6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

No NATO-driven wars costing taxpayers billions.

You keep changing your narrative,  but you're still wrong.

 

No NATO-wars have been started under Biden either. 

 

Putin alone decided to brutally attack and invade the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and the Gaza-Israel war was certainly not 'NATO driven' as you say.

 

Your arguments sound similar to the ones coming from Moscow-Marjorie.. You, like her, have to stop taking your talking points from the Kremlin propaganda-machine.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You mean the about half of the county that does not like Biden or his leftist agenda, that "maga-crowd" in general 

 

The maga-crowd may be loud, but they are in fact a rather small minority, and certainly not 'about half the country'.

 

According to a recent national NBC News poll, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, which takes its name from former President Donald Trump’s first campaign slogan, is widely unpopular. Here are the key findings:

 

Just 24% of Americans surveyed have positive views of the MAGA movement.

45% of Americans voice negative views of the movement.

Among Republicans, a slight majority (52%) view the MAGA movement positively.

53% of those who define themselves as conservative also view it positively.

Independents, however, rate the movement negatively, with only 12% viewing it positively.

The movement received its highest positive ratings from groups that make up the Republican base, including Americans who are white, less educated, and live in rural areas.

More than a third of rural Americans have positive views of the movement, the highest of any geographic subgroup.

The movement also received its highest mark from white Americans, with a 29% positive rating, of any racial subgroup.

On the flip side, the movement received its highest negative ratings from groups that make up the Democratic base: the higher educated, younger people, people of color (particularly Black people), and those who define themselves as liberals

 

1 minute ago, Excogitator said:

 

The maga-crowd may be loud, but they are in fact a rather small minority, and certainly not 'about half the country'.

 

According to a recent national NBC News poll, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, which takes its name from former President Donald Trump’s first campaign slogan, is widely unpopular. Here are the key findings:

 

Just 24% of Americans surveyed have positive views of the MAGA movement.

45% of Americans voice negative views of the movement.

Among Republicans, a slight majority (52%) view the MAGA movement positively.

53% of those who define themselves as conservative also view it positively.

Independents, however, rate the movement negatively, with only 12% viewing it positively.

The movement received its highest positive ratings from groups that make up the Republican base, including Americans who are white, less educated, and live in rural areas.

More than a third of rural Americans have positive views of the movement, the highest of any geographic subgroup.

The movement also received its highest mark from white Americans, with a 29% positive rating, of any racial subgroup.

On the flip side, the movement received its highest negative ratings from groups that make up the Democratic base: the higher educated, younger people, people of color (particularly Black people), and those who define themselves as liberals

 

NBC? 'nuff said

10 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

You, like her, have to stop taking your talking points from the Kremlin propaganda-machine.

It seems like it is actually coming directly from the Kremlin propaganda-machine.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

NBC? 'nuff said

Lol, thanks for proving my point in my comment about the cognitive dissonance of the maga-crowd..

Edited April 22, 20242 yr by Excogitator

15 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

You keep changing your narrative,  but you're still wrong.

 

No NATO-wars have been started under Biden either. 

 

Putin alone decided to brutally attack and invade the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and the Gaza-Israel war was certainly not 'NATO driven' as you say.

 

Your arguments sound similar to the ones coming from Moscow-Marjorie.. You, like her, have to stop taking your talking points from the Kremlin propaganda-machine.

Also called the Moscow Mule! 😀

2 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

Lol, thanks for proving my point in my comment about the cognitive dissonance of the maga-crowd..

You mean the about half of the county that does not like Biden or his leftist agenda, that "maga-crowd" in general?

 

The way the left has demonized term maga, who would admit it to pollster? 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

You mean the about half of the county that does not like Biden or his leftist agenda, that "maga-crowd" in general?

 

The way the left has demonized term maga, who would admit it to pollster? 

Do you even know how to read?

 

I am talking about the maga-crowd, as in the maga-movement.

 

Only 24% of Americans have positive views of the MAGA movement, and even fewer are actual members. That's not half the country.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You mean the about half of the county that does not like Biden or his leftist agenda, that "maga-crowd" in general?

 

The way the left has demonized term maga, who would admit it to pollster? 

Not all Trump voters are MAGA. 

The % of Republicans who believe the Pizzagate conspiracy theory would be a reasonably good approximation

 

4 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

Do you even know how to read?

 

I am talking about the maga-crowd, as in the maga-movement.

 

Only 24% of Americans have positive views of the MAGA movement, and even fewer are actual members. That's not half the country.

He certainly knows how to read but that's his trolling m.o. to distort what has been posted.

4 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

Do you even know how to read?

No, you? 

4 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

 

I am talking about the maga-crowd, as in the maga-movement.

 

Only 24% of Americans have positive views of the MAGA movement, and even fewer are actual members. That's not half the country.

And what I said was: "You mean the about half of the county that does not like Biden or his leftist agenda, that "maga-crowd" in general?" 

 

About half the county might not have a "positive: view of the MAGA movement, but clearly about half of the county not like Biden or his leftist agenda, and will likely vote with the "maga-crowd" whether they like them or not. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, candide said:

He certainly knows how to read but that's his trolling m.o. to distort what has been posted.

Uh oh...

15 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

You keep changing your narrative,  but you're still wrong.

 

No NATO-wars have been started under Biden either. 

 

Putin alone decided to brutally attack and invade the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and the Gaza-Israel war was certainly not 'NATO driven' as you say.

 

Your arguments sound similar to the ones coming from Moscow-Marjorie.. You, like her, have to stop taking your talking points from the Kremlin propaganda-machine.

 

In the context of this conversation, "no wars started under Trump" of course did not refer to the minor border skirmishes you listed. Now try addressing the issue seriously, i.e. Trump's position towards NATO and the military industrial complex and its stakeholders (I made an initial post on this issue mentioning John Bolton and Dick Cheney, but there is a long list of US warmongers, both conservative and liberal, who despise Trump). This ties directly into the Middle East and Ukraine (c.f. "US aid", "US support" etc.), please also refer to the post on EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell who clearly says this is about safeguarding US doctrine.

10 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

In the context of this conversation, "no wars started under Trump" of course did not refer to the minor border skirmishes you listed. Now try addressing the issue seriously, i.e. Trump's position towards NATO and the military industrial complex and its stakeholders (I made an initial post on this issue mentioning John Bolton and Dick Cheney, but there is a long list of US warmongers, both conservative and liberal, who despise Trump). This ties directly into the Middle East and Ukraine (c.f. "US aid", "US support" etc.), please also refer to the post on EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell who clearly says this is about safeguarding US doctrine.

Are you aware of Article 5 of the NATO agrrement - the one that mandates all to come to the aid of one who is attaked? 

 

Are you aware that this has been invoked exactly once....ONCE...since NATO began?   That once was in response to the USA being attacked.  WE came to YOUR aid.  You are welcome.

 

PH

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

In the context of this conversation, "no wars started under Trump" of course did not refer to the minor border skirmishes you listed. Now try addressing the issue seriously, i.e. Trump's position towards NATO and the military industrial complex and its stakeholders (I made an initial post on this issue mentioning John Bolton and Dick Cheney, but there is a long list of US warmongers, both conservative and liberal, who despise Trump). This ties directly into the Middle East and Ukraine (c.f. "US aid", "US support" etc.), please also refer to the post on EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell who clearly says this is about safeguarding US doctrine.

You claimed no wars started under Trump, which is plain wrong, and now you're talking about 'addressing the issue seriously'.

 

'Minor border skirmishes'? Some of them were all out wars. Just because most of them happened in Africa doesn't mean they don't count..

 

One thing we can agree on, though, is that the 'Great US-Warlord Premier Bush' (quote Borat) and his cohorts, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc.) are the true American warmongers of this century. Both Obama, Trump, and to some extent Biden, inherited 'their' wars from him/them.

 

But trying to promote Trump as an 'international man of peace and diplomacy' is too absurd to even discuss. As president he was the laughing stock of the world. I lived on three different continents during those years, and everybody everywhere saw him as the clown that he is, including his Russian and Saudi paymasters, who are only pretending to take him seriously, so they can use him, by appealing to his wallet and his gigantic narcissist ego..

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

For context on the political role and ideological purpose of NATO as a vector of the US global hegemon, I recommend reading Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also very clear in this respect during an interview with CNN last month:

03:55: "We cannot afford [for] Russia to win this war. Otherwise the US and European interests will be very damaged. It is not a matter of generosity alone … of supporting Ukraine because we love Ukrainian people. It is in our own interest. And it is also in the interest of the US as a global player."

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/03/25/amanpour-josep-borrell.cnn

Trump’s multipolar vision means the end of “US as a global player” as understood under the doctrine which has prevailed for the past sixty years. A US withdrawal from NATO will be a key component of this reversal.

Trump's "vision"¡ Ahem! Trump was rather erratic, but led by three principles:

- undo what Obama did or initiated, ex NAFTA, replaced by something similar under another name, TPP...

- rather than multipolar, he was against multinational organisations  because he thought that USA, as the largest economy, could exert more power in bilateral negotiations. That's why, for example, he did not like the EU, the UN, etc..

- the third principle was show-business, that is mediatic coups. However, he completely overestimated his capabilities, and was fooled by Kim, Putin, Xi, and also Netanyahu (luckily, his aides convinced him to prevent Netanyahu from annexing the territories in the "peace" agreement.

15 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

You claimed no wars started under Trump, which is plain wrong, and now you're talking about 'addressing the issue seriously'.

 

'Minor border skirmishes'? Some of them were all out wars. Just because most of them happened in Africa doesn't mean they don't count..

 

One thing we can agree on, though, is that the 'Great US-Warlord Premier Bush' (quote Borat) and his cohorts, (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc.) are the true American warmongers of this century. Both Obama, Trump, and to some extent Biden, inherited 'their' wars from him/them.

 

But trying to promote Trump as an 'international man of peace and diplomacy' is too absurd to even discuss. As president he was the laughing stock of the world. I lived on three different continents during those years, and everybody everywhere saw him as the clown that he is, including his Russian and Saudi paymasters, who are only pretending to take him seriously, so they can use him, by appealing to his wallet and his gigantic narcissist ego..

 

I said initially in this topic that Trump was promoting himself as the peacemaker, that is his approach and strategy, and he demonstrated repeatedly during his first term that he favours an unequivocal break from the Pax Americana doctrine by not initiating or furthering the unilateral "forever wars". The shift towards multilateralism is largely underway and Trump is one of the major faces of this transition.

 

We can always pick up this conversation in one year from now and see how it has played out.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

Trump's "vision"¡ Ahem! Trump was rather erratic, but led by three principles:

- undo what Obama did or initiated, ex NAFTA, replaced by something similar under another name, TPP...

- rather than multipolar, he was against multinational organisations  because he thought that USA, as the largest economy, could exert more power in bilateral negotiations. That's why, for example, he did not like the EU, the UN, etc..

- the third principle was show-business, that is mediatic coups. However, he completely overestimated his capabilities, and was fooled by Kim, Putin, Xi, and also Netanyahu (luckily, his aides convinced him to prevent Netanyahu from annexing the territories in the "peace" agreement.

Please explain how he was fooled by Kim, Putin, Xi, and Netanyahu.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

For context on the political role and ideological purpose of NATO as a vector of the US global hegemon, I recommend reading Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell was also very clear in this respect during an interview with CNN last month:

03:55: "We cannot afford [for] Russia to win this war. Otherwise the US and European interests will be very damaged. It is not a matter of generosity alone … of supporting Ukraine because we love Ukrainian people. It is in our own interest. And it is also in the interest of the US as a global player."

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2024/03/25/amanpour-josep-borrell.cnn

Trump’s multipolar vision means the end of “US as a global player” as understood under the doctrine which has prevailed for the past sixty years. A US withdrawal from NATO will be a key component of this reversal.

Far to wordy and complicated. Putin started the war in Ukraine - full stop.

7 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Far to wordy and complicated. Putin started the war in Ukraine - full stop.

 

Your insight is duly noted.

42 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Your insight is duly noted.

Sarcasm indeed - I do have a little knowledge on the subject matter but its true that what it boils down to is very simple. The right of a sovereign state to determine its own future through a democratically elected government.

 

People can argue all they want about the why's and wherefore's but Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has every right to seek affiliations and protections from and with whoever they choose.  The fact that Putin views those affiliations as a threat is simply something that exists in his mind.  If his and previous Russian regimes weren't a threat, there would be no need for NATO or for his neighbours to seek protection from others.  England and France were enemies for centuries but its 2024, the British Empire is long gone and the two countries no longer feel the need to protect themselves from each other.

 

There are in's and out's and twists and turn but the carve up after WW2 consisted mainly of the West securing autonomy for some states on its side of the deal and Russia, or should I say the USSR, gaining ground on their side - Berlin was a perfect example.  Over the years it has been Russia that has had hostile expansionist aims - not others.  The expansion of democratic states has been voluntary and free whereas Russia's affiliations have been created by force.  If you carried out an in depth analysis of the problems in the Balkans since WW2, you would find that they have their roots in old alliances and are very much influenced and on some occasions, financed by Russia.  Those states, much the same as Ukraine, have a perfect right to choose their destiny.

 

Returning to the current conflict between Russia (Putin) and Ukraine - the Ukranian people showed very clearly which direction they wanted to take during Maidan uprising in 2013/14 which ousted a Russia leaning government. It was no coincidence that Putin annexed Crimea directly afterwards. That the West didn't see that coming was shameful.

 

Putin's aims are the reconstruction of Soviet borders - not ideologically, that would threaten his power, but geographically.  He does not seek to attain that through encouragement, he is attempting to do it by force and infiltration. He has shown that his word means nothing and that he can't be trusted.  If the West doesn't stand up to him now, there will be a much bigger fight in the future.  By stand up to him, I mean kicking him out of all of Ukraine's territory, including Crimea.

 

The sad and vexing part of all this is that it is totally unecessary.  That states are still expansionist well into the 21st Century is just plain crazy.

6 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Sarcasm indeed - I do have a little knowledge on the subject matter but its true that what it boils down to is very simple. The right of a sovereign state to determine its own future through a democratically elected government.

 

People can argue all they want about the why's and wherefore's but Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has every right to seek affiliations and protections from and with whoever they choose.  The fact that Putin views those affiliations as a threat is simply something that exists in his mind.  If his and previous Russian regimes weren't a threat, there would be no need for NATO or for his neighbours to seek protection from others.  England and France were enemies for centuries but its 2024, the British Empire is long gone and the two countries no longer feel the need to protect themselves from each other.

 

There are in's and out's and twists and turn but the carve up after WW2 consisted mainly of the West securing autonomy for some states on its side of the deal and Russia, or should I say the USSR, gaining ground on their side - Berlin was a perfect example.  Over the years it has been Russia that has had hostile expansionist aims - not others.  The expansion of democratic states has been voluntary and free whereas Russia's affiliations have been created by force.  If you carried out an in depth analysis of the problems in the Balkans since WW2, you would find that they have their roots in old alliances and are very much influenced and on some occasions, financed by Russia.  Those states, much the same as Ukraine, have a perfect right to choose their destiny.

 

Returning to the current conflict between Russia (Putin) and Ukraine - the Ukranian people showed very clearly which direction they wanted to take during Maidan uprising in 2013/14 which ousted a Russia leaning government. It was no coincidence that Putin annexed Crimea directly afterwards. That the West didn't see that coming was shameful.

 

Putin's aims are the reconstruction of Soviet borders - not ideologically, that would threaten his power, but geographically.  He does not seek to attain that through encouragement, he is attempting to do it by force and infiltration. He has shown that his word means nothing and that he can't be trusted.  If the West doesn't stand up to him now, there will be a much bigger fight in the future.  By stand up to him, I mean kicking him out of all of Ukraine's territory, including Crimea.

 

The sad and vexing part of all this is that it is totally unecessary.  That states are still expansionist well into the 21st Century is just plain crazy.

Putin's problem is that his Russia has no soft power. 

Russia is a failed State which attracts no one.

Ex in Europe, which people would prefer Russia's boots and economy, to the laws and wealth of the EU?

5 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

Sarcasm indeed - I do have a little knowledge on the subject matter but its true that what it boils down to is very simple. The right of a sovereign state to determine its own future through a democratically elected government.

 

People can argue all they want about the why's and wherefore's but Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has every right to seek affiliations and protections from and with whoever they choose.  The fact that Putin views those affiliations as a threat is simply something that exists in his mind.  If his and previous Russian regimes weren't a threat, there would be no need for NATO or for his neighbours to seek protection from others.  England and France were enemies for centuries but its 2024, the British Empire is long gone and the two countries no longer feel the need to protect themselves from each other.

 

There are in's and out's and twists and turn but the carve up after WW2 consisted mainly of the West securing autonomy for some states on its side of the deal and Russia, or should I say the USSR, gaining ground on their side - Berlin was a perfect example.  Over the years it has been Russia that has had hostile expansionist aims - not others.  The expansion of democratic states has been voluntary and free whereas Russia's affiliations have been created by force.  If you carried out an in depth analysis of the problems in the Balkans since WW2, you would find that they have their roots in old alliances and are very much influenced and on some occasions, financed by Russia.  Those states, much the same as Ukraine, have a perfect right to choose their destiny.

 

Returning to the current conflict between Russia (Putin) and Ukraine - the Ukranian people showed very clearly which direction they wanted to take during Maidan uprising in 2013/14 which ousted a Russia leaning government. It was no coincidence that Putin annexed Crimea directly afterwards. That the West didn't see that coming was shameful.

 

Putin's aims are the reconstruction of Soviet borders - not ideologically, that would threaten his power, but geographically.  He does not seek to attain that through encouragement, he is attempting to do it by force and infiltration. He has shown that his word means nothing and that he can't be trusted.  If the West doesn't stand up to him now, there will be a much bigger fight in the future.  By stand up to him, I mean kicking him out of all of Ukraine's territory, including Crimea.

 

The sad and vexing part of all this is that it is totally unecessary.  That states are still expansionist well into the 21st Century is just plain crazy.

 

Maidan was openly organised and backed by the US.

The Donbas population is mostly culturally Russian and in favour of Putin. They have been persecuted by the US-backed Kiev government since 2014.

On 4/22/2024 at 4:56 PM, EVENKEEL said:

Surely you're not referring to cackling harris are you?

cackling how quaint yet fragile

41 minutes ago, charleskerins said:

cackling how quaint yet fragile

Please tell us again how smart, accomplished, qualified and world class speaker she is. I need a good laugh this morning.

On 4/22/2024 at 10:00 PM, MangoKorat said:

Far to wordy and complicated. Putin started the war in Ukraine - full stop.

In 2012 President Obama was heard on a hot mike telling Medvedev he would have “more flexibility” on missile defense after the election and that Putin should give him flexibility, and Putin did.

 

When did Putin start the war in Ukraine? During Obama's second term, when n 2014 when he took Crimea and the Donbas, correct? 

 

When did Putin continue the war in Ukraine? Not while his "puppet" Trump was in office, that would have been too easy. No he waited until Biden drove up oil prices (enriching Putin) reduced sanctions, flushed Afghanistan down the toilet and then when Putin was amassing troops on the boarder, he (Biden) said that as long and Putin's invasion was a “minor incursion” into Ukraine there would be minor if any consequences. 

 

Why did Putin not finish taking Ukraine when his puppet Trump was in office? 

 

 

 

Biden's had a few more senior moments this week (2nd is the best imho).

Also ramps up viol;ent rhetoric in the 1st vid. Mmmmm

 

BTW, I'm a Brit so don't have a vote in your upcoming WWE pantomime Election.

I'd predict that, either way, the winner will be Israel First.

I'd prefer Trump as he's better entertainment overall but Biden can also be very funny as per the videos below.

 

FWIW I also believe that, for the good of the US and world, both of these corrupt and ridiculous boomers should step aside and let younger people try to attempt to put the country back together again.

 

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Edited April 25, 20242 yr by BigBruv

On 4/24/2024 at 7:47 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Please tell us again how smart, accomplished, qualified and world class speaker she is. I need a good laugh this morning.

Shows how biased you are. I'm not a fan of hers, but she's an accomplished person and deserves some respect. Sad how some bash others due to just politics.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

 

Raised in Park Ridge, Illinois, Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 and from Yale Law School in 1973. After serving as a congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas and, in 1975, married Bill Clinton, whom she had met at Yale. In 1977, Clinton co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. She was appointed the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978 and became the first woman partner at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm the following year. The National Law Journal twice listed her as one of the hundred most influential lawyers in America.

5 minutes ago, BigBruv said:

Biden's had a few more senior moments this week (2nd is the best imho):

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

Trump has them every week also. Why not post a few of those also?

23 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

Trump has them every week also. Why not post a few of those also?

Yes, please