Ok, not out of context. You simply deliberately misrepresenting the context. Better? What he meant is clearly obvious.
This is the perfect example of being uninformed and simply reading the headlines. The bill that the media dubbed the don’t say gay bill, never once mentions the word gay and simply bans school facilities and third parties from giving classroom instruction in sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten thru third grade. That is far from unreasonable.
What do you mean "a brilliant distraction to accomplish his goals?" You mean invading a democratic sovereign country ...the Ukraine? And we all know Putins "larger goals " of restoring the The Russian Empire back to where it was before Socialism..do live in the 19th Century too Blue ?? Lol But go ahead ..carry on
Not sure what your point is. Calling his strategy genius is not an endorsement or celebration of his end goal. You seem to be conflating those two entirely different dynamics. An evil person with a bad agenda can still have an ingenious strategy to accomplishing those goals. Are you claiming that calling it genius that it was an endorsement, celebration or promotion of his agenda? If so, you are simply wrong. If not, then you have nothing to actually criticize him for.
It's impossible for a corpse to run from the start of the process. The candidate must make affirmations of the various nominating petitions that get them on the ballot in many states and by definition a corpse cannot do that. Once a candidate is on the ballot all bets are off. A corpse can definitely win an election but they are replaced by process after that point. One exception: a corpse could win as a write-in candidate.
Maybe so.. But can you tell me why you would Vote for Ron DeSantis ? I asked that in a previous post but no one here has an answer? I know Elon Musk likes him ..but as someone who grew up in a household that voted for NiXon Ford Reagan Bush etc I find the whole Repubs disheartening Nor do a lot of other candidates out there Right or Left! ..I respect Liz Cheney Kinzinger Mitt Romney ...and almost Mike Pence for standing firm against a mob ready to hang him..but he has not really taken a brave stance since then
Most of the US heard what Trump said ...all of us or some of us ...have different perceptions of what he meant But I agree Putin is an "evil person with a bad agenda" I hope you do too
I hadn't noticed, but yes definitely. Great book that I probably need to re-read at some point. So many of those in my life now.
The fact that the genius comment never became a big story reflects that the majority of people knew exactly what he meant and how he was using it and because the spin to the contrary didn’t work there was no hysteria to garner so it disappeared. No doubt there are people who deliberately attempt to misconstrue what is said to mean the absolute worst interpretation it can be given but such a tactic is what is know as the appeal to extreme logical fallacy.
That's a bad example because Perot was running also and plenty of Dems and GOP decided they'd rather vote for him than Clinton or Bush. I think the last election in which people made a straight up choice was probably Carter-Ford in '76. Nobody thought either of those guys was a problem. They were both the WWII-Korean War standard and looked at the world from the shoreline's edge outward. We really need to get back to that because while we are still the strongest power in the world Putin is right in that nobody can control the international political order alone any more. If we spend a lot of time pretending we can we're just going to get hit hard in the mouth and have to deal with that.
We’ve been doing that for 40 years while the rest of the world hangs from our nuts. You’re right in that it’s a bad strategy to continue carrying that torch, but it’s not like it can’t be done. It would just unfortunately mean we continue increasing our defense budget which is bad on the home front.
Do you have any idea of how many bombs we drop on other countries? Not to mention the other shenanigans we engage in... all in the name of "democratic" oil.
No. I was migrating between parties at that time, so I was pretty attuned to things. Clinton was the DLC, triangulation and filthy southern swamp dealings. Traditional New York City Ivy League liberals despised him. Bush was never trusted by the Reaganite faction because he represented what the party was before Reagan radically altered it.
I don't think it can be done moving forward. There are too many asymmetrical threats at this point and too many adversaries working together in ways that are nebulous from our perspective. As an example: China and North Korea have an undefined relationship in terms of rattling the nuclear sabre. It's very hard for us to approach that axis with confidence, since we won't know if NK or China is actually threatening at any given moment. Similarly China and Russia are clearly in a mutually supporting mode and yet China is unwilling to make the case hard and clear because they want to maintain market access to the West. The effect of both of the previous cases is that it might even be Russia behind any particularly destabilizing moment that NK creates. Then from a tech perspective we don't know how much ahead of the game we are at any given moment. We might even be behind in some areas if the new tech that Russia and China have been talking about turns out to be real. Then suddenly the inference is made that North Korea (or another actor like Pakistan) is in possession of the same or similar technology. What I'm trying to say is that the world stage is increasingly governed by what we don't know and extending to what we don't know that we don't know. It's very hard to maintain any type of certainty or control in that situation.
What does this refer too? Just curious because if it is about Biden he called for the removal of Putin not the removal of Russia or Russia's nukes.
