Jump to content

Biden says there's 'no question' Trump engaged in an insurrection


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Given Trump is notorious for not paying his bills, bribery would be right outside his comfort zone. Threats and intimidation are more his style.

 

He has been known to pay legal fees for some co-conspirators.

  • Haha 1
Posted
20 hours ago, stevenl said:

N

My comment has nothing to do with victory for Biden or not but with actions taken.

What "actions taken? I still have no idea of the point you were making with a vague comment and no explanation of what it meant.

  • Confused 1
Posted
20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Russia's only hope is to get Trump back in the Oval Office. It's heading for a failed state, or Chinese vassal otherwise.

 

I remember comments like that over a year ago, and they were not true then, or now. You and others may wish for it to be true, but wishes are just wishes.

Ukraine's heavily promoted "counter offensive" produced nothing that could be considered an advance, and Ukraine is running out of men, munitions and money. It's not looking good for Zelensky.

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What "actions taken? I still have no idea of the point you were making with a vague comment and no explanation of what it meant.

I replied to another poster, you butted in with a reply to my post but you didn't react to my post at all. And now you want me to explain my post 

Read back, slowly, and if you don't understand, try to open your mind to others' opinions.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I replied to another poster, you butted in with a reply to my post but you didn't react to my post at all. And now you want me to explain my post 

Read back, slowly, and if you don't understand, try to open your mind to others' opinions.

If you don't like other posters "butting in" you should use the PM function. If you don't, it's not a private forum and you don't tell other posters what to do on it.

 

  • Confused 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

These are facts, not wishes. If it's not looking good for Zelensky, it's looking even worse for Putin.

Facts or propaganda?

Nevertheless, I was talking about Ukraine's prospects, not Russia's.

When it's all over, we may know which of us is correct, but it's not looking good for Zelensky, and we can take that as a fact. His much vaunted "counter offensive" with German tanks, achieved nothing but a few villages. It's like something out of Haig's WW1 offensives where a few yards were touted as a great victory.

One needs to look at history to understand Russia's war methods. They defeated the far better German war machine in Barbarossa though at a cost of about 40 million dead Russians, according to one book I read about it.

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
Posted
11 hours ago, stevenl said:

I have no problem at all with you butting in. Apparently you have a problem with understanding. I feel in no way compelled to provide you with an explanation.

and you are in no way required to give me an explanation if you so choose. However, I claim the right to inform you if I do not understand, and you have the right to ignore me doing so.

 

I only ask for an explanation if I have an interest in what the poster may have meant. If I had no interest in your posts I wouldn't ask. I certainly have no issues with you being personally insulting, or suchlike, so I'm not going to put you on ignore.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Looking at history, Barbarossa failed because Hitler was fighting a war on two fronts. The Russians were also getting war material from the Arctic convoys.

Putin has a war on two fronts, although he probably does not realize it. The Chinese would love to get their hands on the underdeveloped resources of Siberia.

You think the accord between Xi and Putin ensures that won't happen? Cast your mind back to the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact, how long did that last?

From my research into the war, including Barbarossa, it is clear to me that Germany lost because Hitler kept telling the generals what to do when he was incompetent to do so. Even when the Russian campaign was lost he would not allow the armies to retreat and all the men and their weapons etc were lost, which undoubtedly led to the successful invasion of the German mainland.

Germany, IMO, at that time had the best military in the world, the best equipment and the best generals, and a madman interfering in the campaigns. Luckily for us though.

Posted
10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You think the accord between Xi and Putin ensures that won't happen? Cast your mind back to the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact, how long did that last?

I wouldn't trust Xi far as I could kick him, from here ie not at all. I'm pretty sure that Putin isn't so stupid as to trust Xi, and I'm also sure he remembers the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact, and how Stalin was fooled by Hitler.

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, stevenl said:

Lol, so facts about Russia are propaganda, your opinion on Ukraine is a fact.

LOL. Everything I write on here without a link is normally an opinion and I generally put a few IMOs on my posts.

If I claim a fact I usually put a link, as required under forum rules.

 

Perhaps you are referring to the recent post in which I said " but it's not looking good for Zelensky, and we can take that as a fact.". It's true that I didn't put a link, but I did give examples as to why it is flipping obvious that Zelensky is in trouble.

If anyone thinks that his much vaunted "counter attack" has been a huge success and the spring will see him marching into the Kremlin as victor, please inform us as how that could happen, short of a miracle?

Edited by thaibeachlovers
  • Confused 2
Posted
5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From my research into the war, including Barbarossa, it is clear to me that Germany lost because Hitler kept telling the generals what to do when he was incompetent to do so. 

Trump made no secret of his skepticism of military leadership even before he took office, telling voters in 2015 “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

From my research into the war, including Barbarossa, it is clear to me that Germany lost because Hitler kept telling the generals what to do when he was incompetent to do so. Even when the Russian campaign was lost he would not allow the armies to retreat and all the men and their weapons etc were lost, which undoubtedly led to the successful invasion of the German mainland.

Germany, IMO, at that time had the best military in the world, the best equipment and the best generals, and a madman interfering in the campaigns. Luckily for us though.

Germany also had some of the best NCO's. Compare that with the Russians, who have political commissars. Only good for second-guessing every field officer.

I don't disagree Hitler's refusal to allow retreat was instrumental in Germany's defeat. However, if the Germans had taken Britain first, IMO history would have been very different.

That was another mistake of Hitler's. He diverted the Luftwaffe from attacking British military targets, such as airfields, in retaliation for a token bombing attack on Berlin.

Modern military doctrine says the path to winning is led by absolute air supremacy. The Russians are far from that in Ukraine.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

 

That was another mistake of Hitler's. He diverted the Luftwaffe from attacking British military targets, such as airfields, in retaliation for a token bombing attack on Berlin.

 

The story goes:

 

The Luftwaffe was successfully taking out strategic targets in Britain, but .... one night was very foggy, a Luftwaffe bomber got lost, and dropped their bombs on civilians in London by mistake.

 

In retaliation, Churchill ordered a bombing attack on Berlin. In retaliation for that, Hitler ordered a massive attack on London.

 

And Germany lost the Battle of Britain.

Edited by Danderman123
Posted
8 hours ago, impulse said:

You mean the military leadership that can't even come close to their recruiting goals, are demanding tampon dispensers in the men's bathrooms, and keep losing track of $ trillions of assets and money?

 

Edit: As I recall, ISIS got pretty quiet under Trump's watch and Russia took the Crimea under Obama and the Donbas under Biden.  Crickets from them under the bad orange man.

The US military is the best in the world, with the best officer corps there is.

 

Maybe you aren't from the US, so you aren't well informed.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
On 12/26/2023 at 1:34 PM, impulse said:

You mean the military leadership that can't even come close to their recruiting goals, are demanding tampon dispensers in the men's bathrooms, and keep losing track of $ trillions of assets and money?

 

Edit: As I recall, ISIS got pretty quiet under Trump's watch and Russia took the Crimea under Obama and the Donbas under Biden.  Crickets from them under the bad orange man.

To be fair, isn't the tampon thing a Canadian military stupidity?

 

The question I'm asking Danderman 123 is if Trump ACTUALLY interfered with the military generals during the campaign against ISIS.

Didn't they win that one?

Edited by thaibeachlovers

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...