The Walls be Closing

[BillsFanNC]

The walls be taking a month break on closing. 

 

Cease the circle jerk TDSers.

 

 

 

[Doc]

We're on to Georgia...

[Orlando Tim]

20 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

The walls be taking a month break on closing. 

 

Cease the circle jerk TDSers.

 

 

 

I know this is not usual but is this even in the realm of normal, making a grand jury come back a month later? Telling people to go back to usual life and then come back later to get more information?

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Not everything is about us.  It's a crazy concept I know.  US response was 1 of many factors that went into their escalation.  I'm sorry but those Trump Rambo posters are fake.  This idea that Trump is tough is a laughable facade.

I have to agree with Doc on this one. If as you say it’s not about us then what does Trump have to do with it? You’re kinda tying yourself in a pretzel here. I know you don’t like Trump but if everything isn’t about us then it’s also true that everything isn’t about Trump. Give it a rest already!!!

Edited March 29, 2023 by SoCal Deek

[BillsFanNC]

26 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

I know this is not usual but is this even in the realm of normal, making a grand jury come back a month later? Telling people to go back to usual life and then come back later to get more information?

 

Absolutely, but still the TDSers and their seven year long this time we got him circle jerk.....waits again.

[Unforgiven]

2 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Not everything is about us.  It's a crazy concept I know.  US response was 1 of many factors that went into their escalation.  I'm sorry but those Trump Rambo posters are fake.  This idea that Trump is tough is a laughable facade.

Your brain is broken weirdo get a hobby

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have to agree with Doc on this one. If as you say it’s not about us then what does Trump have to do with it? You’re kinda tying yourself in a pretzel here. I know you don’t like Trump but if everything isn’t about us then it’s also true that everything isn’t about Trump. Give it a rest already!!!

 

And it's less that Trump is Rambo and more than he was a wildcard who would take out adversaries without warning, and who was trying to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, which is why this all happened.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Doc

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

And it's less that Trump is Rambo and more than he was a wildcard who would take out adversaries without warning, who was trying to keep Ukraine from joining NATO, which is why this all happened.

And that’s the issue - Ukraine does NOT need Putin’s permission to join NATO.

 

 

[L Ron Burgundy]

1 hour ago, Unforgiven said:

Your brain is broken weirdo get a hobby

Thank you.  I was really wondering what the short bus riders think.  You read my mind and responded.   Please give us more of your insights.  I'm sure everyone would love to hear more.

[L Ron Burgundy]

6 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its well thought out reasoning supported by the conclusion that a policy which was in effect would continue.  What's your argument?  That regardless of who won Putin would have attacked?  How is that any better? 

It absolutely is my argument.  It's also conjecture but it's not very logical to think Putin is going to make the decision to invade Ukraine based solely or even mostly on who is in charge in the US.  No matter who that was.  It was one consideration among many and not near the most important.   I know we Americans always think of ourselves as most important but sometimes we're not.

 

When Zelensky was elected Putin saw a soft spot in Ukraine.   He tried to muscle him on some issues and was rebuffed.  Russia has always had puppet regimes there to different extents.   Surprisingly this elected comedian told Putin to pound sand.  With past successes in the East along with Crimea and thinking zelensky was a joke he saw his chance and took it.

 

But yeah conjecture.   Mine is better.   Putin would have invaded had Trump won and likely Ukraine would be getting less aid now.  How could Trump have possibly dissuaded him?

 

[Doc]

53 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

It absolutely is my argument.  It's also conjecture but it's not very logical to think Putin is going to make the decision to invade Ukraine based solely or even mostly on who is in charge in the US.  No matter who that was.  It was one consideration among many and not near the most important.   I know we Americans always think of ourselves as most important but sometimes we're not.

 

When Zelensky was elected Putin saw a soft spot in Ukraine.   He tried to muscle him on some issues and was rebuffed.  Russia has always had puppet regimes there to different extents.   Surprisingly this elected comedian told Putin to pound sand.  With past successes in the East along with Crimea and thinking zelensky was a joke he saw his chance and took it.

 

But yeah conjecture.   Mine is better.   Putin would have invaded had Trump won and likely Ukraine would be getting less aid now.  How could Trump have possibly dissuaded him?

 

This is worse than conjecture: it's bordering on, if not, a lie.  For starters, Putin invaded under Barry and Joke, and didn't under Trump.  But that's a complete coincidence, right?  And what did Barry do for Ukraine?  Nothing except for humanitarian aid.  Trump provided lethal aid.  And remember that prior to Zielenskyy Ukraine was an incredibly corrupt country that wasn't flirting with NATO membership and thus had less reason to be supported by the rest of the World, much less an alleged Putin puppet in Trump.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Doc

[L Ron Burgundy]

30 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

This is worse than conjecture: it's bordering on, if not, a lie.  For starters, Putin invaded under Barry and Joke, and didn't under Trump.  But that's a complete coincidence, right?  And what did Barry do for Ukraine?  Nothing except for humanitarian aid.  Trump provided lethal aid.  And remember that prior to Zielenskyy Ukraine was an incredibly corrupt country that wasn't flirting with NATO membership and thus had less reason to be supported by the rest of the World, much less an alleged Putin puppet in Trump.

I haven't been calling him a puppet I've been calling him a pu$$y..

 

A few points then I'm done hijacking this topic.

 

Ukraine 10 years ago or even 6 is not Ukraine now.  You are not considering any context.

 

Barry was maybe right to not give them more then because they were horribly Corrupt like you said.  That Corruption is mostly from Russian influence.  As in paid operatives that rep Russian interests.  I flip flop between it being a mistake or not.   Probably yes with hindsight.  Though had a more eastern leaning pres gotten elected later that would change everything.  Not black and white.   

 

Zelensky getting elected was spitting in Putin's eye.  It represented a continuation of shifting to align with the west/eu and away from Russia.  So now helping them is much more palatable.

 

Ukraine has wanted into Nato for over 20 years.  It just didn't make the news until they started to westernize.

 

You giving Trump props for aid he tried to withhold to investigate a conspiracy theory is amusing. 

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

I haven't been calling him a puppet I've been calling him a pu$$y..

 

A few points then I'm done hijacking this topic.

 

Ukraine 10 years ago or even 6 is not Ukraine now.  You are not considering any context.

 

Barry was maybe right to not give them more then because they were horribly Corrupt like you said.  That Corruption is mostly from Russian influence.  As in paid operatives that rep Russian interests.  I flip flop between it being a mistake or not.   Probably yes with hindsight.  Though had a more eastern leaning pres gotten elected later that would change everything.  Not black and white.   

 

Zelensky getting elected was spitting in Putin's eye.  It represented a continuation of shifting to align with the west/eu and away from Russia.  So now helping them is much more palatable.

 

Ukraine has wanted into Nato for over 20 years.  It just didn't make the news until they started to westernize.

 

You giving Trump props for aid he tried to withhold to investigate a conspiracy theory is amusing.

 

Trump was not a pu$$y.   Not sure where you're getting that from other than partisanship but there's no basis in reality for it.  Maybe the world didn't respect him, but they feared him and what he could/would do.  That goes for allies and foes alike.

 

As for Ukraine then versus now, again you're making my point for me.  As you said they were corrupt from Russian influence when Putin first invaded under Barry and (theoretically) until Zelenskyy was elected, but he wasn't elected until 2-1/2 years into Trump's Presidency.  Again Putin could have easily invaded before then, had a Pro-Russian government and a puppet/pu$$y in Trump to help him do it.

 

And Trump had every reason to withhold money to a new government of a country that was well-know for its corruption.  Just because it was a new government doesn't mean it was any less corrupt. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Doc

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

48 minutes ago, Doc said:

but they feared him

The only people that fear him are those that are doing his bidding in congress.

 

The world LAUGHED at this stooge.

 

[BillStime]

What a cute puppy - @Docgive Trumpy a bone. 

 

 

Ronald Reagan just flipped in his grave

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, SUNY_amherst said:

Aiding and abetting the enemy

What's interesting is how few people understand that having a healthy respect for your adversaries is a fundamental characteristic of productive leadership.  And displaying a constant high level of hostility and contempt for others is not a recipe for successful engagement.  Be it in business, politics, or personal life.  If you're going to engage in dialogue or negotiations, or conflict that approach is needed to succeed.  That's what Trump is saying in his less than eloquent speaking style.  This is neither aiding or abetting any enemy.  Its an effective approach to problem resolution and communicating your objectives and demands.  Otherwise, you're left with one option, conflict.    

 

Now if you approach every relationship thinking the U.S. has some until the end of time "right" to take a my-way-or-the-highway stance with every engagement of some other party be it an ally or an enemy you'll see no need to approach problems in this manner.  Its take it or leave it for everyone.  

[Tommy Callahan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honors_received_by_Donald_Trump

33 minutes ago, SUNY_amherst said:

I think you’ve put more thought into this than the reality tv guy ever has. Kudos 

 

 

for the record. the big orange salesman does have the president of the united states of America on his resume. same with like 75 million votes.

 

to go with his reality TV time.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Chris farley

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What's interesting is how few people understand that having a healthy respect for your adversaries is a fundamental characteristic of productive leadership.  And displaying a constant high level of hostility and contempt for others is not a recipe for successful engagement.  Be it in business, politics, or personal life.  If you're going to engage in dialogue or negotiations, or conflict that approach is needed to succeed.  That's what Trump is saying in his less than eloquent speaking style.  This is neither aiding or abetting any enemy.  Its an effective approach to problem resolution and communicating your objectives and demands.  Otherwise, you're left with one option, conflict.    

 

Now if you approach every relationship thinking the U.S. has some until the end of time "right" to take a my-way-or-the-highway stance with every engagement of some other party be it an ally or an enemy you'll see no need to approach problems in this manner.  Its take it or leave it for everyone.  

 

jfc

 

 

[Kemp]

https://www.newsweek.com/allen-weisselberg-flip-donald-trump-lawyers-1791411

"It can mean one of two things. Number one, the case is over and doesn't need lawyers anymore, they were just representing them on that one case," Agnifilo said. "Or, more likely, is there was this pressure campaign put on him saying while he's in Rikers, 'do you like being there? Because we're about to bring other charges.'

[Tommy Callahan]

6 minutes ago, Kemp said:

https://www.newsweek.com/allen-weisselberg-flip-donald-trump-lawyers-1791411

"It can mean one of two things. Number one, the case is over and doesn't need lawyers anymore, they were just representing them on that one case," Agnifilo said. "Or, more likely, is there was this pressure campaign put on him saying while he's in Rikers, 'do you like being there? Because we're about to bring other charges.'

Reads like another blue anon conspiracy void of facts. 

[Kemp]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:06 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Biden's administration, thru re-inserting neocon Nuland and stepped up arms deliveries, encouraged Ukrainian paramilitary groups to step up attacks on ethnic Russian separatists in the east which began in 2014 and dismissed any diplomatic efforts and conversations between the parties.  Escalation followed escalation and events unfolded to where they sit today.  Trump's Department of State would have done neither.  Now China is stepping into the vacuum and along with new partner France have begun engagement with Ukraine and Russia to broker a peace deal, absent Washington which of course is against any peace deal.    

 

You're of the belief that Ukraine started the war?

You understand Putin is a dictator, right? 

[Kemp]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:23 AM, Chris farley said:

Is that a reference to the day the Mueller report came out and had nothing?

 

 

 

I wonder why you folks always leave out

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

Mueller found plenty. The issue was whether or not a sitting President could be charged.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Kemp

[Kemp]

23 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Interactions with Russia don't even come close to being "collusion."  Collusion is having a disgraced British spy get lies from Russians and pass it off as legit intel in order to take down a President.

 

Forget about the word "collusion" for a minute.

Does it strike you as a pattern that so many people working for and with Trump were found guilty of crimes that involved Russia?

No other administration had anything resembling this.

Since no one has chosen to answer, why do you believe Trump refused to have a translator when he spoke with Putin? To my knowledge that has never happened before.

Why can't any of you come up with a reasonable explanation for this?

Why can't any of you answer any direct questions?

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

I wonder why you folks always leave out

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

Mueller found plenty. The issuev was whether or not a sitting President could be charged.

I still wonder if and/or when Mueller found out Sussman was working for Hillarie's campaign during that investigation?

 

The issue you mentioned is just another Media/Pac strawman.

 

That one is just another in a long list of expensive DEM theatre.  

 

Imagine how much was spent and what else we could have done for Americans vs theatre to get power back.  and are failing miserably since regaining said power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

27 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Reads like another blue anon conspiracy void of facts. 

 

The FACT is that Trump's lawyers no longer represent Weisselberg. 

What that means is yet to be determined.

[Tommy Callahan]

Not according to the article, you shared that was full of assumptions that talked of another conspiracy.

 

At the end of the day. does it get frustrating to have so many things you were told were the truth, only to be later found to be a story.  

 

In the boy that cried wolf story, the town stopped believing after 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

7 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

I still wonder if and/or when Mueller found out Sussman was working for Hillarie's campaign during that investigation?

 

The issue you mentioned is just another Media/Pac strawman.

 

That one is just another in a long list of expensive DEM theatre.  

 

Imagine how much was spent and what else we could have done for Americans vs theatre to get power back.  and are failing miserably since regaining said power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to know what a strawman is. It's a +

9 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

I still wonder if and/or when Mueller found out Sussman was working for Hillarie's campaign during that investigation?

 

The issue you mentioned is just another Media/Pac strawman.

 

That one is just another in a long list of expensive DEM theatre.  

 

Imagine how much was spent and what else we could have done for Americans vs theatre to get power back.  and are failing miserably since regaining said power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A direct quote is a strawman?

Do you even what the word means?

1 minute ago, Chris farley said:

Not according to the article, you shared that was full of assumptions that talked of another conspiracy.

 

At the end of the day. does it get frustrating to have so many things you were told were the truth, only to be later found to be a story.  

 

In the boy that cried wolf story, the town stopped believing after 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you recall, I was the one willing to put up money that it's not a boy called wolf situation. 

 

I also noticed that you and yours never answer direct questions.

Why is that?

A posting of an emoji just avoids.

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Kemp said:

Forget about the word "collusion" for a minute.

Does it strike you as a pattern that so many people working for and with Trump were found guilty of crimes that involved Russia?

No other administration had anything resembling this.

Since no one has chosen to answer, why do you believe Trump refused to have a translator when he spoke with Putin? To my knowledge that has never happened before.

Why can't any of you come up with a reasonable explanation for this?

Why can't any of you answer any direct questions?

 

They were guilty of lying about talking to Russians because they knew what would happen if they admitted they talked to them (and Flynn talked to them after the election, Manafort was gone a year prior to the election and van der Zwaan had nothing to do with anything).  Kind of like lying about an affair while in Office.  No one was ever charged with anything even remotely close to "collusion" and Trump never did anything for Russia in exchange for the alleged "collusion."  You all got yourselves worked up over nothing and, again, did far more for Putin than he could ever had accomplished by himself.

 

Now, what do you suppose Barry meant when he told Medvedev to tell Putin prior to the 2012 election that he'd have more flexibility after he got re-elected?  Flexibility to do what?  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Doc

[L Ron Burgundy]

3 hours ago, Chris farley said:

Reads like another blue anon conspiracy void of facts. 

Blue anon, straw man, you just repeat the same shiite that half the time doesn't make sense.

[Tommy Callahan]

13 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Blue anon, straw man, you just repeat the same shiite that half the time doesn't make sense.

Its all good, this is where you tossed out the laziest forms of propaganda. the Ad hominem Fallacy.

 

intentional or just learned behavior.

 

and Blue anon is in reference to Q anon. its crazy conspiracy stories being told as truth.

 

here is a list or two to help.

 

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Chris farley

[L Ron Burgundy]

11 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

Its all good, this is where you tossed out the laziest forms of propaganda. the Ad hominem Fallacy.

 

intentional or just learned behavior.

 

and Blue anon is in reference to Q anon. its crazy conspiracy stories being told as truth.

 

here is a list or two to help.

 

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yaaaaawn.

 

I'd pick apart your logic but seriously what's the point if you cannot comprehend?   It's like explaining a black hole to a hamster or how to drive to a woman.

[Tommy Callahan]

4 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Yaaaaawn.

 

I'd pick apart your logic but seriously what's the point if you cannot comprehend?   It's like explaining a black hole to a hamster or how to drive to a woman.

And another ad hominem.

 

Its interesting how some in here use propaganda or fallacies NON stop, but claim to be master debaters or something.

 

if the argument was valid and you could prove it, you wouldn't need to use the fallacies.

 

[L Ron Burgundy]

14 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

And another ad hominem.

 

Its interesting how some in here use propaganda or fallacies NON stop, but claim to be master debaters or something.

 

if the argument was valid and you could prove it, you wouldn't need to use the fallacies.

 

Ad hominem and straw man.  Please tell your home school teacher to learn ya somethin new.  Using terms 100x out of context gets boring.  

[RiotAct]

should be any day now…

[Doc]

26 minutes ago, RiotAct said:

should be any day month now…

 

FIFY

[Unforgiven]

waiting....

[BillStime]

Well look at this

 

 

[Kemp]

7 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Well look at this

 

 

 

Still unconfirmed, but the jury is voting.

 

Edit: Confirmed

Edited March 30, 2023 by Kemp

[BillStime]