incompetence of the Biden administration is so glaring… so IN YOUR FACE blatant that traditional outlets have no choice but to start asking questions.

I don't know where the Biden Administration ranks in terms of competence but it certainly ranks ahead of the Trump Administration.

And keep in mind- this is the AP… with a seasoned actual journalist. Not CNN, not NBC, not even CBS is drilling this down. This AP guy is older and has been covering State Dept pressers for like 20 years. He is anything but “mainstream media”

The AP guys is mainstream media. AP is as mainstream media as mainstream media gets. I do not classify CNN as mainstream media. They are closer to that than Fox News is. But they clearly have significant bias.

As an FYI, by the source i use, AP is a "least biased" entity with a "very high" factual reporting rating. But it is CLEARLY part of the mainstream media.

[/quote]
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which is all that ^^^^^^ is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

You’re mistaken if you think I’m arguing against your point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He called you JSO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk