This is an excuse and nothing more to consolidate power, remove oversight, and sabotage the American intelligence apparatus on behalf of Russia.

Any kids or spouse present?

With how reckless this was I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a Boogaloo stunt to frame leftists either. They were caught doing that with George Floyd protesters after all.

I appreciate the rise of folk heroes of all varieties but I think Chris Kluwe’s act is more my speed and within the capacity of many others. Hopefully it sets him up to be able to run for office next year.

It’s okay because uncommitted are patting themselves on the back.

In fact they’d probably go, “Harris would’ve done the same thing!” lmao.

Ah much small government, telling others what to do and intruding on one’s conversation with their doctor.

Such individual freedom!

Omg yes I’d drink SO much soy milk. Like, my already puny muscles would shrivel in the wake of such based alpha wolf assertion of dominance.

More evidence that Corporations are psychopaths in pathological pursuit of profit, just as Joel Bakan wrote.

Don’t Look Up is a documentary.

Reminder that the former CEO of CBS doing the bidding of shareholders said following Trump’s first election, “Trump may not be good for America, but he’s good for CBS. Keep going, Donald.”

They may have changed executives but the sentiment is 100% the same because all these media outlets are profit above all.

B-bu-but grandstanding uncommitted Jill Steiners told me not to worry and they’re all the same though!!?

As an American, I’m rooting for Canada.

But this all feels very by design of Putin to fracture US alliances.

I’m confused because Snopes is saying they’re now saying staffing was in control? Wondering who got pressured to change their report.

Just IMAGINE if this happened under a Biden or Obama administration.

Republicans would be losing their collective shit. They’d probably have some DEFCON level on the fox news ticker for a year straight.

When I went to a retirement ceremony for a relative in the military a while back, a nearby conference room was doing a presentation to military personnel on ethics surrounding LGBTQ+, a Biden DEI initiative.

I recall my relative’s friend when we got in the car afterward crying about that and why he’s retiring, etc. Big time Trumper lowlife dipshit.

I’m a straight white dude but fuck sake, it would be hard for me to be surrounded by dipshits like that. To be reliant on bigots like that in battle?We’re not sending our best.

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes. He had a gun and resisted arrest. They’re the ones who promoted this society and tough guy police in the first place. People see some poetic karma.

Sorry bud, I’m not losing sleep over this one.

Marrone warned that federal officials were monitoring the area and had the ability to identify who was flying drones.

What with all the drone hysteria in NJ this is amusing.

Yep, the Budapest Memorandum. Prior to the current government and contingent, of course, on Russia providing Ukraine with sovereignty and security assurances from (as source notes), UK, US, and Russia.

Naturally, Russia reneged on their side of the agreement.

I’ll give you two responses then; one brief, one not so brief that explains my thought process for the closure of this discussion.

1. Okay. Have a nice rest of your day.

2. Who knew geopolitics is complicated and cannot be distilled to bite-sized brevity? Wouldn’t it be convenient if this all fit on a 3x5 index card? I put effort into my comments and especially when I generally have respect for the person with whom I’m discussing.

Let’s cut to the chase. In such discussions, we basically have 3 options:

• Cooperatively and mutually pursue the truth and enlightenment. (e.g., “Yeah that’s possible and I agree with A and B, but I think…”)
• I convince you of my position.
• You convince me of your position.

You’re not venturing down a path that is convincing to me, and I’m apparently not convincing you with my strategy — either because (a) my transmission is poor, (b) reception is poor, or © I’m wrong and cannot see it. But unfortunately the arguments presented to me have not been compelling for me to see better logic.

Ultimately that you perceive me to be gish gallloping and I perceive you to be sealioning me means this discussion has been exhausted. I have no problem with healthy skepticism; but when you’re trying to deflect sound reasoning (at least uncontested) by requests of evidence that aren’t even necessary but rather proven by logic itself (what “reputable” military strategist DOESN’T use probability and proportionality in risk assessment!???), then that to me signals lazy posturing than it does healthy skepticism . You see the problem is you aren’t just remaining a neutral skeptic; you’re taking the opposite stance but not backing up your position in any remote way — neither with evidence, nor logic & reason I have at least done — that your position is the less risky of the two proposals.

So I suppose with that we leave it here and I’ll oblige you with the last word. Have a nice day.

Okay, come on man… You can either begin to sealion me or you can engage in good faith we can have a healthy discussion as adults. Since I’m putting quite a bit of effort in this conversation and not getting anything in return but denial — there really isn’t anything in this conversation for me unless something changes and quickly.

That is,

• You aren’t substantively responding to my points.
• You aren’t even entertaining a rational counter-argument, but engaging again in Sea-lioning.
• If unfamiliar with the term, you ask many questions, I provide direct responses; the substance of those responses remain uncontested and you move the goalpost with further questions (the key point, without acknowledgement or discussion of the preceding questions and responses).

But hey, if you want to play that game I can play it, too:

• Can you show me the well-respected military strategists who support you in this? Who think illogically and not in terms of risk and probability?

• What in my scenario is actually unreasonable. Do you believe that is unreasonable, and if so, why?

• Why do you believe M.A.D. theory would not hold up in this case and that the relative risk of Scenario 2 is greater than Scenario 1?

But sure, finally, I can give you an example: General LeMay and Robert McNamara responsible for the successful bombing of Japan, both by conventional and nuclear means. They employed risk calculus both in terms of their own bombers versus the relative risk to the opposition. This is pretty standard MO.

To be fair, it wouldn’t be the first time radioactive dust blanketed Europe because of Russia by indirect means. Small-yield tactical nukes would also be less of an issue and an escalatory stepping-stone that is textbook for Putin.

What I seem to think is that military strategists think in terms of cold calculus of sunk cost and numbers; so let’s play this out:

• Russia drops one tactical nuke on Ukraine.

• The world gasps and shudders in horror.

• Trump looks the other way, promoting “America First” Isolationism in political expediency.

• Russia says they’ll consider dropping more if not for the unilateral surrender of Ukraine.

• Western European military advisors say, “Yes, radioactive fallout is going to cover parts of Europe, but one small-yield tactical nuke isn’t too bad. Maybe we can prevent further damage because if we were to respond by conventional or nuclear means against Russia, they will certainly be able to deploy a sizable amount of their total nuclear arsenal and naturally the deaths from WW3 would be higher than some radioactive dust.”

This is how they think. It’s rational. But Putin knows this.

… This is why you give Ukraine, the actual active victim here just enough nuclear weapons to threaten Putin’s ivory towe on the eve of his political puppet entering the White House in the USA no less. It puts Putin in a bind and it safeguards Ukraine via M.A.D. Theory.

It’s not moot at all. With that comment, you’re basically saying Russia could do any irrational thing at all, so why stop with a nuke? Maybe they’ll spray anthrax spores across all of Ukraine too. Maybe they’ll send a hoard of plague rats. Maybe they’ll crash all of their satellites into Ukrainian territory for good measure. Why not?

By this rationale, let’s just assume Russia will do random bad stuff. Because. And if that’s the case, why would Ukraine having a nuke themselves give them pause?

Because a desperate bully targets the weak and defenseless. Always has. None of those threats are as sizable as the nuclear threat, and giving Ukraine a proverbial “trump card” to level the playing-field in terms of risk to Putin himself is the only shot at injecting a dose of self-preservation in Putin’s mind. After all I hope we don’t tell our kids to not punch the bully back because hopefully a bystander will come to their aid eventually after the damage is already done.

Look at the end of the day, you are presented with two risks, and ask yourself which is more likely:

• 1. Putin to utilize nukes while he has an ally in the White House for the next 4 years against a non-nuclear armed enemy.
• 2. Or Ukraine proactively utilizing a nuke that itself would spell their own doom.

Personally, I’d much rather exchange more risk with Scenario 2 in order to further mitigate risk of Scenario 1.