All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Starter Set]

If this goes anymore to a point will anyone step out or will his own people finally rise up against him ?

That's never going to happen. Like, that's a cute fantasy and all but don't count on it.

[JackDaw]

I don't think there's anyone left in Russian politics with the capacity to oppose Putin from a position of power. He's spent decades hollowing it out to make it that way.

A lot of commentary in UK press in recent months has suggested that his grip and popularity have slipped significantly in last couple of years. That’s thought to be one driving force behind the Ukraine invasion…he felt it would restore his own flagging fortunes. It doesn’t seem to have worked so far!

Russian politics are nothing like ours…he’s never going to be ousted by a scheduled democratic vote. And there could well be significant internal power brokers that have been plotting against him for months, maybe years. They are hardly to advertise this, do anything openly. It’s not all that unusual in Russian politics to see the top guy toppled in spite of the fact his position looked strong to outside observers.

I’ll actually be surprised if he’s still in power in 12 months IF the Ukraine situation doesn’t turn round quickly.

[Mister Mets]

Already been done.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-...-human-rights/

This was a concern about what is likely to happen rather than messages conveyed to Russian forces.

One or two laws in themselves might have a minimal effect. Add in the effects of purging voter rolls, felony disenfranchisement, limiting polling places in urban areas, and voter ID laws which disproportionately affect potential minority voters. What percent do you think Trump would have lost by if these other methods to disenfranchise (mostly minority) voters weren't used in 2020? Republicans don't just rely on one specific trick to game (read: cheat) the system, they throw as much shit against the wall as they can and hope that enough of it will stick that they can win the Presidency/Congress/the Senate despite having a minority of the votes. Also, using a year in which a huge groundswell of voters were able to overcome all of these obstacles isn't 'proof' of anything! Pretty high bar, if you ask me. One team has written itself a several point built-in handicap into the rules, and you are saying just because the other team STILL won that there wasn't anything unseemly about the whole process.

I don't see much indication that a meaningful number of voters were prevented from going to the polls in 2020, although that's a special case due to temporary regulations that made it easier for people to vote during a pandemic (IE- increased mail-in voting and early voting.) I'd be interested in any information to the contrary.

I think the laws have a minimal effect, partially because more extreme measures would result in judicial pushback, changing election results by a percent at most. Obviously, some elections are close, although we don't know which elections in advance, and Trump has done some stuff to diminish his reputation since his loss.

I mean I gave several examples of bad actors that we (the US) back/fund/prop up around the world and throughout our history and the only one you objected to was Israel. It's a pretty common occurrence here and elsewhere. It's why I said last time that it's a special case because it's the one most likely to receive pushback, even including criticism of the US.

If the forces formally calling out Israel include the likes of China, Russia and Egypt, and they don't receive the same level of criticism, it does seem that Israel is held to a higher standard.

[JB]

Apparently negotiation talks started a few minutes ago. Confirmation should be hitting the wires soon.

Ukraine demands "immediate ceasefire" and Russian withdrawal in 1st direct talks during Putin's ongoing invasion
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...n-talks-today/

Kyiv — Ukrainian and Russian delegates arrived Monday for the first direct negotiations between the two countries since Russia launched its invasion five days earlier. While the talks brought tentative hope for an end to the war, Ukraine's president made it clear before the discussion began that he wasn't expecting any major breakthrough.

Ukraine's capital city of Kyiv was still on edge Monday morning, but residents were allowed out of their houses and shelters for the first time since Saturday night, when the local government — bracing for an escalation of Russia's siege on the city — said anyone out on the streets would be treated as an enemy.

[Zelena]

As soon as a conflict starts there is no such things as truth anymore.

We are pretty much fed with just as much lies as the russians are.

Fewer lies, I would say…

[thwhtGuardian]

This was a concern about what is likely to happen rather than messages conveyed to Russian forces.

I don't see much indication that a meaningful number of voters were prevented from going to the polls in 2020, although that's a special case due to temporary regulations that made it easier for people to vote during a pandemic (IE- increased mail-in voting and early voting.) I'd be interested in any information to the contrary.

I think the laws have a minimal effect, partially because more extreme measures would result in judicial pushback, changing election results by a percent at most. Obviously, some elections are close, although we don't know which elections in advance, and Trump has done some stuff to diminish his reputation since his loss.

If the forces formally calling out Israel include the likes of China, Russia and Egypt, and they don't receive the same level of criticism, it does seem that Israel is held to a higher standard.

It's not a higher standard, as already explained Israel portrays itself as a modern western state so there is hope that criticism may lead to change whereas what is criticizing Myanmar on the floor of the UN going to get you?

Absolutely nothing.

That's not a higher standard it's just being pragmatic.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Apparently negotiation talks started a few minutes ago. Confirmation should be hitting the wires soon.

Ukraine demands "immediate ceasefire" and Russian withdrawal in 1st direct talks during Putin's ongoing invasion
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...n-talks-today/

I hope something positive comes out of these talks and that the violence ends.

[shooshoomanjoe]

As soon as a conflict starts there is no such things as truth anymore.

We are pretty much fed with just as much lies as the russians are.

What non-Fox news lies are we being told?

[Kirby101]

As soon as a conflict starts there is no such things as truth anymore.

We are pretty much fed with just as much lies as the russians are.

While I agree it is hard to get the real story in the midst of war. The numerous sources we have are no way comparable to the blatant pure propaganda of Russian media.

[Xheight]

One or two laws in themselves might have a minimal effect. Add in the effects of purging voter rolls, felony disenfranchisement, limiting polling places in urban areas, and voter ID laws which disproportionately affect potential minority voters. What percent do you think Trump would have lost by if these other methods to disenfranchise (mostly minority) voters weren't used in 2020? Republicans don't just rely on one specific trick to game (read: cheat) the system, they throw as much shit against the wall as they can and hope that enough of it will stick that they can win the Presidency/Congress/the Senate despite having a minority of the votes. Also, using a year in which a huge groundswell of voters were able to overcome all of these obstacles isn't 'proof' of anything! Pretty high bar, if you ask me. One team has written itself a several point built-in handicap into the rules, and you are saying just because the other team STILL won that there wasn't anything unseemly about the whole process.

Election security i.e. rigging the system is the flip side of the "disenfranchisement" rhetoric. While one is consigned to conspiracy the other is linked to an old real conspiracy. Sorry but if one is credible so is the other. When the 2020 had unprecedented numbers of non-standard voting it is BS to claim that holding on to the mechanisms of that specious election are not the REAL issue.

the Hardly right biased https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...ience-in-2020/ gives us the numbers of how this last presidential election was decided by ballots that never had a verified person behind it

A slim majority of voters (54%) say they voted in person this November, compared with 46% who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot. About one-quarter (27%) report having voted in person on Election Day, and an identical share say they voted in person before Election Day.

Two-thirds of Trump voters say they voted in person, compared with 42% of Biden voters. Nearly four-in-ten Trump voters (37%) say they voted in person on Election Day, while just 17% of Biden voters say they cast their ballot at a polling place on Nov. 3.

Trump voters are also slightly more likely than Biden voters to say they voted in person before Election Day. Three-in-ten Trump voters report voting this way, compared with 24% of Biden voters.

Black voters were less likely to vote by absentee or mail-in ballot than white, Hispanic and Asian American voters. About four-in-ten Black voters (38%) say they voted by mail, compared with 45% of white voters, 51% of Hispanic voters and two-thirds of Asian American voters.

This last fact points to the false claim that Vote by mail helps the representation of African Americans; unless that is that you can create a database to vote for them that is.

[Tami]

And on another front

Supreme Court Will Hear Biggest Climate Change Case in a Decade

WASHINGTON — In the most important environmental case in more than a decade, the Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments in a dispute that could restrict or even eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to control the pollution that is heating the planet.

A decision by the high court, with its conservative supermajority, could shred President Biden’s plans to halve the nation’s greenhouse emissions by the end of the decade, which scientists have said is necessary to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

“They could handcuff the federal government’s ability to affordably reduce greenhouse gases from power plants,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

But the outcome could also have repercussions that stretch well beyond air pollution, restricting the ability of federal agencies to regulate health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

“If the court were to require the E.P.A. to have very specific, narrow direction to address greenhouse gases, as a practical matter it could be devastating for other agencies’ abilities to enact rules that safeguard the public health and welfare of the nation,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “It would restrict the enactment of regulations under any host of federal statutes — OSHA, the Clean Water Act, hazardous waste regulation. In theory it even could limit the Fed’s authority to set interest rates.”

The legal wrangling began in 2015 when President Barack Obama announced the Clean Power Plan, his chief strategy to fight climate change. Citing its authority under the Clean Air Act, the Obama administration planned to require each state to lower carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector — primarily by replacing coal-fired power plants with wind, solar and other clean sources. Electricity generation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, behind transportation.

But the Clean Power Plan was never implemented. After a barrage of lawsuits from Republican states and the coal industry, the Supreme Court put the program on hold. Once President Donald J. Trump took office, he instituted a new plan that was effectively the same as no regulation. But on the last full day of Mr. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court found that the Trump administration had “misconceived the law” and vacated the Trump plan. That cleared the way for the Biden administration to issue its own regulation, which it has yet to do.

It is highly unusual for the Supreme Court to take up a case that revolves around a hypothetical future regulation, legal experts said.

[Tami]

Russia’s war in Ukraine: complete guide in maps, video and pictures

Where is fighting happening and how did we get here?

[Tami]

The real reason Tucker Carlson supports Russia's Putin

For some activists, lawmakers and commentators, Carlson’s decision to minimize Russia's imminent invasion and push back against critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin meant he was siding with Russia against the U.S. But that’s a misread. Carlson isn’t in favor of Russia over America or angling to aid Russia in dominating or controlling the U.S. — he wants the U.S. to be like Russia. And in accordance with paleoconservative and white nationalist principles, he has an aversion to foreign interventionism so American militarism can grow at home. Carlson's ideas are dangerous and must be fought, but loyalty rhetoric misses the real problem. Furthermore, the traitor insult is one that could derail the quality of our national debate at a critical time. Setting Carlson aside, there is great risk in associating opposition to war with betrayal of the republic.

But if you examine Carlson's rhetoric and political project carefully, it’s difficult to understand the constant charges that Carlson is some kind of Russian agent. Carlson isn’t in Putin’s pocket; he wasn’t arguing that the U.S. should concede something that belongs to it to Russia; he didn’t give information to Russia to undermine America’s political system or vital interests. Instead, what Carlson was doing was making an argument against risking war or escalation with a powerful country that isn’t at war with the U.S. (It should be noted that after Russia invaded, Carlson’s tone shifted — he argued that Russia should be “punished” and that President Joe Biden had failed to show “bite” — but still he cautioned against policies that could be costly for the U.S. or cause the war to escalate.)

Now, the way Carlson made that argument warrants criticism — it was conspiratorial, involved falsehoods and was morally impoverished. But the substantive position wasn’t “I want Russia to hurt or dominate the U.S.”; it was, effectively, “going to war with Russia is not worthwhile.” And to understand what’s motivating him, one must remember that his rhetoric is in service of his white nationalist, right-wing populist worldview.

[Tami]

Why Tom Cotton couldn’t criticize Trump for praising Putin

Sen. Tom Cotton has not earned a reputation as a shrinking violet. On the contrary, the Arkansas Republican often presents himself as a fearless conservative, eager to criticize those with whom he disagrees.

With this in mind, Cotton was presented an opportunity yesterday to not only condemn Vladimir Putin, but also to make clear he disagrees with Donald Trump’s recent praise of the Russian leader. For the prominent GOP hawk, this should’ve been easy.

It wasn’t.

[Xheight]

The real reason Tucker Carlson supports Russia's Putin

Laughable if the opinionator wasn't blind to the Left purveyance of the same mythology even as he excuses himself as being more the humanist.

Right-wing nationalists are often more isolationist because they want to bring the war home, preferring militarization of the police and border enforcement to focus on the project of white nationalism. As an advocate for replacement theory, Carlson is focused on preventing immigrants from entering the country. And in his ideological tradition, foreign interventions are considered undesirable in part because of the way they could generate refugees who could enter the U.S., and are backed by people who believe in open migration flows. Moreover, it's possible that he thinks veterans at home can be a potent mobilizing force for the exact kinds of nationalist political projects he favors.

So the Left and its cohort in the MSM have not pushed a Replacement narrative for more than a decade and the isolationism of Chomsky and ilk isn't about directing energies inward as well as being anti-colonial? Rather than being a project of white nationalism border security is a mass populist issue that propelled Trump into the White House and progressives are still in denial of the majority working class defection from their party because of it and the swollen number of that class that has served in the endless wars that the elites have foisted on them.

The real reason people listen to Tucker is that he understands the base of voters that is lifting the party with actual majority issues. It is transparent that gross characterizations service both the ego of the Left and and prop up a false notion of the march of the masses.