Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Ideally swat would have mobilized faster than 40 minutes, even considering it is a small town, but isn’t establishing a perimeter around an active crime scene kind of a widely known thing? Don’t they have certain cops dedicated to that when shit goes down? Are folks thinking it would be best to let parents walk into an active shooter? If people are mingling around, between building during a stand off, wouldn’t that cause all kinds of problems?
  2. I agree. Blaming this tragedy on the cops for not continually walking directly into a barricaded shooter with a semi auto rifle and potential body armor and instead waiting for swat, feels kind of like blaming the door, blaming the fact schools are “gun free zones,” or blaming the teachers for not being armed. More guns and more police don’t appear to be our solution to our mass shooter pandemic. I can’t think of any police reforms that would decrease the frequency and magnitude of mass shooting events. Are people contemplating that small towns need a more militarized police force? That small town cops need to undergo more “warrior” type training to be more effective at neutralizing threats?
  3. And your current definition of "restraint" fits within the articles use of the term. Putin has shown restraint because of a range of possible factors (fear of NATO response, Ukraine air defenses, poor supplies, desire to preserve rail for his own use, etc.). The articles use of the term restraint doesn't mean the authors feel Putin is altruistic. That should be clear to anyone who read the first sentence of the article, "Russia’s war against Ukraine has leveled cities, killed tens of thousands of people and forced millions of others from their homes." No one is saying restraint is synonymous with rationality. However, restraint is clearly a characteristic of a rationale actor. That is the main thrust of the article - which I suppose is what you may take issue with. The article is not solely focused on restraint from using nukes. It is about restraint in terms of cyber attacks, attacks on Ukrainian railways and bridges and other infrastructure, limiting the current offensive to a slow grind in the east, etc. Trying to understand Russia's decision to pursue more limited aims is clearly helpful. It is clearly helpful to understand why he is constrained - why he has shown restraint in certain areas. If folks are only comfortable seeing Putin as a non-rationale actor with no ability to restrain actions, then that isn't helpful IMO.
  4. Clearly, restraint does not have to include the items you mentioned (care to avoid civilian casualties, crimes, etc.). Folks should rely on the article to understand what it says in terms of "restraint." This article does not put Putin or Russia in a positive light. Folks should read it themselves - pasted below. What is does do is frame Putin as a "rationale" actor that is being restrained by a range of factors - rather than as a madman intent on destroying the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-nato.html
  5. So your position is that Russia has shown restraint. That is the jist of the article. Lots of great discussion here, but folks should welcome when words like "restraint" aptly describe the situation. The article is an analysis piece that weighs a lot of differing opinions. It essentially chalks Russia's poor performance to two factors a) sheer incompetence and b) restraint. This is list of possible reasons for the apparent restraint pasted directly from the article: - avoidance of actions that could escalate the conflict with NATO - Ukrainian air defense continues to threaten Russian aircraft, and the deeper Russian planes go into Ukraine the greater the chance they are going to be shot down - Russia has also struggled with its precision munitions — missiles or rockets with guidance systems. Many of those weapons have failed to work properly, and Russian supplies of the weapons are limited - eager to avoid destroying Ukraine’s infrastructure too severely, in the possibly misguided hope that it can still take control of the country. - A senior American defense official said that Mr. Putin may have avoided destroying Ukraine’s rail network because he did not want to hurt his own ability to move equipment and troops around the country. All of this along along with the article's assessment concerning cyber attacks is consistent with your position. I think the more important perspective/question provided in this article is about whether Putin is still a "fundamentally rationale" actor or if he has "maniacal determination to destroy mankind." The restraint that he has been forced into from various factors (fear of escalation w/ NATO, Ukraine's air defenses, poor supplies, etc.) seems to indicate the former.
  6. Twitter isn't a source. In the case of that tweet, the sources are an article and a court document. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/none-of-his-arguments-hold-water-elon-musk-loses-claim-that-his-consent-decree-with-the-sec-violates-his-first-amendment-rights/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755/gov.uscourts.nysd.501755.81.0.pdf
  7. Congress was trying to hault weapons deals with SA as punishment for the Khashoggi assassination. Kushner was the main proponent who kept the deals alive. The $2 billion equity deal is likely a reward for all of that
  8. When Anastasia finally answers a question.
  9. The special counsel investigation was focused on Russian interference into the 2016 election, links between trump associates and Russian officials, and obstruction of justice by Trump and associates. It wasn’t supposed to be a full investigation into Trump’s businesses (except where possibly they might touch with the above three points). Page 11 of the mueller report fully describes the focus as well as the initial letter kicking it off and signed by Rosenstein.
  10. Yes. Putin ordered his energy exporters to ensure 80% of the trades used rubles. That is Putin propping up the ruble. It should be noted that Germany thus far has rebuffed Russia’s requirement that trades occur in ruble. Russia clearly did not plan for the sanctions and clearly isn’t prepared for the impact that will occur to their economy - especially the long term impact of Germany and others moving away from Russian energy. Addressing short term, Volker Weiland also thinks western sanctions will impact Russia. “They weaken not only elites, but also the national economy as a whole, and thus also Putin’s ability to finance his Army.” Addressing mid term, LNG will free Germany from dependence on Russia. Addressing long term, carbon neutrality will potentially severe their ties.
  11. You should read the wsj article from two days ago. The rubble’s partial rebound is not the result of general strengthening of Russia’s economic outlook. It is the result of their central bank limiting ruble selling and forcing rubble buying. There is a manufactured demand for the currency.
  12. WSJ is reporting it also https://www.wsj.com/articles/roman-abramovich-and-ukrainian-peace-negotiators-suffer-symptoms-of-suspected-poisoning-11648480493
  13. Russian oligarchs, those around putin, or the rest of the russian population decide they don't want to be North Korea anymore and then do the right thing. "Putin cannot remain in power" were accurate words
  14. The obvious answer is that Russia hasn't been goading Canada into getting attacked by us
  15. This is nonsense. I’m advocating for the first amendment. You seem to be advocating a different system of free speech, a special and unique system solely designed around your desires (a snowflake system), which would somehow force private entities (publishers) to publish cartoon characters against the wishes of that private entity. Obviously your position is non-sensical, but let’s play out a bit. How do you propose to force private entities to publish against their will? Would the government do that? If so, it would be counter to first amendment. If not in violation of the first amendment, would there be a magical courtroom with DaggerHorns slamming his gavel and making pronouncements and decisions about which cartoon character must be published and then somehow magically it would be so?
  16. The rights of cartoon characters you described aren’t associated with the first amendment because the first amendment is limited to actions by government. None of your examples of the supposed infringement of cartoon character free speech rights have anything to do with government suppression or any connection to the first amendment. This is America. Our free speech rights are guaranteed through the first amendment. If you aren’t talking about the first amendment, but rather your special belief system - maybe we can call it a snowflake free speech system, then OK. Outside of constructing a snowflake scenario just for you and maybe others you identify with, your position makes no sense.
  17. Ok. I understand you aren't willing to connect the gaps between the first amendment and your defense of cartoon characters - but yet I'm "definitely missing the whole premise of free speech." Noted.
  18. Why don't you try and fill in the gaps for us. Start here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) and work your way back to the post above where you struggle to defend cartoon characters.
  19. Nothing. That is the problem. Please tell me you didn't go to UT.
×
×
  • Create New...