heybruce

You think the election was stolen, you don't think it was a fair election, but you have no evidence, just the belief that someday some irregularities might be found. Does that sum up your view? Do you think election results should be overturned because someday some irregularities might be found?

None! That's how we know it didn't happen. Seriously, do you believe the nonsense of a stolen 2020 election and that the CIA killed JFK?

No question at all. If there were evidence of an unfair election, Trump and his army of lawyers would be going nuts with it. What evidence of an unfair election is there?

Since you seem agreeable to questioning election results without evidence, why limit yourself to: "as for Trump, we will never know for sure, these things are not impossible despite what some claims here"? Question any and all election results without evidence. What better way to undermine democracy? Trump was an obviously ignorant bull-in-a-china-shop incompetent. He moved the world in a less stable, more autocracy friendly direction, but I don't see that as a good thing. Some people find him entertaining, but I don't understand why.

A peaceful smash and grab attempt on the US government.

How do we know the election wasn't stolen? Trump is famously litigious. Had there been a shred of evidence, anything that wouldn't be laughed out of court, that the election result was not legitimate his lawyers would have taken it to every court in every jurisdiction where it might have had a chance. That didn't happen. The election result is legitimate.

Somewhat agree. The terms of the final peace should be up to Ukraine, without pressure from the outside. In other words, shut-up Macron.

None that I can think of. Since the priority needs to be preventing such wars of aggression in the future, Putin should lose face, office, independence, etc.

I remember the '80's, I was thrilled when I was able to get a home loan in 1988 for only 10.5%. People had been paying home loan rates up to and sometimes exceeding 20%. There was a housing bubble in southern California and other places and some crazy schemes to secure financing. What we are experiencing now is mild by comparison.

Putin spent years trying to coerce Ukraine into accepting Russian occupation of Ukraine's territory. Is that the negotiation you are referring to?

Face-saving in what way? Allowing Putin to declare some kind of victory? Allowing Putin any appearance of victory after threatening to use nuclear weapons would validate the tactic and motivate other countries to do the same. Those without nuclear weapons would strive to acquire them so that they too could engage in nuclear blackmail. Eventually this would lead to the war every sensible person is trying to avoid. Rewarding nuclear blackmail is very destabilizing.

Zelensky is garnering international support for Ukraine and convincing democratic nations to provide weapons to defend his country, and has been doing a remarkably effective job. How is that a liability? What do you suggest he do? Yes, the war could have easily been avoided by not having Russia invade.

From the full article: "President of the Federation of Small-scale Fisher-folk Association Piya Thedyam blamed the overfishing of immature fish and other marine species by large-scale fishermen, to supply the animal feed industry, for the destruction of fish stocks in Thai waters, depriving small-scale fishermen of the means to make a living." "He also said that small and large-scale fishermen must practice sustainable fishing, which must include an end to the catching of inedible or immature fish, to ensure that there continue to be fish in the waters." This should be a no-brainer; the small-scale fisherman are right. How much you wanna bet that nothing changes?

Just barely coherent enough for me to conclude that you are a semi-literate conspiracy theorist.

Off-topic, but not being Trump is a huge plus for Biden. Also he got through the infrastructure bill that was all talk and no substance under Trump (much like his many other promises), unemployment is at record lows, he has re-invigorated NATO and kept Ukraine alive, etc.

My guess is Russia Today or some other Putin approved "news" source.

Russian-backed separatists briefly held the center of Mariupol for one week in May 2014. The Azov battalion took part but did not lead the offensive. "During the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the city of Mariupol, in Donetsk Oblast, saw skirmishes break out between Ukrainian government forces, local police, and separatist militants affiliated with the Donetsk People's Republic. Government forces withdrew from Mariupol on 9 May 2014 after heavy fighting left the city's police headquarters gutted by fire. These forces maintained checkpoints outside the city. Intervention by Metinvest steelworkers on 15 May 2014 led to the removal of barricades from the city centre, and the resumption of patrols by local police. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mariupol_(2014)

The US clearly wanted the 2014 popular uprising against the corrupt Russian backed President Yanukovych to succeed and one US official handed out cookies to protesters. Is that your basis for calling the the 2014 revolution a "USA led regime change"? Pretty weak.

"Russian officials have raised increasingly frustrated requests for greater support during discussions with Beijing in recent weeks, calling on China to live up to its affirmation of a “no limits” partnership made weeks before the war in Ukraine began. But China’s leadership wants to expand assistance for Russia without running afoul of Western sanctions and has set limits on what it will do, according to Chinese and U.S. officials." "Moscow has on at least two occasions pressed Beijing to offer new forms of economic support — exchanges that one Chinese official described as “tense.”" https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/06/02/china-support-russia-ukraine/ The "special military operation" is going according to plan and causing no problems for Russia. Riiiggghht..... ????

Anyone who thinks the regime change in Ukraine was led by the US and that the Donbas independence movement was not prompted and supported by Russia needs to provide credible sources supporting those views.

So in your opinion the moral high ground requires letting Russia and China swallow up any country that isn't squeaky clean?

Even in a worst case scenario of Russia being allowed to claim some kind of victory, it will be a costly victory over a fraction of Ukraine. And it would be a long time before Russia tries something as stupid as the Ukraine invasion again. Letting Russia dominate the entire country of Ukraine with ease would have led to more invasions of other countries.

Prior to the 2014 revolution Ukraine was a corrupt oligarchy just like Russia. Removing that kind of deep-rooted corruption takes time; effective leaders must whittle away at it. There are no quick fixes. The fact that Zelinski couldn't wave a magic wand and make all well in Ukraine does not in any way justify Russia's invasion.

The question was "Do you actually believe all the Russian propaganda, or are you being paid to promote it?". By dodging the question it is clear that your answer is "Yes". By using nonsense straight out of the Russian propaganda playbook, you confirm that your answer is "Yes". It still remains unresolved if you are promoting this propaganda because you are gullible or a professional.

Source of your Russia joining NATO claim?