They're eating the cats! They're eating the dogs!

[Angela Channing]

The "Trump playbook?" The Dems invented Russia-gate in order to claim that Trump was an illegitimate president, and that he conspired with Putin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. When that turned out to be false, they impeached him for withholding military aid to Ukraine. In contrast, the Dems refused to impeach George W. Bush for war crimes. Nancy Pelosi said they didn't want to "hurt the country" after Clinton's impeachment, but the truth is they didn't impeach Bush because they were also complicit.

As for Trump's rape conviction, the hypocrisy and double standards are on display yet again. I don't know if Trump's guilty of rape or not, but there were some obvious conflicts of interest. If Bill Clinton or Joe Biden were found guilty by a Trump-appointed judge, and an RNC donor paid some of the legal expenses, the reaction would be quite different.

Trump's unprecedented conviction over "falsified business records" is also interesting. Before Trump, there was an understanding that former presidents were above the law. That's why war criminal ex-presidents roam free. And yet with Trump, they were looking for any minutia to hang him on. He may very well be guilty of the charges, but that was never the point. Their goal was to keep him from returning to the presidency, and the way they went about it demonstrates a "chilling selective approach to the legal system." When the Dems say that Trump will "weaponize the legal system against his political opponents," they're guilty of projection. After all, that's exactly what they've done to him.

But yes, I don't want to vote for a "racist, accused rapist, fraudulent" person for president. That's why I voted for the Green Party over Trump and Biden in 2020. America needs to "wake up" and realize both major parties cater to the wealthy and the military industrial complex. Harris speaks in platitudes, but the same failed policies will continue on.

Yet another post defending Trump and attacking the Democrats but of course you don't support Trump.

You even use the Trump playbook to defend him by suggesting "conflicts of interest" and to indirectly imply the trial wasn't fair because the judge was appointed by Clinton. Judges don't find people guilty, a jury does. Do you seriously think those 12 jury members were conflicted? You say you don't know if Trump is guilty, well the jury sat through all the evidence and concluded he was responsible for raping E. Jean Carroll. I think they were in a better position run determine what happened than you or I.

You also criticise the Democrats for not impeaching George Bush for war crimes yet you claim you support Jill Stein who refuses to recognise Putin as a war criminal for his illegal invasion of Ukraine and slaughter of thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians. Not entirely surprising since Stein joined MAGA extremist Michael Flynn in Moscow to have dinner with Putin. No candidate is perfect but let's argue it's only the Democrats who are flawed.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yet another post defending Trump and attacking the Democrats but of course you don't support Trump.

Yet again, pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does not equate to me defending or supporting Trump. In contrast, you actually do support genocide-enabler Harris.

You even use the Trump playbook to defend him by suggesting "conflicts of interest" and to indirectly imply the trial wasn't fair because the judge was appointed by Clinton. Judges don't find people guilty, a jury does. Do you seriously think those 12 jury members were conflicted? You say you don't know if Trump is guilty, well the jury sat through all the evidence and concluded he was responsible for raping E. Jean Carroll. I think they were in a better position run determine what happened than you or I.

I didn't imply anything. I simply pointed out the optics, as well as the fact that Clinton supporters would have reacted differently if he had to face a Trump-appointed judge.

There's also a ton of media bias against Trump. It's hard to know for sure if the jury found Trump guilty on the evidence, or if other influences helped them reach their decision.

You also criticise the Democrats for not impeaching George Bush for war crimes yet you claim you support Jill Stein who refuses to recognise Putin as a war criminal for his illegal invasion of Ukraine and slaughter of thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians. Not entirely surprising since Stein joined MAGA extremist Michael Flynn in Moscow to have dinner with Putin. No candidate is perfect but let's argue it's only the Democrats who are flawed.

Your selective fact checking says a lot. Stein was at that dinner in Moscow to push a peace deal with the Middle East. She called for ending Russia's bombing of Syria and she also said we should freeze the funding of countries that fund terrorism. Stein didn't get to speak directly to Putin because there wasn't an interpreter. As for Flynn, Stein met him briefly and told him she was there to promote a peace deal in the Middle East. Flynn wasn't interested, and that was the end of their conversation. Of course, it's not uncommon for politicians to meet with nefarious world leader for a variety of reasons. Hillary Clinton met Putin and even shook his hand, but that didn't make the headlines.

Stein's recognition of Putin as a war criminal is also far more nuanced than you're claiming. Stein said "So, what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It's a criminal and murderous war." When pressed further about it, Stein stated "In so many words, yes he is. If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don't begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal." She added that she has described Netanyahu as a war criminal because there is a "clear strategy and we have very strong support across the world." Of course, the fact that she wants diplomacy and to stop funding Ukraine and Israel makes her infinitely better than Trump and the Dems.

Source: Jill Stein's Response to Putin Being Labeled 'War Criminal' Goes Viral - Newsweek

 

[Angela Channing]

Yet again, pointing out hypocrisy and double standards does not equate to me defending or supporting Trump. In contrast, you actually do support genocide-enabler Harris.

I would accept that if you were even-handed but you repeatedly and consistently attack Harris and the Democrats and repeatedly and consistently defend Trump, even for his most heinous behaviour...

There's also a ton of media bias against Trump. How can anybody know if the jury found Trump guilty on the evidence, or if other influences helped them reach their decision?

... such as this, trying to absolve him of rape. Undermining the integrity of the legal process to cast doubt on an independent jury's decision is exactly how Trump tries to excuse his appalling behaviour.

Your selective fact checking says a lot. Stein was one of several politicians in Moscow pushing a peace initiative with the Middle East. She called for ending Russia's bombing of Syria and said we should freeze the funding of countries that fund terrorism. Stein also said she didn't speak directly to Putin because there wasn't an interpreter. Stein only met Flynn briefly, and she mentioned to him that she was there to promote peace in the Middle East. Flynn wasn't interested, and that was the end of their conversation. Of course, it's not uncommon for politicians to meet with nefarious world leader for a variety of reasons. Hillary Clinton shook hands with Putin, but that didn't make headlines.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here but you seem to be happy to give Jill Stein a free pass for things that you readily and regularly criticise Democrats for and say nothing about when Trump and his Republicans do them.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I would accept that if you were even-handed but you repeatedly and consistently attack Harris and the Democrats and repeatedly and consistently defend Trump, even for his most heinous behaviour...

What heinous behavior of Trump's have I defended? If anything, I've pointed out how many of Trump's political opponents are also guilty of heinous behavior.

Trump supports the genocide Israel is waging in Gaza, which is arguably his most heinous act. I've been a vocal critic of that, despite your claim that I defend/support Trump.

I also called out Trump for pushing the bogus claim about Haitians eating cats and dogs, and I called his comments insensitive and xenophobic. Wow, what a defense of Trump!

... such as this, trying to absolve him of rape. Undermining the integrity of the legal process to cast doubt on an independent jury's decision is exactly how Trump tries to excuse his appalling behaviour.

Does it "undermine the integrity of the legal process" to point out that the falsely accused have been found guilty before?

I'm honestly not trying to absolve Trump of anything. I'm simply pointing out that the legal system is susceptible to human biases.

Trump could easily be guilty, but the point is some people's trust in accusations and the legal system varies based on who the accused is.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say here but you seem to be happy to give Jill Stein a free pass for things that you readily and regularly criticise Democrats for and say nothing about when Trump and his Republicans do them.

What are you talking about? I've made many posts condemning both Trump and The Democrats' support for Israel's genocide in Gaza.

And what exactly am I giving Jill Stein a free pass on? She's literally the only candidate pushing for a peace deal, and she condemned Putin's "criminal and murderous war."

What's Jill Stein done that's on par with Trump, Republicans, or the Democrats? If you're talking about Hillary Clinton's encounter with Putin, I didn't criticize her for that.

 

[Laurie!]

The US and NATO helped provoke Putin's war with Ukraine. Maniacs like Adam Schiff wanted this proxy war "So we can fight them over there instead of fighting them here."

Unfortunately, war is a profitable racket, and Russia is an implacable enemy.


My knowledge of the Canadian trucker protests is limited. However, I was under the impression they were fighting for bodily autonomy and had their bank accounts frozen. I wasn't aware that their protests involved shutting down busy streets. Climate activists do this too, and it's dangerous. It also works to undermine an otherwise noble cause.

I don't think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Democrats. I think you give them way too much credit and absolve Putin of responsibility.

The trucker convoy were dumb people in general. They apparently didn't study basic civics in school. They weren't forced to get vaccinated unless they wanted to travel to the U.S. or other countries which had vaccine travel mandates. So Trudeau had nothing to do with that...just the reciprocal mandate for foreigners to be vaccinated to enter Canada and/or quarantine for a period of time.
Provincial and local municipal governments all had their own vaccine mandates for being vaccinated to eat in a restaurant briefly or to be a visitor in a hospital, etc. Again, not Federal mandates.
The bank accounts were frozen for those who were receiving foreign payments to remain protesting and blockading.

 

[Laurie!]

Trump gets away with everything. He's never been held accountable for any crime. He and his supporters whine and boo hoo about him being persecuted unfairly. The reality is, he gets special treatment but not negatively...he's the only person who can appeal every charge/conviction and have the appeal heard (even up to the SC). He's allowed to prolonge cases so they're not heard before the election, etc. Any other person would have done jail time by now. Even Martha Stewart did time for less severe crimes. That reality show couple too (Chrisley's)) got very lengthy prison sentences for bank fraud. Trump does not and never will.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I don't think Putin invaded Ukraine because of Democrats. I think you give them way too much credit and absolve Putin of responsibility.

I'm not absolving Putin of anything. He's a war criminal who's responsible for his actions, but the US and NATO most certainly provoked him.

Source: Yes, Putin's a tyrant — that doesn't mean his Ukraine demands are unreasonable | Salon.com

Trump gets away with everything. He's never been held accountable for any crime. He and his supporters whine and boo hoo about him being persecuted unfairly. The reality is, he gets special treatment but not negatively...he's the only person who can appeal every charge/conviction and have the appeal heard (even up to the SC). He's allowed to prolonge cases so they're not heard before the election, etc. Any other person would have done jail time by now. Even Martha Stewart did time for less severe crimes. That reality show couple too (Chrisley's)) got very lengthy prison sentences for bank fraud. Trump does not and never will.

If that were true, then why is Trump the only former president to be a convicted felon? Prior to Trump's conviction, there was an understanding that former presidents were above the law. Bush and Obama both committed war crimes, and they were never held accountable. Is falsifying documents relating to hush money payments worse than that?

Trump's status as a wealthy man still affords him certain privileges, such as the ability to drag out his appeal. However, any other president would have never even gone to trial. And before anybody accuses me of "defending Trump," I'm not saying that he's not guilty. However, my point is that "the rule of law" is most certainly being applied selectively.

 

[Laurie!]

I'm not absolving Putin of anything. He's a war criminal who's responsible for his actions, but the US and NATO most certainly provoked him.

Source: Yes, Putin's a tyrant — that doesn't mean his Ukraine demands are unreasonable | Salon.com


If that were true, then why is Trump the only former president to be a convicted felon? Prior to Trump's conviction, there was an understanding that former presidents were above the law. Bush and Obama both committed war crimes, and they were never held accountable. Is falsifying documents relating to hush money payments worse than that?

Trump's status as a wealthy man still affords him certain privileges, such as the ability to drag out his appeal. However, any other president would have never even gone to trial. And before anybody accuses me of "defending Trump," I'm not saying that he's not guilty. However, my point is that "the rule of law" is most certainly being applied selectively.

I don't think that providing Ukraine with resources to defend itself is provocation. After all, Russia had already seized Crimea a few years prior. However, making an excuse that someone was provoked is only that...an excuse. A little like a rapist saying his victim provoked him with sexy clothes.

I guess Trump is the only former President stupid enough or cocky enough to get caught paying hush money to a porn star. The Republicans certainly search high and low for any dirt on their counterparts. Even when they control the WH (so DOJ), Congress and Senate they haven't been able to get dirt big enough for trials for the most part. They couldn't even come up with justification to impeach Biden so how do you expect Biden to be criminally prosecuted? So, I guess we assume the Democrats and former Presidents aren't as crooked as Trump.

One thing I will say, even Bill and Hilary had the guts to testify under oath and got grilled by Congress. Trump and his cronies on the other hand are cowards and simply ignore the subpoenas. They get away with it.
The only assumption about President's being above the law is for cases that could be considered war crimes. After all, the senate or house (not sure and don't care) has to approve military invasions.
Also, Trump committed war crimes by freeing Taliban prisoners that endangered US troops and allowed Turkey to slaughter the Kurds in Northern Syria. He didn't get charged for that.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I don't think that providing Ukraine with resources to defend itself is provocation. After all, Russia had already seized Crimea a few years prior. However, making an excuse that someone was provoked is only that...an excuse. A little like a rapist saying his victim provoked him with sexy clothes.

Did you read the article I linked to? The provocation began years ago, and it isn't solely about sending billions in military aid to Ukraine. "In 1995, 18 retired U.S. foreign service and State and Defense Department officers signed a letter denouncing these NATO recruitments, saying they would convince Russians that the U.S. was seeking to "isolate, encircle, and subordinate them. It is this NATO penetration into Russia's sphere that is the root cause of the current conflict." George Bush Sr's Administration assured Russia that NATO would not "move one inch eastward," but the US betrayed that promise. "Putin and other Russian leaders have complained bitterly about this Western duplicity."

As for seizing Crimea, "the 2014 U.S.-backed Maidan revolution overthrew the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych, replacing it with a strongly pro-Western government. Russia, which at the time was ringed with U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, some of the former Soviet Central Asian republics and the Middle East — as well as NATO bases stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic republics — feared this might lead to a NATO naval base at Sevastopol on the Black Sea, previously a major Russian and Soviet naval and commercial port. Faced with what it perceived as a potential strategic disaster, Russia seized Crimea and reincorporated it into Russia."

I guess Trump is the only former President stupid enough or cocky enough to get caught paying hush money to a porn star. The Republicans certainly search high and low for any dirt on their counterparts. Even when they control the WH (so DOJ), Congress and Senate they haven't been able to get dirt big enough for trials for the most part. They couldn't even come up with justification to impeach Biden so how do you expect Biden to be criminally prosecuted? So, I guess we assume the Democrats and former Presidents aren't as crooked as Trump.

Democrats are war criminals just like Republicans are, but they're not going to go after people for crimes that they're complicit in.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was part of deal to sell off 20% of US uranium to Russia. Russian oligarchs subsequently gave a large donation to the Clinton Foundation.

Biden's son Hunter (among other family members) were involved in influence peddling schemes, which involved "selling access to Biden" in return for special favors.

That sounds like corruption and possibly even crimes to me. Dems and neocon Republicans have a common enemy in Trump, so perhaps that's why only he was put on trial.

One thing I will say, even Bill and Hilary had the guts to testify under oath and got grilled by Congress. Trump and his cronies on the other hand are cowards and simply ignore the subpoenas. They get away with it.
The only assumption about President's being above the law is for cases that could be considered war crimes. After all, the senate or house (not sure and don't care) has to approve military invasions.
Also, Trump committed war crimes by freeing Taliban prisoners that endangered US troops and allowed Turkey to slaughter the Kurds in Northern Syria. He didn't get charged for that.

Of course. As I said before, Dems and Republicans won't go after people for crimes they're complicit in.

IMO, war crimes are far more egregious than trying to hide payoffs to a porn star.

 

[Laurie!]

@Frank Underwood Putin I read a Putin apologist article. NATO is a defense force. They're not militarily aggressive so in other words, they only pose a danger to Putin when he invades a NATO country.
Should the US invade Cuba because they're allies with Russia and Russia can park nuclear warfare there?
I never sympathize with any government interfering in a sovereign nation's elections. Which is why I denounced the US for bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq when it was the west who overthrew democratically elected leadership in favour of anti-Russian, pro US Shah's, and dictator thugs.
Yes, all politicians take favour's (Trump and his family received billions for turning a blind eye to Turkey and Saudi Arabia's egregious crimes). However, Trump does all of that, plus he's a dumb as a stump, criminal clown. He's committed war crimes and paid porn stars, defrauded banks, kept classified documents; refusing to return them, etc.
Sort of back on topic...he now gets his pathetic, racist supporters to chant, "send them back" at his rallies. Even the Haitians who are living and working in Springfield OH legally.
Trump's supporters doing so are so pathetically inept and morally bankrupt, they think Trump can actually send them or even illegals back with mass deportation.

How exactly would he do that? If he made any money on his economic plan of tariffs, all of that and billions of taxpayers dollars more will go towards it. Then, how is he going to fly/ship them "back"? What private airline/cruise line will want anything to do with that and the inevitable loss of business as a result? Then if he uses military carriers, what makes anyone think the destination country would allow them to dock/land? Will you have floatillas in the ocean full of migrants you're sending back? SMH
Trump and his supporters are racist buffoons. They don't care about " sending back" white immigrants from Sweden, etc. So is the plan for a Nazi SS type police force to raid homes/businesses and force people to show papers? Wow...what a great time to consider, "great again".

 

[Angela Channing]

As for seizing Crimea, "the 2014 U.S.-backed Maidan revolution overthrew the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych, replacing it with a strongly pro-Western government. Russia, which at the time was ringed with U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, some of the former Soviet Central Asian republics and the Middle East — as well as NATO bases stretching from the Black Sea to the Baltic republics — feared this might lead to a NATO naval base at Sevastopol on the Black Sea, previously a major Russian and Soviet naval and commercial port. Faced with what it perceived as a potential strategic disaster, Russia seized Crimea and reincorporated it into Russia."

Are you trying to be an apologist for Putin's illegal annexation of sovereign territory? Crimea is part of Ukraine and Russian invaded it. "Reincorporated it into Russia" makes it sound like it belongs to Russia. It doesn't.

Democrats are war criminals just like Republicans are, but they're not going to go after people for crimes that they're complicit in.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was part of deal to sell off 20% of US uranium to Russia. Russian oligarchs subsequently gave a large donation to the Clinton Foundation.

Biden's son Hunter (among other family members) were involved in influence peddling schemes, which involved "selling access to Biden" in return for special favors.

That sounds like corruption and possibly even crimes to me. Dems and neocon Republicans have a common enemy in Trump, so perhaps that's why only he was put on trial.

News alert! None of these people are standing to be President, Hunter Biden isn't even a politician. Meanwhile, a felon and a rapist in the shape of Donald Trump could be the next President and you think it's more important to shout WHAT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN?

 

[Frank Underwood]

@Frank Underwood Putin I read a Putin apologist article. NATO is a defense force. They're not militarily aggressive so in other words, they only pose a danger to Putin when he invades a NATO country.
Should the US invade Cuba because they're allies with Russia and Russia can park nuclear warfare there?
I never sympathize with any government interfering in a sovereign nation's elections. Which is why I denounced the US for bombing the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq when it was the west who overthrew democratically elected leadership in favour of anti-Russian, pro US Shah's, and dictator thugs.

I don't sympathize with governments interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations either, but the media called the invasion of Ukraine "unprovoked." That simply isn't accurate.

As for the article, you can claim it was written by a "Putin apologist," but there are Western duplicity apologists as well. The US made a promise they never intended to keep.

Putin's still a war criminal and he should have never invaded Ukraine, but the US also shouldn't have lied about their intention that "NATO would not move one inch eastward."

Yes, all politicians take favour's (Trump and his family received billions for turning a blind eye to Turkey and Saudi Arabia's egregious crimes). However, Trump does all of that, plus he's a dumb as a stump, criminal clown. He's committed war crimes and paid porn stars, defrauded banks, kept classified documents; refusing to return them, etc.

Yes, there are many legitimate crimes that Trump should be held accountable for. However, the same is true for other former presidents, yet they escape justice.

Biden kept classified documents in his garage, but his supporters insisted that was different. Funny how that works. "Blue no matter who" is the flip side of the MAGA coin.

Sort of back on topic...he now gets his pathetic, racist supporters to chant, "send them back" at his rallies. Even the Haitians who are living and working in Springfield OH legally.
Trump's supporters doing so are so pathetically inept and morally bankrupt, they think Trump can actually send them or even illegals back with mass deportation.

How exactly would he do that? If he made any money on his economic plan of tariffs, all of that and billions of taxpayers dollars more will go towards it. Then, how is he going to fly/ship them "back"? What private airline/cruise line will want anything to do with that and the inevitable loss of business as a result? Then if he uses military carriers, what makes anyone think the destination country would allow them to dock/land? Will you have floatillas in the ocean full of migrants you're sending back? SMH
Trump and his supporters are racist buffoons. They don't care about " sending back" white immigrants from Sweden, etc. So is the plan for a Nazi SS type police force to raid homes/businesses and force people to show papers? Wow...what a great time to consider, "great again".

It's like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. The real failure was allowing people to cross the border unchecked to begin with. Wanting a secured border is not racist and xenophobic in and of itself, though. I have compassion for asylum seekers of all races. However, they need to be vetted first. That said, US foreign policy has also helped to destabilize the countries many of these migrants are fleeing. That needs to end too. Of course, politicians and the media rarely discuss that aspect of the story.

And as we're seeing with the Haitian migrants in Springfield, the government needs to step up so that towns' services and infrastructure aren't overwhelmed.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Are you trying to be an apologist for Putin's illegal annexation of sovereign territory? Crimea is part of Ukraine and Russian invaded it. "Reincorporated it into Russia" makes it sound like it belongs to Russia. It doesn't.

Are you an apologist for Democrats? You certainly defend them enough.

I called Putin a war criminal, and the article stated that he's a "tyrant" and an "amoral opportunist." It's important to recognize that, but it's also important to remain objective and tell the entire story. The article laid out the series of events that led to the annexation of Crimea. Not surprisingly, it's much more nuanced than you're making it out to be:

"In 1954, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev administratively transferred the Crimea to the Ukraine, an essentially meaningless move at the time, since no one anticipated the demise and breakup of the Soviet Union several decades later. When Ukraine declared independence in 1991, it took Crimea along, even though there are four times as many ethnic Russians as Ukrainians in Crimea, which had been part of Russia since its annexation under Catherine the Great in 1783. Not long after Ukrainian independence, a pro-Russian popular movement arose in Crimea, which was repressed by the Ukrainian government."

The article also states that "Putin is an amoral opportunist, and he certainly did not send troops into Crimea out of concern for the Crimean people. But it's nonetheless true that a majority of Crimeans supported a union with Russia, and voted accordingly in an election held over Crimea's new status.

The current conflict in eastern Ukraine is broadly similar. After the Maidan revolution, the Ukrainian government repressed and sought to de-Russify populations in Donetsk and Luhansk, together known as the Donbas, a region that lies along Ukraine's southeastern border with Russia. Russian is the main language of 75% of residents in Donetsk and nearly 70% in Luhansk. A Russian separatist movement has emerged in the region, clearly supported by Putin's government."

News alert! None of these people are standing to be President, Hunter Biden isn't even a politician. Meanwhile, a felon and a rapist in the shape of Donald Trump could be the next President and you think it's more important to shout WHAT ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN?

News alert! Biden has been president for over 3 years while you've been shouting "WHAT ABOUT TRUMP?"! Biden is tied to his son's schemes, so it's not just about Hunter.

Biden was accused of rape, of showering with his daughter, and is guilty of funding a genocide in Gaza and a war in Ukraine. But WHAT ABOUT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP?

 

[bmasters9]

Trump is a proven rapist and as such should be nowhere near The White House and to hear Republicans defend his depravity while claiming they believe in law and order is nauseating.

One thing that baffled me about him (and still does): why, sometimes when he spoke at rallies, he could use some of the foulest language imaginable, and get away with it, while those who support (and have supported) him are against people watching Hollywood pictures and shows with that very same language (Georgia football coach Kirby Smart also extensively used foul language in one pregame speech I've heard; I don't know if any of you here has heard it, and if not, it's linked down below).

 

[Laurie!]

I don't sympathize with governments interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations either, but the media called the invasion of Ukraine "unprovoked." That simply isn't accurate.

As for the article, you can claim it was written by a "Putin apologist," but there are Western duplicity apologists as well. The US made a promise they never intended to keep.

Putin's still a war criminal and he should have never invaded Ukraine, but the US also shouldn't have lied about their intention that "NATO would not move one inch eastward."


Yes, there are many legitimate crimes that Trump should be held accountable for. However, the same is true for other former presidents, yet they escape justice.

Biden kept classified documents in his garage, but his supporters insisted that was different. Funny how that works. "Blue no matter who" is the flip side of the MAGA coin.


It's like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. The real failure was allowing people to cross the border unchecked to begin with. Wanting a secured border is not racist and xenophobic in and of itself, though. I have compassion for asylum seekers of all races. However, they need to be vetted first. That said, US foreign policy has also helped to destabilize the countries many of these migrants are fleeing. That needs to end too. Of course, politicians and the media rarely discuss that aspect of the story.

And as we're seeing with the Haitian migrants in Springfield, the government needs to step up so that towns' services and infrastructure aren't overwhelmed.

The US always makes promises they never intend to keep. The Kurds in Syria, Afghans, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. The US used them, made promises in exchange for their support and left them hung out to dry when they weren't needed anymore.
Moving NATO eastward isn't a provocation to justify the invasion of a sovereign, peaceful country.

Unlike Trump, Biden cooperated and turned over the documents without the neccessity of a warrant. The type and volume of documents was also significantly less.

Of course a border needs to be secured. Trump had his minions squash the bi-partisan border deal that would have been a good start. He has no plans to secure the border whatsoever. He can't do what he's promising, anymore than promising Mexico would pay for a wall. So he's just a catastrophic failure without any practical immigration or economic plans. To cover that up, he's whipping up the racism in 50% of the country, in hopes to be elected. It's beyond disgusting and people plugging their noses, turning a blind eye and voting for him anyway is racist and disgusting.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The US always makes promises they never intend to keep. The Kurds in Syria, Afghans, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. The US used them, made promises in exchange for their support and left them hung out to dry when they weren't needed anymore.
Moving NATO eastward isn't a provocation to justify the invasion of a sovereign, peaceful country.

I didn't say it justified it; I just recognize that Western duplicity played a role. Also, it doesn't sound like Ukraine has been entirely "peaceful" towards Russians in the Donbas.

US foreign policy is built on lies, proxy wars, and the destruction of sovereign countries, and yet the US hypocritically believes it's morally superior to other imperialist nations.

Unlike Trump, Biden cooperated and turned over the documents without the neccessity of a warrant. The type and volume of documents was also significantly less.

Fair enough. That's one of the lesser issues I have with Biden anyway.

Of course a border needs to be secured. Trump had his minions squash the bi-partisan border deal that would have been a good start. He has no plans to secure the border whatsoever. He can't do what he's promising, anymore than promising Mexico would pay for a wall. So he's just a catastrophic failure without any practical immigration or economic plans. To cover that up, he's whipping up the racism in 50% of the country, in hopes to be elected. It's beyond disgusting and people plugging their noses, turning a blind eye and voting for him anyway is racist and disgusting.

Dems waited 3 years to support a border deal, and they only did so because it's an election year. That's also why Trump helped squash it. They want it to be a political football.

I'd have to plug my nose and turn a blind eye if I were to vote for Trump or Harris. I respect those who feel they're making a pragmatic choice, but I just can't do it anymore.

 

[Angela Channing]

One thing that baffled me about him (and still does): why, sometimes when he spoke at rallies, he could use some of the foulest language imaginable, and get away with it, while those who support (and have supported) him are against people watching Hollywood pictures and shows with that very same language

As Coach Walz would say, they are weird people. Goes to show that Trump was right when he said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters." We even have people on this forum playing down or dismissing a court ruling stating allegations that he committed rape are "substantially true". So these weird people having double standards over his bad language is small beer by comparison.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Weird people have double standards when it comes to the rape and sexual assault claims they choose to believe. I personally believe decades old claims are difficult to prove.

Weird people equate acknowledging the legal system has convicted innocent people and is susceptible to human biases with "playing down" and "dismissing" a court ruling.

Weird people only call out the harm that one side has caused, while giving the other side a free pass for the harm they've caused.

Weird people care more about bad language than bad policies.

 

[Angela Channing]

Weird people have double standards when it comes to the rape and sexual assault claims they choose to believe. I personally believe decades old claims are difficult to prove.

Weird people equate acknowledging the legal system has convicted innocent people and is susceptible to human biases with "playing down" and "dismissing" a court ruling.

Weird people only call out the harm that one side has caused, while giving the other side a free pass for the harm they've caused.

Weird people care more about bad language than bad policies.

The subtext to what you're saying is let's not believe women who are finally able to deal with the trauma of being sexually abused to take on their abuser and instead let's frame the argument to favour the abuser so we can defend Donald Trump. This is even worse than you trying to claim anything that Hunter Biden did was equivalent to Trump raping a woman and Hunter Biden should be a significant factor in people's choice between Harris and Trump. Truly desperate stuff.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The subtext to what you're saying is let's not believe women who are finally able to deal with the trauma of being sexually abused to take on their abuser and instead let's frame the argument to favour the abuser so we can defend Donald Trump. This is even worse than you trying to claim anything that Hunter Biden did was equivalent to Trump raping a woman and Hunter Biden should be a significant factor in people's choice between Harris and Trump. Truly desperate stuff.

What's "truly desperate stuff" is your ability to twist and misrepresent what people are actually saying to suit your pre-conceived narrative.

I didn't say "never believe women." I said it's hard to prove rape claims from decades ago, and that the legal system is susceptible to human fallibility and biases. Big difference!

Also, I never once compared Hunter and Joe Biden's influence peddling scheme to Trump's rape conviction. If anything, I was equivocating it with Trump's hush money scandal.

Lastly, it's a blatant lie to say that I believe there's a "significant factor" to consider when choosing between Trump and Harris. You know I'm not voting for either of them, and I'm not telling other people how to vote either. I'm just exposing the hypocrisy and double standards that exist where Trump and the Dems are concerned. The problem is you always circle back to Trump's rape conviction. You act like that's the only abhorrent thing either candidate is guilty of when both Trump and Harris support funding a genocide.