Is this the real reason why the Far Right distrusts the Government?

Try this. Pelosi just told us that the impeachment is not about Ukraine. It's about Russia and Trump policies that help Russia.

So, let's rewind to 2005:
In 2005 Obama Pushed To Disarm Ukraine

Posted on March 4, 2014 by Paul

The Lonely Conservative


Via Jim Geraghty here’s a 2005 press release from Senator Richard Lugar on disarming Ukraine.


DONETSK, Ukraine – U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) called for the immediate destruction of 15,000 tons of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and light weapons, and 1,000 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) or shoulder missile launchers that are often sought by terrorists.


Lugar and Obama toured the Donetsk State Chemical Production Plant, a conventional weapons destruction facility where the U.S. has taken the lead in a three-year NATO program to destroy the weapons. Another 117,000 tons of ammunition and 1.1 million small arms and light weapons are slated for destruction within 12 years.


So far, the U.S. has contributed $2.1 million to the project, and Austria, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have contributed $1.2 million.


While the destruction is ready to begin, the Ukrainian Rada (parliament) first must pass a law exempting the foreign assistance from taxation. Lugar and Obama discussed this issue with Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko and President Viktor Yushchenko in meetings yesterday. All three leaders indicated they would promote action before the March 2006 parliamentary elections.

https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/in-2005-obama-pushed-to-disarm-ukraine/78591

February 2014 Putin rolls into disarmed Crimea and annexes it ,,, with Obama not lifting a finger.

How did this happen? Let's look at what Poroshenko said to Congress:

Published September 18, 2014
Ukrainian president pleads with US for military aid, tells Congress 'blankets' not enough

WASHINGTON – President Obama and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko met in the White House Thursday to discuss America's role in the escalating crisis in Ukraine.

Earlier in the day, the new leader of the embattled former Soviet republic pleaded for U.S. military aid in a high-profile address to Congress, saying that while nonlethal aid like blankets and night-vision goggles is important, "one cannot win the war with blankets.”

To the backdrop of Poroshenko's pointed remarks, the Obama administration announced $46 million in new security assistance to Ukraine's military. The package, though, stops short of fulfilling the urgent request from Poroshenko for lethal aid to help his country fight against Russian-backed separatists.

“You have a strong friend not only in me personally but as you saw in Congress, have strong bipartisan support,” Obama said following the meeting. “The people of America stand with the people of Ukraine.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/uk...litary-aid-tells-congress-blankets-not-enough

This after Obama disarmed Ukraine under the lie that we would defend them, then watched as Putin rolled in.

Pelosi and geniuses attack Trump for helping Russia despite the fact that Trump gave Ukraine the first counter measures to defend against Russian tanks, javelin missiles.

 

I think we first need to define what "totalitarianism" is ? Is it Hitler - mass atrocities - Stalin ? Or is it the feudal system during the middle ages ? or is it the China that exists now - or something different ?

I argue that our current system is a much different form - most similar to the feudal system than the others mentioned.. a form of Capitalist totalitarianism that we have not yet encountered and is dangerous for this reason .. since it is not like the others.

We can measure totalitarianism in different ways erosion of rights - in particular with respect to ownership of private property - and economic rights - is a big one. A fair and free press is another along with a fair and free electoral process.

A judicial system that respects the rule of law - constitution and founding principles that are supposed to dictate how law and the constitution are to be interpreted.

Increase in Gov't power - lack of transparency - are other measures.

Freedom from extortion via healthcare is another I would add to the list - somewhat more controversial perhaps but - I make a good case.

In all of the above the canaries in the coal mine of totalitarianism are screeching. We just don't see anyone rounding up "en masse" those who do not conform - because they hold ideas or beliefs the state does not tolerate. There is no need to do this when you can make examples out of a few troublemakers to set an example to keep the raging masses in check.

 

Totalitarianism is simply an all powerful government dictating everything a person is allowed to do or prohibited from doing, a government that unilaterally decides and enforces everything that happens... big and small, though if it is a growing system from non-totalitarianism it usually starts with a myriad of small things. Your description is pretty good.

 

Your definition of "totalitarianism" is a black and white one. While it is not an incorrect definition - it does not help us with anything that is in between. Not sure what to call it "totalitarianism lite" perhaps.

We have a powerful gov't that dictates everything a person is allowed to do or prohibited from doing - It is just not run by some dictator.

What we have is a pay to play system - where big money interests can control things - kind of like feudal lords but with not as much power.

 

How would you describe Russia then?

It is a dictatorship but doesn't fit many of those parameters

 

Either way you slice it or dice it - the US was not going to war with Russia over Crimea - and if you want to start arming nations that border Russia - with sophisticated military equipment - The be prepared for Russia to start arming folks that we might not want armed - with sophisticated military equipment .. Like Hezbollah or - Iran - or Serbia - where we set precedent by annexing territory from Serbia - or how about the Taliban .. heck we armed them against Russia - is whats good for the goose not good for the gander ?

 

Russia is totalitarian but it did not progress from non-totalitarian. Many totalitarian governments are dictatorships but that is not necessary.

 

Idiotic. Simplistic. Childish.