They ceded the "common ground" when they caved to domestic enemies of the constitution and tried to subvert it.
As a SD resident: Welcome, Brothers and Sisters!
My chow chow is certainly a better judge of character of those who have sold out to the CCP.
We need a council of elected representatives to convene and do so in order for it to be legitimate. It can be council of governors, legislators, etc, who have been elected to represent their people, but this council needs to happen and soon. In so doing, there will be war, but left undone, there will still be war.
A better Press Secretary than the real Jen Psaki.
Report the teacher and threaten legal action.
Former Vice President Biden and Former Senator Harris. Use their proper titles.
You are ascribing motive to me that is unjustified. Simply for pointing out the Russian perspective, you have attacked my character to try to dismiss my argument as propaganda by your statement likening me to "Pravda." You now accuse me of "bending over backwards to legitimize and Justify Russia's invasion of a sovereign country" again does not address any of the points made above but is a personal attack on the person making the argument.
Your unwillingness to have a good faith discussion and propensity for personal attacks in lieu of an argument makes you no better than a leftist. Reply further if you want, but do not expect a response since you are clearly not a good faith actor on this topic.
"you do know that was also Hitlers supposed justification for kicking off WW2"
This is your quote, not mine. In response, I asked about the moral responsibility of that we had to defend the people Hitler's Germany was persecuting. You brought it up, not me. Show me my quote where I justified Hitler's actions.
I don't deny that there were benefits for Russia in acquiring the territory, and I do not believe that these benefits were not ulterior motives. I am merely stating the reasons given by the Russians, which were not necessarily without merit. Crimea stopped being Sovereign Ukrainian territory when the illegitimate government failed to follow its own laws in ousting Yanukovych as far as the Russian government was concerned. Because it was a different government than the one that signed the 1991 Treaty establishing the borders of the Ukraine, Russia was no longer under any obligation to ignore their historical claims on the region.
You were the one who brought up Hitler using this justification for World War 2, not me, so you tell me. Justify your assertion.
There will be forgiveness when there is repentance and fruits of repentance. Begin with a mea culpa, an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, a massive donation to Trump's PAC, and a quiet retirement into obscurity. Until then, he can join the rest of the whores.
After illegally ousting President Viktor Yanukovych, the provisional government and through the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) issued the following statement on 21 Feb 2014, "[We will] use severe measures to prevent any action taken against diminishing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." The provisional government was known to be hostile to Russian interests, as the former president was supported by Russia. The ethnic Russians of Crimea in the city of Sevastopol protested the illegal actions of their rise to power. There at the demonstrations, there were chants demanding the release of the territory to the Russian Federation. These protests were dispersed violently, and the Russians retaliated. Putin had been warning the Ukrainian provisional government for months prior to the invasion that they would respond harshly at the first hint of violating the rights of the Crimean Russians. When the Ukrainian Parliament introduced a measure to remove Russian as an official language for government use, the people protested, were suppressed by the local officials, and the Russians invaded as they said they would.
Please note, I did not say that the Russians were justified in their invasion, merely that they had stated reasons for doing so. There is more to the issue than what the news media fed Americans at the time. As for the justification for foreign invasion, consider the fact that for centuries prior to 1991, Crimea had been a part of Russia. As far as the Russian government was concerned even then, it was not "foreign territory" but a piece of land they had to surrender in order to prevent a potentially hostile nuclear next-door neighbor. When the rebels failed to follow due process against Yanukovych, the Russians capitalized on the opportunity. Given that there have been numerous referendums in the province to rejoin Russia, all of which have passed, do they not have the right to self-determination?
And lastly, does your last sentence qualify for Godwin's law, aka reductum ad Hitler? Did we not have a justification to protect the persecuted people of Germany? Does Putin then not have an obligation to his neighbors to the south under threat of persecution from a hostile regime?
These are complicated issues, and simply for pointing them out, you accuse me of being an untrustworthy propagandist instead of a more honest recognition that I have actually researched the issue beyond the American media narrative.
Which of my points are inaccurate or in dispute? Since you have falsely accused me of being Pro-Russian Government Propaganda, I invite you point out where I am mistaken. I will not be dismissed so easily. That is a tactic of the leftist shills we are all here to oppose; so back up your assertion, retract it, or be professed the leftest shills that you imitate.
Likely, but at the same time, doesn't the United States meddle in their elections as well? Whether it affects the outcome or not, who can say?
The FBI is more interested in covering up the crimes of the elites than they are in law enforcement; Change my mind.
The invasion of the Crimea was in response to anti-Russian sentiment targeting the ethnic Russians who lived there. He warned the Ukrainian government that Russia would intercede if those people were not protected. Ukraine called Putin's bluff only to find that he was not bluffing. This was only made possible because American and European supporters of Ukrainian rebels convinced them to illegally overthrow their President. The government that signed the 1991 Treaty that guaranteed Crimea as a part of the Ukraine was illegally removed in accordance with the legal due process of their constitution. While the provisional government tried to reaffirm their border, Putin was under no obligation to keep the agreement as the other legitimate party was illegitimately removed from power.
Regarding the invasion of Georgia, local terrorists were firing weapons across the border into Russia, against Russian forces. Putin gave the Georgian government an ultimatum to resolve the problem by a certain time, or he would. Whether through incompetence or malice, the Georgian government did not stop the attacks, and after the ultimatum date passed, Russia invaded following the next attack that crossed the border. The secured the area and fixed the problem that the Georgians were either unable or unwilling to.
Putin may be no Angel, but neither is he the monster that he is made out to be.
As someone who lives in South Dakota, I still like her as my Governor. She is supposed to consider the consequences of any piece of legislation before signing, and if there are problems with the bill due to poor writing, then they need to be addressed and considered. If she fails to sign due to left wing pressure, then, yeah, I will agree that she showed weakness. But now, do not loose hope because people claim that she is wavering, rather than holding a high view of the responsibilities of the office she holds.
Argue the point instead of insulting the person making it; or next time, just call me a racist or a sexist like I'm used to from people without a leg to stand on.
That's like saying South Dakota is cucked because California sucks. As vast as the United States is, Russia spans 11 time zones and has God only knows how many different ethnic and cultural groups before you count the people they import. While this story does shame their legal system, it cannot be taken as representative of the whole.
I've been making this argument for months!
As much as I want to say, "Noah, get the boat," I know that the world will not endure such a flood ever again. I find it ironic that the symbol of the promise made by God to Noah to never again destroy the earth by flood is now the symbol of the unrepentant who take pride in their depravity. Such mockery will not be tolerated by God, who has handed them over to the sins to the point that they are blind to their condition.
They ceded the common ground when they surrendered to domestic enemies of the constitution, embracing policy positions that would undermine it. Let the company die for their treason.