Regarding bills and motions presented in the US Senate, these are passed using two procedural methods.
Once introduced to the floor, a call for objections is made. None being made, there is no debate and it’s passed by Unanimous Consent, having an effect of being 100-0, or whatever quorum attendance was that day.
If the motion is contentious, it’s debated and called to a recorded vote, which is invariably partisan based on Party Whip directives. It is correct to assert floor votes are infrequently 100-0, unless the Whips reached prior agreement.
So Unanimous passage of Bills and Motions representing 100 Senators is routine. Floor votes to the same effect are not.
Or just admitting you were wrong would work. Unanimous consent to honor a drum when no other senators are present is nothing like senators voting 100-0 to rebuke Russia. Unanimous consent is a procedural gimmick for issues that essentially no one cares about.
You guys just can't cope with how extremist your position is relative to the views American people. You might as well be defending OBL in 2004.
OP's assertion is 100-0 marks a rare moment of solidarity and agreement in Congress.
It does not. It's clearly shown motions and bills are routinely passed with Unanimity every call to order.
When bill or motion is put to a vote and passes 100-0, it is functionally equivalent to having been passed by Unanimous Consent.
Meaning the vote was non-contentious, having been agreed on in advance by Party Whips.
Any 100-0 vote is entirely an act of political theatre.
Of course I did not read Putin's essay. Why would I?
Maybe so that you understood what was going on and had something intelligent to add to the conversation.
I do not expect to find there anything I did not already know was a possibile take on subject and in any case I would not take it as relevant representation of actual aspirations.
So Putin wrote a 5000 word essay, but didn't actually mean what he wrote? And you know he didn't mean what he wrote, even though you don't know what he wrote, because you didn't read the essay in question? Please enlighten us on what Putin's actual aspirations are.
No, I did not make any pro Russian assumptions.
"...it still could be just an elaborate decoy in grand scheme."
"As far as Kiew (sic), I think Russia had a plan with options."
"can not blame Russia for starting it because I think they were pushed into it"
"Ukrainian opinion is irrelevant."
"I condemn demonizing and dehumanising of Russians"
Ukrainian people have my full support
Unless that means actually condemning Russia for invading their country, bombing their cities, and murdering their civilians.
I used Puppet of The West, Western puppet, as colloquial terms, to get to the point more quickly.
Then I'll use pro-Putin stooge (colloquially of course) as short hand for "liberal communist utopist moron". To get to the point more quickly.
Of course that Ukraine wants all that, but Ukrainian opinion is irrelevant.
That's not very supportive. Oh right, "for the state of Ukraine as a political entity I could not care less." So, you don't actually care about what the Ukrainian people want.
I think that Russian military retreats in direction it came from.
Obviously you can't retreat forward. The word retreat comes from Latin retrahere, which literally means to 'pull back'.
Or just admitting you were wrong would work. Unanimous consent to honor a drum when no other senators are present is nothing like senators voting 100-0 to rebuke Russia. Unanimous consent is a procedural gimmick for issues that essentially no one cares about.
You guys just can't cope with how extremist your position is relative to the views American people. You might as well be defending OBL in 2004.
OP's assertion is 100-0 marks a rare moment of solidarity and agreement in Congress.
It does not. It's clearly shown motions and bills are routinely passed with Unanimity every call to order.
When bill or motion is put to a vote and passes 100-0, it is functionally equivalent to having been passed by Unanimous Consent.
Meaning the vote was non-contentious, having been agreed on in advance by Party Whips.
Any 100-0 vote is entirely an act of political theatre.
"I was wrong." It's not that hard to type out. You should try it. You said 100-0 votes are very common. You were shown to be completely wrong.
Anyway, to me, as relatively not interested bystander, occupation and destruction of Ukraine does not seem as a real goal. Neutral, demilitarised Ukraine does. Ukraine seem willing to trade destruction for remaining a puppet of The West. Russia can not stop, The West could not hope for more.
"Ukraine seem willing to trade destruction for remaining a puppet of The West."
That certainly makes a lot more sense than the alternative hypothesis that Russia sent in an enormous amount of forces to take over control of the government. I mean, why wouldn't Ukraine want to remain in the sphere of influence of a country that has demonstrated that they will literally kill as many Ukrainians as it takes to buy their "allegiance"?
The Ukrainians are letting some light genocide get in the way of the beautiful plans that Russia has for them.
"Ukraine seem willing to trade destruction for remaining a puppet of The West."
That certainly makes a lot more sense than the alternative hypothesis that Russia sent in an enormous amount of forces to take over control of the government. I mean, why wouldn't Ukraine want to remain in the sphere of influence of a country that has demonstrated that they will literally kill as many Ukrainians as it takes to buy their "allegiance"?
There are huge differences btw control of the government, sphere of influence., occupation and destruction .
Maybe so that you understood what was going on and had something intelligent to add to the conversation.
So Putin wrote a 5000 word essay, but didn't actually mean what he wrote? And you know he didn't mean what he wrote, even though you don't know what he wrote, because you didn't read the essay in question? Please enlighten us on what Putin's actual aspirations are.
"...it still could be just an elaborate decoy in grand scheme."
"As far as Kiew (sic), I think Russia had a plan with options."
"can not blame Russia for starting it because I think they were pushed into it"
"Ukrainian opinion is irrelevant."
"I condemn demonizing and dehumanising of Russians"
Unless that means actually condemning Russia for invading their country, bombing their cities, and murdering their civilians.
Then I'll use pro-Putin stooge (colloquially of course) as short hand for "liberal communist utopist moron". To get to the point more quickly.
That's not very supportive. Oh right, "for the state of Ukraine as a political entity I could not care less." So, you don't actually care about what the Ukrainian people want.
Obviously you can't retreat forward. The word retreat comes from Latin retrahere, which literally means to 'pull back'.
- There is no need to spin and twist.
- I agree, it would be better if I have read it, but I do not need to read 5000 words to know his public stance on Ukraine. If he wrote that Ukraine was not "real country" historically, he might really think so, but it does not have to mean he thinks there should be no modern Ukraine. IMO he is using it as an argument for why modern Ukraine should not have s say in matters concerning what Russia consider to be of vital national interest.
- How can I know what his real aspirations are. I can only speculate. Regarding Ukraine, I guess it is officially neutral, highly demilitarised tampon zone, with democratically elected government that is not anti-Russian, preferably pro-Russian. Donbas and Lugansk fully incorporated in Russia.
- Not a single statement on that list is pro Russian.
1. Grand scheme being, The West and Russia playing games against each other. Your problem here is that I do not support The West. Why would I? I do not see it as good guys Vs. bad guys. I see it as ongoing struggle for power.
2.Yes, so? What is pro Russian there? You could include that statement on anti-Russian list just the same.
3. Yes, Russia and Ukraine were pushed into war against each other. Therefore I can not blame Russia, although it attacked first. I think they thought that they do not have other option.
4. Ukrainian opinion is not irrelevant for me, but that is irrelevant In context, Ukrainian opinion is irrelevant for both The West and Russia. Ukraine is not allowed to have free choice. West does not allow them neutral position towards Russia, Russia does not allow them to "go full West" unless they are neutral.
5 What's wrong with that? You have to respect the enemy, or you will end worse than they are. We are all humans.
- What is not clear? I do not care if there is one more, or one less state by any name, but I understand how important it must be for majority (probably) of their citizens and I support their wish to keep the country whole, in internationally recognized borders. All territorial issues and secessionist tendecies should be resolved peacefully, in negotiations.
- OK, I wrongly understood your question, as " why to Belarus, why not to East?". I understand retreat as abbandoning place of action in any direction. Retreat could be due to defeat, but also tactical, or strategical.
0
3
So many many names can belong to a registered account
I apologize to all the women. I might be woman, too. Nobody knows. Except Real Obvi, he saw right through me and attacked my feminine feelings. Of course, Oh ...TX did not feel the urge to react, but what else could you expect from self declared proud hypocrite.
I can only hope you understand, if Real Obvi attacked my masculine feelings, my respone would probably be on misandry sude.
I thought we were analyzing the military conflict hour by hour, day by day? Body counts, mechanized vehicles destroyed, fleeing Ukrainians, etc. I guess pages of posts regarding a meaningless Congressional vote helps you take your mind off Ukraine's future defeat. In reference to votes by the Upper Chamber: Think about how many Ukrainians U.S. politicians got killed by extending the suffering of Ukrainian citizens. Conservatively, 1500 more Ukrainians have died due to U.S. politicians extend the suffering over the past 5 weeks.
Think about how many people Stalin and the UK killed by not surrendering to Hitler. Think about how many people the United States killed by not surrendering to Japan after Pearl Harbor, or to England in the war of 1812.
Your point is absurd. People fight those who demean them and intend to subjugate them.
No! You are incorrect. What is going on in Ukraine is not simply Ukrainians Fighting for Their Freedom, there would be no fight from Ukraine lasting more than one week without U.S. gift of ammunition, weapons and U.S. acting as a real time Forward Observer. U.S. has gotten people killed in Ukraine for U.S. Military Industrial Complex geo-political concerns.
* People of then Soviet Union were not fighting and dying a proxy war for others, WW2.
* People of Great Britain, WW2, were suffering direct attacks from nightly bombing missions by German air force, WW2. No proxy war on the part of Great Britain.
* U.S. Capitol was burned and severely damaged, War of 1812, no proxy war.
***** You just made a fool out of yourself with Japan and WW2 comparison. Japan was far more aggressive to their Asian neighbors in 1930's, 1940 and up to December 6th, 1941 than Russia was to Ukraine before U.S. involvement in Ukraine. U.S. STAYED OUT OF JAPANESE AND ASIAN AFFAIRS EXCEPT U.S. SANCTIONED JAPAN AND CEASED OIL EXPORTS TO JAPAN. U.S. DID NOT ENTER WW2 AS A FIGHTING MILITARY UNTIL JAPAN DIRECTLY ATTACKED A U.S. NAVAL BASE AND DIRECTLY ATTACKED A THEN U.S. TERRITORY, Hawaii.
You are an attorney, am I correct? Do you walk right into traps like this on your day job?
There are people dead, as I stated in Ukraine who would not be dead except for the actions of U.S. politicians urged on by their handlers in M.I.C. It is mathematically impossible for Ukraine to win this without N.A.T.O. &/or U.S. personnel fighting on the ground in Ukraine or N.A.T.O. &/or U.S. flying over Ukrainian skies.
1
5
So many many names can belong to a registered account
Oh, did your poor little feminine feelings get hurt, comrade? There, there. ;-)
Real Obvi, how possibly could I get hurt by someone like you. You exposed tyour self some 20-30 pages ago. I only wonder wher Oh .TX is to defend my feminity. He seemed very eagar to hit on misogyny, but for some reason keeps quiet on your attempts.
Think about how many people Stalin and the UK killed by not surrendering to Hitler. Think about how many people the United States killed by not surrendering to Japan after Pearl Harbor, or to England in the war of 1812.
Your point is absurd. People fight those who demean them and intend to subjugate them.
No! You are incorrect. What is going on in Ukraine is not simply Ukrainians Fighting for Their Freedom, there would be no fight from Ukraine lasting more than one week without U.S. gift of ammunition, weapons and U.S. acting as a real time Forward Observer. U.S. has gotten people killed in Ukraine for U.S. Military Industrial Complex geo-political concerns.
* People of then Soviet Union were not fighting and dying a proxy war for others, WW2.
* People of Great Britain, WW2, were suffering direct attacks from nightly bombing missions by German air force, WW2. No proxy war on the part of Great Britain.
* U.S. Capitol was burned and severely damaged, War of 1812, no proxy war.
***** You just made a fool out of yourself with Japan and WW2 comparison. Japan was far more aggressive to their Asian neighbors in 1930's, 1940 and up to December 6th, 1941 than Russia was to Ukraine before U.S. involvement in Ukraine. U.S. STAYED OUT OF JAPANESE AND ASIAN AFFAIRS EXCEPT U.S. SANCTIONED JAPAN AND CEASED OIL EXPORTS TO JAPAN. U.S. DID NOT ENTER WW2 AS A FIGHTING MILITARY UNTIL JAPAN DIRECTLY ATTACKED A U.S. NAVAL BASE AND DIRECTLY ATTACKED A THEN U.S. TERRITORY, Hawaii.
You are an attorney, am I correct? Do you walk right into traps like this on your day job?
There are people dead, as I stated in Ukraine who would not be dead except for the actions of U.S. politicians urged on by their handlers in M.I.C. It is mathematically impossible for Ukraine to win this without N.A.T.O. &/or U.S. personnel fighting on the ground in Ukraine or N.A.T.O. &/or U.S. flying over Ukrainian skies.
Saying I walked into a trap or made a fool of myself doesn't mean that either are true. The fool is the person that suggests that Japan's aggression against its Asian neighbors has any relevance to my point. You had suggested Ukraine should surrender, and my response was to list other attacked nations that declined to surrender even though lives were lost.
Both a proxy war by the West and a Ukraine desire to fight can exist in parallel, without contradiction. Whether NATO provides assistance for Ukraine's resistance and whether that assistance is necessary for Ukraine to hold out for a prolonged period of time is irrelevant to the core question of whether Ukraine wishes to fight. Ukraine could have said 'thanks but no thanks, we will surrender now. What NATO is doing is making it possible for Ukraine to do what it wants to do.
In case any of you freakout people think it was Russia that bombed the civilian train station, the missile was an obsolete Tochka-U that they don't use anymore. Yet another Ukrainian false flag.
Of course you'll insist the Russians dug up an old one or something
They have been using their good missiles to blow up Ukrainian military targets at train stations, but it's up to Ukraine to keep civilians away from that.
