Cameroni

Lol, what a truly ridiculous argument. The body of evidence that Warren Christopher, James Baker, Genscher etc repeatedly promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards is so substantial and voluminous, and so well documented, one can only laugh at your totally ridiculous statement.

So lying and misrepresentation is all you can resort to, not a surprise. The jury DID NOT find in favour of Carrol's allegation that Trumped raped her. That is the key issue. If you look at the court documents you will clearly see that she alleges not just sexual abuse or "digital penetration", she alleges rape in the sense of penile penetration. This is what the jury precisely refuted. So Carroll is a liar. And the Kaplan ruling you referred to is NOT from the actual Caroll trials, the background to it is that Caroll repeated in a press conference that Trump had raped her. Trump, having been found NOT GUILTY of rape then sued Caroll for defamation, ie for the statement that she made that he raped her. Even though Kaplan of course had to admit that under New York law indeed Trump had NOT raped Caroll, he decided to make some legal contortions that because outside of New York digital rape includes fingering, and since the jury did find that Trump had sexually abused Caroll that meant he most likely fingered her, that was sufficient to state that "substantially" Caroll's statements were true. Kaplan has NEVER stated that the jury in the Caroll trials found Trump guilty of rape, or that Trump engaged in penile penetration of Caroll's vagina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

Lol, everyone knows what rape is, and so did the jury in the Carroll trial who clearly stated that they did NOT find Trump guilty of rape, but instead of fondling her breasts and defamation due to social media posts. Your insistance that Trump can be called a rapist based on some jursidictions having over inclusive rape defintions, jurisdictions where Trump was not tried, even though in his own case Trump was found to be NOT guilty of rape shows clearly what your intent is here. It is to defame Trump as a rapist, when it is clear in the Caroll case he was found NOT guilty of rape. What you clearly don't realise is that rape is defined at the FEDERAL level, where it is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. — Uniform Crime Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States As you can see it is penetration which is key. In the Carroll trial it became clear that penetration did not take place, and even the jury that found Trump guilty for social media defamation and breast fondling concluded that Trump had NOT raped Carroll. Ie, no penetration of any kind took place. You implying that Trump is a rapist is simply false. It is also defamatory.

It got so bad that even her supporters like Stephen A Smith were telling her to stop hiding.

If you look at the Jean Carrol trial you will find that in the April 2023 trial the jury's verdict was that Trump had NOT raped Carroll. Which is what Caroll had claimed. So Caroll was a liar. However, bizarrely the jury did believe that he fondled her breasts, which, together with Trump's social media posts, was the basis for the "sexual assault" and punitive damages for defamation later. Trump is of course appealing this verdict, made in favour of a woman who once wrote a book " What Do We Need Men For?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump Since in both trials Trump was not found guilty of rape, it is a bit bizarre for anyone to claim Trump is a rapist.

To be fair, it would be very hard for Trump to attack Harris on policy, for the simple reason that there is almost nothing. Harris policy seems to be to say whatever she thinks will get her elected. Basically she will bribe the electorate with tax cuts and handouts. She wants to increase child tax credit and promises tax cuts. Though not for corporates who'll be taxed higher. She shamelessly copied Trump's idea to remove tax on tips. Bizarrely she wants to fix prices for groceries, which economists are laughing about. Though paying lip service to environmental causes she made clear she will not ban fracking. Which is the height of hypocrisy and disingenous double talk. On immigration she tries to paint herself as a tough Wyatt Earp, but without specifying a single policy. Her only real policy is really on abortion, where she has promised she will sign a bill enabling abortion into law, which would be a return to Roe vs Wade effectively. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/30/what-we-know-about-kamala-harris-policy-agenda-after-cnn-interview/

She has no "vision", all she has is to say whatever she thinks will get her elected. Basically her "vision" is to bribe the electorate with tax cuts and handouts. She wants to increase child tax credit and promises tax cuts. Though not for corporates who'll be taxed higher. She shamelessly copied Trump's idea to remove tax on tips. Bizarrely she wants to fix prices for groceries, which economists are laughing about. Though paying lip service to environmental causes she made clear she will not ban fracking. Which is the height of hypocrisy and disingenous double talk. On immigration she tries to paint herself as a tough Wyatt Earp, but without specifying a single policy. Her only "vision" is really on abortion, where she has promised she will sign a bill enabling abortion into law, which would be a return to Roe vs Wade effectively. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/08/30/what-we-know-about-kamala-harris-policy-agenda-after-cnn-interview/

I read it, even after I investigated CEPA and saw it is a Washington propaganda vehicle. The article decries that Russian society is divided into winners and losers. Alexander Kolyandr, the author, was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine but now lives in London. I am sure this Ukrainian propagandist for hire will enjoy the egalitarian society in London, where everyone is equal and society is only divided into winners, lol.

A perfectly ludicrous set of sentences, none of which reflect reality. Putin made exactly the right and very shrewd decision to save for years before he embarked on a war. This has clearly paid major dividends as the Russian economy is currently booming and it enabled Putin to spend now, when he needs it most. The Russian economy is remarkably robust and resilient, despite vicious sanctions, and it shows no signs of "collapse" neither now or in the near future. Igor Lipsits is a fugitive from Russia, considered a foreign agent, and he lives in Lithuania. His almost ludicrous anti-Russian diatribes, which include for instance talking about the "poor economic peformance" of Russia in 2023, against all the public data from the IMF itself, have completely destroyed any reputation he may have had. His economic prognosis is a bit like asking Thomas Mann for a fair estimate of the German cultural landscape in the 1940s, only that Lipsits has nowhere near the standing of Mann in economics of course. https://sokalinfo.com/04-82548-07.html

A "war economy" is where almost the entire economy is dedicated to military production, as for instance with Nazi Germany in 1944. This is clearly not the case in Russia, and it's really not a war economy at all. It's predominantly a civilian economy,

This is the ultimate source. I did not get the graph from a tweet from the Russian embassy but from a reddit post. The linked article is where they took the graph from quite clearly. Obviously it's not due to military spending if that is only a third, there's two thirds unrelated to military spending. The Economist article is much better and looks at the real economic financials. This FT article is far more polemic and political in tone.

Again, caring about what others think, Laces. It's so....shallow. I'm sure if I posted inane banalities the approval rating would shoot through the roof. But what would be the point? Much better to just post the truth.

CEPA is a Washington think tank funded by Lockheed Martin and others. Their aim is to spread NATO propaganda. I wouldn't take my economic data from there. Indeed, inflation is an issue there. Not here then?

https://www.ft.com/content/d304a182-997d-4dae-98a1-aa7c691526db

Lol, your "approval rating". Do you have any idea who is giving you this "approval"? Or why you are seeking this approval? The truth is not paint by numbers, Laces. I don't even know there is such a thing as an "approval rating" or what mine is, I simply don't care. All I care about is the truth.

You do know a civilian is a civilian, whether they're Ukrainian or Russian? What makes a Ukrainian civilian death worse than a Russian civilian death?

The entire Nord Stream project can be revived if Germany so desires in the future. Some two bit Ukrainian swim instructors can't stop the will of the German government.

No need to look for others, you have 26000 of them. Each and every one...a winner!!!!

And we are talking about the United States here, the land with the most intelligent people on earth. And sadly, also some of the least. So, let's see if it works.

This is how you influence the masses. Everything is extreme, the best, the worst. It's how you evoke emotion in the masses. It has worked since time immemorial and will most likely work now again. Unless the half a billion USD Harris' Democrat backers are throwing at her will make a difference. Goebbels and Hitler didn't influence the masses by saying their enemies were allright and let's talk economics.

Not at all. Russia underwent years of austerity so it could spend. Social benefits were increased. Hardly a war economy, in fact Putin was careful not to put Russia on a war economy or even martial law, not even after Kursk. Russians are buying more consumer goods and luxury goods than ever. That's not a war economy, that's just a thriving economy. Google "The Economist Vladimir Putin spends big Russian economy soaring".

Not with hot women in the city obviously. Cause you know, you live in a village...

Yes, Trump did take credit for overturning Roe vs Wade. In as much as it was an obstacle to let states decide. Now, those that don't want abortion can stop it, and those that do can be pro choice. Isn't he a sage and wise man? But yes, he did support abortion for the Christian Right, I think that much is clear. But personally I belive he is pro choice.

He leaves it to the states to decide on abortion. Trump is a complicated man, he did take credit for overturning Roe vs Wade, true, but he also wants to allow abortions. Some may say he is a sage and wise man, like Moses. He also btw, recently made clear he supports IVF. Which I really don't.

Great Job, Joe and Kamala. You did it. Russia outperforms the USA economically.