Is Putin evil?

Posted by Lucky 1 year, 11 months ago to Ask the Gulch
84 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I have been asked this question by a correspondent (of a different opinion set).
An answer is not easy at least for me to justify to another person as we disagree even on what are the facts that relate.

If a person is evil, is it from their actions and effects, or by intentions?

Your opinion? I prefer an answer from an Objectivist standpoint rather than a religious one.

What well known names in the media today would qualify for a loud and clear- Yes?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by buffalolips 1 year, 11 months ago
    Opinion: A gun or knife or baseball bat is not evil, but depends on the intent of the holder's actions, thus changing a gun or knife or a baseball bat from an inanimate object into a weapon to knowingly and intentionally inflict harm. What makes a person's actions "evil" is similarly his or her knowing intention to do harm. The combination of knowingly and intent is the prerequisite to the actions taken in order to make the determination of true evil. The better question IMO is who is more evil, NATO's de facto leadership or RUSSIA's Putin? Which party has refused to adhere to prior agreements and inflicted continuous harm to the Russian speaking inhabitants of Donbass for the last 8+ years? There you have the evil you're looking for.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 year, 11 months ago
    Truthfully, he isn't good. However, yo have to give credit when its due, he is 100% working toward the interest of his nation and his nation alone. That said, while respectable, it can be very bad to leaders trying to build a consensus for a NWO using social and financial coercion.

    Governing Evil, to me, is any system which takes free will and self determination away from the individual.

    The full court press by world powers and their propaganda outlets tells me Putin isn't evil, he's just not on the acceptable same page.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
      I disagree entirely. Putin is not working for the good of Russia. Putin is working for the greater good of Russian oligarchs. This is precisely why we don't want that much power in government, and precisely what Ayn railed against.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 11 months ago
      Well said!
      Putin doesn’t 100% buy into the World Economic Forum garbage. Past comments I’ve seen him say leads me to that conclusion. But, the Schwabbian policy is clear. If you do not comply...you will be destroyed.
      It’s like watching a Bear and a Eagle fight over roadkill. And WE are the road kill. Does it really matter which one wins? That’s the only question.
      To me the answer is simple...get off the road.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year, 11 months ago
    Perhaps what we are seeing is 'Ya Ya Ya Ya Ya' I have more toys than you do. I think Pelosi is a case of arrested development, Schumer is just stupid, Biden never matured, and I could go on and on.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 11 months ago
      part of me believes that those like pelosi, schummer, biden's handlers think that Putin has the same objectives as they do.

      they are wrong
      unlike them, Putin seems to be a patriot (for Russia) and wants Russia power, meaningful on the world stage again, as the Soviet Union was.

      the our government seems to not be able to communicate a message without major revisions, corrections, "biden didn't mean that" is likely to get us into a Hot War with 2 nuclear armed powers

      actions designed to do that can have unintended consequences, just as the coup that gave the election to biden is having unintended consequences
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MannyG 1 year, 11 months ago
      You're too kind, sir. The three enemies of our civilization that you mentioned are evil personified. As Ayn once remarked, those who seek Power are worse than those who seek wealth.
      The Army of Second-Raters in charge is growing!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mhubb 1 year, 11 months ago
    the basic problem we all face right now is "who do you believe?"

    we have been lied to for at least 5 years, about Trump, about covid, about the 2020 election, to name 3 things

    we have been lied to about other things for much, much longer

    what is clear it hat the average people of Ukraine , just like us, had little say in their corrupt government, are suffering for reasons beyond their control and some people on both sides seem determined to keep the war going

    the risk is that the government of the United States is being run by clueless children that cannot see beyond they own personal desire for more and more power
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 1 year, 11 months ago
    I’ll take a Putin over a Biden.
    When you peel off all the layers of propaganda, is Biden evil?
    Mhubb hits the nail on the head. And drives it clear through 2x4s.
    Perspective....
    There’s a whole other side to this conflict that is being suppressed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
    When allowed to, Putin thinks only of his own power, and seemingly will do anything to preserve it. He kills, maims, and in Ukraine is willing to kill any and all people he doesnt even know just so he can look good as a powerful leader, and steal whatever riches there are in ukraine- even if there are no people left there that he can lord over.

    I would call the bastard definitely EVIL, and pretty much on the same level as Hitler. There is a scale of evil-ness, and I think all of us fall somewhere on the scale. Putin is way towards the totally evil end. I woudl say that Xi is pretty much towards that end also, as if Rocket Man in N Korea.

    Some one should develop an EVIL scale, and rate people on it so its easier to see where people are at.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starguy 1 year, 11 months ago
    Vlad: love or hate him, he is NOT one of Klaus Schwab's puppets.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bsudell 1 year, 11 months ago
      I agree. That is why the "elites" want regime change in Russia. Let's see if Putin is smart enough to beat them at their own game, like he did with the planned Color Revolution in Russia.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
        One thing about the mafia in the USA- they all used to say that war among families was NOT a good thing (not good for business,...). Putin is stupid to risk all this bad blood over Ukraine , given that he will never actually conquer the people and be able to rule them happily.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bsudell 1 year, 11 months ago
          You may be right, but many today think they are Russians anyway. I had Ukrainian friends who hated Russia, but it doesn't seem that way anymore. Ukraine is their bread-basket.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
            well, Ukraine will not be around very long at this rate, with Putin destroying it by the day. If they love russia so much, maybe they should move there and forget about ukraine. Maybe russia will nuclear bomb the place and make it uninhabitable anyway. How anyone could love russia at this point amazes me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1 year, 11 months ago
    Facts to be considered-

    The Belgrade Agreement of 1991 to ensure Ukrainian neutrality
    The Ukrainian President has repeatedly sought to join NATO in violation of the 1991 independence agreement

    The Minsk Agreement of 2014 to give the largely Russian regions, Donbas, etc a vote for independence
    These regions have been treated appallingly by the Ukrainian governments since then, the promised vote has been refused, result, an eight year war with about 14,000 deaths.
    75.000 refugees have fled to Russia.
    The Ukrainian President has consciously not upheld the Minsk agreement.

    Crimea received its fresh water from a river that flows through Ukraine.
    After the 2014 Minsk protocol was signed, Ukraine built a dam to stop the flow of fresh water to Crimea.

    Ukrainian President Zelensky supports the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion
    When a Clown moves into the Palace, he does not become a King.
    The Palace becomes a Circus. – Turkish Proverb
    The existence of the Azov Battalion has been denied tho' many photos of it exist.
    This group has openly targeted and attacked culturally Russian Ukrainian citizens and minorities such as Roma. Zelensky claims a Jewish mother with the illogical implication that he is not and cannot support nazis, however, there was his gratuitous insult to the negotiator from the Israeli government.
    The government circus has as its prime function payoffs to US crime families by paying commissions on US government aid.

    Many statements from NATO that it would not expand to the east
    NATO has made several significant expansions east. Russia has repeatedly requested that Ukraine not install NATO medium range missile launchers.

    Senior politicians around the world have repeatedly created discord
    eg US Vice President Kamala Harris supported NATO expansion just prior to Putin's action.

    The bio-labs, now confirmed by the US State Department
    There are about 46 of them, some close to the border. These are US staffed, controlled and paid for by the US military, and have functional links to people and companies with ties to the Wuhan lab in China. Think 'Gain of Function'.

    Outside military intervention
    These are: free-lance fascistic fanatics fighting with the Azovs, NATO, and government military.
    French intelligence sources claim that British SAS and American Delta Team special forces are in a secret war in Ukraine, and a French reporter recently returned from Ukraine said: “Americans are directly in charge of the war on the ground”. Against Russia? Yes, and before that against the eastern regions since 2014. Canadian government denials of training the Azovs will have to be withdrawn as photos are emerging.

    A free country with democratic government and agreed borders (sic)
    Actually a US client state. The borders are subject to an election which one side does not allow. The government was installed after uprisings orchestrated by Soros coordinating with NATO and US. After another artificial uprising, The Clown was installed as president.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 11 months ago
    The first thing is we'd need to agree on what constitutes evil. I believe that one has to be careful in defining it because of what it means to identify someone as evil - namely that virtually everything done to counter it becomes acceptable. Evil is a strong word, and the ramifications are severe, thus in using it we need to respect that.


    So for me, I waver a bit but generally go with evil being the intentional infliction of suffering for the sake of the suffering. To clarify the distinction:

    A physical therapist will usually wind up inflicting some level of pain and suffering. But there is a beneficial goal the suffering is by-product of. Hence, while there is the infliction of suffering, it is not evil. However, someone torturing someone just to watch them suffer would qualify - even if they didn't do it for personal pleasure.

    From that perspective, I'd have to say no, as there is no evidence he is doing this just to make people suffer.

    Now where many may dislike that definition is that it excludes a lot of things we generally consider evil. For example, I want to consider collectivism evil given the damage it requires and inflicts on individuals. However, it doesn't meet that criteria. But then I wonder if that is actually a good thing.

    See, another thing about "evil" is that it tends to be viewed as inherent. We see this in not only the level of extremes undertaken to destroy evil, but with the immediate cessation of any dialogue and attempts to persuade. If Putin is evil, can there be negotiation and discussion with him? After all, many would argue that to permit evil is an act of evil.

    One of the problems I see in today's society is the rush to extreme labels - often as an excuse to avoid any discussion or non-extermination resolutions. In the light, I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we did less labelling of "evil" and more use of more accurate terminology that doesn't have such a visceral connection.

    It isn't that different from the word "hate" - which is in my view also heavily overused. Years ago I noticed I and my family glibly used "I hate X", when really it was something that we just disliked or found annoying or inconvenient. So I set us out to always question it when any of us used it - asking "do you really hate it?" - which caused us to reconsider and dramatically reduce the usage. Now when we say we hate something, we all know we mean it and give it the gravitas it deserves.

    I suspect we, as a society, would be better off doing that not just with hate, but with terms like "evil", "nazi", "racist", etc.. They tend to be used to shutdown people and specifically avoid critical thought about them or their statements or policies.

    Whether one agrees with them or not, Putin has put forth his reasons. None of them indicate "evil" in the sense above. We can decide if we think those reasons justify the actions taken or not, but on their face I would not qualify them as evil, or whether we believe them to be his actual reasons.

    To me, that is a big deal. When you dig into all the major "evil dictators" in history, they all believed and represented themselves, as the good guys. I've been unable to find one that didn't have rational (which does not mean correct or good!) reasons that on their face are beneficial one. And that is the problem as I see it: we are on the lookout for the stereotypical evil villain and instead they always slip in because they are essentially not evil. Their outcomes are not born of malicious or evil intent; they are merely unescapable ones born of the ideology and policies. Hence, not evil by my criteria above.

    I think we as a race of beings would be able to better protect against people who commit such atrocities if we accept at a fundamental level that one doesn't need to be evil to commit those atrocities, and that it is never the "path of evil" that takes us there, but instead the "path of good intent" - much like the proverbial road to hell and intentions.

    (So for me I resolve it as the identifier we need to avoid being the combination of believing they know better with the willingness, or even eagerness, to use government force to get their "superior" way. That way we don't have to worry about intent or if something is evil or not.)

    But I sure do want to call them evil, and I used to. Once upon a time, not long ago, I did define collectivism as inherently evil. More specifically I defined the attempt, or desire, to oppression of the individual in favor of a collective as evil. And I thought I had a good definition.

    However, I don't think anyone has ever had their minds changed by calling them evil. I found that by dropping "evil" I was able to reach more people.

    Perhaps the more appropriate route is something akin the "sin" - as the Christians have "love the sinner, hate the sin" which is essentially saying the sinner isn't evil - but is still not doing good. That said, I don't think "sin" is the appropriate term, just closer conceptually.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by shaifferg 1 year, 11 months ago
    Hopefully a summation: From AR via JG perhaps RH. Good vs Evil? Those who initiate force against another surrender their rights.
    The initiation of force or threat of initiation is the onset of evil. Do not attempt to force a citizen; you may forfeit your life, citizen's choice!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 11 months ago
    The problem with defining good and evil is that it necessarily depends upon a viewpoint which many will call religious: that is that it depends on more than just this life. If you take the nihilistic view, there is no such thing as either good or evil: everything exists for the moment because there is nothing beyond that of any lasting import.

    So in taking on the challenge of "good vs evil" one must necessarily presuppose a certain inviolability of the soul, ie that our being does not dissolve into nothingness upon death. As such, ongoing existence is presupposed. The question then becomes, what kind of existence is there beyond death? What kind of sociality exists and on what conditions is such defined? The only logical conclusion is that it will be defined in large measure by the type of person we become in this life: the pursuits of this life will similarly become the pursuits of the next. To think that simply shedding these mortal shells of ours will suddenly change our very natures and personalities is to attribute those natures and personalities to our bodies rather than to our minds. And what would be left of such minds? Nothing.

    Therefore, the only course left is to assume that the next stage of existence is very likely to be shaped by our actions in this one. And in one form or another, it is the description of this speculation regarding the next plane(s) of existence where science simply has no information and only religion provides even speculation. Here you have everything from reincarnation (Hindu) to some sort of judgement (Ancient Egypt, Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and many others.) What is interesting, however, is that many of these systems gravitate toward declaring many of the same behaviors positive and others negative. What seems to vary greatly is the level of individual power/autonomy in these various systems. Viking lore placed emphasis on martial skill in the eternal battles there. Islam places everyone as subservient to Allah and the most faithful as being those afforded what others call "carnal pleasures." Some Christian religions teach of a vast judgment comprised of "damnation" for the sinner and "salvation" for the righteous based on nothing more than a professed statement of belief.

    I believe that life on this earth is not so different than life on the next. I believe that we have the choice here to build within ourselves the capacity for self-governance and the acquisition of knowledge. Once one learns through training and experience how to harness one's own innate abilities, one will find the ability to then go on to affect the universe. Because of the difficulty of this road, however, there will be few which don't instead turn off onto the various exits to pursue those things that they pursued in this life, thus limiting themselves indefinitely.

    Now, you asked if Putin was evil. The answer there depends on what one calls "good." In simplistic terms, that which is "good" is that which advances us toward some paragon or epitome of virtue. Some ideal. That may be slightly different depending on whom you talk to, but as one prominent philosopher taught, much revolves around treating others the way you want to be treated. Thus kindness, forgiveness, tolerance, hard work, honesty, integrity, and others are all considered positive virtues. Thus one so infused with these values will tend to be a "good" person - or at least a person headed in a positive direction - vs someone who is not. I will make one clarification, however, and that is that many think that "evil" is the opposite of good. I do not hold this to be the case. Darkness is merely the absence of light - not an opposing force such as anti-matter. Such with evil: it is an absence of good or a tendency away from that which is good. There is no question that Putin has committed acts against others which violated "good" principles such as those previously mentioned. The acts were evil: they violated the virtuous ideals. So therefore the question then becomes: do the acts make the man? I think it is safe to say, yes, since what a man (or woman) does becomes the way they will continue to act. The only "saving grace" would be if a man stops doing infernal things and begins doing virtuous things.

    Of course the other question is if there is a way to make up for one's previous infernal actions. That is specifically a religious subject and delves into the notion of a redeeming figure such as a Jesus Christ, etc. Whether or not such exists is beyond the scope of this topic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      "good" is basically respecting human rights, pretty much as AR laid out. "evil" is ignoring human rights completetly and just doing whatever you want regardless of what it does to others.

      I am not a believer in a spirit in the sky or living past death. All there is is what we see and experience while alive, IMHO.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 11 months ago
        Not that I disagree (I don't) but why does one respect human rights? It is one thing to say it is the morally right thing to do, but quite another to derive the reason for that "goodness." (Another corollary is to question how one derives a human right in the first place.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
          AR did a good job at that, probably far better than I could. I am more practical and simplistic about it. Since I first read AS in college, objectivist thinking really made so much sense to me, particularly in terms of how things would work if everyone thought the same way about treating other humans. I could get along with others and they could get along with me.

          Socialism just plain never works, authoritarianism depends on the 'goodness' of the dictator, , communism doesnt work- EVER, and the halfway freedom we have in the USA doesnt seem to work, and fascism doesnt work.

          I am not a real philosophical person, but for meat least, if a system of thought seems like it should work, and in fact if it does work in practice, its for me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 11 months ago
      If you wish to say that reality can exist independent of physical reality, can you express that opinion without using some physical means, such as vocal cords, sign language, paper, ink, typing keys, electric wires, or a computer screen?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 11 months ago
        I'm not sure where such an assertion arises, but Reality is Reality. If one wants to argue that there are portions of this Reality that we are naturally ill-equipped to detect or interact with, I would completely agree. I don't adhere to the notion of multiple Realities, however, for the simple expedient that unless we are capable of interacting with it, we can not even verify its existence in the first place. See also so-called dark matter.

        Here's a question to answer your question: how does one recognize sentience? It seems to be inherent to human beings yet it is a feat we can not duplicate using instruments, ie "physical" means. Thus the question: is there more than just the physical? Is there a spiritual aspect to reality? I would argue that the presence of the individual mind is in and of itself evidence of the spiritual, for there is nothing mechanistic about the mind. The sheer uniqueness of every living person also severely undermines any notion that we are merely the product of our parents and our environment. And anyone who has run a day care or cared for small children can attest to the frustrating aspects of that uniqueness! ;)

        Another question which transcends the purely physical involves the notion of romantic attraction. The very existence of same-sex attraction, itself, undermines a purely physical approach which would necessarily revolve around reproduction. And who can really identify what it is about ones' companion(s) which first attracts them (and guys, lets admit that it's more than just a nice body) ?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 11 months ago
          I do not think there is anything supernatural. There are things invisible with the naked eye, but that is not the same http://thing.As I think was explained by Objectivist writers, man does have free will (the freedom to focus his mind or not; this is so because if he did not, he would not even be able to question any of his own conclusions, and nobody could really know anything. Now what free will would look like in substance, I don't know; I don't know that it could ever be seen with the naked eye, but if it is an electric charge, or something like that. But there could not be something true that really contradicted physical reality, by which 2+2 would not equal 4, or something that contradicted the Law of Identity.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 11 months ago
            I will add this: I think some people take the notion of the word supernatural too far and equate it to something which is un_natural. I do not believe this to be an appropriate use of the word _supernatural. The Greek prefix "super" or "uper" (similar to German uber as in ubermensch) was used to indicate something transcendant; of superiority or excellence to that of a common order of things. A better word for something which doesn't fit in our version of Reality would be alien - a word pigeon-holed through use in science fiction but which truly means "something incomprehensible."

            If one starts with what is "natural" as being that which can be detected by the first five senses, then something which can not be detected by those senses would be "supernatural," i.e. still being a part of Reality just beyond the grasp of those five senses. I think the examples I gave are sufficient to illustrate clear examples where the five "natural" senses are wholly inadequate to explain such phenomenae and thus the need to look for an answer beyond the bounds of the "natural" senses. Please note that I am not saying any such are immune to reason, including the Law of Identity, only that the understanding of such can not be achieved solely using input from the "natural" senses.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 11 months ago
              There are instruments by which one can see or perceive things that cannot be seen by the naked eye: e.g. microscopes, telescopes,etc. but, eventually, the natural (at least one or more of the five senses) have to be involved. Something that actually contradicts the five senses could not exist. There could not be a realm where "his assertions, which are false on earth, become true..." (Ayn Rand,Atlas Shrugged).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
    Putin:
    1. is working to maintain economic relevance for his oligarchy
    2. cares nothing about the nation of Russia, except its service to his oligarchy.
    3. has oppressed his own people
    4. has attacked another country and killed thousands for his own gain.
    5. is disconnected from reality now, thinking Russians would celebrate in the streets for the attack, and sitting at one end of a 40' table.

    However, the US et al set him up to fail by placing a puppet government in the Ukraine, and doing who knows what there. Now he is responding like a challenged animal.

    Putin is evil, because oppressing a people for one's own gain is evil, and further attacking another people for one's personal gain is also evil. He could have just as easily followed Gorbachev and moved Russia west, but then he would have just had wealth, not massive power.

    We are also evil.

    Forcing people is evil. It is a part of Ayn's very definition of evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      Well, I dont feel I stick up for all the actions that the USA has taken- like invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the countless other invasions over the year that the US government has done because it wanted to have a "united states" from coast to coast. The indians in the USA got the shaft definitely. That said, not everyone here approved of what the government here did, and I was one of those.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      Well, I dont feel I stick up for all the actions that the USA has taken- like invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the countless other invasions over the year that the US government has done because it wanted to have a "united states" from coast to coast. The indians in the USA got the shaft definitely. That said, not everyone here approved of what the government here did, and I was one of those.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
        Amen to that! By "we" I meant the US, not all of us, just like "Putin" is not all of Russia.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
          I dont think Putin is all of russia, but I would say I am disturbed by how popular he seems to be after invading Ukraine. Just makes me feel unsettled about Russians. I understand that they cant say anything bad about putin....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
            Nationalism. Wish we had some, but for the real USA.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
              Actually, that is a very good article. I think sanctions should come from individuals in terms of potentially removing help from foreign governments and people who do not offer the benefit of trading. You stop dealing with people who intend harm or do not offer any benefits. Its not to hurt the other country or people, but to in the end be in the best interest of the person withholding trade.

              i bet apple was worried about getting paid for its products and thats why it pulled out. I would be worried about that too if I were apple.

              I dont trade with russia for the reason I dont want them to benefit from a trade that I might make with them- in order NOT to make them stronger so they can attack me later. Simple.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
                My brother and I buy American, unless we just can't (e.g. a DVD or microwave).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
                  There are so many products we buy that are made in China but sold by Amazon, it’s hard to actually buy american
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 11 months ago
                    I don't think I need necessarily to just "buy American", but I do believe it is wrong to buy totalitarian.( reply to Thoritsu; I don't know why these messages don't go to the place on the screen where the sender types them.)
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
                      I will have to comment that I buy things that are labeled "made in china", but I buy those things from chinese PEOPLE and companies- not from the chinese communist government. I would draw the line and NOT buy from the chinese communist government itself. In my experience, the chinese peoples' treatment of me has been ok. They all seem hard working and honest for what thats worth.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
                    You are right about that!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
                      qw buy from china because the us dollar is the reserve currency and we can print them, send them over to china, and they send us goods. Once the reserve currency switches to some other one, us dollar will crash to where it should be and chinese stuff wont be as cheap any more.

                      This will fix the trade imbalance and bring mfg back tot he usa
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
                        Not looking forward to that, unless it also collapses the Reserve banking System.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
                          It would have been better if we didnt have deficit spending and money printing. We never would have had the balance of trade issues. we wouldnt have inflation like we do now. we would still be making stuff here, because the chinese stuff would have not been relatively cheaper. The usa got to think it was richer than it was for years now. Now the chickens come home to roost, and we have to live with the reality of being less wealthy. Things will even out in a few years IF we stop money printing- wages will rise, prices will level off, and the dollar wont buy as much from china as it does now.

                          The longer we print money, the harder it is to get over its effects.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1 year, 11 months ago
    Summing up. Thanks to commentators for good contributions and thought, my question on Putin got a good discussion. In forming an opinion I was influenced by responses on this post, other posts here, and other places not listed (this is an opinion piece not an academic paper).

    The question relates to the Russian military intervention and incursion in The Ukraine so I will not consider here the history or character of Putin unrelated to that.

    Over the past decade, Western Main.Stream.Media has been very critical of Ukraine: the serious corruption, the Azov nazi activities, the discord and violence in the east, but when Russia started troop movements, they reversed to make a hero of the Ukrainian President and a villain of the Russian leader. Examples- NYTimes, Guardian.

    MSM are now lavish in reporting claimed atrocities by Russia. However, private commentators observe resemblances to pics from Iraq, Serbia, etc. Vids, such as of the so-called Bucha atrocity where 'dead' bodies stand up and walk away when they thought the camera had passed, show major use of fake evidence. This, 3-4 days after the mayor inspected and said, 'the Russians have gone'.


    A simple explanation for the extreme antagonism is that Putin is one of the few world leaders resisting The Great Reset, and the green dream of the World Economic Forum.


    Conclusion

    Rather than evil, the situation confronting Putin made his decision inevitable, perhaps even righteous. He was and still is certainly under provocation by the gang ruling the 'West' from their actions over years, and from The Clown still 'president' of The Ukraine.
    The term evil can be better applied to that whole gang who caused the violence and have been so destructive of the nations and populations that they pretend to lead and serve.


    A list of considerations follows.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 11 months ago
    Intention might make a difference in the case of an accident--though even then, it would make a difference
    if there was negligence, and/or a callous dis-
    regard of possible consequences. But,by the time a person is old enough to be mature (that is, old enough to be accountable for his actions--which, in some cases may mean voting age) he is responsible to know the difference between right and wrong. In the Objectivist philosophy, one has free will, that is the power to focus his mind honestly on the facts before him, or not. And, therefore, an adult should know what the rights of man are: that is, the right to live his life according to his own judgement, without using force against anyone else (fraud being a kind of force). And, if he crosses that line, by violating those rights (which, in someone else, are the same as his own) , his whining that he meant good by it, (such as instituting a collectivist welfare state in order to "benefit the people"), should not constitute a valid excuse.
    I don't think that there is much room for questioning that Phewtin is evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mwolff 1 year, 11 months ago
    A very simplistic approach, if Biden, Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, et al is against him then perhaps he is not as evil as they are. How many foreign excursions has our government involved itself with spilling the blood of Americans in the name of "national security"? Good or evil when governments get involved in the lives of it's or other peoples, it is ALWAYS the people that bear the brunt of this and suffer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsudell 1 year, 11 months ago
    I agree with mhubb that Putin is a Patriot, even though he has stolen billions from his people; still he likes Russia and Russians. Our politicians feel that we are dumb, useless idiots, even though we have made them rich. Hopefully, their hatred for us will be their unravelling.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year, 11 months ago
    No evil is the girl my grandson married. Who in the hell slaps a 2 year old in the face. They are keeping me away from her because I promised to slap her to sleep when I get the opportunity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      that is pretty sleezy. I mean, a 2 year old. Why did she have the kid in the first place. There are some people who deserve what they get in later life from their kids whom they mistreated. Maybe karma will get her.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 1 year, 11 months ago
    A Father spanks his child... Is he evil?

    We cannot know the facts.
    We cannot know the minds of others, except for what they say.

    Let's ask a simpler question...

    Is George Soros Evil? (Hell Yes).

    he has a STATED goal of destroying the United States and controlling the world. And his actions are in alignment with those "evil" goals.

    Evil to whom? if he is Evil to the Globalists... And I think he is... I am all for it!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 1 year, 11 months ago
    I do not think him evil, he is a communist, and he is what I expect from that those of that ilk.
    Evil is sneaky, evil is when you pretend to be so kind and helpful, and then stab people in the back.
    Bidden is evil, Hunter is a parasitic opportunist, close to evil.
    The question is, if one preteands to be doing theings for the climate and for he people, but is self serving and knows he is killing people by designg, that is evil. If one says, I am coming for you, evacuated, and you put children at the front to be slaughtered, is not Zeeliinskyy bordering on evil more than Putin We all know Soros is pure evil, he uses his money to buy more evil.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      If it werent for Zelinsky, Ukraine was just be stolen and persecuted by Putin for Putin's own ego. It would be another soviet russia state, which isnt good at all. No wonder so many people tried to escape soviet russia. It was a hell hole
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Stormi 1 year, 11 months ago
        Were it not for Soros money and string pulling, and Obama interference, Zelenskyy would not be anything but an actor. Now he is using a script writer to play out leader. He has limited access to any but his views. Sounds like what the US is becoming. We cannot say we do not have a hellhole here, with ever increasing laws and loss of rights, with starvation on the table via seizure of farmland for CO2 collectors, with mandated vaccines which gov. and FDA covered up that they would earase the immune system,cause ADE. We are on the verge of losing this country, and Biden wants Ukraine as a money source fo Hunter and himself. Hunter is seelling access to 46 biolabs to a Calif. company. The whole goal is extermination of the masses, globally. So, since much of it is coming from US, and they hve controlled Ukraine, with Soros, it is hard to call Putin any more evil than Biden. Soros and Biden are the ones wnating one world govrnment in hands of UN.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
          Unfortunately, what you say is pretty much right on. We cant trust any of the politicians really. They have hidden agendas that benefit themselves.
          Biden wants to destroy the USA. Unfortunately he has no clue how it got as great as it is
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 11 months ago
        There is no credible evidence that supports the assertion that Zelensky is why russia hasn't "stolen" Ukraine, and some to indicate he may be a big reason why this is currently going on.

        While many don't want to admit it, because Putin says it, NATO is a big part of this. The other big part is that, since the mid-90s, the US has been bent on establish a "liberal world order." We've fomented and supported "revolutions" in that part of the world for "the sake of democracy" to that end. Anyone paying attention can see it - you don't need to accept Putin's assertion of it. Hell, even one of Biden's recent "gaffes" references it.

        Like him or not, Putin has reason to be concerned that more west-dependent "democracies" on his border the more the odds we go after him. And look at the reaction we've had in the last few weeks - essentially proving his point. The U.S. created the situation in Ukraine, we started it in 2014 or so. Now we're using to call-but-not-call-for regime change in Russia. Exactly what Putin talked about over the past many years - and exactly what Russia going back to Soviet Union era was concerned about.

        The Donbass region has been seeking autonomy, Zelensky refuses to allow it, and has continued the use of military force in that many-years old war. So what if they are "backed" by Russia? The America Revolution had us getting backing from France.

        I've seen footage, from people I trust, of Ukrainian military forces embedding themselves among civilians, essentially trying to use them as human shields. Some might call that evil.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
          so why doesnt putin stop invading, and zelenski hold elections and let the different areas be independent or be part of ukraine or part of russia. why fight over this if the people there dont want it.
          Politicians are all evil, with hidden agendas for power and wealth. Sorry, but its the way I think about them. Putin is certainly no better. He just wants power and money too, and will use the russian military to get it for him. I dont know much about zelinski, other than he looks a bit too slick to be real. I mean from the pictures, how could you NOT like him. He should allow free elections. NATO denied him admission anyway, so thats not an issue.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 11 months ago
            "so why doesnt putin stop invading, and zelenski hold elections and let the different areas be independent or be part of ukraine or part of russia. "

            Possibly because Zelenski was literally given that option and refused. And because, as I've been saying from the jump, Putin isn't trying to conquer Ukraine. Zelenski was also offered, in concert with Germany and the US, a way out before the invasion: publicly they'd "leave the door open" to NATO admission but Zelenski wouldn't pursue it and would agree in private that NATO would never let them join. He refused the deal.

            "why fight over this if the people there dont want it."

            Ask Zelensky. While he inherited the Ukraine/Donbas war, he kept waging it and still does to this day. A little over a year ago the shelling of Donbass cities and villages ramped up, even targeting places the international aid conveys were to go through - thus blocking aid to the people. The people of the Donbass want independence from both Russia and Ukraine's government.

            Yet Zelensky won't let them have it.

            Neither side of that war is anywhere near "pristine" in their prosecution of it. Both sides are hiding in civilian populations, both sides target civilian areas, both sides are committing "war crimes." This really isn't surprising when you consider they both descend from the same military ideology.

            Much of the current escalation over Donbas can be traced to 2018 when Ukraine passed a law mandating they regain control over the two declared independent states that basically make up Donbas (yes, there are two of them). That aspect is a key factor glossed over in this crapshoot: the two declared independent states have insisted on remaining independent - NOT being integrated into Russia.

            Over 13k have died in that war, and over a million displaced - with over half a million seeking refuge in Russia. He also made it a crime to disagree with official line on Donbas. Starting at around the same time last year he and his administration started banning stations that were even slightly perceived as "pro-Russian" - under the guise of (wait for it) misinformation, propaganda, and national security.

            The somewhat ironic part of Zelenski refusing to hold referendums in Donbas on the subject is that most polling indicates a majority (small to moderate depending on poll and timing) want to remain part of Ukraine. While I don't put much stock in polls overall, and especially in such a contested zone, it begs the question as to why not hold it if the polls indicate it would go your way?

            So ask all of your questions on that of Zelenski as well. I'd almost expect that is the more interesting question. Perhaps because an attempt at doing so was made, and it went in favor of self-governance. Every government that favored the outcome accepted it, and those that did not rejected it as invalid.

            Then in Misk II, these regions would reintegrate into Ukraine after Ukraine and Ukraine would let them mostly self-govern. then it gets stickier with both sides holding votes and elections and claiming them to be for Minsk II and the other side rejecting them.

            Frankly, I don't think anything resembling elections or referendums or even votes would have, or would now, make a difference. The history of it there just doesn't support it. With both sides essentially being rather despotic governments hell-bent on criminalizing dissent, is that particularly surprising? Not to me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
              Given that its apparent that Ukraine is pretty crooked all around, its looking like both Zelinsky AND Putin want to get whatever riches are in Ukraine for their own (and their friends) benefit- regardless of what happens to the people of Ukraine.

              I do think that essentially none of the people WANT to be run by Russia, but a lot dont want to be run by Ukraine either. I dont like the idea of Russia bombing the hell out of another country and invading it, so I would be against Russia winning this "war". Maybe the best solution would be for Ukraine to have its own civil war and just figure it out themselves- leaving Russia out of it. Probably not going to happen though. Russia is into taking over whatever it can get, as they have always done.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 year, 11 months ago
      There certainly is a LOT of evil out there, and I think that all of us have done "evil" things at one time or another. There is a line on which a person would stand- good on one end and evil on the other. Where you stand is determined by how much you lean towards to the good end relative to the evil end.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 11 months ago
    To understand what Putin is trying to accomplish, this Caspian Report video gives a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkrLU...

    Perspective involves historic paranoia among the Russian people, who've been overrun numerous times. Putin believes he is seeking to save his people from a future calamity and the collapse of the Russian heartland. We can, from our subjective view, declare his actions as "evil," from the many lives lost in pursuit of his goals, but objectively we can understand his thinking, and why it's a risk he's willing to take to save his people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 11 months ago
      I think one of Putin's objectives is to secure Ukrainian fossil fuel, and ensure European dependency on Russia. One can argue this is for mother Russia, but I think it is for his cabal of subordinate oligarchs.

      It really is ironic, that Russia is precisely what the bolshevik revolution sought to destroy. Too much power in government ALWAYS leads to oligarchy and totalitarianism. We are headed in exactly the same direction.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo