Trump's Cabinet

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Just because a prosecutor declines charges doesn't always mean it didn't happen.

Does anyone know WHY the DOJ chose not to prosecute Gaetz?  Perp's status?  Poor/incomplete investigation?  Procescutor bias?  Victim cooperation?  Facts/witnesses sufficient to convince a jury?  Politicians making deals to hold leverage? P. Diddy?  Epstein/Trump connections? Aliens?

Rhetorically, why doesn't Trump do his homework and pick someone who isn’t under investigation and maybe have some quals in justice? 

PS. Those last 3 excuses are sarcasm.

Innocent. Until. Proven. Guilty. 

 

If you have some evidence you would like us to consider, share it. 

 

Unless *you* know why the DOJ didn't prosecute Gaetz, why waste everyone's time with hypotheticals?

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Your “interpretation” of “history” is the mentally deficient part. There were no hostilities, and then someone initiated hostilities…who started shooting and taking another country’s land? Oh, right. It was Putin.

you are a simpleton. learn some context and history. ukraine isn't nato.

[SurelySerious]

you are a simpleton. learn some context and history. ukraine isn't nato.

uKrAiNe IsNt NaTo

Your only line, and I’m the simpleton. No, I read the history, that’s how I know there was no aggression justifying an invasion of a sovereign nation.

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

uKrAiNe IsNt NaTo

Your only line, and I’m the simpleton. No, I read the history, that’s how I know there was no aggression justifying an invasion of a sovereign nation.

If you like your invasions justified, I have some history you'll enjoy reading.

 

[Stoker]

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Innocent. Until. Proven. Guilty. 

Sure, in a court of law. Not a job application or the court of public opinion. Would you let Gaetz date your daughter?

[SurelySerious]

If you like your invasions justified, I have some history you'll enjoy reading.
 

Yep, although it did lead to one of the great satires of all time:

[Majestik Møøse]

Bashi, you’re a coward and fool for supporting Russia and an embarrassment to have in the US military. It’s bad enough that I have to assume you’re a troll. Good day.

[BashiChuni]

30 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Bashi, you’re a coward and fool for supporting Russia and an embarrassment to have in the US military. It’s bad enough that I have to assume you’re a troll. Good day.

i'm not supporting them you DOLT!

there are circumstances that the US/NATO have done since 2014 that have lead to Russia deciding to invade.

being blind to historical foreign policy won't magically make the russians go away. don't be manipulated like a fool

[BashiChuni]

9 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

uKrAiNe IsNt NaTo

Your only line, and I’m the simpleton. No, I read the history, that’s how I know there was no aggression justifying an invasion of a sovereign nation.

it's a fact. they are not nato and we should not be supporting them.

if you read history tell me what the US promised Russia in the early 1990s? you think the US would stand for Canada joining a Chinese military alliance?

the level of stupidity that some of you "officers" have is mindblowing.

[SurelySerious]

it's a fact. they are not nato and we should not be supporting them.
if you read history tell me what the US promised Russia in the early 1990s? you think the US would stand for Canada joining a Chinese military alliance?
the level of stupidity that some of you "officers" have is mindblowing.

One can only support a nation in duress if they are obligated by a treaty: the opinion of a simpleton troll.

Glad you’re not an officer and just an online Putin simp.

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Bashi, you’re a coward and fool for supporting Russia and an embarrassment to have in the US military. It’s bad enough that I have to assume you’re a troll. Good day.

Here’s something for you—you can be against spending hundreds of billions of dollars in support of Ukraine while also not being supportive of Russia.

[BashiChuni]

24 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

One can only support a nation in duress if they are obligated by a treaty: the opinion of a simpleton troll.

Glad you’re not an officer and just an online Putin simp.

glad you're a warmongering cuck who blindly supports the flag officer/politician class...and who will always "jump" when someone says "war". sad to see.

korea, vietnam, all the cia coups, GWOT failures...none of that matters to you. You're ALWAYS doing the right thing spreading that american democracy around the globe. WW3? nah. don't be a pussy. it's gonna be FINE shooting american made weapons inside russian territory. putin isn't really serious about any of his red lines. oh you have reservations about that? YOU MUST BE SUPPORTING PUTIN WHAT A SIMP! /s

[Majestik Møøse]

Social media has destroyed your mind, good luck

[ClearedHot]

To maybe draw this away from insults and back to rational discussion.

For those who are against - do you think we should turn a blind eye to Russian aggression?  If no what is your response, diplomacy and sanctions or just ignore it.  Do you think he will stop at Ukraine?  What do you see as the impact of Ukraine under Putin's control?

For those who are in favor - How do you mitigate the potential for the conflict to spill over?  What are the downsides of providing munitions and money?  What do you say about Ukrainian corruption?

I've stated many times I am in favor of the support we have provided, for a relatively low cost we have removed Russia as a near-peer threat for many years to come.  That being said I do have concerns about striking deep into Russian territory with American made weapons.

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, Stoker said:

Sure, in a court of law. Not a job application or the court of public opinion. Would you let Gaetz date your daughter?

Sure, but the court of public opinion should still have an expectation of evidence.

Point me to a single piece of evidence. One. That's all I want to see. 

This conversation is irrelevant specifically because of the number of times Democrats have outright lied about these exact situations to smear their opponents. If they hadn't pulled this as many times as they have, allegations might have more weight. 

 

And so far the only thing I've heard that is remotely substantiated about Gaetz is that he goes/went to sex parties. So yeah if my daughter decides to be a swinger with a soft spot for narcissists, then exactly what would I be objecting to?

 

I'm also not sure what you mean by "let" my daughter date him. Is she a minor in this hypothetical? If so then obviously I'm not letting a minor date someone my age. If she's an adult, I'm not sure what type of backwards old-timey nonsense you're asking. My daughter will no more need my permission to date as an adult as I needed my father in law's permission to marry my wife. 

 

6 hours ago, Negatory said:

Yes! Preach gurl!

Very. Important. Points. With. Periods. We. Totally. Consider. Evidence. On. This. Forum. So. It’s. Worth. Your. Time. To. Present. It. To. The. Group.

And most importantly, even if convicted of 34 felonies, still innocent!

It’s called cognitive dissonance people!

Look, I know you've still got wounds here from the number of times you've been wrong, so kudos for sticking around. 

 

But your inability to comprehend a simple point is keeping you in this Doom loop of nonsensical posts. Allegations are no longer trustworthy. We simply have to see the evidence that is made against politicians in this era to be able to make a decision. Your example illustrates this perfectly. All of the evidence regarding Trump's 34 felonies have been laid bare, and they are found wanting. I'm not denying that he had sex with a pornstar and then paid her off to keep quiet. That's the most believable thing I've heard in this entire election. I wish our choices were better than this, but they're not. 

 

If you can't tell why Americans didn't give a shit about these convictions, you're as out of touch as the Democrats who watched breathlessly as their candidate went down in flames. Trump has been pitched as a rapist, a literal Russian spy, the harbinger of Doom for democracy, a literal Nazi, a racist, a sexist... You get the idea. For nearly a decade we have listened to every shade of "expert" explain the many and incontrovertible ways that Donald Trump was a criminal and villain. And after all of that, to include a multi-year special prosecutor investigation with the full weight and resources of the federal government behind it, we get... "ledger entries for legal expenses."

 

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

[tac airlifter]

39 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

To maybe draw this away from insults and back to rational discussion.

For those who are against - do you think we should turn a blind eye to Russian aggression?  If no what is your response, diplomacy and sanctions or just ignore it.  Do you think he will stop at Ukraine?  What do you see as the impact of Ukraine under Putin's control?

Thank you. 

1. probably not, but certainly there should be a debate.  A lot of the disagreement on this (and other issues) stems from assumed consensus and immediate insults for those who disagree.  That behavior makes people resentful.  We should focus on dialogue and convincing others by the merit of argument, so thank you again for the post.  To your first & second question: I don’t want to police the world, but I do recognize Russia & Europe occupies a more sensitive place in national security than sat, Sudan.  Something had to be done.  Sanctions would be ok if they worked.  Fighting is ok if we don’t escalate to WW3.  My answer is a humble one: I don’t know and I’m not sure.  Ergo, although I reflexively think we should avoid wars given our recent track record of bad intel and failed adventures I’m open to any COA.  I’m not open to being bullied into submission by the same folks who did that for IZ.

2. will he stop at UKR?  I think so.  I never thought he’d invade a NATO country, and I’m certain he’d be absolutely smoked if he tried.   I think more countries worry about us invading than worry about RUS invading, and that should cause introspection here.  I’m not morally equivocating between us, but I am acknowledging that not everyone sees as we do and it’s worth considering their perspectives.

3. impact of UKR under Putin control?  Not good for the idea of international rules based behavior (which is a load bearing concept of the entire current order).  However, what is the risk this escalates into direct conflict with us?  I’d rather UKR fall than WW3 start… but I understand the other POV is what if WW3 starts because we didn’t stop an invading madman early?

Ultimately I don’t know the right play and I’m glad not to be the one deciding strategy.  However I trust no one who relies on emotional assertions rather than cogent articulated logic.

 

[disgruntledemployee]

18 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

If you really think he did that with no reasons you’re a historical retard. Truly. 
 

 

If you think Russia is justified because they used to own it, would you support a Mexican invasion to retake W. Texas?

[HeloDude]

31 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If you think Russia is justified because they used to own it, would you support a Mexican invasion to retake W. Texas?

Funny…Mexico certainly isn’t doing everything they can to stop the illegal flow of people, drugs, etc from their country into ours.

[disgruntledemployee]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

To maybe draw this away from insults and back to rational discussion.

For those who are against - do you think we should turn a blind eye to Russian aggression?  If no what is your response, diplomacy and sanctions or just ignore it.  Do you think he will stop at Ukraine?  What do you see as the impact of Ukraine under Putin's control?

For those who are in favor - How do you mitigate the potential for the conflict to spill over?  What are the downsides of providing munitions and money?  What do you say about Ukrainian corruption?

I've stated many times I am in favor of the support we have provided, for a relatively low cost we have removed Russia as a near-peer threat for many years to come.  That being said I do have concerns about striking deep into Russian territory with American made weapons.

I support helping a country fight off an invasion by Russia.  So far, there hasn't been any big spill and this thing has been going on for what, 2.5 yrs?  It really has suppressed a supposed top tier world military and the affects will be felt for a generation.  Another upside to providing support is it tells China that we're willing to help nations defend themselves, like Taiwan (different animal, but still a message).  Lastly, we learned that porn is an effective tool to suppress N. Korean troops.  Lets really develop that COA by getting a team together.

Ukraine corruption.  Seems like Z is attacking it where its found.  But is it any more than any other entrepreneurial type taking advantage of the money train called war?  They still seem to get enough funds to the front lines and the troops are still fighting for their motherland.  I'm not saying its OK, just that Z is addressing some of it.

Z tested the waters some with his drone strikes into Moscow.  I think any strikes Z does with an unleashed US arsenal will likely be to really degrade the Russian military threat; bases, munition stores, POL, equipment, LOCs, even if they're deep.  The Moscow strikes were psychological and probably not even effective at that, so why waste more effort on that.  Even with a MOA-UKR-B, the likelihood of taking out Putin is low.  10Ks troops amassed?   Turn em into 10Ks of graves filled. 

[SocialD]

4 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

if you read history tell me what the US promised Russia in the early 1990s? you think the US would stand for Canada joining a Chinese military alliance?

 

Was there a signed promise with Russia?  Legit question, I'm still trying to educate myself on the history.  So far, this just seems like Putin being Putin in an attempt to restore Russia to their "former glory."  

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Was there a signed promise with Russia?  Legit question, I'm still trying to educate myself on the history.  So far, this just seems like Putin being Putin in an attempt to restore Russia to their "former glory."  

There is some nuance but in short it is known as the Budapest Memorandum - the Wiki Page does a good job of breaking it down.  In short, when the FSU fell apart Ukraine had a large number of nuclear weapons and the west was looking for a way to secure those weapons and prevent proliferation.  The west gave Ukraine "security assurances" but in the end the document is NOT binding.  As Americans we have a very short memory, we basically made a promise to protect Ukraine thinking peace had broken out and Russia fueled by capitalism, was going to be a peaceful friend.  Now that Putin has attacked Ukraine twice we are pretending like we didn't give our word.  Yet another reason countries around the world don;t take our promises and foreign policy seriously. 

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

If you think Russia is justified because they used to own it, would you support a Mexican invasion to retake W. Texas?

hypothetical argument that i have never proposed. it deserves no response.

[BashiChuni]

4 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Was there a signed promise with Russia?  Legit question, I'm still trying to educate myself on the history.  So far, this just seems like Putin being Putin in an attempt to restore Russia to their "former glory."  

23:00

 

28:00

Edited November 19, 2024 by BashiChuni

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, SocialD said:

Was there a signed promise with Russia?  Legit question, I'm still trying to educate myself on the history.  So far, this just seems like Putin being Putin in an attempt to restore Russia to their "former glory."

Yes, many. Among them are the UN Charter, the 1975 Helsinki act, the 1990 Charter of Paris, and the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act. None of which place any limit on NATO's expansion or which exclude Ukraine from joining NATO. All of them recognize each nation's sovereign right to determine their own alliances and allegiances. Russia is a party and signatory to every one of these treaties and agreements.

Make note, Bashi didn't provide any treaty or agreement that limited NATO's expansion - no such document exists. He provided you a video of a guy saying that Putin (Putin, specifically) warned us not to. That's different.

There is no reading of the facts which alleviates Russia's full responsibility as the aggressor in this conflict. They are in direct violation of every one of those treaties. One could argue, as Bashi does, that it was unwise to allow NATO to expand eastward, and that can be a basis for a good argument, but it's also fully opinion, and there is no treaty or arrangement that Ukraine or any other NATO member state has violated that Bashi can point to which places any legal blame on the West. Ask him to provide a receipt. He'll be unable.

In 1999, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia (all former Soviet satellites) joined NATO. Czech and Poland also join the same year. In particular, Poland's accession into NATO had been underway for the entire decade - starting in 1990. Notably, Russia signed the NATO-Russia founding act in 1997 - which as far as years are concerned, comes after 1990 the last time I checked. Also of note, Poland was once a former Soviet satellite. Hey, the more you know! Right? Tough for me to know how long and on what setting I would have to microwave my brain in order to believe that Russia was super upset about its former satellites joining NATO, but would also simultaneously sign an agreement saying it's cool, but then again, I'm no statesman. Hence, why the entire line about them being upset over Ukraine joining NATO is total horse shit.

In 2008, Ukraine (and Georgia) were "invited" to NATO at something called the Bucharest summit. As his final act as President before stepping down, Putin expressed discontent that Ukraine would be invited to NATO. Understandable. Falls squarely into Bashi's opinion that "we provoked" this conflict. We get it. Putin didn't want Ukraine in NATO. And because Putin didn't want it, it's our fault. This is the one fact Bashi can lean on and which comprises the totality of his argument. Putin didn't want it. Undisputed.

Flash forward to 2014 and Vlad is back in power pushing little green men into Ukraine. I, for one, can always tell who the good guys are in any conflict by who's soldiers are wearing unmarked uniforms, occupying another state's parliament buildings, and then holding "elections" for them which in turn result in the dissolution of their government.

Flash forward to 2022, and Putin has his full-on invasion. Personally, my opinion is that Putin is concerned about Ukraine becoming (more) Westernized because of the enormous economic power they wield both in terms of agriculture and energy. Putin (or Russia) losing a substantial amount of their economic leverage over Europe would be strategically devastating for Russia. NATO expansion is a pretext because Ukraine can continue down the path of Westernization with or without being a NATO member state.

Yeah, there is a complicated relationship between NATO and Russia given the legacy of warfare in Europe in the 20th century, but there is nothing which has ever limited any state from choosing their own alliances - and this includes Ukraine. Anyone who wants to read them can find them on the internet. Russia has signed all of them.

I predict two things. First, that this war will end with Russia annexing eastern Ukraine (Crimea), permanently. As the trade to achieve peace, what is on the west side of the front (Ukraine) will eventually be allowed to join NATO. The second prediction I have is that Bashi will down vote this comment.

[Longhorn15]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

“led to believe NATO would not expand east”

Read and decide for yourself whether we “agreed” to anything or not.