Former Guy Donald Trump

[Bene Futuis]

It's just like the time where he lied - just the most obvious, stupid lie - that India had requested he mediate (LMFAO, can you imagine) their dispute with Pakistan over the Kashmir region. Just constant, obvious, credibility-killing lies always pouring forth from this clown. Of course no one asked him to mediate an India border dispute, because most non-Americans recognize his abject stupidity very quickly.

[Bene Futuis]

One year ago today, the ineptitude of the most embarrassing administration in our nation's history culminated in a press conference to push election lies for morons at the Four Seasons.......Landscape store, in a parking lot next to a dildo shop. Fitting end to four years of incompetence, lies, and corruption.


Happy anniversary, dipshits. Never forget.

[Bene Futuis]

[revo]

Former Senator and major loser David Perdue is running for governor on a "2020 Election Fraud" theme. Way to go, GOP.

[DMT]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/

This is terrifying.

[revo]

If in the back of your mind you may have thought, "hmmm, if there is a conflict with Russia, I wonder who Republicans would back -- Biden or Putin?" you no longer need to wait for your answer. Here come the Fox apologists already:

"The Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday sided with Vladimir Putin over Russia's military activity near Ukraine, saying the Russian president "just wants to keep his western borders secure."

In recent months, Russian troops and artillery have gathered in large numbers at Ukraine's borders, with officials in Kyiv and Washington warning that Moscow could be preparing an imminent invasion.

"At this point NATO exists primarily to torment Vladimir Putin, who, whatever his many faults, has no intention of invading Western Europe," Carlson said.

"Vladimir Putin does not want Belgium. He just wants to keep his western borders secure. That's why he doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO, and that makes sense."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-sided-putin-over-104425758.html

[chancellor]

Well, he's partly right. It's not backing Putin, but it's a very legitimate question as to whether we should put American blood and treasure at risk in an area where we would have significant logistical issues, is outside our sphere of influence, and where a number of our traditional allies will likely not support our intervention.

A key question every American should be asking themselves - Do you really want the President to implement the War Powers Act if Russia invades the Ukraine and put boots on the ground so soon after getting out of a 20-year disaster in Afghanistan?

I'm personally very disinclined to support troop intervention in Ukraine, and I certainly don't consider that "backing Putin".

[DMT]

I partially agree that Carlson isn't wrong here (though that NATO quote is just stupid to connect with his audience), but I also don't see Biden launching a new war either; he will just deploy economic sanctions.

[Bene Futuis]

Well, he's partly right. It's not backing Putin, but it's a very legitimate question as to whether we should put American blood and treasure at risk in an area where we would have significant logistical issues, is outside our sphere of influence, and where a number of our traditional allies will likely not support our intervention.

A key question every American should be asking themselves - Do you really want the President to implement the War Powers Act if Russia invades the Ukraine and put boots on the ground so soon after getting out of a 20-year disaster in Afghanistan?

I'm personally very disinclined to support troop intervention in Ukraine, and I certainly don't consider that "backing Putin".

This is an obvious misdirect from what's happening over at the right wing propaganda "news" outlets, like Fox and Newsmax. They're lionizing Vladmir Putin, as I'm sure you well know. After the most embarrassing diplomatic event in my lifetime, when former guy affixed his lips permanently to Putin's dick in Helsinki, it's not surprising that the Republican propagandists are rallying to Putin's cause. Look how far the GOP has fallen since just the days of the Romney candidacy.

[chancellor]

This is an obvious misdirect from what's happening over at the right wing propaganda "news" outlets, like Fox and Newsmax. They're lionizing Vladmir Putin, as I'm sure you well know. After the most embarrassing diplomatic event in my lifetime, when former guy affixed his lips permanently to Putin's dick in Helsinki, it's not surprising that the Republican propagandists are rallying to Putin's cause. Look how far the GOP has fallen since just the days of the Romney candidacy.

Well, I'll politely disagree. Was Carlson buffonish in how he brought the point up? Sure. But people of all political stripes better be ready to answer the question I raised - do you support implementing the War Powers Act and sending troops in to support Ukraine if Russia invades? Whining about right wing news outlets doesn't change the issue.

[Bene Futuis]

Well, I'll politely disagree. Was Carlson buffonish in how he brought the point up? Sure. But people of all political stripes better be ready to answer the question I raised - do you support implementing the War Powers Act and sending troops in to support Ukraine if Russia invades? Whining about right wing news outlets doesn't change the issue.

Wrong. Carlson and Newsmax are promoting Putin. You think they give a shit about a war, outside of how it may affect Putin? Carlson is very clearly drawing a line where the Ukraine, our allies, are the bad guys and Russia, our enemy, is the good guys. I mean, he outright says it. Newsmax is running a "Vlad the Great" slob job on their magazine. The whole war powers act is an aside, at best.



Lol

[chancellor]

I partially agree that Carlson isn't wrong here (though that NATO quote is just stupid to connect with his audience), but I also don't see Biden launching a new war either; he will just deploy economic sanctions.

You're likely correct, though my concern is the heavy interest of getting Ukraine into NATO. I also agree Carlson's remark is borderline moronic.

There are good reasons for bringing Ukraine into NATO - it could serve as a plus in further improvement in democratic growth in the country, for example. But the cynic in me sees this as a ploy to force a unified boots on the ground military response in case Russia does invade.

[Bene Futuis]

But the cynic in me sees this as a ploy to force a unified boots on the ground military response in case Russia does invade.

Hopefully all of us, at least those of us on this board, are in total agreement that anything approaching a boots on the ground military approach to anything Ukraine-related is a very bad idea for this country. I'm not up to date on, well, much of anything, but I imagine that NATO has no obligation to Ukraine, either.

[revo]

Well, he's partly right. It's not backing Putin, but it's a very legitimate question as to whether we should put American blood and treasure at risk in an area where we would have significant logistical issues, is outside our sphere of influence, and where a number of our traditional allies will likely not support our intervention.

A key question every American should be asking themselves - Do you really want the President to implement the War Powers Act if Russia invades the Ukraine and put boots on the ground so soon after getting out of a 20-year disaster in Afghanistan?

I'm personally very disinclined to support troop intervention in Ukraine, and I certainly don't consider that "backing Putin".

This will never happen, as that would result in WWIII. Although that didn't stop Sen. Wicker today from saying anything is open, including nukes.

My point with this was that while Republicans are saying "Biden is being weak on Russia" but when he does something, suddenly they're now saying the opposite, or worse, taking the enemy's side.

[Bene Futuis]

This will never happen, as that would result in WWIII. Although that didn't stop Sen. Wicker today from saying anything is open, including nukes.

My point with this was that while Republicans are saying "Biden is being weak on Russia" but when he does something, suddenly they're now saying the opposite, or worse, taking the enemy's side.

For a while I was absolutely shocked that the entire Republican party did such an extreme and sudden about-face on Russia (and many other oppressive regimes) while taking sudden and aggressive stances against our allies. I thought it was due, at least in part, to the longstanding Trump relationship with Russia and his obvious desire to do business there, regardless of any inconvenient issues regarding human rights or animosity toward our country. But I think the answer is even easier (and way, way more depressing): Republicans never really stood for anything, so they have been primed to fall for everything for some time now. One charismatic upstart later and suddenly they're in "we've always been at war with Oceania" territory. Trump thinks autocrats are pretty neato so, voila, he wins an election and now his entire party thinks they're pretty neato, too.