What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

fishonjazz said:
See, we were discussing getting Griner out of prison for possessing a gram of marijauna.
Then mongoose said that we should focus on people in america who are imprisoned for drug possession.

So if we are making this comparison then lets make it apples to apples.

Griner was imprisoned for possessing a gram of marijuana. Are there americans in prisons in america for possessing a gram of marijuana? According to mongoose the answer is no. So his compaint of america having people like griner in american prisons was just a falsehood.
Glad we got that settled. Moving on……


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
That’s not how partisanship works. My party and its leaders are amazing and yours sucks no matter what they do. (I know you don’t have a party).
 
Gameface said:
Sure. I guess I'm not clear on your larger point. Yes, things get tacked on. Her crime was possession and smuggling. Are you trying to claim victory for finding a fairly simple error in what fish said?

I don't know what typical sentences for that crime typically are in Russia. 9 years in a gulag seems outrageously excessive. I know that in places like the U.S., Canada, Australia, a person who had done that exact thing would most likely walk out of the airport having paid a fine, having the illegal substance confiscated and being noted for increased scrutiny when going through customs in the future.

Are you arguing that her sentence was justified? That she would have faced the same consequences here for the exact same thing? That "both sides" suck because we didn't get enough in exchange for our prisoner?

I'm just not getting what idea your clarification is intended to advance, unless you just wanted to clarify for the sake of clarification.
Click to expand...

He is arguing because something happened with bidens name attached to it. Thats the only reason really.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
Sure. I guess I'm not clear on your larger point. Yes, things get tacked on. Her crime was possession and smuggling. Are you trying to claim victory for finding a fairly simple error in what fish said?

I don't know what typical sentences for that crime typically are in Russia. 9 years in a gulag seems outrageously excessive. I know that in places like the U.S., Canada, Australia, a person who had done that exact thing would most likely walk out of the airport having paid a fine, having the illegal substance confiscated and being noted for increased scrutiny when going through customs in the future.

Are you arguing that her sentence was justified? That she would have faced the same consequences here for the exact same thing? That "both sides" suck because we didn't get enough in exchange for our prisoner?

I'm just not getting what idea your clarification is intended to advance, unless you just wanted to clarify for the sake of clarification.
Click to expand...
Simple question, how do we know that she was guilty of what she was accused of doing in Russia? Russia isn’t exactly a good faith actor. I’m old enough to remember earlier this year when they claimed they had to invade Ukraine and liberate it from NATO and Nazis. I’m also old enough to remember when Putin told Trump at Helsinki that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election and then tried to peddle disinformation that Zelensky and Ukraine hacked the DNC’s servers.

I’m just curious why we all take Russia’s word here, as if they would easily lie about invading Ukraine or influencing our elections but wouldn’t ever ever ever dream of arresting a high profile American athlete under bogus charges?
 
I see now that this is just a big circle jerk so I wont be back. Ya'll have some really bad takes on human rights, war, and politics in general.
Keep the blinders on folks. Keep discussing among only partison folks and see what you can learn.
 
Mongoose said:
I see now that this is just a big circle jerk so I wont be back. Ya'll have some really bad takes on human rights, war, and politics in general.
Keep the blinders on folks. Keep discussing among only partison folks and see what you can learn.
Click to expand...

View: https://twitter.com/billym2k/status/1601265060416192513?s=46&t=vW21G6preZUeYFF1YH4lfg


@Mongoose you’re absolutely right that it is left leaning in here but I appreciate your responses and content. Please stay, there needs to be more people with different views in here.
 
Mongoose said:
I see now that this is just a big circle jerk so I wont be back.
Click to expand...
You don't like to have fun?

Mongoose said:
Ya'll have some really bad takes on human rights, war, and politics in general.
Keep the blinders on folks. Keep discussing among only partison folks and see what you can learn.
Click to expand...
You keep pointing out things most people already agree with, and seem surprised that we are not shocked.
 
One Brow said:
You don't like to have fun?


You keep pointing out things most people already agree with, and seem surprised that we are not shocked.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I wanted to know what his point was. Apparently he didn't have one. He wanted to present a fact and then sit back and say "see, SEE!" I was like what is it I'm supposed to see? So yeah, he's out of here.
 
The Thriller said:
Simple question, how do we know that she was guilty of what she was accused of doing in Russia? Russia isn’t exactly a good faith actor. I’m old enough to remember earlier this year when they claimed they had to invade Ukraine and liberate it from NATO and Nazis. I’m also old enough to remember when Putin told Trump at Helsinki that Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election and then tried to peddle disinformation that Zelensky and Ukraine hacked the DNC’s servers.

I’m just curious why we all take Russia’s word here, as if they would easily lie about invading Ukraine or influencing our elections but wouldn’t ever ever ever dream of arresting a high profile American athlete under bogus charges?
Click to expand...
Because her response was that she had an Rx for that in the U.S. and she forgot it was in her luggage.
 
Gameface said:
Because her response was that she had an Rx for that in the U.S. and she forgot it was in her luggage.
Click to expand...
And Russia would never compel anyone to make a false statement?

My pt is, a country that values human life zero percent and is actively trying to undermine the west shouldn’t be given credibility in anything they say.
 
The Thriller said:
And Russia would never compel anyone to make a false statement?

My pt is, a country that values human life zero percent and is actively trying to undermine the west shouldn’t be given credibility in anything they say.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like the kind of statement that would be forced. It's a fairly reasonable excuse and takes intent out of the equation but doesn't alter the fact that it belongs to her. It doesn't give Russia any credibility. I don't have the exact specifics but there was a trial and Griner was able to communicate, possibly in person (?) with people from the U.S.. If there is evidence that it was planted and that her statements were coerced then fine but why do the Tucker Carlson "I'm just asking questions..." routine?
 
Gameface said:
Doesn't sound like the kind of statement that would be forced. It's a fairly reasonable excuse and takes intent out of the equation but doesn't alter the fact that it belongs to her. It doesn't give Russia any credibility. I don't have the exact specifics but there was a trial and Griner was able to communicate, possibly in person (?) with people from the U.S.. If there is evidence that it was planted and that her statements were coerced then fine but why do the Tucker Carlson "I'm just asking questions..." routine?
Click to expand...
It was also made pretty clear in a couple of articles I read (I can try to hunt them down, but it was from the time of the trial) that nothing could proceed on a diplomatic front until she was convicted, and that once you go to trial in Russia you're probably going to be convicted anyway (particularly if you're a political prisoner, which only the most idiotic would argue she wasn't), so she may have just said it was hers to speed things along.

<EDIT> Here is one of the aforementioned articles: https://theathletic.com/3407682/2022/07/08/brittney-griner-russia/
 
Last edited:
Gameface said:
Doesn't sound like the kind of statement that would be forced. It's a fairly reasonable excuse and takes intent out of the equation but doesn't alter the fact that it belongs to her. It doesn't give Russia any credibility. I don't have the exact specifics but there was a trial and Griner was able to communicate, possibly in person (?) with people from the U.S.. If there is evidence that it was planted and that her statements were coerced then fine but why do the Tucker Carlson "I'm just asking questions..." routine?
Click to expand...
When has Carlson acted in good faith? He acts in bad faith to keep the white grievance audience watching his white nationalist power hour. What motivation would I have?

Since Russia is one of the most corrupt places on earth, I think we absolutely should be asking questions.

1. If Griner weren’t a gay American player, think she would’ve been arrested? If she had been a straight Hungarian or Chinese player (Putin allies), think she would’ve been arrested?
2. If Russia hadn’t been launching its war against Ukraine and of America hadn't supported Ukraine, think she would’ve been arrested and then sent to what essentially a gulag to be used to blackmail their arch enemy?

Russia is one of the most lawless countries on earth. They let drug possession and worse slide all the time. Laws are meaningless in an autocratic hellhole like Russia. They’ve lied countless times to us before. They recently helped Trump win in 2016 and were trying to help him win again in 2020. That’s why Donald was impeached the first time. If there’s ever a time to “just ask questions”, this would be it.
 
gandalfe said:
It was also made pretty clear in a couple of articles I read (I can try to hunt them down, but it was from the time of the trial) that nothing could proceed on a diplomatic front until she was convicted, and that once you go to trial in Russia you're probably going to be convicted anyway (particularly if you're a political prisoner, which only the most idiotic would argue she wasn't), so she may have just said it was hers to speed things along.

<EDIT> Here is one of the aforementioned articles: https://theathletic.com/3407682/2022/07/08/brittney-griner-russia/
Click to expand...
Good post.

Nor does it really matter what Russian laws say. We should take everything they say with a grain of salt. All that matters is that Putin had the motive and power to arrest her and hold her for ransom. They aren’t good faith actors and it wouldn’t be beyond them to trump up drug charges against Griner. I mean, hello, they invaded Ukraine over false pretenses. They poison enemies with radioactive tea. They assassinate businessmen, human rights activists, and political opponents under false charges of tax fraud. Putin bombed apartments in his own country to frame Chechen terrorists and to boost his campaign to become president. Why couldn’t he lie about Griner?

I’m just saying that we shouldn’t take what Putin says at face value.

en.wikipedia.org

1999 Russian apartment bombings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gandalfe said:
It was also made pretty clear in a couple of articles I read (I can try to hunt them down, but it was from the time of the trial) that nothing could proceed on a diplomatic front until she was convicted, and that once you go to trial in Russia you're probably going to be convicted anyway (particularly if you're a political prisoner, which only the most idiotic would argue she wasn't), so she may have just said it was hers to speed things along.
Click to expand...
Well I guess within a day or two she will make a statement in the U.S.
 
Gameface said:
Well I guess within a day or two she will make a statement in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned, it's entirely possible that the State Department has asked her to refrain from saying anything incendiary to prevent jeopardizing other negotiations. I guess we'll kind of have to see what she says and her tone.
 
gandalfe said:
Like I mentioned, it's entirely possible that the State Department has asked her to refrain from saying anything incendiary to prevent jeopardizing other negotiations. I guess we'll kind of have to see what she says and her tone.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm also anxiously waiting to find out if there is a magical invisible pink unicorn in the room with me. Who knows? Can't trust invisible creatures in general to stay out of the house, amiright?

Why speculate about something that we have no reason to think is true when all evidence points to a much more reasonable answer?
 
I really try to not just spam this guy's stuff, and a lot of times that's easy because I don't agree with him. But I want to make a specific point that piggybacks off what he says in this video.



The point I want to make is that the Republican party has really shot themselves in the foot by calling everything "socialism." They are pointing at broadly popular public welfare ideas and screaming like toddlers who didn't get the candy they wanted that it is socialism. They are pointing at heath care ideas that would give Americans something close to what the rest of the industrialized world has had for decades and stomping their feet, crossing their arms and calling it SOCIALISM!!! They are pointing at environmentalism and calling it SOCIALISM!!! They oppose an increase to minimum wage because... SOCIALISM!!!

They don't realize they are popularizing the concept of socialism amongst all but the oldest and most angry in our society. They are bringing up an entire generation that hears that every decent idea they see that could make the lives of average Americans better is socialism.

I mean we could have just called it welfare and handouts and made good faith arguments about why those things disincentivize hard work and innovation, but that isn't what has happened. They just call it all socialism, while lumping in many things that are in fact NOT socialism, then calling centrist capitalist Democrats extreme socialists.

Republicans have effectively changed the definition of socialism and what a socialist is to the point that many if not most young people look at the situation and consider if they are actually socialists themselves.

So thank you neocons, I'm NOT a socialist, but in order to oppose fascists I'm probably going to have to align with a coming wave of actual socialism that you have created. I mean I'm down for a better health insurance system. I don't want socialism. But I will pick socialism over fascism 10 times out of 10. So thanks.
 
Gameface said:
I really try to not just spam this guy's stuff, and a lot of times that's easy because I don't agree with him. But I want to make a specific point that piggybacks off what he says in this video.



The point I want to make is that the Republican party has really shot themselves in the foot by calling everything "socialism." They are pointing at broadly popular public welfare ideas and screaming like toddlers who didn't get the candy they wanted that it is socialism. They are pointing at heath care ideas that would give Americans something close to what the rest of the industrialized world has had for decades and stomping their feet, crossing their arms and calling it SOCIALISM!!! They are pointing at environmentalism and calling it SOCIALISM!!! They oppose an increase to minimum wage because... SOCIALISM!!!

They don't realize they are popularizing the concept of socialism amongst all but the oldest and most angry in our society. They are bringing up an entire generation that hears that every decent idea they see that could make the lives of average Americans better is socialism.

I mean we could have just called it welfare and handouts and made good faith arguments about why those things disincentivize hard work and innovation, but that isn't what has happened. They just call it all socialism, while lumping in many things that are in fact NOT socialism, then calling centrist capitalist Democrats extreme socialists.

Republicans have effectively changed the definition of socialism and what a socialist is to the point that many if not most young people look at the situation and consider if they are actually socialists themselves.

So thank you neocons, I'm NOT a socialist, but in order to oppose fascists I'm probably going to have to align with a coming wave of actual socialism that you have created. I mean I'm down for a better health insurance system. I don't want socialism. But I will pick socialism over fascism 10 times out of 10. So thanks.
Click to expand...

Great post.

Realistically, socialism as it exists in the minds of the right doesn't really exist anywhere in the world. There are very few states that operate as pure socialist states. Just like we are absolutely not a pure capitalist state, and pure capitalist state just don't exist. Every developed nation that they point to to villainize socialism is somewhere on the spectrum between pure socialism and pure capitalism. And frankly the best and most stable and most effective for their populations are about right in the middle, with substantial socialist programs that provide for basic standard of living including effective medical care that then provides a very stable foundation for their capitalist systems. It's just a fact that if you provide for your most basic needs, including education, healthcare, food security, shelter, etc then it allows your society to thrive in the capitalist realm as well. So sad that we have fallen so far from our own ideals and use these specters of evil to drive a backward approach to social support systems because, for some reason that they can never articulate, it's a terrible thing for everyone to have reasonable access to healthcare. Apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top