Explicitly? I mean, do you have documentary evidence, from before you voted, of saying you expected Trump to support Putin, and were voing for him on those grounds?
I think Putin is evil, but since I don't believe in absolute morality aka moral realism, I must accept that others have different views which are as valid to you as mine are to me.
Yes, the war must end. But on what terms? Putin wants it to end with him controlling Ukraine -- parts of it directly annexed to Russia, parts as a puppet state he controls indirectly.
I, on the other hand, want Ukraine to be controlled by the Ukrainian people. I'm quite consistent on this: whether it's Ukraine, Scotland, Catalonia, Somaliland, Ambazonia, Palestine, Chechnya, Tuva, Kaliningrad, California, Taiwan, Bougainville, Quebec, etc, if the people want to be ruled by themselves with their own independent country, they have a right to it.
TBH good luck with trying to convince Starmer of anything that makes sense. I think he's a weak thin-skinned indecisive fool. And like most PMs he seems to have very little idea that the national interest exists.
It may or may not be a good idea -- personally I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other. The reason i added it to the list was as a way of emphasizing how serious the situation was. A lot of what politicians do is theater, because that's how politics works.
Trump Assures Americans They’ll Hardly Notice U.S. Democracy Collapsing If They’re Too Busy Blaming Immigrants
---------------------
Donald Trump's recent statement on Truth Social, urging Americans to focus less on Vladimir Putin and more on domestic issues, is a blatant attempt to divert attention from his alarming pro-Putin stance, which undermines U.S. foreign policy and global democratic values.
---------------------
Historically, the United States has championed democracy and opposed authoritarian regimes. From the Cold War era to the present, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in supporting sovereign nations against oppressive powers. Trump's recent actions starkly contrast this legacy. His administration's opposition to a United Nations resolution demanding Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine aligns the U.S. with Kremlin justifications for the invasion, signaling a disturbing shift in our nation's stance on international aggression.
---------------------
Furthermore, Trump's recent interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky highlight his disregard for democratic allies. In a contentious meeting, Trump humiliated Zelensky and dismissed Ukraine's NATO aspirations, effectively endorsing Russian aggression. This behavior not only alienates our allies but also emboldens authoritarian leaders like Putin.
---------------------
Trump's consistent praise for Putin, referring to him as "genius" and "savvy" during Russia's invasion of Ukraine, raises serious concerns about his allegiance to democratic principles. By shifting focus to exaggerated domestic threats, Trump attempts to distract from his administration's failure to confront genuine international dangers posed by authoritarian regimes.
---------------------
In conclusion, Trump's recent rhetoric is a dangerous deflection from critical global issues. His pro-Putin stance not only betrays America's historical commitment to democracy but also jeopardizes global stability by empowering despotic leaders. It is imperative that we recognize and challenge these actions to uphold the values upon which our nation was built.
Declaring "supporting Russia" a crime "tantamount to treason" immediately makes me wonder just what things politicians will stretch to be "supporting Russia." I'm remembering how, just after Putin first invaded Ukraine, Russian emigres were often booed in the streets and fired from jobs even when they'd opposed Putin. Back then, a lot of people would consider employing a Russian person as "supporting Russia"!
Stretching this to include supporting "countries on the side of Russia" makes me even more worried, especially after your post has argued that the United States is now on the side of Russia!
For one example of how I can see this stretched - which has a lot of precedent in money-transfer laws: You offer subscriptions through Substack. Substack takes a cut of your subscription money. They're a United States company. Are you therefore "supporting" the United States? A country which you have just said is "on the side of Russia"?
I'm not indicting you for this at all. (I'm an American; I'd be hypocritical if I did!) What I'm arguing is that you should be a lot more precise when arguing to create new crimes. I support the Ukrainian cause too, but your advocating vague and dangerous new crimes detracts from your main case.
> Back then, a lot of people would consider employing a Russian person as "supporting Russia"!
Clearly, merely being Russia shouldn't count. If someone is one of Putin's oligarchs, OTOH...
> Are you therefore "supporting" the United States? A country which you have just said is "on the side of Russia"?
I'm not an MP and accepting money from a private concern in return for work ought to be OK. My main objection is MPs being bribed by foreign governments or their proxies.
This is deplorable. We the people of the United States did NOT vote for this! You can have Trump, Vance, Musk! Take them please!
I voted for this.
Explicitly? I mean, do you have documentary evidence, from before you voted, of saying you expected Trump to support Putin, and were voing for him on those grounds?
Putin isn’t evil. The war must end.
I think Putin is evil, but since I don't believe in absolute morality aka moral realism, I must accept that others have different views which are as valid to you as mine are to me.
Yes, the war must end. But on what terms? Putin wants it to end with him controlling Ukraine -- parts of it directly annexed to Russia, parts as a puppet state he controls indirectly.
I, on the other hand, want Ukraine to be controlled by the Ukrainian people. I'm quite consistent on this: whether it's Ukraine, Scotland, Catalonia, Somaliland, Ambazonia, Palestine, Chechnya, Tuva, Kaliningrad, California, Taiwan, Bougainville, Quebec, etc, if the people want to be ruled by themselves with their own independent country, they have a right to it.
So that is the basis I want peace in Ukraine.
https://open.substack.com/pub/councilestatemedia/p/here-is-everything-that-neoliberals?r=4ifis9&utm_medium=ios
"Death penalty for treason" yeah good luck trying to convince a human rights lawyer that capital punishment is a good idea.
TBH good luck with trying to convince Starmer of anything that makes sense. I think he's a weak thin-skinned indecisive fool. And like most PMs he seems to have very little idea that the national interest exists.
Nah the death penalty is still a terrible idea, there's a reason only shithole countries (including the US) still have it.
It may or may not be a good idea -- personally I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other. The reason i added it to the list was as a way of emphasizing how serious the situation was. A lot of what politicians do is theater, because that's how politics works.
Fair. To my perspective, though, adding it to the list detracted from the seriousness a great deal.
---------------------
Trump Assures Americans They’ll Hardly Notice U.S. Democracy Collapsing If They’re Too Busy Blaming Immigrants
---------------------
Donald Trump's recent statement on Truth Social, urging Americans to focus less on Vladimir Putin and more on domestic issues, is a blatant attempt to divert attention from his alarming pro-Putin stance, which undermines U.S. foreign policy and global democratic values.
---------------------
Historically, the United States has championed democracy and opposed authoritarian regimes. From the Cold War era to the present, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in supporting sovereign nations against oppressive powers. Trump's recent actions starkly contrast this legacy. His administration's opposition to a United Nations resolution demanding Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine aligns the U.S. with Kremlin justifications for the invasion, signaling a disturbing shift in our nation's stance on international aggression.
---------------------
Furthermore, Trump's recent interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky highlight his disregard for democratic allies. In a contentious meeting, Trump humiliated Zelensky and dismissed Ukraine's NATO aspirations, effectively endorsing Russian aggression. This behavior not only alienates our allies but also emboldens authoritarian leaders like Putin.
---------------------
Trump's consistent praise for Putin, referring to him as "genius" and "savvy" during Russia's invasion of Ukraine, raises serious concerns about his allegiance to democratic principles. By shifting focus to exaggerated domestic threats, Trump attempts to distract from his administration's failure to confront genuine international dangers posed by authoritarian regimes.
---------------------
In conclusion, Trump's recent rhetoric is a dangerous deflection from critical global issues. His pro-Putin stance not only betrays America's historical commitment to democracy but also jeopardizes global stability by empowering despotic leaders. It is imperative that we recognize and challenge these actions to uphold the values upon which our nation was built.
---------------------
Declaring "supporting Russia" a crime "tantamount to treason" immediately makes me wonder just what things politicians will stretch to be "supporting Russia." I'm remembering how, just after Putin first invaded Ukraine, Russian emigres were often booed in the streets and fired from jobs even when they'd opposed Putin. Back then, a lot of people would consider employing a Russian person as "supporting Russia"!
Stretching this to include supporting "countries on the side of Russia" makes me even more worried, especially after your post has argued that the United States is now on the side of Russia!
For one example of how I can see this stretched - which has a lot of precedent in money-transfer laws: You offer subscriptions through Substack. Substack takes a cut of your subscription money. They're a United States company. Are you therefore "supporting" the United States? A country which you have just said is "on the side of Russia"?
I'm not indicting you for this at all. (I'm an American; I'd be hypocritical if I did!) What I'm arguing is that you should be a lot more precise when arguing to create new crimes. I support the Ukrainian cause too, but your advocating vague and dangerous new crimes detracts from your main case.
> Back then, a lot of people would consider employing a Russian person as "supporting Russia"!
Clearly, merely being Russia shouldn't count. If someone is one of Putin's oligarchs, OTOH...
> Are you therefore "supporting" the United States? A country which you have just said is "on the side of Russia"?
I'm not an MP and accepting money from a private concern in return for work ought to be OK. My main objection is MPs being bribed by foreign governments or their proxies.
I will amend the article to make this clearer.