Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This entire discussion of whether Putin would have or would not have done something under Trump is speculative idiocy, as is speculation about nuclear war vis a vis Russia.

The fact is that Biden has a decades long history of really bad views on foreign policy, and is totally incompetent and unable, mentally,  to serve in the office he holds, which happens to be the most powerful in history.

We need to get through this seven months, but it doesn't look good.  

 

Either way, anybody who defends his mental capacity is clearly a moron.

Posted
44 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It doesn't. Maybe he wasn't ready. You have any proof at all Putin consider Trump hostile in that regards? Trump praised the invasion

 

Tell us why Putin didn't invade under Trump. Explain the reasoning. You have not. Putin was afraid of Trump? Putin loves Trump and didn't want to make him uncomfortable? Something else?

 

You know why he didn't invade under Trump.  You just can't bring yourself to say it.

 

37 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Timing was based on the situation in Ukraine not the US.

 

What "situation" was that? 

Posted
1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

You know why he didn't invade under Trump.  You just can't bring yourself to say it.

 

 

I can't? You are saying it's so, but won't say why. Let's hear (read) it! 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I can't? You are saying it's so, but won't say why. Let's hear (read) it! 

 

Yes, why I believe he didn't attack under Trump is a complete mystery...

Posted
4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes, why I believe he didn't attack under Trump is a complete mystery...

Still no answer 🤷🏼‍♂️

Posted
3 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Zelensky.   Zelensky made it clear he wasn't going to play ball with Russia,  Putin invaded.  

 

Poroshenko played ball with Russia and he invaded in 2014.  Zelensky was elected in May of 2019 and was a newb.  If Trump was Putin's puppet, it would have been the perfect time to invade anytime from the beginning of 2017 to at least the middle of 2019.

Posted
On 6/15/2024 at 2:12 PM, sherpa said:

This entire discussion of whether Putin would have or would not have done something under Trump is speculative idiocy, as is speculation about nuclear war vis a vis Russia.

The fact is that Biden has a decades long history of really bad views on foreign policy, and is totally incompetent and unable, mentally,  to serve in the office he holds, which happens to be the most powerful in history.

We need to get through this seven months, but it doesn't look good.  

 

Either way, anybody who defends his mental capacity is clearly a moron.

Probably 4 years and 7 months.  The other option couldn't tell the difference between Ukraine and Tajikistan.   Both options are embarrassing. 

Posted

So dumb 

 

 

On 6/15/2024 at 2:12 PM, sherpa said:

This entire discussion of whether Putin would have or would not have done something under Trump is speculative idiocy, as is speculation about nuclear war vis a vis Russia.

The fact is that Biden has a decades long history of really bad views on foreign policy, and is totally incompetent and unable, mentally,  to serve in the office he holds, which happens to be the most powerful in history.

We need to get through this seven months, but it doesn't look good.  

 

Either way, anybody who defends his mental capacity is clearly a moron.

And what? Have Trump save the day? 🤡

 

You really think Biden is the one who is incompetent? :doh:

Posted
30 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So dumb 

 

 

And what? Have Trump save the day? 🤡

 

You really think Biden is the one who is incompetent? :doh:

 

Are you completely incompetent regarding claiming what other's think?

 

I never said a thing about Trump, and I certainly don't view him as an answer.

 

The point is that Biden is diminished to the point of serious concern, and there is no doubt.

 

That emboldens adversaries.

 

That is my point, and resist your undisciplined urges to state what others think.   

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Uh-huh.

 

 

Linked? Azov are Nazis. There's some history here dating to WW2 collaboration with Hitler's SS and genocide.

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

Yeah but they're "over there" Nazis.  Just like Palestinians and ME Muslims are "over there" people who hate women and LGB.  And therefore it's fine with the Dems.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Doc said:

Yeah but they're "over there" Nazis.  Just like Palestinians and ME Muslims are "over there" people who hate women and LGB.  And therefore it's fine with the Dems.

Exactly. Political activists and ideologists view the ability to see the world objectively as dangerous and counter productive.  Objectivity is the enemy of leftist ideologists. The only goal is winning and advancing the cause. So subjectivity is employed. So yeah Nazis or Islamic terrorists are bad but if supporting them helps advance the cause they can hold their noses and support them and make up some good sounding rationale. Just don't examine the reasoning too closely for inconsistences and fibs. And as you say, over there but not here.

Posted
On 6/17/2024 at 8:26 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Linked? Azov are Nazis. There's some history here dating to WW2 collaboration with Hitler's SS and genocide.

Incorrect but you'll take any chance you can to disparage Zelensky or Ukraine.   You ceased thinking critically on this topic long ago.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
6 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Incorrect but you'll take any chance you can to disparage Zelensky or Ukraine.   You ceased thinking critically on this topic long ago.

So Azov militia members, and other Nazi characters, sporting Nazi symbols and insignia are just making a fashion statement? And documented historical collaboration with the SS and Hitler is a type of disinformation? You're way too investing in a positive outcome here that looks less and less likely to be objective.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Eyeroll 1
×
×
  • Create New...