- Joined
- Jan 22, 2017
- Messages
- 14,813
- Reaction score
- 22,681
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
She does actually have a point, but I'm undecided myself.AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
I agree with her reasoning and I'm happy that she is actually applying reason to this issue.AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
It's a good argument.AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
What we see is that it's too easy to use facile rhetoric to justify theft. While Russia is obviously the aggressor and in the wrong, it took very little effort for them to justify stealing Ukrainian land, resources, private property, and, yes, people. And all they had to say to make themselves okay with committing massive war crimes is that Ukraine isn't a real country.I'm no expert, but it seems like if they're foreign nationals, they don't enjoy all the same protections.
As the head of the military and U.S. diplomatic efforts, POTUS has quite a bit of authority in the area.
I'd need some more details on who these resources are being transferred to that she finds problematic.
She is correct. People lack actual consistency in their principles and ideology if the target is someone/thing/group they don't like.AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
AOC (and the rest of The Squad) voted against seizing the assets of Russian oligarchs. After receiving some criticism for her vote she put out a statement explaining her reasoning.
View attachment 67388435
I find this to be a very compelling argument. Obviously there is a lot of strong emotional energy to take immediate action on issues like this, but personally I find her argument to be principled and convincing.
Please discuss.
What we see is that it's too easy to use facile rhetoric to justify theft. While Russia is obviously the aggressor and in the wrong, it took very little effort for them to justify stealing Ukrainian land, resources, private property, and, yes, people. And all they had to say to make themselves okay with committing massive war crimes is that Ukraine isn't a real country.
If oligarchs are criminals (and I believe they are), then it shouldn't be difficult to make an argument for seizing their assets in due process. And why is this important? Well, as you say, they're foreign nationals and aren't subject to same kinds of Constitutional protections we are. But...our credibility in foreign affairs is critical, and if we seize another country's assets then it must be seen that we are doing so fairly and legally. Is frustrating and annoying and infuriating that we should have to jump through legal hurdles while Russia gets to flaunt every legal, ethical and moral standard there is? Of course, but there should always be a rigorous standard for where to apply our power. It should be hard to prove guilt in court here, and it should be hard to justify war and seizing other countries' private property. That's what being the good guy means.
It's easy to agree with the principle of asset forfeiture when the DEA is taking Pablo Escobar's stuff. But we've seen how that civil asset forfeiture was used elsewhere, and it's not good.
Reversed a ban on civil forfeiture. Law enforcement officials are now once again able to seize assets from suspects who haven’t been convicted of any crime.
What we see is that it's too easy to use facile rhetoric to justify theft. While Russia is obviously the aggressor and in the wrong, it took very little effort for them to justify stealing Ukrainian land, resources, private property, and, yes, people. And all they had to say to make themselves okay with committing massive war crimes is that Ukraine isn't a real country.
If oligarchs are criminals (and I believe they are), then it shouldn't be difficult to make an argument for seizing their assets in due process. And why is this important? Well, as you say, they're foreign nationals and aren't subject to same kinds of Constitutional protections we are. But...our credibility in foreign affairs is critical, and if we seize another country's assets then it must be seen that we are doing so fairly and legally rather than impulsively. Is frustrating and annoying and infuriating that we should have to jump through legal hurdles while Russia gets to flaunt every legal, ethical and moral standard there is? Of course, but there should always be a rigorous standard for where to apply our power. It should be hard to prove guilt in court here, and it should be hard to justify war and seizing other countries' private property. That's what being the good guy means.
It's easy to agree with the principle of asset forfeiture when the DEA is taking Pablo Escobar's stuff. But we've seen how that civil asset forfeiture was used elsewhere, and it's not good.
Condemning “every call for US intervention, of any sort” is dumb. The US is not going to retreat into isolationism any time soon, and it’s important to be able to weigh each case on its merits instead of making knee jerk decisions.Unfortunately AOC's very mild position on one part of war sanctions is what passes for progressive politics.
I did a quick search and the first website I checked out has a halfway decent progressive position.
Quoting:
Not one of these three members of Congress states categorical opposition to U.S. military action in Ukraine. And what they do say is dangerous: they’re calling for the United States to wage economic warfare. Support for sanctions ... sets up a political justification for military intervention ...
...
At this point, there should be no illusions that AOC, Cori Bush, or Jamaal Bowman are even remotely part of the anti-imperialist movement. They have made this clear time after time. AOC went along with bipartisan attempts during the Trump administration to back a coup in Venezuela. She and Bowman voted “present” in a move to give $1 billion to Israel, and later Bowman went on a tour of the apartheid state. Cori Bush is showing us her own imperialist tendencies.
...
At this point, there should be no illusions that AOC, Cori Bush, or Jamaal Bowman are even remotely part of the anti-imperialist movement. They have made this clear time after time. AOC went along with bipartisan attempts during the Trump administration to back a coup in Venezuela. She and Bowman voted “present” in a move to give $1 billion to Israel, and later Bowman went on a tour of the apartheid state. Cori Bush is showing us her own imperialist tendencies.
...
No War!
No sanctions!
Opposition to war must take place in the streets!
End quoting.
Unfortunately there's no stopping the stupid US war machine.
The Squad Calls for U.S. Intervention in Ukraine - Left Voice
“Progressive” members of Congress are calling for sanctions against Russia as the war in Ukraine continues to escalate. We need an anti-war movement that condemns every call for U.S. intervention, of any sort.www.leftvoice.org
I hate this this man. AOC, The Squad, and Bernie are the closest thing our government has to having leftist in power. Should we criticize them? Sure. But there as absolutely no value in condemning them for not meeting your ridiculous definition of what it means to be progressive enough. This is not constructive in any way and "criticism" like this doesn't do anything to further anti-imperialism.Unfortunately AOC's very mild position on one part of war sanctions is what passes for progressive politics.
I did a quick search and the first website I checked out has a halfway decent progressive position.
Quoting:
Not one of these three members of Congress states categorical opposition to U.S. military action in Ukraine. And what they do say is dangerous: they’re calling for the United States to wage economic warfare. Support for sanctions ... sets up a political justification for military intervention ...
...
At this point, there should be no illusions that AOC, Cori Bush, or Jamaal Bowman are even remotely part of the anti-imperialist movement. They have made this clear time after time. AOC went along with bipartisan attempts during the Trump administration to back a coup in Venezuela. She and Bowman voted “present” in a move to give $1 billion to Israel, and later Bowman went on a tour of the apartheid state. Cori Bush is showing us her own imperialist tendencies.
...
At this point, there should be no illusions that AOC, Cori Bush, or Jamaal Bowman are even remotely part of the anti-imperialist movement. They have made this clear time after time. AOC went along with bipartisan attempts during the Trump administration to back a coup in Venezuela. She and Bowman voted “present” in a move to give $1 billion to Israel, and later Bowman went on a tour of the apartheid state. Cori Bush is showing us her own imperialist tendencies.
...
No War!
No sanctions!
Opposition to war must take place in the streets!
End quoting.
Unfortunately there's no stopping the stupid US war machine.
The Squad Calls for U.S. Intervention in Ukraine - Left Voice
“Progressive” members of Congress are calling for sanctions against Russia as the war in Ukraine continues to escalate. We need an anti-war movement that condemns every call for U.S. intervention, of any sort.www.leftvoice.org
Condemning “every call for US intervention, of any sort” is dumb.
The US is not going to retreat into isolationism any time soon, and it’s important to be able to weigh each case on its merits instead of making knee jerk decisions.
The US certainly shouldn’t be directly intervening—I’m vehemently opposed to a “no-fly zone” or anything else that would drag us into a thermonuclear exchange— but arguing that one can’t be anti war if they don’t reject the idea of the US being involved in the world is silly.
I hate this this man. AOC, The Squad, and Bernie are the closest thing our government has to having leftist in power. Should we criticize them? Sure. But there as absolutely no value in condemning them for not meeting your ridiculous definition of what it means to be progressive enough. This is not constructive in any way and "criticism" like this doesn't do anything to further anti-imperialism.
I hate this this man. AOC, The Squad, and Bernie are the closest thing our government has to having leftist in power. Should we criticize them? Sure. But there as absolutely no value in condemning them for not meeting your ridiculous definition of what it means to be progressive enough. This is not constructive in any way and "criticism" like this doesn't do anything to further anti-imperialism.
AOC is the enemy within. She should be arrested, tried, and imprisoned for 30 years. This THING is destroying the USA. She hates it so much she chooses to stay.
Yes, it is. Let’s take Bosnia as an example. Under your argument, the “anti war” movement would have to oppose the US helping stop a genocide.No, it's not- not in the least. What's unwise is continuing barbarism and ignoring environmentalism, which is what any and all militarism does.
Of course the dominant global military and economic force is going to keep their knees on necks.
The US escalation of the Cold War led humanity here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?