Absolutely. More local control. Less bureaucracy. Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others. Get your corrupt, grubby NGO hands out of the people’s pockets. Stop telling farmers that cattle are ruining the planet, which is patently false and ridiculous. Spend our taxed income on our decrepit infrastructure, and stop funding useless private corporation money making wars like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, etc. Enable reasonable LEGAL immigration and get control over who enters the country. Stop spending borrowed money on student loans and NGOs.
But most of all adhere to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was created to hold government in check, not the people. Will that do?
Edit: I do dig your old band Jimmy James and the Blue Flames.
I wouldn’t say that the above is an argument against “a liberal technocracy being the only way forward” though. It’s more of a manifesto or list of what you’d like to see/what you believe/your worldview.
All sounds like common sense to me apart from your stance on Ukraine.
You can disagree with aspects of how it’s being managed or funded and advocate for reform in those areas but I believe it’s a BIG mistake to let Ukraine be overrun by Russia, especially at this moment of volatility.
It seems from your comment that you see all of the conflicts you listed as being somehow equivalent/analogous but Ukraine is a fundamentally different matter.
On this topic I would draw your attention to your own words; “Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others”. Russian forces are “harming others” and they’re sure as hell not letting Ukrainians live their own lives
You didn’t mention Israel. Oversight or do you consider that an exception in some way?
I don’t see them as analogous with the exception that they all could have been avoided with diplomacy and by keeping out of the overthrow and color revolution business ( e.g. the CIA and State Department bureaucracy ). The history of our foreign policy throughout the 90s, 2000s and onward created the quite avoidable crisis in Ukraine. Should Russia have invaded? Absolutely not. However I can certainly understand their realpolitik rationale in doing so. Zelensky is no prize either, quite the petty dictatorial tyrant actually. In that war ( and 90% of wars there are no “good guys” only interests - with the clear exception of the civilians caught in the crossfire or pressed into combat unwillingly obviously.
With Israel, I have a dog in that fight personally, and IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism. Quite a different situation. I offer no quarter to those in whose charter and stated goal is the elimination of the Jewish people. Unlike the other conflicts discussed it is truly existential.
"IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism."
You just described the war between Russia and Ukraine perfectly.
Overlooking the seeming double standard in how you regard US involvement in foreign conflicts, if you study the history of the Ukraine/Russia conflict beyond the recent talking points, I think you'll find a lot there that aligns with what you appear to think about Israel/Palestine.
Perhaps, the historical records couldn’t be more different. And that’s not even considering the Azov/Banderist factions. We should have worked with Russia and influenced its change gradually with good faith diplomacy. Putin won’t be in charge/live forever. Instead we pushed them into the waiting arms of China. They unfortunately know how to play the long game, we only seem to play for quarterly profits.
Ah you’ve found your way down into the Bandera rabbit hole 🕳️
As with so much of history, it’s a multi-faceted topic - and one that has almost no actual bearing on the current conflict. I’m afraid you’ve fallen for propaganda if you think that’s a significant factor in what’s happening in Ukraine right now.
I would again invite you to apply the same standards you’re applying here to your conflict of choice.
Do settlers/settlements make Israel’s defensive war illegitimate or their fault or an American op?
Could you play the “good faith diplomacy” game with Hamas to prevent their attacks?
The entities and specific motivations differ greatly but the psychology of the aggressors share’s commonalities.
Uh huh, and you brought them up because you didn’t think they were worth considering in the conversation, right?
Now I’ll do one: “don’t associate this conversation with pink elephants”
Indeed we’ll have to agree to disagree. In my view you’re applying double standards and overlooking some very real parallels but I’m happy to leave it there.
“Liberal Technocracy is the best path forward…”
🤨🙄😳🤦♂️
Do you have a counter argument?
Absolutely. More local control. Less bureaucracy. Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others. Get your corrupt, grubby NGO hands out of the people’s pockets. Stop telling farmers that cattle are ruining the planet, which is patently false and ridiculous. Spend our taxed income on our decrepit infrastructure, and stop funding useless private corporation money making wars like Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, etc. Enable reasonable LEGAL immigration and get control over who enters the country. Stop spending borrowed money on student loans and NGOs.
But most of all adhere to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our Constitution was created to hold government in check, not the people. Will that do?
Edit: I do dig your old band Jimmy James and the Blue Flames.
I wouldn’t say that the above is an argument against “a liberal technocracy being the only way forward” though. It’s more of a manifesto or list of what you’d like to see/what you believe/your worldview.
All sounds like common sense to me apart from your stance on Ukraine.
You can disagree with aspects of how it’s being managed or funded and advocate for reform in those areas but I believe it’s a BIG mistake to let Ukraine be overrun by Russia, especially at this moment of volatility.
It seems from your comment that you see all of the conflicts you listed as being somehow equivalent/analogous but Ukraine is a fundamentally different matter.
On this topic I would draw your attention to your own words; “Let people live their lives as they choose as long as they aren’t harming others”. Russian forces are “harming others” and they’re sure as hell not letting Ukrainians live their own lives
You didn’t mention Israel. Oversight or do you consider that an exception in some way?
I don’t see them as analogous with the exception that they all could have been avoided with diplomacy and by keeping out of the overthrow and color revolution business ( e.g. the CIA and State Department bureaucracy ). The history of our foreign policy throughout the 90s, 2000s and onward created the quite avoidable crisis in Ukraine. Should Russia have invaded? Absolutely not. However I can certainly understand their realpolitik rationale in doing so. Zelensky is no prize either, quite the petty dictatorial tyrant actually. In that war ( and 90% of wars there are no “good guys” only interests - with the clear exception of the civilians caught in the crossfire or pressed into combat unwillingly obviously.
With Israel, I have a dog in that fight personally, and IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism. Quite a different situation. I offer no quarter to those in whose charter and stated goal is the elimination of the Jewish people. Unlike the other conflicts discussed it is truly existential.
"IMHO that’s a conflict between Western civilization and sociopathic barbarism."
You just described the war between Russia and Ukraine perfectly.
Overlooking the seeming double standard in how you regard US involvement in foreign conflicts, if you study the history of the Ukraine/Russia conflict beyond the recent talking points, I think you'll find a lot there that aligns with what you appear to think about Israel/Palestine.
Perhaps, the historical records couldn’t be more different. And that’s not even considering the Azov/Banderist factions. We should have worked with Russia and influenced its change gradually with good faith diplomacy. Putin won’t be in charge/live forever. Instead we pushed them into the waiting arms of China. They unfortunately know how to play the long game, we only seem to play for quarterly profits.
Ah you’ve found your way down into the Bandera rabbit hole 🕳️
As with so much of history, it’s a multi-faceted topic - and one that has almost no actual bearing on the current conflict. I’m afraid you’ve fallen for propaganda if you think that’s a significant factor in what’s happening in Ukraine right now.
I would again invite you to apply the same standards you’re applying here to your conflict of choice.
Do settlers/settlements make Israel’s defensive war illegitimate or their fault or an American op?
Could you play the “good faith diplomacy” game with Hamas to prevent their attacks?
The entities and specific motivations differ greatly but the psychology of the aggressors share’s commonalities.
I specifically said “ And that’s NOT EVEN CONSIDERING the Azov/Banderist factions.”
A death cult like Hamas isn’t remotely comparable with Russia, sorry.
I’ll agree to disagree with you, but I have no interest in talking circles. I’m not up for playing a Socratic game on Ukraine/Russia. 🤷♂️
Uh huh, and you brought them up because you didn’t think they were worth considering in the conversation, right?
Now I’ll do one: “don’t associate this conversation with pink elephants”
Indeed we’ll have to agree to disagree. In my view you’re applying double standards and overlooking some very real parallels but I’m happy to leave it there.