Russian Oligarchs - Lets get em

See your use of the word "vilifies" betrays you as not being the moderate you think you are.
Some may not value wealth as much as others. That is not vilifying wealth. That is a perfectly acceptable life choice you are free to agree or disagree with without attaching labels which cover a vast array of issues.
Hence the insecure generalisation.
The rest is just provocation best ignored.

 

Aren't the wealthy elites leftist now?

 

Depends how one defines wealthy elites I suppose.

 

I dont recall labeling myself as a "moderate". You are arguing against a point that was not raised. That is a textbook definition of a strawman argument.

Insecure? Huh? Saying whether a particular position is from the left or right is "insecure"? This has gotten downright bizarre. The use of the word villify betrays someone's political positioning?

Bizarre indeed. These nonsensical declarations are best ignored I suppose.

 

Well, what seemed to happen is that increasingly wealthy people started adopting leftist values. Then wealthy people, once beloved by the right, naturally became selfish elites, and possibly cannibalistic pedophiles - with lasers.

 

Wealthy tech titans are overwhelmingly Liberal. Wealthy Oil barons are overwhelmingly Conservative.

Heads of wealthy corporations adopt positions that help their companies such as Nike being ultra liberal in order to avoid being targeted because of their use of child labor and sweatshops abroad.

It all depends upon whom and what you are speaking.

 

I still can't quite work out if the heads of Nike etc. are pretending to be liberal, or they actually are liberal.

 

i agree, but not for your reasoning. Sanctions on countries have a bad habit of only really hurting the lower classes. That can work fine if it causes rebellion, but we haven’t seen that from NKorea or Iran, and their upper class lives as luxuriously as ever while their people suffer. Going after the rich elite is far more dangerous to the dictators of the world.

just saw a story about a Russian oligarch putting a 1 million dollar bounty on Putins head. Not sure how credible it is but that’s the kind of direction I like.

 

I agree. Hard to say. I think it is likely that a lot of billionaires claim to be liberal so that they do not get attacked for being the "evil rich", and declaring themselves as liberal is the path of least resistance. They certainly did not become billionaires because of their "you didnt build that" ideals.

 

I agree with that as well.. Sanctions will hurt the nations implementing them... The story is 100% fake -- would you put a bounty on Putin's head -- and publicize it ? Serious death wish that fellow has.. better never set foot .. well .. anywhere in public again .. never mind see your family in Russia..

The problems are numerous .. so . next time US goes to war . or is involved in a war .. invading another nation .. we go after the US Oligarchs ? I mean .. I like the idea .. but you and I both know that is not going to happen willingly .. Serious Rule of Law issues ..

And what is to stop Russia from Retaliating .. siezing the "Ships" from other nations .. might be a Yacht .. why not make it a cargo ship..

Then what ? . Or ... When we get down to investigating the war crimes - crimes against humanity conducted in Syria .. 100's of times worse than Ukraine ... will we make the Oligarchs that run our military industrial complex -- and everything else -- Pay ?

How about Israel .. Boy .. got some big time Oligarchs to fry ..

 

To the OP’s Q.

It depends on how they acquired the wealth and what they’re doing with it. With Russia we’ve got to go back to the fall of the USSR and the reformation: unfettered capitalism. The worst environment for capitalism.

Plus we need to take into account that money laundering is the world’s biggest “business”.

Then we’ve got figure out how we created that corrupt environment and allowed it to flourish.

IMO we need to start the cleanup at home but I suppose you’ve got to start somewhere.
So yeah, investigate and seize where appropriate.

It should give everyone pause if we already know what is illicit and who is participating and just now are acting.

 

There is a term in international law. It's called Piracy. And generally, it's illegal, in almost every (hard to know about Somalia and Eretrea) every country around the world. It's also called an act of war by a lot of folks. Brandon should be super careful as this isn't really any different than enforcing a no fly zone. And frankly LOTS of these very expensive personal yachts are equipped with all kinds of defensive systems, surface to air missiles, etc. In many ways, these are naval ships with armaments, not pleasure craft for easy pickings.

And what happens if Russia decides that Bill Gates, or Jeff Bezos''s toys are fair game? The saudi royalty? Pick an oil emire's private boat.

Why doesn't Brandon just stop buying Russian oil already?

 

No kidding .. This just seem crazily escalatory.. massive violating of international law as you say.. and every Rule of Law on the Book .. principles of Justice up the yang .. Hypocrisy beyond the pale .. "Do as we say - not as we Do" gone way too far.. and yes .. these are totally acts of War.. i will be surprised if there is not some kind of retaliation ... and the plot will then thicken ... hopefully we get to some resolution quickly .. as this could easily spiral out of control.

 

Huh? They aren't going to be seized in the open sea. More likely while docked.

Taras Ostapchuk was on a break from his job as a yacht mechanic Saturday when he pulled up a news report on his cellphone. Watching footage of a Russian missile striking an apartment building in Kyiv, the 55-year-old Ukrainian was devastated. Then he became angry because, by his account, the weapon may have been supplied by his boss.

The owner of the yacht he worked on — the $7 million Lady Anastasia, docked at the luxe Port Adriano on the Spanish island of Mallorca — is a Russian arms tycoon, he told authorities and reporters. The Washington Post was unable to confirm the yacht’s ownership Monday. Ostapchuk decided to seek vengeance for his country — and sink the yacht.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/28/russian-yacht-sinking-ukraine/

 

Yes they did .. This trope on the right that these Billionaires had no help from things provided by Gov't - including favorable regulation and tax law- Security - infrastructure .. and so on. .. is pure nonsense.

 

I think this is more about turning these oligarchs against Putin. We're not going to engage Russia militarily unless they attack us our one of our NATO allies. The best chance we have of getting rid of Putin is to turn his inner circle against him.

 

Then if you don't know, how can you generalise the ridiculous position that the left "vilifies" them?

 

Of course not knowing where a political position comes from the left or the right is an insecure proposition that further undermines any generalisations you want to try to add to your quiver of bipartisan barbs

 

I am not so sure that the right denies that every single citizen in this country gets benefit from roads, infrastructure, regulations etc. In fact it is undeniable that every person in this world has arrived at their current position as a result of an almost endless line of aspects that have influenced their life for both the good and the bad. You putting those words into the mouth of the right is about as disingenuous as it gets.

Rather, the rights position is that this smarmy trope is nothing more than the left trying to bogusly justify why the government deserves more and more of the fruits of their success. Of course Tom Brady would not be Tom Brady without a long line of coaches and available facilities for him to learn his craft. That does not mean that his middle school coach deserves a byline in Tom Brady's epitaph. Of course Stephen Hawking has a long line of teachers that helped him become a legendary theoretical physicist, but none of them deserve a byline in his epitaph, unless perhaps there was one in particular that changed the course of his life. He most certaily does not have to credit his first grade teacher who was nothing other than just a competent elementary educator.

Similarly, a highly successful person or corporation does not owe a byline to the roads when attributing the factors of their success. Yes the roads are an obvious factor, no it is not worth noting.

The right is not denying that other factors do not exist in everyone's life, rather they scoff at the notion that those countless factors deserve a byline that necessitates that everyone deserves to share even more in their success. The right finds the diminishment of success to the trope " you didnt build that" as nonsensical. To claim as you did that the right denies that roads help their business is simply untrue.

 

When the left villifies the wealthy for what they call not paying their fair share, they are not delineating between liberal and conservative wealthy. They are giving a blanket villification of the wealthy for not paying their fair share. They do not all of a sudden excuse away Bill Gates just because he is a Liberal. The left does not discriminate in their villification of great successm and the subsequent implication that their wealth is making others poor.

 

You needed a second reply to the same post?

This has gone way past the point of being silly. I have made my point and am more than happy to let the reader decide for themselves whom did, and whom did not prove their point.

I think it is probably high time for you to stop humping my leg.

 

I don't think anyone except the fringe left "vilifies " wealthy or the wealthy, unless it is ill gotten, a product of a closed social circle or selfishly retained.
Wealth is often inherited or hidden or illegally found. It is this which even the right should object to.

 

I am more than happy to let my prior argument stand. I see no need to keep proving my point. Redundancy is a waste of time.

 

Is this another generalisation? Or a lack of a credible answer?
The idea that you can "hump" all those YOU decide are of the left all do and think the same thing is facile and unsupportable.

 

It is precisely what I said it is. I have made my point and am more than happy to let the reader decide for themselves whom did, and whom did not prove their point.

Is there something in those words that you do not understand their meaning?