Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

[Symmachus]

In 2016 the American people voted a new person into office and Obama took up more writing and basketball. Obama and America are not synonymous.

Point went way over your head, as usual.

And here is you reverting to the core cynicism that couldn't help but be injected, inserting democratic offices in for autocrats and non sequitur embellishments - follow the dancing claims!

Attempting to "weaken" a legitimate national leader has nothing to do with that nation's national security and/or sovereignty? That's a wild claim and I wonder how many national leaders, under whatever system, would endorse your distinction. Or does sovereignty only apply to one form of government but not another?

that we get to determine and you have to accept. And since these are not strictly synonymous," he clarified, "it logically follows that these two propositions are completely unrelated to each other: we are just attempting to undermine the leadership of the United States, and that has nothing to do with its national security or national sovereignty.

More street magic, mouthamagician?

When your confidently asserted contradictions are pointed out, you revert to psycho-analyzing and name calling. Such distractions show you to be the only one attempting mouth-magic here.

[honorentheos]

Attempting to "weaken" a legitimate national leader...

Tricks are illusions, whether using hand gestures or words.

But please. Tell me how your point went over my head.

[Symmachus]

Attempting to "weaken" a legitimate national leader...

Ah, I see. Putin is not the legitimate national leader of Russia in your opinion. Interesting. Who is then? And who picked him/her?

[honorentheos]

I do appreciate that this has revealed you to be a Putin apologist, though. Thanks for reentering the conversation, if for only that.

[honorentheos]

Ah, I see. Putin is not the legitimate national leader of Russia in your opinion. Interesting. Who is then? And who picked him/her?

https://freedomhouse.org/country/russia

Power in Russia’s authoritarian political system is concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. With loyalist security forces, a subservient judiciary, a controlled media environment, and a legislature consisting of a ruling party and pliable opposition factions, the Kremlin is able to manipulate elections and suppress genuine dissent. Rampant corruption facilitates shifting links among state officials and organized crime groups.

...

The (Russian) constitution establishes a strong presidency with the power to dismiss and appoint, pending parliamentary confirmation, the prime minister. The president is elected for as many as two consecutive six-year terms. Constitutional amendments approved in 2020 allow Putin, but not future presidents, to run for an additional two consecutive terms as president, potentially extending his rule to 2036.

[Symmachus]

I do appreciate that this has revealed you to be a Putin apologist, though. Thanks for reentering the conversation, if for only that.

Yeah, I understand that you first need to establish the friend/enemy distinction before you can process what someone else says, and that you need to continually reinforce it thereafter to save yourself mental effort. I too will help you conserve your mental powers by sticking to the simple binaries you prefer to use yourself as I try to understand what point you think your Freedom House quotations have established...

Agree/disagree:

Because Putin has not been elected under a liberal democratic regime, he has no legitimacy as a national leader in Russia and therefore it is not a violation of Russian sovereignty for external actors to attempt to "weaken" him, nor should such attempts be seen as a national security issue within Russia. Questions of sovereignty are not applicable to authoritarian systems of governance.

No mouth-magic for the viewers at home, please. Just "agree" or "disagree."

[honorentheos]

I disagree with the framing of the statement, and further disagree it applies to the point made upthread.

Let's revisit the actual statements and set them next to your construction above, shall we?

Russia's security claims as a sovereign nation are foremost in our own calculations.

Is JJM correct to believe the US ultimately sees a weakened Putin a positive and would support achieving it within bounds? I think few would argue otherwise.

Agree/disagree:

Because Putin has not been elected under a liberal democratic regime, he has no legitimacy as a national leader in Russia and therefore it is not a violation of Russian sovereignty for external actors to attempt to "weaken" him, nor should such attempts be seen as a national security issue within Russia. Questions of sovereignty are not applicable to authoritarian systems of governance.

Classic mouthamagician narrative control and misdirection attempt.

Here's a mirrored version: Agree/disagree

Because Putin views NATO as a threat to his control of Russia, he is justified in invading Ukraine in February 2022. Questions of sovereignty are not applicable to lesser powers such as Ukraine.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tryin’ so hard not to Godwin right now …

- Doc

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Reports coming out that Urkraine has now crossed the Oskil river in the North? Crazy!

If true, Ukraine has now taken approximately 23,000 square kilometers since the start of the counter-offensive.

William Schryver would have you believe it’s a carefully planned trap by Russia and that the Ukrainian military will be swiftly destroyed. William has been saying this same thing since March.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ze ... r-AA11Yx3D

[canpakes]

Attempting to "weaken" a legitimate national leader has nothing to do with that nation's national security and/or sovereignty? That's a wild claim and I wonder how many national leaders, under whatever system, would endorse your distinction. Or does sovereignty only apply to one form of government but not another?

Is the claim that the US is ‘attempting to "weaken" a legitimate national leader’ one that was made more forcefully prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or afterwards?

What was Ukraine doing, along those lines, that warranted an invasion?