heybruce

Right, Biden works with Congress to get things done domestically and works with allies to make the world better. That's so boring. Trump is a real life jackass in front on the world stage. Now that's entertainment.

Don't tell them about Thailand's defamation laws, they'll want to adopt them.

I'm firmly on the "biology matters" side on this one: Only women who were born women, with real female bodies, should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I don't care if this upsets people who were born as men but identify as women; going through adolescence as a male gives a person an unfair advantage in size and strength over biological women. Allowing trans-women to compete against other women also opens up a new avenue for cheating; it provides an incentive for someone who is flexible regarding sexuality to claim they identify as a woman. There are some win-at-all-cost competitors who will do this; after all there have been many athletes who eagerly take steroids without regard to the long-term consequences for their health in order to get a competitive edge. Wearing a skirt for a bigger advantage will prove to be too much of a temptation for some.

Two problems with your post: 1. Tucker Carlson does not host a news program. Among entertainment television programs Tucker Carlson is far from the top. 2. Tucker Carlson doesn't report the truth. He is a liar. He admits it and his boss and the courts know it. Anyone who thinks he is being informed by watching Tucker Carlson is living in fantasy land.

"Which specific "ad" is this referring to?" Apparently all of them scheduled to run on Fox network available to Murdoch. "Why would Murdoch have confidential material from the biden team?" Because Presidential candidates advertise on every network. Try reading the full article: "It alleged, through depositions, internal texts and emails, that Fox Corporation chairman Mr Murdoch had provided Donald Trump’s son-in-law advance knowledge of the then-Democratic presidential candidate’s advertisements and debate preparations." “During Trump's campaign, Rupert provided Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, with Fox confidential information about Biden’s ads, along with debate strategy (providing Kushner a preview of Biden’s ads before they were public),” according to Dominion’s filing."

"Remember how the MSM ridiculed and ostracized anyone who dared put this theory forward?" No. Can you give examples? Not pundits or comedians (it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two) but actual journalists and the experts they interviewed?

If you do an internet search on "Murdoch testimony election" you will get a lot of news links that say pretty much the same thing as the CNN story. For example: https://news.yahoo.com/murdoch-testified-fox-commentators-endorsed-222614792.html https://news.yahoo.com/dominion-fox-filings-expected-defamation-210521102.html https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rupert-murdoch-admits-fox-news-hosts-endorsed-false-election-fraud-cla-rcna72436

The "low confidence" conclusion from the DOE isn't the end of the debate. "“Some elements of the intelligence community have reached conclusions on one side, some on the other. A number of them have said they just don’t have enough information to be sure.” So where does that leave us? Not far from where we started." https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/covid-origins-doe-assessment-what-matters/index.html

I bet Kyiv's first concern is keeping infrastructure functional, and tree branches that threaten power lines are a threat to infrastructure.

"Why stop there?" Seriously? You don't know? Attacking legitimate military targets in Russia before the targets' assets (whatever they might be) could be used to attack Ukraine is legal response in kind. It's also essential for Ukraine to win without having to outlast a devastating war of attrition.

Right. We'll put you with those who want to give Ukraine offensive weapons and take the fight to Russia. Welcome to the club. I agree that the US and the rest of NATO are being too cautious in their support. Ukraine should be given longer range artillery and the option of striking legitimate military targets in Russia before these targets further support attacks on Ukraine.

I always try to be skeptical, which is why I take the reports from Ukrainian news services with a grain of salt, and completely disregard Russia Today. However when credible news services that aren't under the thumb of their governments (and frequently criticize their governments without consequences) agree that there is an actual war going on, I have no trouble believing it. Why is it amusing that Kiev went five days without being bombed?

The pictures aren't clear enough to tell where power lines are. Regardless, there are many reasons to trim trees in cities.

More likely someone has been trimming the trees to keep the branches away from the power lines in the pictures.

If you won't accept all the reports, videos, and pictures of combat, casualties and devastated cities then you'll have to go to Ukraine to see for yourself. Have a nice trip.

Well put, and very true.

Hey, there really was election fraud, but on the Republican side. Funny how it keeps turning out that way.

For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china Don't let the title fool you, China rejected the international legal ruling.

I live in the real world. See my post above. Provide your own sources if you can. I'm sure they'll be as nonsensical as pegman's.

It was a simple request: Show sources showing that the US was responsible for the 2014 revolt in Ukraine. I closed by stating that I was confident you wouldn't. You confirmed my confidence. Nothing in your two links shows any involvement in those events. I'm not sure if your second source even mentions Ukraine. Do you even read the sources you provide? Or do you post anything and assume that no one will read them?

Every time someone posts nonsense stating that the US is responsible for the revolt in 2014 I ask for credible sources. None has ever been provided. I'm confident you won't provide any either.

So what? Does that make Putin's empire building war of conquest acceptable? Ukraine is a distinct nation with internationally recognized borders and its own language, culture and history. Ukraine doesn't want to be under Russia's thumb and shouldn't be forced to be there.

My goalposts are shifting? I gave credible sources showing that up until two weeks and less before the invasion Zelensky and western leaders were skeptical about Biden's insistence that Russia was planning to invade. However the Russian build-up and warnings were sufficient to cause Ukraine to take some precautions which succeeded in thwarting the initial shock tactics Russia tried to use. I could have given sources showing the warnings started months in advance, but that would not have changed the truth of my statement: Biden warned Ukraine and the world of Russia's plans to invade. What was particularly brilliant was Biden's use of carefully selected declassified information. Briefings to small numbers of people behind closed doors don't get the world's attention, international news releases do. These warnings and press releases also made the US's commitment to support Ukraine and oppose Russia clear to the world, which made it easier for other western countries to do the same. Clearly you don't want to give Biden the credit he is due for preparing Ukraine and the world for Russia's empire building war. However the sourced facts speak for themselves. Why don't you try finding a few that support your contention that Biden's warnings were unnecessary and the invasion everyone was in denial about was actually anticipated by everyone.

Kevin McCarthy ignores the security concerns of the Capitol Police and gives 40,000 hours of security video to a confessed liar, and you think that's a good way to get at the truth? I'm at a loss for comments that stay within forum rules.

Yeah, why didn't Trump do something about that? You know, renegotiate or back out of his peace deal? Did you notice your source is dated March 2, 2020, when Trump still had almost a year left in office?