ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

"Coups" replace elected officials with dictators with unelected ones.
You’re changing the definition of ‘coup’ to suit your purposes.
If words mean whatever you want them to mean, you’re always going to consider yourself correct.

We’ve established the change of power in Ukraine in 2014 was sudden, violent, and did not follow their constitution.

What remains is for you to learn the actual definition of a coup:

a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government
 
  • Like
Reactions: hwk23
It's all good. Kim Jong-Un has their back on the ammo thing. 😉

This winter will be interesting. How far does Russia fall back before making a stand? If Ukraine takes control of Kherson they could lay siege to Crimea, making for a terrible winter on the peninsula.

Not sure why I feel this way but I think Ukraine will have the best of it this winter. Hope I'm not wrong.
 
You’re changing the definition of ‘coup’ to suit your purposes.
If words mean whatever you want them to mean, you’re always going to consider yourself correct.

We’ve established the change of power in Ukraine in 2014 was sudden, violent, and did not follow their constitution.

What remains is for you to learn the actual definition of a coup:

a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government
As a result, an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country.[90] Parliament then removed Yanukovych from office[91] and installed an interim government.[92] The Revolution of Dignity was soon followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea and pro-Russian unrest in Eastern Ukraine, eventually escalating into the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Who seized the power? The people? The legislature? No one "violently seized power," because the legislature and elected officials remained in control until the next election. Yanukovich agreed to turn over power, then abandoned the country and recorded a resignation speech to avoid arrest for the shooting and murder of hundreds of people.
 
Last edited:
Fg8L3qQXoAEtC6p
 
As a result, an agreement was signed on 21 February 2014 by Yanukovych and leaders of the parliamentary opposition that called for the creation of an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Shortly after the agreement, Yanukovych and other government ministers fled the country.
“Shortly after the agreement…” leaves out something.
Are you ignorant of what that something was, or have you been led to your conclusions by lies of omission in your sources?

Hint: some opposition leaders refused to abide the agreement and seized more government buildings, including ringing the president’s residence.

Who seized the power? The people? The legislature? No one "violently seized power," because the legislature and elected officials remained in control until the next election.
Excepting of course the ones that fled for their lives.
If we leave out that, and the seizing and burning of government buildings, it was practically a ‘tour group’, wasn’t it?

So if MAGA and Proud Boys storm DC, seize government buildings, and chase the Democrats out of town, that won’t be a coup in your eyes as long as the Republicans who remain vote to affirm what transpires?
Just making sure we’re clear on what kind of violent power changes you support.

Yanukovich agreed to turn over power, then abandoned the country and recorded a resignation speech to avoid arrest for the shooting and murder of hundreds of people.
On 21 February, with a public announcement by the Maidan leaders of the parliamentary opposition of the signed Agreement, one of the activists of "self-Defense Maidan" Volodymyr Parasyuk said that he and "Maidan self-Defense" were not satisfied with the gradual political reforms specified in the document, and demanded the immediate resignation of President Yanukovych – otherwise he threatened to storm the presidential administration and the Verkhovna Rada. This statement was met with applause. The leader of the "Right Sector" Dmytro Yarosh stated that the Agreement does not provide a clear commitment to the President's resignation, the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada, the punishment of heads of law enforcement agencies and "criminal orders, which were killed about a hundred Ukrainian citizens", and refused to comply with it.[6] On the night of 22 February, Euromaidan activists occupied the government quarter as law enforcement were abandoning it, and put forward a number of new requirements – in particular, demanded the immediate resignation of President Yanukovych.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hwk23
Again, you dont see that as an issue? Or do you only care when it benefits "your side"?
What matters to me is the overarching goal of the party. I understand that parties don't really work as individuals and haven't really ever. The party system guarantees that you get a collective agreement of what the goals are of the party and while dissent can be handled privately, it doesn't happen publicly. So the question is, what direction is the party heading. What is concerning to me about the Republican party isn't it's current platform, but that it hasn't stifled many of the MAGA mouths and that those extreme mouthpieces keep becoming larger and larger parts of the party platform.

There's always people who disagree with the overall party platform, sometime they get loud sometimes it stays in house. What I focus on is where the party itself is heading. So currently the Democratic party is clear that it's goal is to defeat Russia and support Ukraine into becoming a valued European ally. Republicans are getting louder and louder and being given strong vocal places within the party who are clearly articulating dissent. That means Republicans by and large are very open to completely removing that support if they get in power. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

It's also much easier when you're the minority to allow your extreme sides to talk because you're not governing, you're just opposing. And as long as those pieces aren't costing you votes, if they're eroding away support from the governing party then so be it. But if you want to govern once you have a majority, you have to set a clear unified front.

So no, that part doesn't bother me. It's what they're proposing as a party. So Republicans bothered me when they demoted Liz and elevated MTG because it meant that they valued the MAGA, insurrectionist side of the party more than the side that valued our Democratic systems and the office of the Presidency being held to a high standard. It wasn't that they silenced Liz, it was what that silencing represented for the parties official platform. I'm not bothered that the Democrats silenced the progressive caucus here as that caucus often does need to be silenced or it'll kill the Democrats having any chance of ever really moving forward. They need to have a loud internal voice, but externally it's too much for most of America and their goals often need to be pushed back on.
 
This, and China/India are on the sidelines hoping that's exactly what happens.

Actually, a global tax on fossil-fuels (carbon) and products generated from them would severely impact both of their economies. And make "green" products produced in the US and elsewhere more competitive.

And the revenue neutral proposal by the GOP in the 1990s was recommended as an effective option by economists.
 
What matters to me is the overarching goal of the party. I understand that parties don't really work as individuals and haven't really ever. The party system guarantees that you get a collective agreement of what the goals are of the party and while dissent can be handled privately, it doesn't happen publicly. So the question is, what direction is the party heading. What is concerning to me about the Republican party isn't it's current platform, but that it hasn't stifled many of the MAGA mouths and that those extreme mouthpieces keep becoming larger and larger parts of the party platform.

There's always people who disagree with the overall party platform, sometime they get loud sometimes it stays in house. What I focus on is where the party itself is heading. So currently the Democratic party is clear that it's goal is to defeat Russia and support Ukraine into becoming a valued European ally. Republicans are getting louder and louder and being given strong vocal places within the party who are clearly articulating dissent. That means Republicans by and large are very open to completely removing that support if they get in power. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

It's also much easier when you're the minority to allow your extreme sides to talk because you're not governing, you're just opposing. And as long as those pieces aren't costing you votes, if they're eroding away support from the governing party then so be it. But if you want to govern once you have a majority, you have to set a clear unified front.

So no, that part doesn't bother me. It's what they're proposing as a party. So Republicans bothered me when they demoted Liz and elevated MTG because it meant that they valued the MAGA, insurrectionist side of the party more than the side that valued our Democratic systems and the office of the Presidency being held to a high standard. It wasn't that they silenced Liz, it was what that silencing represented for the parties official platform. I'm not bothered that the Democrats silenced the progressive caucus here as that caucus often does need to be silenced or it'll kill the Democrats having any chance of ever really moving forward. They need to have a loud internal voice, but externally it's too much for most of America and their goals often need to be pushed back on.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Dissent is admirable and group think is not.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT