You write "As for the comment, I want to reiterate that I genuinely do agree with the “mainstream” Democratic position on most issues. This isn’t because I’m a shill for the party — it’s because I’m a political moderate and am not embarrassed in the slightest to admit it."
You want everyone to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "not being a shill" for the Democratic Party, although you and others on this site refuse to give such a benefit for anyone who opposes your views. I can submit examples of writers on this site accusing people of being paid by Russia and/or other power centers without any evidence of such payments. How can you expect us to believe you on this point?
I can only speak for myself here. I don't generally accuse people of being paid by Russia because I believe in being very cautious about that sort of thing. That being said, it is fair to ask questions if someone's political views dovetail neatly with Vladimir Putin's (and they get paid to write them). I don't generally mind if people think I'm a shill. You're free to ask/accuse, and I'll always give the same answer. I don't actually agree with a lot of things the DNC does, I just don't think they are particularly important issues.
I read/listen to The Banter regularly and haven't seen "examples of writers (plural) accusing people of being paid by Russia..." so I think I'm your only huckleberry. What I wrote was "Even if Taibbi, Greenwald, MTG et al aren't (are NOT) receiving direct payments from Putin, I can't help but think there's some sweet chalet waiting for them outside St. Petersburg." Pure conjecture on my part based on my observations- not evidence. Your reply to my post was "Some people just don't want to see WW3 and believe that current US policies are making it more likely." I'm with you on the first part of that sentence but the world's democracies are trying to help another of their own defend against a megalomaniac. Remember Neville Chamberlain?
Listen to the last minute of the emergency meeting posted of Feb 26 and you will hear multiple accusations of MTG and Tucker Carlson taking payoffs from Russia.
As far as Democracies helping each other defend themselves against a megalomaniac. I don’t see very much evidence that shows Putin wants to do more than insure Russia’s security. I’m not saying that he is justified. The US has done worse things in the name of national security. Ask Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq what they think of the “rules based world order”. And ask Libya what they think of NATO as a “purely defensive alliance”.
It’s impressive, BTW, that within a single paragraph you can both excuse Putin’s invasion because it somehow improves his national security, and then condemn America for actions it has taken in the name of “national security”.
 Your “Russia’s actions good, America’s actions bad“ when looking at actions you’re suggesting are comparable just makes your troll-hood obvious.
You’re being disingenuous. You’re trying to imply it’s OK that Putin invaded Ukraine because he had concerns. And now, called on that BS, you’re trying to backpedal.
I’m not concerned with who is OK or not. I want to see an end to this war so it does not escalate into a nuclear conflict. I don’t believe Ukraine can push Russia out without NATO troops getting involved and such a scenario threatens all of civilization. It seems that you and i have very different views on this and such a discussion cannot be had on a comment thread. Our points cannot be explained well enough and it just devolves into name calling. I have no animosity towards you. I understand that you sees things differently. There is a lot of propaganda on all sides so it is hard to really know what’s going on.
How, exactly, has Putin’s invasion of Ukraine insure Russia’s security?
Is decimating his own army resulting in an improvement in Russia’s security? Is targeting civilians and becoming a pariah to the world somehow improving Russia security? Just taking actions that result in massive economic sanctions against Russia somehow improving Russia’s security?
I was starting a war against a country that was not presenting any kind of threat to him, turning, bordering state into an enemy, an improvement to Russia’s security?
If you don’t know Russia’s security concerns concerning Ukraine, I’m not going to waste my time. One thing they have stated: NATO membership for Ukraine is considered a red line by Russia. NATO would not rule out such membership.
 So Ukraine  potentially becoming a member of NATO was a security concern for Russia? And Putin‘s plan for dealing with that was to invade Ukraine and demonstrate to every member nation of NATO why they have the alliance and how strong they need to keep it?
Your comments are very simplistic and seem to show that you have no idea what Russia has said about their reasons for invading. I’m not saying that they are justified but they did lay out reasons that have been pretty much ignored by the western press. My points about the US invasions are meant to show that all the talk of “rules based world order” are not followed by the US, so who are we to lecture anyone about such things?
Oh, don’t worry, Mike. I’ve no doubt you’re completely unaware of any legitimate security concerns Russia might have.  I wouldn’t dream of actually expecting you to have any actual facts to back up the conclusion you’ve already decided on. 
I have read plenty about Russia’s security concerns. Whether they are legitimate or not, in your eyes, is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that Russia thinks they are legitimate. But i guess if NATO says that Russia has nothing to worry about from NATO then Russia should stop worrying and just accept that Ukraine will be a member. That’s how the world always works isn’t it?
You write "As for the comment, I want to reiterate that I genuinely do agree with the “mainstream” Democratic position on most issues. This isn’t because I’m a shill for the party — it’s because I’m a political moderate and am not embarrassed in the slightest to admit it."
You want everyone to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "not being a shill" for the Democratic Party, although you and others on this site refuse to give such a benefit for anyone who opposes your views. I can submit examples of writers on this site accusing people of being paid by Russia and/or other power centers without any evidence of such payments. How can you expect us to believe you on this point?
I can only speak for myself here. I don't generally accuse people of being paid by Russia because I believe in being very cautious about that sort of thing. That being said, it is fair to ask questions if someone's political views dovetail neatly with Vladimir Putin's (and they get paid to write them). I don't generally mind if people think I'm a shill. You're free to ask/accuse, and I'll always give the same answer. I don't actually agree with a lot of things the DNC does, I just don't think they are particularly important issues.
Good, honest reply to Mike L. But I thought you didn’t engage with trolls. :-)
I read/listen to The Banter regularly and haven't seen "examples of writers (plural) accusing people of being paid by Russia..." so I think I'm your only huckleberry. What I wrote was "Even if Taibbi, Greenwald, MTG et al aren't (are NOT) receiving direct payments from Putin, I can't help but think there's some sweet chalet waiting for them outside St. Petersburg." Pure conjecture on my part based on my observations- not evidence. Your reply to my post was "Some people just don't want to see WW3 and believe that current US policies are making it more likely." I'm with you on the first part of that sentence but the world's democracies are trying to help another of their own defend against a megalomaniac. Remember Neville Chamberlain?
Listen to the last minute of the emergency meeting posted of Feb 26 and you will hear multiple accusations of MTG and Tucker Carlson taking payoffs from Russia.
As far as Democracies helping each other defend themselves against a megalomaniac. I don’t see very much evidence that shows Putin wants to do more than insure Russia’s security. I’m not saying that he is justified. The US has done worse things in the name of national security. Ask Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq what they think of the “rules based world order”. And ask Libya what they think of NATO as a “purely defensive alliance”.
It’s impressive, BTW, that within a single paragraph you can both excuse Putin’s invasion because it somehow improves his national security, and then condemn America for actions it has taken in the name of “national security”.
 Your “Russia’s actions good, America’s actions bad“ when looking at actions you’re suggesting are comparable just makes your troll-hood obvious.
Don’t you want to be more subtle about it? 
I never said that the Ukraine invasion improves Russia’s security. I said that i think Putin believes it. I never said anything about good or bad.
You’re being disingenuous. You’re trying to imply it’s OK that Putin invaded Ukraine because he had concerns. And now, called on that BS, you’re trying to backpedal.
I’m not concerned with who is OK or not. I want to see an end to this war so it does not escalate into a nuclear conflict. I don’t believe Ukraine can push Russia out without NATO troops getting involved and such a scenario threatens all of civilization. It seems that you and i have very different views on this and such a discussion cannot be had on a comment thread. Our points cannot be explained well enough and it just devolves into name calling. I have no animosity towards you. I understand that you sees things differently. There is a lot of propaganda on all sides so it is hard to really know what’s going on.
I did not excuse Putin’s invasion
Explaining why i think something happened does not necessarily mean that i agree whether it should have happened or not.
What is troll hood? Having a discussion?
How, exactly, has Putin’s invasion of Ukraine insure Russia’s security?
Is decimating his own army resulting in an improvement in Russia’s security? Is targeting civilians and becoming a pariah to the world somehow improving Russia security? Just taking actions that result in massive economic sanctions against Russia somehow improving Russia’s security?
I was starting a war against a country that was not presenting any kind of threat to him, turning, bordering state into an enemy, an improvement to Russia’s security?
If you don’t know Russia’s security concerns concerning Ukraine, I’m not going to waste my time. One thing they have stated: NATO membership for Ukraine is considered a red line by Russia. NATO would not rule out such membership.
 So Ukraine  potentially becoming a member of NATO was a security concern for Russia? And Putin‘s plan for dealing with that was to invade Ukraine and demonstrate to every member nation of NATO why they have the alliance and how strong they need to keep it?
Well, all anyone can say to that is, “Good luck.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1z6o1GIEsQE
Your comments are very simplistic and seem to show that you have no idea what Russia has said about their reasons for invading. I’m not saying that they are justified but they did lay out reasons that have been pretty much ignored by the western press. My points about the US invasions are meant to show that all the talk of “rules based world order” are not followed by the US, so who are we to lecture anyone about such things?
Oh, don’t worry, Mike. I’ve no doubt you’re completely unaware of any legitimate security concerns Russia might have.  I wouldn’t dream of actually expecting you to have any actual facts to back up the conclusion you’ve already decided on. 
I have read plenty about Russia’s security concerns. Whether they are legitimate or not, in your eyes, is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that Russia thinks they are legitimate. But i guess if NATO says that Russia has nothing to worry about from NATO then Russia should stop worrying and just accept that Ukraine will be a member. That’s how the world always works isn’t it?
I love Frayed too! Wonderful show ❤️