Chomper Higgot

Here’s the best bit: The fake electors signed their names on the fraudulent documents. And here’s the even better bit: They then formally submitted the fraudulent documents they had signed. And the very best bit: The fraudulent documents are retained by the national archives and available to prosecutors.

Also included in the funding bill are provisions to prevent a repeat of the attempted J6 Coup. Closing loop holes and ambiguities exploited by Trump and his insurrectionist.

Unfortunately for Trump, and your argument, tax evasion is simple to understand and explain. The DOJ have people who understand this stuff.

There’s a surprise… only five red flags.

Here’s a conundrum. How does a rightwinger who has argued against lockdowns and that they were an imposition upon basic human rights now respond to people fleeing lockdowns committing that other rightwing trigger issue, sneaking across the border.

Baseless innuendo. You’ve got nothing else.

What’s US growth compared to UK growth? (Inflation - Growth) is the number that matters.

Hannity and FOX now have a problem. If Hannity had believed the election was stolen then he would have grounds to claim the libelous misinformation he broadcast were views he honestly held and his statements were made in good faith. The sworn testimony that he admits he did not believe what he was broadcasting is evidence of deliberately lying in his broadcasts. Libelous statements made in good faith are still libelous, but libelous statements made in the full knowledge of their falsehood raise the level of liability with their deliberate intent.

Yet Russia has used nerve agent weapons in a murderous attack within at least one NATO nation.

Approval rating and being a stooge, is a non sequitur. Regardless, I see you are brand new member to the forum. I might have missed that since brand new members don’t normally dive straight into the contentious issues. Anyhow welcome, it’s always nice to have the possibility of new voices.

More appeasement. There’s only one group of people who have the right to determine how to deal with Putin’s illegal war of invasion, they are Ukrainians. They like being Ukrainians, they don’t want to be Russians. Putin will eventually be replaced, whoever comes in might be worse, which is only more reason to ensure Putin’s illegal war of aggression is not rewarded with territorial gains handed to him in any negotiations. But I’m rather puzzled by your objections to my comment regarding the Russians taking care of Putin, since it’s an argument you yourself have made - Perhaps you received an update on the party line talk track? When did I ever suggest NATO joining in this war?

And there is the argument for arming and assisting Ukraine. Fight Russia in Ukraine. And let the Russians take care of Putin.

“You cannot seriously think Putin will just put his tail between his legs and slink off.” Defeat will have political consequences for Putin. But to flip your question. Do you seriously think Putin will cease his illegal invasions if he’s not stopped this time?

And yet you are arguing against spending money to help Ukraine defeat Russia. Clearly it is very much cheaper to have Ukraine defeat Russia and creates far less risk of escalation. Containing Russia back within its pre invasion borders is the Ukrainian objective and it is one that accords with international law and the maintenance of international peace.

As much support as it takes and as much blood as the Ukrainians are willing to shed to defend their home country, or conversely Russians are willing to spill prosecuting their illegal war. If the Ukrainians need help, give them the help they need.

I seem to remember you defending borrowing money to provide tax cuts to the already wealthy. I certainly don’t recall you ever defending or calling for programs to help the poor. But thanks for bringing your new found concern for the vulnerable at home to my attention. I’ll keep it in mind during future discussions.

Yes. Much better than appeasing a tyrant and condemning the young to go fight in the inevitable wars that ensue.

Take that up with Putin, it is he who ordered the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

I’m not a Ukrainian, I support funding and military aid to Ukraine, precisely because of the lessons learned in WW2. Contain Russia by helping the Ukrainians push Russia back to begins tge borders it occupied prior to the illegal invasion Putin ordered. I believe this to be the best policy to ensure neither I, nor my children need go to war with Putin. History backs this belief. Isolationism and appeasement inevitably lead to war.

You are awfully generous to Putin with your suggestion of gifting him other people’s homelands. The Ukrainian’s, whose country it is, disagree with you. And thankfully most outside the extreme rightwing think likewise.

And… who do think is watching to see if the West will oppose illegal invasions? The consequences of isolationism and appeasement have been demonstrated. The West’s resolve to uphold international law is being tested, supporting Ukraine is cheap compared with the consequences of not doing so.

Ukraine’s war objectives are to return the Ukrainian border to where it was prior to Putin’s illegal invasion.

3. What are the consequences of isolationism, appeasement and not providing support to Ukraine?

Another example of Americas rightwing aligning themselves with Putin. It’s in plain sight.

Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, he’s not some ‘local bully’. He’s a tyrant and he’s waging illegal war. How did ‘isolationism’ and ‘appeasement’ work out the last time they were tried?