heybruce

As absurd as your post is, at least you make it clear that it is your opinion. Can you teach G_Money to do that?

I've read them. You state your opinions as facts and, when challenged, insist they are facts. I assume you can get away with stating opinions as facts in your echo chamber. This isn't your echo chamber.

But you did not explain yourself. You stated your opinion as fact. When challenged to provide a source for your "fact" you repeated that it was a fact without providing any evidence. Even now you avoid the use of "opinion". I hate to break this to you, but even though you have a very high opinion of your opinions, that does not make them facts.

"there’s no documentation such as statistics, links, Excel spreadsheets to support my claim." Finally! That's what I was looking for. So when you claimed that: “Almost all at DEVGRU are Trump supporters. 100% rank and file. O-6’s want to make Flag so a few are yes men. You won’t find this data in any nerd’s “stat sheet “ was a fact, what you meant was that based on your limited experience hanging out with a limited number of like minded members of the special forces some of them may have indicated support for Trump. How many member of DEVGRU did you hang out with? How much time did you spend talking politics? Most important, how can you claim that your very limited insight into this group gives you the right to speak for all of them?

In all fairness, I think he resorted to an incoherent word jumbo that he can later interpret any way he wants to. It's one of the tricks con-artists employ.

Retired USAF. Did you notice that the smart people in uniform understood that politics was a no-go area while in uniform or in any way representing the military? There was a reason for that; it was against regulation, as well as being a stupid thing to do. That's why I'm skeptical about your claims to know the political preferences of any group in the military. So once again, I challenge you to provide a credible source for your claim: “Almost all at DEVGRU are Trump supporters. 100% rank and file. O-6’s want to make Flag so a few are yes men. You won’t find this data in any nerd’s “stat sheet “.

No, you don't. If you had a scrap of evidence to support your claim you'd show it. My guess is that you've never served. Correct?

It's too late to edit my post, but I should have lead with "When I was in Central America twenty years ago..." A lot can change in twenty years, so my observations may no longer be relevant. But the question remains; how illiberal is South American culture in those places expats might be tempted to live? I like hanging out with good-natured locals, especially local women.

Repeating your nonsense does not make it a fact. You don't show your sources because you don't have any.

My impression of Central American countries is that they have an extreme patriarchal culture that keeps women under the thumbs of their fathers until they are married, then they are kept under the thumbs of their husbands. It makes it difficult to meet any of the local women unless they are prostitutes. Is South America different?

I saw no information on where to see and possibly buy these sandals. Does anyone know?

A Burmese friend told me that the Shan State Army has started aggressively drafting young people, especially those with prior military experience. According to The Diplomat it isn't just Shan State. "Since the offensive, a number of accusations have been made against the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), the ethnic Kokang EAO spearheading attacks in northern Shan State. The group has been documented of dragging away men from refugee camps and fleeing convoys, and demanding manpower quotas from various local communities." https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/myanmar-ethnic-armed-groups-draw-allegations-of-forced-recruitment/ The article makes it clear that the Tatmadaw is also employing desperate measures at "recruiting". I don't know where that country is heading, but it doesn't look good.

"ample", "credible" and "convincing" are three different adjectives. I concede you have provided "ample" evidence. I largely believe the "Western establishment" version of events because it largely (or at least less so than in countries such as Russia and China) is not controlled by their governments and are the versions most consistent with facts. They do better in the "credible" and "convincing" categories.

The private views of a senior diplomat who is not in a position to make policy and was expressing opinions with colleagues during what she assumed was a private conversation. Not quite the same as Russia's former President and current deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council stating officially that Ukraine and other parts of Europe are past of Russia, is it? "Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council and an ally of President Vladimir Putin, described Ukraine on Monday as part of Russia and said what he called historical parts of Russia needed to "come home." "In a bellicose presentation that suggested Russia's military goals in Ukraine are far-reaching, Medvedev, who was Russia's president from 2008-2012, praised the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union and said Moscow would prosecute its "special military operation" until the Ukrainian leadership capitulated." https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-ally-says-ukraine-is-definitely-russia-rules-out-talks-with-zelenskiy-2024-03-04/ You still haven't given evidence of Ukrainian government repression in the east of the country before the separatists, backed by Russia, actively sought secession. You also didn't provide a link to your source, but it's significant that the quote ended with "they enjoyed varying degrees of sympathy among the population, most of whom, however, did not want to separate but only a measure of self-rule." Do I really have to explain that a referendum in an occupied territory conducted by the occupiers without outside supervision lacks credibility?

Nuland was expressing personal opinion, not US policy. The US spies on Russia and Russia spies on the US. You only show which side you support by claiming one side is doing it for defensive purposes and the other for offensive purposes. You didn't state what repression was taking place before the secessionist took up arms with Russian assistance, you only stated it as if it were a proven fact. Prove it.

The story says "Pearl River Basin near Guangdong Province". That's probably in uncontested Chinese waters, but it depends on how broadly China defines the Pearl river basin. If it is a significant source of oil for China, this is bad news for Russia and Iran.

You only read the headline, didn't you?

From your source: "“I would in fact make sure that there is, that we immediately surge to the border — all those people are seeking asylum. They deserve to be heard,” Biden said. “That’s who we are. We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come.'”" Biden encouraged asylum seekers to seek entry to the US. Not economic migrants.

Biden misrepresented Trump's statement, I put it in context. If you don't like the context, blame Trump.

Why not blame the person is being charged for providing clear evidence of the crimes he's committed? The judicial system is supposed to prosecute those people. (In anticipation of the favored deflection: Biden cooperated once classified was discovered, Trump obstructed attempts to retrieve and secure the classified. That's why Trump is being prosecuted and Biden is not.). Of course it Trump hadn't been using every legal delay his lawyers could come up with his cases would already be resolved.

Can you handle facts? “It’s not that the first 5,000 [migrants encountered at the border] are released, that’s ridiculous,” Lankford said on the Senate floor. “The first 5,000 we detain, we screen and then we deport. If we get above 5,000, we just detain and deport.” https://www.factcheck.org/2024/02/unraveling-misinformation-about-bipartisan-immigration-bill/

No, what Trump said, regarding Russia attacking a NATO member who "didn't pay" was: “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/03/08/joe-biden-state-of-the-union-fact-check/72843176007/ I assume that means that if Russia invaded Canada Trump wouldn't do anything about it. Canada only spends 1.38% of GDP on defense. https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/

Distracts from your pro-Trump rants, does it?

The print news from Fox (news, not opinions or political theater) is ok. The pundits ranting, which is what many in Trump world think counts as news, is nonsense.

So it's OK for Trump to profit from his 'brand', but not Obama? Why is that?