Tucker talks comedy...
-
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
Anyway don't take my word for it. I was only rising to the herculean challenge of doing a book report for Renauda about a conversation I listened to in the background.
I don’t think anyone would consider taking your word for it.
As far as your book report assignment went you deserve at least a few marks for not reducing everything down to pop culture narratives or leftist agendas. A good start or attempt at a start.
I note you also managed not to refer to Putin as an existential threat - something which he demonstrably is, especially to Ukraine and other former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact. I attribute that omission on your part as an abhorrence of being mistaken for a progressive thinker. Perhaps in the minds of occasional lurkers to the forum but certainly not to any us regulars would we misconstrue your thoughts as anything even resembling progressive let alone moderately liberal on the matter.
The existential threat of Putin is not obviously diminished by participation in the Ukraine war, according to Peterson and Gabbard.
-
There you said it. Putin is an existential threat. In fact he has been an existential threat for sometime regardless of his “special military operation” on Ukrainian soil.
You didn’t need Peterson and Gabbard to tell you that.
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
There you said it. Putin is an existential threat. In fact he has been an existential threat for sometime regardless of his “special military operation” on Ukrainian soil.
You didn’t need Peterson and Gabbard to tell you that.
Indeed I did not need to be told that Russia is in possession of plenty of nuclear weapons.
-
Anybody who's curious about the conversation as it pertains to this thread can go to 35 minutes in the video and watch for 10 minutes.
@Horace said in Tucker talks comedy...:
Anybody who's curious about the conversation as it pertains to this thread can go to 35 minutes in the video and watch for 10 minutes.
I listened to the 10 minutes.
A couple of observations.
One: Gabbard says that that the US is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Where on earth did she get that argument? I know and I have heard it made several times now. Each time by confirmed socialists who believe the US is the sole source of all the world’s trouble and evil. To the person each one of them believe that Zelenskyi is on the CIA payroll and the Ukrainian regime is a puppet of Washington. That makes Putin and Russia the victim in a war of aggression. Any enemy of USA is de facto my friend.
Yes, Col. Gabbard there is a proxy war going on. However, it is Putin, not the USA who is waging that proxy war. In fact, that proxy war is against NATO and the US on Ukrainian territory. Russia is not the victim, never has been so get it out your head that it is.
Two: Regime change? No one in their right mind is talking regime change or carrying the war into Russia to affect regime change. The war will be contained to territory that is internationally recognised as sovereign Ukrainian territory. That does include Crimea and all territory presently occupied by Russian forces. If Putin deems it necessary to resort to WMD then he must and will face military annihilation of all Russian ground, air and sea forces found in or on Ukrainian territory, airspace or waters. Putin’s coveted Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol will be destroyed. NATO can and will do it with conventional forces alone. Putin also isolate himself entirely from the rest of the world. The only friends he might retain are North Korea and Iran. China and India will drop him and his regime the moment he launches. Peterson’s argument is the same straw man argument that is promoted by Putin’s propaganda machine with the aid of Western sympathisers and championed by the lunatic fringes primarily on the the left but also among the right wing populist reactionaries in Europe and North America. Very sloppy thinking on Dr. Peterson’s part.
Strange bedfellows Gabbard and Peterson do make with the left on this issue. The two make a host of unsubstantiated criticisms against the US and offer nothing in the way of alternate policy or actions to stop Putin’s aggression against Ukraine.
-
Received this in my email this morning. A rebuttal to the undefined “dire consequences” of defying Putin and supporting Ukraine as espoused by likes of Peterson and Gabbard:
-
Received this in my email this morning. A rebuttal to the undefined “dire consequences” of defying Putin and supporting Ukraine as espoused by likes of Peterson and Gabbard:
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
Received this in my email this morning. A rebuttal to the undefined “dire consequences” of defying Putin and supporting Ukraine as espoused by likes of Peterson and Gabbard:
So a Ukrainian thinks the West’s goals should be exactly aligned with Ukraine’s goals. Duly noted.
-
@Renauda said in Tucker talks comedy...:
Received this in my email this morning. A rebuttal to the undefined “dire consequences” of defying Putin and supporting Ukraine as espoused by likes of Peterson and Gabbard:
So a Ukrainian thinks the West’s goals should be exactly aligned with Ukraine’s goals. Duly noted.
So a Ukrainian thinks the West’s goals should be exactly aligned with Ukraine’s goals. Duly noted.
Good catch and I trust you have no issue with that fact.
Now that you have duly noted it and brought your astute observation to the attention of everyone here reading this thread, I encourage you drop a letter to the editor at Atlantic Council of your discovery.
