Rebound Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 26 minutes ago, Deluge said: Then you should be commenting on every f*cking thing that comes out of Washington, and I don't see you nearly that busy. I asked if you thought we should go to war. Are you opposed to that idea or just undecided? I answered that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 23 minutes ago, Deluge said: Then you should be commenting on every f*cking thing that comes out of Washington, and I don't see you nearly that busy. He is a new face in the federal politics commenting on the issue that is of interest to me. I paid attention. 24 minutes ago, Deluge said: Are you opposed to that idea or just undecided? At this time I don't see a pressing cause for that. Ukraine is doing fine on its own, as long as it has means to fight. However, if a new totalitarian Axis becomes a fact of reality, the free world should consider it very seriously. Putin was encouraged by a weak Western response to his earlier transgressions and by apparent weakness of NATO in Afghanistan. His success in Ukraine would be a major rule changer for the entire world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Rebound said: I answered that question. OK, then based on that m*ronic word salad you just served up, I'm going to go ahead and say "Yes". Yes you are in favor of going to war. Now, have you considered the impact of your fake president's decision should he decide to go to war? The cost of human lives? the fact that yet another democrat president would be leading us to war? There was a time where nanny statists were opposed to war. Has that changed for you? Edited March 20 by Deluge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 11 minutes ago, myata said: He is a new face in the federal politics commenting on the issue that is of interest to me. I paid attention. At this time I don't see a pressing cause for that. Ukraine is doing fine on its own, as long as it has means to fight. However, if a new totalitarian Axis becomes a fact of reality, the free world should consider it very seriously. Putin was encouraged by a weak Western response to his earlier transgressions and by apparent weakness of NATO in Afghanistan. His success in Ukraine would be a major rule changer for the entire world. I see, so it's the actual topic that draws you in, not Trump? I don't see any kind of axis rising from the Kremlin, so you're safe there. Glad to see that you don't have a hard on for war, like some other democrats seem to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 14 minutes ago, Deluge said: OK, then based on that m*ronic word salad you just served up, I'm going to go ahead and say "Yes". Yes you are in favor of going to war. Now, have you considered the impact of your fake president's decision should he decide to go to war? The cost of human lives? the fact that yet another democrat president would be leading us to war? There was a time where nanny statists were opposed to war. Has that changed for you? You cannot understand plain English if you think I am a proponent of going to war. I said that we should go to war only if Putin invades NATO territory. This has been US foreign policy since the 1950’s and it is a legally binding obligation of the United States of America. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 16 minutes ago, Deluge said: like some other democrats seem to have. I don't count myself as a Democrat and don't fancy partisan politics generally, how they try to coerce one into a binary reference frame. I barely vote in Canada anymore, reluctant to be forced to pick between default options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, myata said: I don't count myself as a Democrat and don't fancy partisan politics generally, how they try to coerce one into a binary reference frame. I barely vote in Canada anymore, reluctant to be forced to pick between default options. But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 39 minutes ago, Deluge said: But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech, right? Abortion has nothing to do with Ukraine. Most Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of Ukraine. The entire nation would be United except for Donald Trump. Some day, the truth will come out and we will learn that Trump got money or loan guarantees or something from Putin in exchange for Trump’s otherwise nonsensical love of Russia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted March 20 Author Report Share Posted March 20 59 minutes ago, Deluge said: But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech This is off the topics but again, I can't find it productive that in a partisan system one has to pick the whole package of issues regardless on the position on each one. This is quite inevitable in a system that forces you to pick one winner instead of the issues you consider important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 21 minutes ago, Rebound said: Abortion has nothing to do with Ukraine. Point out where I said it did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 21 minutes ago, Rebound said: Abortion has nothing to do with Ukraine. Most Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of Ukraine. The entire nation would be United except for Donald Trump. Some day, the truth will come out and we will learn that Trump got money or loan guarantees or something from Putin in exchange for Trump’s otherwise nonsensical love of Russia. It's fairly clear that Trump thought he could make $200M from building a tower in Moscow and he needed Putin's approval so bad he would be GIVEN a penthouse in that tower. To Trump, foreign policy is ALL ABOUT how he could PROFIT from his decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 Just now, myata said: This is off the topics but again, I can't find it productive that in a partisan system one has to pick the whole package of issues regardless on the position on each one. This is quite inevitable in a system that forces you to pick one winner instead of the issues you consider important. Just say that you don't have an opinion on any of the three things I just asked you about, and I'll let it rest - unless, of course, I find you later sharing your thoughts on one of those three, and then we will talk about where you stand at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, robosmith said: It's fairly clear that Trump thought he could make $200M from building a tower in Moscow and he needed Putin's approval so bad he would be GIVEN a penthouse in that tower. To Trump, foreign policy is ALL ABOUT how he could PROFIT from his decisions. Diplomacy is the key here. Trump was being diplomatic, first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 29 minutes ago, Deluge said: Diplomacy is the key here. Trump was being diplomatic, first. Was asking Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden before shipping any weapons an act of diplomacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 16 minutes ago, Rebound said: Was asking Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden before shipping any weapons an act of diplomacy? I'd say that is more like a request. We know for a fact that threatening Ukrainian leaders to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless they fired a prosecutor who was looking into a Biden money laundering operation isn't diplomatic, in fact it was probably illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted March 20 Report Share Posted March 20 2 hours ago, Deluge said: Diplomacy is the key here. Trump was being diplomatic, first. ^His desire to profit from building a tower in Moscow is a LUDICROUS form of "diplomacy." AKA, you have no idea what the word means. Diplomacy DOES NOT mean getting together with foreign leaders and making deals for PERSONAL PROFIT. That is what DICTATORS do, and that's why Trump thought keptocrat Putin would go for it. 🤮 Is that the kind of leader YOU WANT for the US? A Sellout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 (edited) 16 hours ago, robosmith said: ^His desire to profit from building a tower in Moscow is a LUDICROUS form of "diplomacy." AKA, you have no idea what the word means. Diplomacy DOES NOT mean getting together with foreign leaders and making deals for PERSONAL PROFIT. That is what DICTATORS do, and that's why Trump thought keptocrat Putin would go for it. 🤮 Is that the kind of leader YOU WANT for the US? A Sellout. Sorry, chump, even with Trump's faults, he still beats the shit out of your guy, and it's not even a debate. I'm sure you disagree, so let's take a closer look at Trump's accomplishments: https://www.mcleancountyrepublicans.org/trump_administration_accomplishments Now, go get a list of Biden's accomplishments and we'll compare the two. Oh, and I disagree. He was being diplomatic, first. Edited March 21 by Deluge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 20 hours ago, Rebound said: You cannot understand plain English if you think I am a proponent of going to war. I said that we should go to war only if Putin invades NATO territory. This has been US foreign policy since the 1950’s and it is a legally binding obligation of the United States of America. Are you saying that the US should get out of this "legally binding obligation" so that we never have to go to war again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, Deluge said: Are you saying that the US should get out of this "legally binding obligation" so that we never have to go to war again? The NATO Charter has been ratified by the US Senate. Per the US Constitution, that makes the NATO Charter “the supreme law of the land.” I support the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, I must accept the NATO charter. Article 5 of the NATO Charter obligates all members to consider an armed attack on one member as an attack on them. In all the time NATO has been in force, Article 5 has been invoked only once: After the September 11 attacks on the United States. NATO has stated that any attack on a nuclear power plant in Ukraine which releases radiation into or over NATO member states will be considered an Article 5 condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 26 minutes ago, Rebound said: The NATO Charter has been ratified by the US Senate. Per the US Constitution, that makes the NATO Charter “the supreme law of the land.” I support the U.S. Constitution, and therefore, I must accept the NATO charter. Article 5 of the NATO Charter obligates all members to consider an armed attack on one member as an attack on them. In all the time NATO has been in force, Article 5 has been invoked only once: After the September 11 attacks on the United States. NATO has stated that any attack on a nuclear power plant in Ukraine which releases radiation into or over NATO member states will be considered an Article 5 condition. YOUR opinion, Rebound, not another word salad. I gave you a yes or no question: In YOUR opinion, should the US get out of this "legally binding obligation" so that we never have to go to war again? Yes or no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 On 3/21/2023 at 12:44 PM, Deluge said: YOUR opinion, Rebound, not another word salad. I gave you a yes or no question: In YOUR opinion, should the US get out of this "legally binding obligation" so that we never have to go to war again? Yes or no? The premise of your question is absolutely false. America has fought many wars in our history, and none of them were a result of our membership in NATO. Therefore, it is false to say that leaving NATO will ensure that we will never have to go to war again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 On 3/21/2023 at 7:45 AM, Deluge said: Sorry, chump, even with Trump's faults, he still beats the shit out of your guy, and it's not even a debate. I'm sure you disagree, so let's take a closer look at Trump's accomplishments: https://www.mcleancountyrepublicans.org/trump_administration_accomplishments Now, go get a list of Biden's accomplishments and we'll compare the two. Oh, and I disagree. He was being diplomatic, first. Of course your source of a Republican group is unassailable. LMAO Your choice of source just shows YOUR DESPERATION. I am WELL FAMILIAR with Trump's "accomplishments" as well as his EXTENISIVE LIST of ethical VIOLATIONS. And KNOW that HIS CULT gives him a PASS on every one. Since you are unfamiliar with Biden's here is a LIST from an OBJECTIVE SOURCE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 (edited) 21 minutes ago, robosmith said: Of course your source of a Republican group Is the source I am using. the onus now falls on you to either debunk it, or walk away. Edited March 22 by Deluge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deluge Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 39 minutes ago, Rebound said: The premise of your question is absolutely false. America has fought many wars in our history, and none of them were a result of our membership in NATO. Therefore, it is false to say that leaving NATO will ensure that we will never have to go to war again. Answer the question. It's a yes or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robosmith Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 8 minutes ago, Deluge said: Is the source I am using. the onus now falls on you to either debunk it, or walk away. Just shows your dishonest DESPERATION. You KNOW that source is heavily BIASED but double down on it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.