candide

Creative post! About Rachel Maddow, what she said was not accurate but it did not have negative consequences. Unlike Fox News and right-wing outlets anti-vaccine rant which caused an excessive amount of deaths among Trump voters.

Whatever the Jan.6 protesters' motivation, they did it! And the BLM protests did not aim at blocking or overturning the certification of elections, including local elections.

Lame deflection

More precisely in an attempt to block an official process of certification by the congress. Which they actually succeeded to do for a few hours.

Lol! Using imaginary situations as arguments! An interesting coincidence: while they were assaulting the Capitol, instead of asking them to stop it, Trump was calling congressmen to persuade them to block the certification.

It's because they have no other arguments tha this false equivalence.

Lol! Your imaginary irregularities have been debunked by recounts and audits, including by GOP partisan audits. You have nothing.

Who's ignorant of facts and is buying Putin's propaganda,? There are no NATO nukes at Russia's doorstep except Turkey and it dates from the cold War time (and is not really at doorstep). Russia did not respect the Minsk treaties, as another poster showed.

Debate is certainly absent in Russia because all media are censored and muzzled. Apart from state propaganda outlets such as RT, no one is forbidden to debate about it in Western countries. A few leaders, such as Macron have tried the diplomacy card with Russia. How did it work?

Ok, he is authorised to declassify only what he has classified, unless given a specific authorisation. What's the point in relation to the post I replied to?

Why see it? We already know Putin's propaganda from previous speeches (the denazification B.S., the U.S. is responsible for the war, etc..). On top of it, Russian propaganda has also been diffused to right-wing outlets, and this forum has been saturated by MAGA posts parroting this propaganda.

Putin is certainly not laughing at Biden since he decided to help Ukraine and gather other NATO members. Putin is certainly laughing because his pal Trump and MAGAs are de facto helping him. He was at least partially right when he assessed, after the Jan.6 riot, that the U.S. was politically too divided to oppose him, and therefore decided to invade Ukraine.

Not tired of posting the same debunked B.S. over and over? Biden was allowed to classify documents as VP. "Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President;" https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information And Trump (and Biden) had no right to keep them after the end of their mandate

Well, he tried to adapt to changing situations. I remember Trump was angry when he increased rates. During his interview, he acknowledged he did not anticipate the surge of inflation and reacted too late by increasing rates, also explaining why. Anyway, how do you analyse his explanations about the causes of inflation and about a low risk of recession this year?

It's not going to happen.

So, according to your arguments, Putin must be happy the bill did not pass.

Trump's lawyers asking a judge to hurry up! That's unusual!

You should read Powell's interview, in particular what he said about the causes of inflation, the odds of a crisis occurring this year, and the impact of the Chinese crisis. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/full-transcript-fed-chair-jerome-powell-60-minutes-interview-economy/

That was just the usual MAGA m.o. When facts contradict their claims, they make up a conspiracy theory.

I can imagine the poll question: "Tovaritcht, you approve Putin, right?" 😀

If China would invade another country, it wouldn't "suck the air"?

That was in 2018. The situation is different after the Ukraine war, which raises more challenging questions. You know like " why do you bomb civilians?" ( I doubt Carlson asked this one).

A speech is not an interview, as the content is controlled. And an interview by a non-complicit interviewer who ask critical questions is not the same as with someone like Carlson.

The interesting part is not that he interviews Putin, it's that Putin unusually accepted to be interviewed by a Western journalist.

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Evoke crises when it suits you and ignore them when it doesn't.