The Republican Utopia

Archy1221 said:
She is a terrible person, but it’s an established fact that the Ukrainian government is corrupt.   
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/ukraine-russia-zelensky-putin.html
 

https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle
 

This also doesn’t mean Russia is ok to invade.   
Click to expand...
Hmm...go figure a fledgling democracy still trying to throw the shackles off from the Soviet days are trying to undertake reforms to fight corruption especially since 2014 when the Ukrainians overthrew Yanukovych  Any other Russian talking points you'd like to defend?  

 
Scarlet said:
Hmm...go figure a fledgling democracy still trying to throw the shackles off from the Soviet days are trying to undertake reforms to fight corruption especially since 2014 when the Ukrainians overthrew Yanukovych  Any other Russian talking points you'd like to defend?  
Click to expand...
Who knew the NYT, Guardian, and Pandora Papers were Russian shrills doing Russian talking points  :dunno

 
It always baffles me how much a televised hearing where members of congress are asking questions to a professional and educated person exposes how much the person being questioned is qualified for their job and how unqualified members of congress are for their job.

But, the members of congress are totally oblivious to it and they think their really pulling one off on the smart person they are questioning.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Yep.....LG is a piece of s#!t.
Click to expand...
To get to the aim of the question you have to listen to the full dialogue.   He goes on to say and to acknowledge the importance of her faith to her but that the GOP will not treat her valuable faith like some 'in this committee" (Dems) treated Judge Barrett. He basically was trying to get a point across to committee members that one's faith should not be the issue and Senators shouldn't be bashing a nominee over faith as the did Barrett (her faith was too strongly held, or was practiced in a way that made a senator uncomfortable etc)    Yes, the questioning comes across as all wrong when taken out of context, but then you realize that his questioning wasn't aimed at the judge but at the Dem senators.  It will be interesting to see how the different news outlets handle this. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker said:
To get to the aim of the question you have to listen to the full dialogue.   He goes on to say and to acknowledge the importance of her faith to her but that the GOP will not treat her valuable faith like some 'in this committee" (Dems) treated Judge Barrett. He basically was trying to get a point across to committee members that one's faith should not be the issue and Senators shouldn't be bashing a nominee over faith as the did Barrett (her faith was too strongly held, or was practiced in a way that made a senator uncomfortable etc)    Yes, the questioning comes across as all wrong when taken out of context, but they you realize that his questioning wasn't aimed at the judge but at the Dem senators.  It will be interesting to see how the different news outlets handle this. 
Click to expand...
I think the issue with Barrett is that she actually made comments about how her devout faith can make it difficult to uphold certain laws.  As far as I know, Jackson hasn't made comments like that.

If a nominee hasn't made comments to bring up the issue, I'd agree that asking about religion should be a big no-no.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/583742-justice-amy-coney-barretts-own-words-require-her-to-recuse-herself-in

 
BigRedBuster said:
It always baffles me how much a televised hearing where members of congress are asking questions to a professional and educated person exposes how much the person being questioned is qualified for their job and how unqualified members of congress are for their job.

But, the members of congress are totally oblivious to it and they think their really pulling one off on the smart person they are questioning.
Click to expand...
It is like they have never interviewed or been interviewed for a job before.  It is such bad theater at this point.

 
RedDenver said:
Hopefully never. Speech, even horrific speech, even speech in support of the US's enemies, is NOT treason in the legal or constitutional sense and hopefully never will be.
Click to expand...


See, this is a hard one for me, because I 95% agree with you 100% ;)  . I think what you said is 100% true in the past. If you were a US citizen and choose to support Lenin or Saddam, or Milosevic, we'd consider you an idiot and move on. There is something different in todays world, however, where information and disinformation campaigns are a form of warfare. This is even more true when it comes to an elected official or news personality, like Tucker, who with their speech are providing Russians exactly what they need to wage and justify war in the digital age. If they were not, those clips would not be utilized in Russian propaganda they way they have been. 

More than ever in history, information, disinformation, and our connectedness through social media and other avenues of communication is weaponized. In this line of thinking, it could very well be argued that the language used and clips provided by Tulsi, by Tucker, by Cawthorne, Trump, and their ilk is no different than providing bullets for an enemies gun. 

This is a scary thought when it comes to freedom of speech, I agree, but... it is very hard to argue, that their words are not providing aid and comfort when used by Russian propogandists. 

 
Back
Top