placeholder

Well, thanks for the personal assessment of my IQ. Of course, if your diagnosis of me is correct, then experts in the history of warfare such as Phillips O'Brien and pretty much all the analysists at the Institute for the Study of War, and, in fact most other experts on the situation also suffer from a deficient IQ. And while you're misguidedly throwing around 5 dollar words like dichotomize "to divide into two parts, classes, or groups" you might also want to review what "jingoism" means. "extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy." I'm not sure how my take on the situation, as well as that of most genuine authorities on the subject, stems from jingoism. What have I said that has anything to do with extreme patriotism? Care to enlighten me? As for your comment about Russia's vast resources, i.e. warm bodies, what are they going to do with all of them, equip them with bows and arrows? As for Putin having control over the Wagner troops, that might be a doubtful proposition. Not a sure thing that troops who mutinied a few short days ago, are going to submit to being commanded by the same armed forces commanders that they've learned to despise. Or that Putin will trust them. +

Why did Putin need a "go-ahead"? Who is there to oppose him? When Hitler clamped down on the brown shirts Germany wasn't at war, was it? And Putin's going to disarm the most potent soldiers he has? And what kind of escalation can Putin do given that his supplies of materiel are running low and he's now using ancient tanks to fight this war? You really think it makes Putin looks strong that after threatening to prosecute Prigozhin for treason and anyone who conspired with him, Putin then backed down? Really?

And you know these accusations are truthful how exactly? If they're so truthful, why does this investigaor refuse to testify before the Senate Finance Committee. Is that because the Democrats hold the chair? Is this truthful IRS investigator some kind of delicate wallflower who will wilt in the face of pointed questions? Or do you know he's truthful because Merrick Garland contradicts him and since he's truthful, Garland must be a liar? How about David Weiss? Is he someone who would put up with being denied a request to be made a Special Counsel? And you know this how?

To start with last things first. Thanks for the enlightenment. I thought that Mike Pence was Donald Trump's VP. But it turns out that, according to you, it was actually Joe Biden. I say that because Hunter Biden sent that message on July 30, 2017.

I agree with you about the name-calling. But as for"Many people have had serious concerns about elections even before Trump" who are those "many people"? In 5 states in which the state government was completely controlled by Republicans, there were investigations held to find voter fraud . In all cases, the number of cases discovered was infinitesimal. In the 2020 election investigation after investigation uncovered virtually no fraud. Not even 2 firms hired by the Trump team could find anything of significance.

Maybe because Putin wanted to make himself look weak and indecisive? And because the head of Wagner said the grounds for invading Ukraine were lies? Oh wait.. that doesn't work. However, maybe he plans finally to deploy his huge reserve of troops and materiel that he's been holding back until now...oh wait...that doesn't work.

OK. And now he's saying the opposite once again. Whoever would have thought the Trump could be inconsistent?

Is he? Not according to this article. And I haven't found any evidence that he's pushing for mail-in voting.

Virtually nothing went wrong, as multiple investigations have proved. Not even 2 firms hired by the Trump team to investigate the results could find anything substantially wrong.

Well, I hope Trump succeeds in getting Republican voters not to vote in advance. This is directly contrary to what most of the GOP concerned with voting turnout wants which is to encourage early voting.

Actually it was an ex-CIA analyst, Rebekka Koffler, who now works for Fox. And that really makes no sense. Does she think that Putin wanted to look weak? It wasn't just Prigozhin who backed down but Putin, too. I think a far better explanation advance by Phillips O'Brien is that Prigozhin just wanted to put pressure on Putin but was shocked to find how weak the resistance to his advance on Moscow was. Once he saw that he might actually succeed, an eventuality for which he wasn't prepared, he decided that the best course for him and Russia was just to leave.

Actually, they are tactical nuclear warheads. Not ballistic missiles. "Russia has already stationed a first batch of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Vladimir Putin says. Russia's president told a forum they would only be used if Russia's territory or state was threatened. The US government says there is no indication the Kremlin plans to use nuclear weapons to attack Ukraine." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700

Not only is this not proof connecting Joe Biden to any crime, unless being related to these people is one, but what proof is there these payments are criminal in nature?

I agree. And, of course, the point your making is also a macroeconomic one. But underinvestment, while a serious problem, isn't as potent a threat as are widescale mortgage defaults. That's the kind of thing that can cause the financial system to freeze up if there is no massive government intervention.

I would have thought misapplying microeconomic thinking to a possible macroeconomic threat was a thing of the past. What mortgage default rate is sustainable before it has a seriously deleterious impact on the British economy?

I've dealt with your nonsense about Hunter Biden's laptop over and over again. And every time I do, you just evaporate rather than answer the points that I and others have raised. Not honorable behavior. The same goes for your unbacked allegations of "disinformation, censorship, and lies" I didn't call you ridiculous, but your reasoning certainly is based as it is on conspiratorial allegations of a coveruip about Joe Biden that have zero hard evidence to back them up. Zero, nada, zilch. Your constant invocation of the Biden family name as somehow proof that Joe Biden was involved in any of this is downright sleazy and smacks of desperation. You've got nothing.

Apparently, in your world, it's a crime to be related to people who, actually haven't been show to have committed, but certainly aren't reluctant to have traded on the name of Joe Biden. No hard evidence exists that Joe Biden profited even to the tune of 1 cent over these deals or that he actually intervened for any member of his family in these deals. And while it may be sleazy to have used the family name to their advantage, it's actually not a crime for his relatives to have done so.

Please share with me the proof that the left never claimed these payments existed. And what exactly does "CCP linked Chinese citizens" mean? I'm aware, even if you're not, that the Chinese govt installs its apparatchiks in virtually every large company in China? Is that what you mean? Isn't it the case that the person who made these payments is now detained in prison and being investigated for corruption? Is that how the Chinese govt rewards the people who do its bidding? You've got nothing.

Did I miss something where there is actual evidence beyond Hunter Biden's words that Joe Biden participated in this? Interesting how you take his words as being presumptively true. And what makes your remark completely ridiculous is your question that "Can we finally all now agree, that Joe Biden IS implicated in his sons business deals with foreign citizens in adversarial countries?" Guess who the USA's biggest trading partner is? It's an adversarial country called China. You've pretty much accused all of the heads of American industry of engaging in business deals with an "adversarial country". Lock them up!

Jail those conservative outlests? If only...

What I know is that there are 2 kinds of people who can claim to be well versed in economics. Those who are and those who aren't. The ones who are can actually demonstrate their knowledge through rational and germane replies. Those who can't resort to disparagement rather than rationality.

An obvious both-sidesism ploy.

You've got nothing except insults.

Really? "The more complete story is that they met, and it was a ruse, and they didn't talk about Mrs. Clinton," Durham answered, repeating a claim from the Trump camp when the meeting was revealed in 2017. But the report from special counsel Robert Mueller indicates that the Russian Counsel, lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, did discuss Clinton. According to the report, Veselnitskaya had stated the Ziff brothers, owners of an American family investment broke Russian laws and donated profits to the Clinton Campaign or the DNC even though no evidence of wrongdoing was found." And if his various claims of ignorance of events is true, then he was clearly unqualifed to conduct the investigation. But the odds of it being true are minimal.

If the undertaking, so to speak, involved risk to others' lives, then I definitely would want the remnants to be left untouched.