Russia and Ukraine

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 483
#391
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Glad we agree that Russian collusion was a hoax and Putin has nothing on Trump lol
So you’re not even going to pretend you’re here to have serious conversation. Got it.

I can’t wait till schools have time off and I can finally find some serious intelligent people on this site to go back and forth with.
#392
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
If you really need the name of a politician in order to have a conversation about this then insert Biden.
#393
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Obama. Anyone who displayed a whit of self-awareness or self-possession. Why is the US electing geriatrics. 
#394
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
If you really need the name of a politician in order to have a conversation about this then insert Biden.
There ya go! Now you have a stake in a discussion about presidential leadership and doctrine rather than merely sniping from the sidelines. This is progress from your “I don’t give a rat’s ass about Biden!” claim.

Listing things that happened during the Trump administration is not the same thing as listing things that happened because of Trump. In almost every case, the actions taken by the administration were taken over Trump’s (often public) disapproval.
In other words, ignore what his administration actually DID; listen to the things this buffoon SAID! And when he said the proper things, those instances were allegedly few and should be discounted entirely, just as the MSM did. Also, when Trump’s Secretary of State says or does the proper thing, those instances somehow don’t count, either.

This is you simply batting away facts that don’t fit the narrative.

The sanctions were passed with a veto proof majority and were not even imposed until he was pressured after it was revealed that he hadn’t yet moved on them. The military aid to Ukraine was passed by congress and withheld by Trump until he could get dirt on Biden, which he had to abandon after it was about to go public. Time after time Trump was the obstacle to the US being tough on Russia, not the reason.
So, you fault Trump for being “pressured” into making a good decision? It’s a pity that our current president wasn’t so pressured on some of his decisions…

As for obstacles to NATO, Germany has been largely guilty of that one, which is why Trump was exhorting them to up their game. For this, Trump was lambasted for “criticizing a major US ally!” *gasp*

And then there are all of the other examples of Trump inexplicably taking Putin’s side on issues no US President would have ever taken; allowing Russia back into the G8, working with Russia to “investigate” interference in the 2016 election, pulling the US out of NATO, blaming the former US President for Russia’s decision to invade and annex Crimea, etc.
Yes, he certainly has an unorthodox style, no doubt. I might call his foreign policy “The Capone Doctrine.” That is:  “I keep my friends close… but I keep my enemies even closer!”
#395
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
So you’re not even going to pretend you’re here to have serious conversation. Got it.

I can’t wait till schools have time off and I can finally find some serious intelligent people on this site to go back and forth with.

You’re implying that Putin purposely chose not to invade Ukraine under Donald Trump even though you think the Russians had leverage on him. The two things don’t align. 

The one time school was out, I destroyed you in our debate. Be careful what you wish for :)
#396
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I probably have more cultural and ideological ties to the average Russian than the average American. Which is why I am supporting Russia.
Are you supporting authoritarian leftist countries to own the libs?
#397
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,001
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
gotem
#398
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,001
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 No, my obsession is with the phenomenon where otherwise intelligent people suddenly lose all sense of reality to pretend that this man and everything he has brought to the table is not batshit crazy. 

There are literally zero people on this site that believe everything Trump did was good. You are having a virtual battle with yourself and tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.

There are a few people on this site, however, that can not acknowledge ANYTHING Trump did that helped America. Some have this irrational dogma that anything bad, no matter how severe, must be attributed to Trump and nothing good no matter how slight, must not.

That is what true TDS is. Beliefs reduced to mindless absolutism.

And we have seen exactly what this TDS dogma put into political power accomplished. Biden wasn't elected to lead the country. He was elected to reverse everything Trump did, good or bad. Which he did spectacularly during his 1st year.

Now, as the failures of such actions mount up, Biden has been recently doing steady walk backs. Lifting mandates, refunding police, lowering gas prices by relaxing restrictions on domestic oil so our enemies stop holding us hostage. Slowing government spending before inflation hits double digits. Turns out "Not-Trump" isn't objectively a sound direction for the country.

But it's probably not going to be enough to salvage the nation in time to avert the 2022 insurrection against the Democrat party.

Topic's author
#399
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes
#400
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
In other words, ignore what his administration actually DID; listen to the things this buffoon SAID!
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the US is not a dictatorship. Trump does not have the right or authority to override the law, so when Congress passes sanctions with a veto proof majority, it’s not up to Trump to decide whether they get imposed. Coupling this with the fact that he made his position against the sanctions clear, publicly and privately, it is beyond absurd to credit his administration for them.

The same goes for the military aid to Ukraine. Trump tried to hold it back until he got caught, then he released it. Why then? Because he understood the political implications of it, which of course turned into his first impeachment.

Do you understand how this works?

So, you fault Trump for being “pressured” into making a good decision? It’s a pity that our current president wasn’t so pressured on some of his decisions…
The decision he was pressured into was following the law. The fact that he has to be pressured into that decision in the first place should make you think, but it won’t.

And when he said the proper things, those instances were allegedly few and should be discounted entirely, just as the MSM did. Also, when Trump’s Secretary of State says or does the proper thing, those instances somehow don’t count, either.

This is you simply batting away facts that don’t fit the narrative.
This is where logic and basic critical thinking comes in. If someone tells you you’re wonderful to your face, and says you’re an asshole behind your back, which one do you believe?

Now apply the same logic to Trump.

The only times we ever heard Trump talk tough against Russia was when he was in front of a teleprompter. Every example of him speaking off the cuff showed us what he really thought, as well as every report from every first hand witness who was there to hear him speak first hand. Trump was playing both sides of the fence, so giving him credit for the publicly acceptable position when he’d turn around a day later and say the opposite is ridiculous. Remember when Obama said he’d have more flexibility after the election? Of course you do, because you understand the point I’m making even if you pretend not to.

So we don’t need to bat away any of the facts, just lay them all out and the picture is beyond obvious. And if you still can’t figure it out ask John Bolton, you know, Trump’s hand picked National security advisor who is saying all of the same stuff I am.

Yes, he certainly has an unorthodox style, no doubt. I might call his foreign policy “The Capone Doctrine.” That is:  “I keep my friends close… but I keep my enemies even closer!”
I don’t think The Capone Doctrine was to advocate for everything your adversaries want.

And if it were Biden doing all of these things you would not be calling it “unorthodox”. Because you know… TDS. Or something.

#401
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re implying that Putin purposely chose not to invade Ukraine under Donald Trump even though you think the Russians had leverage on him. The two things don’t align. 
No, I’m arguing that
(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before, and
(B) That given all of the facts regarding Trump’s behavior towards Putin the idea that Trump was the thing stopping Putin is blatantly absurd.

The problem with this however is that you have to have the bandwidth to be able to look at Trump’s full record on Putin in order to understand the issue beyond:

“trump president, putin no invade. biden president, putin invade”

The one time school was out, I destroyed you in our debate. Be careful what you wish for :)
LMAO!

I would comment on how childish you are, but you have Trump as your avatar so…

Go on and beat your chest because all your friends who already agreed with you voted for you for reasons that had nothing to do with the debate if that makes you feel smart…
#402
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,001
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before
Who is this "we" you speak of? Most of the world knows exactly why Putin decided to invade right now.


#403
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R

Go on and beat your chest because all your friends who already agreed with you voted for you for reasons that had nothing to do with the debate if that makes you feel smart…
My friends? Lmaoooo.

Coal is a liberal. I hadn’t even heard about Puachu until they voted. Ragnar is a progressive left winger. Still 3-1 considering political ideologies. I can ask Whiteflame, probably the most objective voter on the site to do an informal vote, but I suspect I’d still win

You’re entitled to your opinion just like you’re entitled to your salt :)
#404
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Coal is much more right-leaning than left-leaning tbh.
#405
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Coal is much more right-leaning than left-leaning tbh.
Nah, he’s just hella right on COVID
Topic's author
#406
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps Catholicism is inherently perverted too.
Why?
#407
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,001
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you like my profile pic?
#408
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,932
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
.." Do you like my profile pic? "...
Yous stand with Trumpet and the insurrection.  Your best defined by your Orange- Grey-parrot.

All else is deflection and redirection away from these above truths. If Trumpet likes Putin then you like Putin.

If Trumpet likes Kim-Ung-Pooh then you like Pooh also.  So much of the times your words are empty rehtoric.

#409
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you like my profile pic?
I love it lol
#410
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Do you understand how this works?
I understand that you like to give the appearance of addressing and debunking what I posit without really doing so. You stick to a few of the MSM favorite complaints and act as though you have effectively negated the nonpartisan article I posited in post #343 whereas you have merely dismissed it instead. Nothing new there…

I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.

This is where logic and basic critical thinking comes in. If someone tells you you’re wonderful to your face, and says you’re an asshole behind your back, which one do you believe?
Again, I judge leaders more by actions and results rather than their poorly chosen words. If Trump uses buddy buddy rhetoric with Putin while exhorting a major NATO member not to be so resource dependent on Russia, guess which takes precedence for me?

And if it were Biden doing all of these things you would not be calling it “unorthodox”.
If Biden were to do what Trump did, I would shake my head at the hypocrisy of doing the very things one formerly criticized adamantly. If he copied ideas of Trump’s without giving due credit, I’d shake my head at that, too. If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.

If, heaven forbid, a Russian missile were headed toward your residence, your final words would be “Well, Trump couldn’t have prevented this, either!”

#411
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before
Who is this "we" you speak of? Most of the world knows exactly why Putin decided to invade right now.
#412
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because it has always had an all consuming obsession with the sex lives of it's adherents and others.

As exemplified by your good self constantly going on about homosexuality and paedophilia. (Practices that have been proven to be rife within the R.C. church for centuries.). And always worrying about what other people do with their GOD given organs of pleasure.

This is undoubtedly an inherent data set, and therefore can rightly be described as inherently perverse.

Try Ornithology Doc.....It  might be a slightly less stressful hobby, and  stop you constantly thinking about people having sex.


#413
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.
I’ve already explained what I believe and it’s not complicated, unless you want to be. 

Again, the president is not a dictator. There are other bodies within the federal government that can take actions and the president does not get credit for the actions of those bodies, especially when the president was against them the entire time.

Why is this so difficult? No, seriously, why?

This is like when members of Congress vote against legislation, but then show up to the ribbon cutting ceremonies to take credit for the projects they voted against funding.

You keep telling me what I have to say is nothing new, well here’s a crazy thought… respond to it. Please explain the logic of “Trump might have been against it but I still give him credit because it happened while he was in office”. I’d really love to hear it.

Again, I judge leaders more by actions and results rather than their poorly chosen words. If Trump uses buddy buddy rhetoric with Putin while exhorting a major NATO member not to be so resource dependent on Russia, guess which takes precedence for me?
So you’re all about results not rhetoric, but your example is Trump whining and complaining about an oil deal Germany made with Russia? Is this supposed to be what refutes everything I’ve said here?

If Biden were to do what Trump did, I would shake my head at the hypocrisy of doing the very things one formerly criticized adamantly.
This is such a nonsense cop out. You’re essentially arguing that Trump lowered the bar so low that if another president did it, your only complaint would be in regards to what they said while Trump was lowering it.

Not only is this just plain silly, it misses the entire point. The question is, what would you have thought if it were Biden doing these things instead of Trump?

We both know the answer. We both know you would have lost your mind and grabbed your torch and pitchfork along with the rest of the GOP demanding Biden be impeached for being a traitor to the US. But you know… TDS.

You stick to a few of the MSM favorite complaints and…
I was just curious to ask you about this… why does the fact that the MSM reported on these things matter to the point that you act as if they have some kind of monopoly of ownership on this? Why when for example, a US President stands in front of the world and takes his adversary’s word over the unanimous conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, does my pointing out that this was bad somehow make me a purveyor of “MSM talking points”? I’d really love an answer to this.
#414
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
No, my obsession is with the phenomenon where otherwise intelligent people suddenly lose all sense of reality to pretend that this man and everything he has brought to the table is not batshit crazy.
There are literally zero people on this site that believe everything Trump did was good. You are having a virtual battle with yourself and tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.
My god dude, learn to read. Or at least try to understand someone’s point before going off on a rant to criticize it.

In the statement “this man and everything they bring to the table” I’m clearly using the phrase “everything” as in “the total package”. It does not mean that literally every single thing Trump said and did was crazy.

This is evident not only in the phrasing itself, but is also just common sense within any honest rational dialog. Almost nothing in life is absolute, so anytime you engage in a conversation about something nuanced and the words everything and/or nothing are used the default should always be to assume it is meant colloquially. If you’re trying to understand what they’re actually saying that is.

But that’s the problem. You’re not interested in understanding, only finding your trigger word to attack.

That is what true TDS is. Beliefs reduced to mindless absolutism.
Agreed on TDS, you just don’t seem to realize which one of us is actually suffering from it.
#415
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Do you like my profile pic?
I love it lol
Awwe you two are so adorable

#416
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
You keep telling me what I have to say is nothing new, well here’s a crazy thought… respond to it. Please explain the logic of “Trump might have been against it but I still give him credit because it happened while he was in office”. I’d really love to hear it.
There’s another thing you do:  act as though I haven’t responded when I have.

You said yourself that a president isn’t a dictator. Correct. What happens under a president’s admin is a team effort, and involves the checks and balances of the entire governmental apparatus. This is probably why the electorate seems to prefer that the executive and legislative belong to opposing parties. A president chooses his cabinet members, his advisors, chief of staff, etc. I assume you’re familiar with “the buck stops here.” A president is ultimately responsible for what occurs on his watch. Given bad advice? Well, he chose the advisor and chose to follow the bad advice. Didn’t follow good advice? Self explanatory. Congressional blockade? The president needed to be more persuasive. Opposition party party holds congress? Perhaps the midterms went poorly because the electorate didn’t like where the president was taking things.

Reluctantly agreed to good advice? You seem to have a problem with that when it involves Trump. And it’s no wonder…

So you’re all about results not rhetoric, but your example is Trump whining and complaining about an oil deal Germany made with Russia? Is this supposed to be what refutes everything I’ve said here?
Man, the way you frame and dismiss important points. I get it— loud and clear— if Trump did something right, it was minor; if it was wrong, it was major. I can simply assume this as axiomatic with Trump detractors.

The question is, what would you have thought if it were Biden doing these things instead of Trump?
Again, this is you acting as if I haven’t responded already. This compels me to quote myself:

“If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.”

We both know you would have lost your mind and grabbed your torch and pitchfork along with the rest of the GOP demanding Biden be impeached for being a traitor to the US.
Ah, yes. Very productive discussion you’re having there… with yourself. What you envision actually happened with the Afghanistan withdrawal, except that actually WAS Biden. If only it were a hypothetical…

But you know… TDS.
Indeed. Your posts exemplify it— especially the snarky tone.

I was just curious to ask you about this… why does the fact that the MSM reported on these things matter to the point that you act as if they have some kind of monopoly of ownership on this? Why when for example, a US President stands in front of the world and takes his adversary’s word over the unanimous conclusions of his own intelligence agencies, does my pointing out that this was bad somehow make me a purveyor of “MSM talking points”? I’d really love an answer to this.
Because you don’t deviate one iota from the MSM narrative regarding Trump, and you act as if that narrative irrefutably overrides the validity of any support or agreement with Trump’s presidency. All bad; no good.
#417
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why?  Why would a right winger back left wing Russia?

Don't be complaining about liberals being communists because your backing the former leader of the USSR (Russia).
#418
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
You never answered my questions Mr. Salty

#419
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
I assume you’re familiar with “the buck stops here.” A president is ultimately responsible for what occurs on his watch.
Your response to my question is a complete embrace of the correlation/causation fallacy as an epistemological foundation.

The entire point of analyzing questions like this and determining responsibility is to better understand what qualities and behaviors are likely to lead to what results. It’s about giving us a road map for the future so that we can put ourselves in the best possible position to get the best outcomes. Your approach throws all this out the window in favor of “owning the libs”.

You’re literally trying to rationalize how a president who was adamantly opposed to sanctions and did everything in his power to stop them, gets to be treated as if he was responsible for them and thus given the credit. If that isn’ta logic pretzel I don’t know what is. And if this is how half the country thinks we should be analyzing the relationship between our actions and the likely result of them I can see why were so fucked.

Of course the problem is that I don’t think you believe this for a second. After all if the Buck stops with the president please point me to your posts blaming Trump for all of the liberal cities being burned to the ground. After all that occurred during his watch so the Buck stops with him right?

I get it— loud and clear— if Trump did something right, it was minor; if it was wrong, it was major. I can simply assume this as axiomatic with Trump detractors.
I gave you multiple examples of Trump’s interactions and handling of Russia and/or Putin. Your one example of Trump being tough on Russia was him complaining about an oil deal Germany did with them. Please tell me with a straight face that this example is comparable to the examples I listed. 

Again, this is you acting as if I haven’t responded already. This compels me to quote myself:

“If Biden were to achieve good results, I’d nod in approval because I am open-minded like that. But I would also be very surprised— just as I was when Trump did better than I ever expected.”
I didn’t ask you what you would think if Biden did something good. I asked you what you would think if Biden were guilty of the examples I listed of Trump’s  actions. You never addressed that question.

Let’s try this again:

Russia launches a successful cyber attack against the the RNC right before a US election in an attempt to get Biden elected. All of US intelligence comes together and unanimously concludes Russia was in fact behind it. Biden then meets with Putin one on one, and in unprecedented fashion kicking all Americans out of the room except one translator who’s notes Biden would confiscate after swearing the translator to secrecy.

In a press conference after the meeting, Biden is asked what he said to Putin about the attack and Biden’s response is to take Putin’s word over that of US intelligence and talk about how he’ll be looking into Putin’s offer to investigate who launched the cyber attack.

The question is: How would you react to this?
#420
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
You never answered my questions Mr. Salty
WTF? Are you serious? I wrote this entire post:

No, I’m arguing that
(A) We don’t have a full understanding of Putin’s reasons for acting now as opposed to before, and
(B) That given all of the facts regarding Trump’s behavior towards Putin the idea that Trump was the thing stopping Putin is blatantly absurd.

The problem with this however is that you have to have the bandwidth to be able to look at Trump’s full record on Putin in order to understand the issue beyond:

“trump president, putin no invade. biden president, putin invade”
And all you replied with was a response to my comment about who voted in our debate. 

Go on, tell me all about the questions of yours that I ignored. Can’t wait to hear this…