iNow

How does one objectively define torture? Understanding what’s being described is prerequisite to subjectively determining whether it’s right or wrong.

Just making sure everyone was clear on precedent. Please do carry on attacking me for being aware of it and willing to share it for the important context it offers to the current “debate.”

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a fucking break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." STFU already and stop listening to the propagandists.

I’m trying to focus discussion on the probable response from US and allies (and the potential ramifications of that) when/if Russia decides to invade more and more sovereign neighbors. When comments at least attempt to tie back and relate to that focus, it’s appreciated.

Maybe we can go with who can handwrite the entire text of the constitution the fastest using a quill in the shape of a pickle and mayonnaise for ink, or who can sculpt a gavel out of a potato accurate to the nearest micron. I’m genuinely struggling to think of objective measures to answer such a question about defining “best” since the entirety of a justices role in the SCOTUS is to interpret the most difficult nuances. Maybe Melania Trump can help. “Be best!”

On topic would be welcome

Perhaps, but it shows the opposite of that in the present.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future

From Axios: Maxar satellite images show an expansion of Russia's buildup near Ukraine's border, with troop tents and shelters now visible at "virtually every deployment location in Belarus, Crimea and western Russia." Evidence of new housing and live-fire exercises suggest pre-positioned units "have increased their overall readiness level."

It's a really bad precedent to set. "We'll completely abandon our ideals that people should be allowed to rule themselves democratically. So long as you threaten to attack them and you're serious, then we'll also abandon the principle that sovereign nations should not be invaded by neighboring armies.." Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant idea. Worked really well when Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, too. When the bully threatens you, you don't stop them by giving them your lunch money. You stop them by punching them back in the throat or exploding their nose across their face.

In addition to the 8,500 US troops already on standby, another 3,000 US troops are being deployed to Eastern Europe in the Baltic states, focused primarily in spots where Russian tanks are most likely to cross. That number obviously pales in comparison to the over 100,000 troops Russia has amassed, so is more likely intended to send a message / use as a bargaining chip in talks about pulling back.

I said something about not unilaterally disarming. I suppose if you squint really hard and add some filters to ensure the most negative connotation possible, one might be able to read that as me, “coming to the conclusion that the best course of action, going forward, for your country is 'an eye for an eye' policy, and to try and beat your opponent by being just like them.” 🤷‍♂️

You really ought to read a thread before bumping it and declaring your answer as the only correct one. You’re incorrect on what science says, and that’s been covered over and over and over again already… then,over and over and over again some more. Just let the topic die already.

It's always been political since the founding of the country. Let's not all sit here collectively clutching our pearls because something political happens to be breaking out in politics.

Specifically, he said he was okay with the judge from South Carolina. As he's the Senator from South Carolina, that is unsurprising. He's also not exactly representative of the majority of GOP these days. I see this all as phony manufactured outrage. Biden's being pilloried for being inclusive in his choice, and being told his inclusivity is representative of bias and exclusion. It's very Orwellian double-speak (like when the right decries cancel culture but then tries to cancel the Dixie Chicks, and Colin Kapernick, or ban books from schools, or ad infinitum). The face of blade, or the handle both come to mind. This is a solid point. The side being held to higher standards is the side which keeps losing bc their opponents can lie, cheat, and steal whenever they want and not get held to that same expectation of higher moral principle. It's a race to the bottom, I know. But again, you cannot unilaterally disarm. You must hold BOTH sides to the same higher standard, and that's just not happening.

Of course not, but when two sides are in pitched battle, one side cannot unilaterally disarm and hope to win anything other than annihilation.

No, I stand corrected. Didn’t realize it was that far away. I still think it’s tribal signaling and she’s not behaving based on any specific principle or ideology, just unsure which tribe she feels the need to signal to or why. Appreciate you highlighting the flaw in my last post ✌️

Because she can’t win her primary without tribal signaling and giving her Fox News watching base reason to think she agrees with them Said another way, I seriously doubt she cares, but she needs to pretend she does

Not only wise, but about time. For too long, extremely qualified individuals were overlooked for not being white and male. Reagan pre announced he’d put a female on the court, and so did Trump. Now that Biden did it, however, the right wing is stirring up another furycane and everyone is getting all apoplectic.

According to FiveThirtyEight, Intelligence assessments suggest that a Russian invasion of Ukraine will likely be preceded by cyberattacks on Ukraine’s electric grid, its communications systems, and its government. The US is sending an official expert in this space to NATO to help brace and prepare for the attacks.

Perhaps whoever neg repped me for this post can explain why this entirely fair and valid observation caused such an emotional reaction in you?

They did get credit for releasing them and letting them operate as a sovereign territory all those decades ago. Now they're being "vilified" for ignoring that sovereignty in the present and seeking to forcibly overpower the will of their democratically elected government. How we vilify Russia is not the topic of the thread, though. Trying to focus mostly on US response or lack thereof. That could be an interesting topic to explore. You should open a new thread to do exactly that.

Mother of all bombs is an actual ordinance dropped on actual territories. Mother of all sanctions is a turn of phrase used over the weekend by some politicians on the Sunday shows. The effectiveness or aforementioned futility of either is a topic for another thread.

Returning us now to the actual subject at hand... US Senate is about to approve a package described as "the mother of all sanctions" and the UN Security Council has also reconfirmed it's opposition to Russian action (though, this last bit is somewhat toothless, especially given Russia has a seat on that council). US pledges to put Russia on defensive at UN Security Council | AP News The Senate bill would target major Russian banks and sovereign debt, and is apparently only an initial phase of sanctions (with more to follow later contingent on next steps from Russia).