OftenWrong

Yep. Also Jean-Luc Brunel, and John McAffee. "Conveniently disappeared." For all we know at this point, anyone might have killed Navalny. Even the Liberals,,,

"Donald Trump is not creating a distraction in US political dialogue by discussing who dunnit to Navalny. This is simply unacceptable." "Up next, this year's hot new bikini's."

- Hetero sex - no less.

And nowadays they sing about joining a gang and putting a cap in da nigga. So guess what, them was right. "All things degenerate to shit." - Werner Heisenberg OftenWrong

Bwahaha. Meanwhile I'm seeing the headlines, democrats are getting nervous and looking for a replacement for Joe Biden. The Dems are starting to freak out, and it doesn't take much. They need to get a few candidates lined up and ready, and fast, because the alternative is to them completely intolerable- Don Trump has a good... no, no, wait for it... a VERY good chance of becoming the next president.

Well sadly that's what your country has finally come to. Maybe if you weren't such a buncha ass-hats to one another, these things wouldn't be happening. As it stands now, if Trump wins, we'll be watching the night-fires from across the river. With our bag of popcorn, and some Labatt's...

Your masterful trolling gained you a plus there. From your protege, I see. Massive die-off, I guess you haven't heard of that one yet. Has not to do with the ozone hole, but you can google it. People get attacked and die all the time, throughout history, this is true. In fact everyone who was ever born has died so far, no exceptions. What's different is the ability to annihilate all life on the planet with our modern technology today. "Industrial society destroys mind and environment" - Sushil Yada. Plus the internet, making everyone aware of the problems in the world, and hyping it up to maximize sympathetic response. People stress about problems that aren't even taking place in their own personal sphere. The Thunbergian death cult adds to that and works on that very principle. Gender etc, you are explaining away those issues, but that is not really the point. People are stressed by them, even though you yourself aren't. The data shows this is skewed towards young people, which validates my point. They do not have a context, so are more easily swayed to respond emotionally to what may, or may not be hype. Besides, who says the people of the past didn't suffer from mental breakdown under the stresses they experienced. They just had nobody to turn to, other than perhaps a priest.

Well it's not a one-sided issue. There is some justification. They didn't have atomic bombs. They didn't have covid, and lockdowns. They didn't have a massive die-off of the biosphere. They didn't have people telling them, they have 'gender dysphoria'. They didn't have Greta Thunberg saying the world's coming to an end in 8 years. Hell, even I may need to see a shrink...

Yeah, stick it to the man! They took your woobie away. But not too worry, you'll find a new safe space soon enough. Meanwhile there's still a plethora of web-based news. Like Natural News, featuring Mike Adams, "The Health Ranger"!

Guess you're not exactly batting a thousand, are you. 🤷‍♂️

Ever seen a lithium battery on fire, friend? It will make a light so brilliant and hot, brighter than the sun. And cannot be extinguished with water. There won't even be ashes of the corpses left in an accident. And if you breath the smoke, it will melt your lungs. Full of hydrofluoric acid. "The release of hydrogen fluoride from a Li-ion battery fire can therefore be a severe risk and an even greater risk in confined or semi-confined spaces. - Hydrogen fluoride mixes readily with water forming hydrofluoric acid." Toxicology of the Lithium Ion Battery Fire

More than likely. Feelings of shame being a hallmark of the self-loathing left. They feel shame for the things they've done, then keep doing them again and again. And again, and again, and again and again...

I accept your surrender.

I'm guessing you have spelling correction on, or else are posting pure gibberish all on your own. Go back and re-write what you meant and I'll try to give a reasonable reply. I don't have time to decipher how much 'Grocery' money you spend on defence. "Just 3.9%" is a lot more than 0.79, let alone the required commitment to 2%.

Oh no, we're talking about real crimes involving big money with Russia. Your guy's big crimes ok, our guys not-even-proven crimes are worthy of treason and capital punishment. It's THAT level of lying inconsistency that has given Trump his platform still going strong today. In all the din of rhetoric and accusations, have proven nothing.

You ridiculed him for his hair, no need to lie about it. It's right there in print. That's the way you guys roll. Not that I care, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left since you are not the only one to go for terms like "Orange Man Bad" etc. Then turn around and tell people how "we must not judge people by their race or the colour of their skin". Fill your boots dude.

Unlike the Uranium-One deal that the Clintons pushed through, handing Russia the keys in 2010 while they raked in some of that cool cash. Cash flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians gained U.S. uranium assets Seattle Times, 2105 "The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium-supply chain." "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons. "Soon after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." Oh well. It shouldn't matter, because the Clintons were such good people! 🤷‍♂️

Making fun of people's hair colour is a weak argument. I'd venture to guess, many a red-haired freckle-faced boy feels inadequate and bad about themselves these days with the way some on the left use Trump's hair colour to ridicule him. It's like the whole ginger-hating thing. It's rather despicable.

You can hold on to that little belief that the increase was mainly by the US if you want. The quotes from Stoltenberg on CNN are clear and unambiguous. I bolded the most relevant parts.

Non sequitor. I know you are giving weak arguments because you try to change the topic. More than a few people in the US feel they have given enough to the fund the war in Ukraine. There are other serious problems. Besides the more money you throw at things like this, the more gets wasted in a corrupt environment. There are real problems with accountability in the Ukraine. But although Trump criticizes Nato members and said that Nato is weak, he fought to make it better, and the fact is it is in a better place to deal with Russia because of it. CNN wrote: "While previous presidents had made similar critiques of NATO members’ defense spending, Trump has made it a central theme of his presidential campaign and his administration’s foreign policy, once calling the alliance “obsolete” and repeatedly slamming allies over the spending issue and linking it to trade disputes with the European Union." "Stoltenberg has repeatedly cited defense spending increases among the non-US members of NATO, thanking Trump Tuesday “for your very strong leadership on burden sharing. After years of cutting defense budgets NATO allies have now started to invest more and by the end of next year they will have added $100 billion more into their defense budgets since you took office, and that helps and it proves also that NATO is a strong alliance,” he added." So much for your theories.

Well at least that is interesting and shows that the US under Don Trump increased its defence spending quite a lot. But that is not Nato defence spending as I showed. As the links I showed earlier, Stoltenberg attributed the increase in spending of all countries to the work of Don Trump. "Thursday November 14 2019. Mr. Stoltenberg highlighted rising defence investment across European Allies and Canada, amounting to more than $100 billion extra" Headline from CNN article I already posted. You are making me repeat myself while you obfuscate and confuse the issue. Trump praises NATO chief, says he’s happy allies are ‘paying’ China and Russia are not Nato countries, so they do not count. This shows you are barking up the wrong tree. As per usual.

So now you dodge your baseless claims about how Nato defence spending didn't increase under Trump in 2019. You were shown the data. I knew you wouldn't accept it and change the argument. But there it is in the link. The yes-no back and forth arguments you give are uninteresting. Opinions are like arsholes as the saying goes. Everyone's got one. 🤷‍♂️

You gave your opinion already. Facts are what matter. I know I said facts are hard to find, but you have to at least look. It only took me a few minutes to find this data, showing "Annual real change in defense expenditure among NATO countries from 2014 to 2023". I think the info is fairly clear, speaks for itself. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293399/nato-defense-spending-annual-change/

I try not to lose sleep over it, if that's what you mean. I don't buy your theory, because that's all it is, a theory. And not a very good one given the Nato and CNN links I gave earlier. Those make it clear that Trump took action against the Nato deadbeats, whom were dragging their feet on it for years. For that he was given credit by Stoltenberg, whom I consider a neutral party and not heavily politically biased. To whit- Stoltenberg is giving criticism to Trump about his story right now, saying he expects US to have a strong relationship with Nato no matter who is the president. In terms of financial and military committment, the US, is Nato.

I doubt you can prove this theory, but in that case if it never happened, not an actual problem. Either way, the only answer to a hypothetical is what Trump claims he said, or would have said if it were true. Again not a problem. Unless you would have given a different, better answer? 🤷‍♂️