Twitter

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Is it Fauci's wife?
Yes. It apparently is. But you won’t hear a valid response from others stating “you know what, I defend Fauci but he should know better than to have that conflict of interest. Def bad optics.”

I typically give more credence to people who can admit fault on their side. But it doesn’t seem to be the norm.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You are just irritated bc I won’t grab a pitchfork and join the mob. You are obviously irritated that I won’t echo whatever you are saying. Why you get huffy when I dislike him for different reasons than you? I get irritated bc I have to hear you say I supported him in 2016 when I did the opposite. I actually fell more in line with Ben Shapiro ie- couldn’t stand Trump or support him. Still can’t stand trump as a person. Trigger warning: as a president he did a better job than Biden is doing.

You do realize your method of attacking even when I agree he is bad orange man makes you look emotional, right? You actually push rational people away from agreeing with you while simultaneously robbing your subsequent accusations of any real weight. You already know he is guilty, you just need more time to make the pieces fit.

What's irritating is that apologists like you don't actually care about the evidence out there. Your mind is already made up that there were no fundamental, serious issues with trump, which is why you spent two paragraphs deflecting and prattling on with your armchair psychology instead of replying to any of the real substance of what I posted.

Which, to reiterate, is that almost everyone who voted for him did so in part because he was supposedly a "good businessman." He wasn't. Trump claimed he was paying millions of dollars of taxes when he was first running. He wasn't. He stated he couldn't release his taxes because they were under audit. He could. He implied he and his companies were only utilizing legal means of tax minimization. They weren't. He implied that there weren't any major conflicts of interests, foreign or domestic, stemming from the fact that he and his children didn't divest themselves of their business while working for the taxpayer in the WH. Of course there were.

If none of those things strike you as worthy of significant criticism then I think we can drop the charade about how "rational" you're purportedly being about the topic at hand.
 
  • Like
  • Okay...
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Regarding Tulsi -

I'd love to do some more reading or listening. This is what I want to listen to - a long form interview where someone gets to ask hard questions, and Tulsi can spend an hour explaining what she thinks and means. I don't want to read an article about what someone THINKS about a response to a question, or a single line taken from an interview and gives their take. I have no interest in that.

Ultimately I don't care. I liked Tulsi in 2016 because from the long form interviews I heard from her (despite all the negative and seemingly misleading statements people took out of context being passed around), I really liked the cut of her jib.

But is she likely a dishonest and horrible politician like all the rest? Likely so. Is she self-serving like every other politician? Likely so.

But I find it VERY HARD TO BELIEVE she is a secret Russian agent, or even doesn't think Russia is a threat, or isn't worried about innocent lives in Ukraine, or love PUTIN. If you have listened to her speak, and answer tough questions in long form (and not read a persons opinion about what she is saying...but listen to what SHE says), I think it isn't a stretch to believe she just has a different agenda. It doesn't mean I agree with it - I just don't think it is honest to say she likes Putin.

She has some lengthy podcasts you can listen to; one of which deals directly with the Ukranian/Russian war. She's not an agent of Russia that I know of - I never said that. She blames a lot of the escalation to the Russian invasion on the US and NATO. She never onces acknowledges that the war was started by Russia invading Ukraine! She never blames Putin, in fact she doesn't say much about him at all aside from claiming the US effectively pushed this war, never wanted peace talks, and gave Russia no option. In effect she thinks if we'd stayed in our isolationist lane Putin never would've invaded Ukraine and we'd all be much better off. She doesn't think Russia or Putin to be a threat at all except for our constant badgering and war mongering ways. She calls the Democratic Party war mongering neo-cons. She clearly favors Trumps isolationism and warming up to dictators and war criminals.

She does this all under the guise of a grave fear of nuclear war. And that's fine to have that fear. I just think it borders on somewhat irrational thoughts, especially with regard to Putin. All of this boils down to how much of a danger to the world you feel Putin is. She thinks Putin is no danger at all were we to just leave him alone and let him do whatever he's going to do. There's clear evidence however to the contrary, part of which is that he invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea!

She's at minimum a war weary isolationist who thinks the US is more dangerous to the world than Russia and Putin. Feel free to listen for yourself. I'm sure some of you would enjoy listening to her nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
What's irritating is that apologists like you don't actually care about the evidence out there. Your mind is already made up that there were no fundamental, serious issues with trump, which is why you spent two paragraphs deflecting and prattling on with your armchair psychology instead of replying to any of the real substance of what I posted.

Which, to reiterate, is that almost everyone who voted for him did so in part because he was supposedly a "good businessman." He wasn't. Trump claimed he was paying millions of dollars of taxes when he was first running. He wasn't. He stated he couldn't release his taxes because they were under audit. He could. He implied he and his companies were only utilizing legal means of tax minimization. They weren't. He implied that there weren't any major conflicts of interests, foreign or domestic, stemming from the fact that he and his children didn't divest themselves of their business while working for the taxpayer in the WH. Of course there were.

If none of those things strike you as worthy of significant criticism then I think we can drop the charade about how "rational" you're purportedly being about the topic at hand.
You’re too funny. You say I don’t care about the evidence. I said what he did was legal and I guess you are arguing that it wasn’t legal. I guess Biden and the left just don’t want to prosecute him even though they have evidence he did something illegal? No, wait. That sounds stupid. Provide evidence he did something illegal. Until then, I think it is way worse that he said “you got to grab women by the xxxxx.”

I can’t believe that I tell you I don’t like Trump, but it isn’t enough for you. I have to dislike him for the same reasons you do or it isn’t enough.


Your link to CREW was eye opening. The fact that you frequent a place that blatantly biased is enlightening. If I was frequenting Newsmax, I would at least try to hide it from others
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
She has some lengthy podcasts you can listen to; one of which deals directly with the Ukranian/Russian war. She's not an agent of Russia that I know of - I never said that. She blames a lot of the escalation to the Russian invasion on the US and NATO. She never onces acknowledges that the war was started by Russia invading Ukraine! She never blames Putin, in fact she doesn't say much about him at all aside from claiming the US effectively pushed this war, never wanted peace talks, and gave Russia no option. In effect she thinks if we'd stayed in our isolationist lane Putin never would've invaded Ukraine and we'd all be much better off. She doesn't think Russia or Putin to be a threat at all except for our constant badgering and war mongering ways. She calls the Democratic Party war mongering neo-cons. She clearly favors Trumps isolationism and warming up to dictators and war criminals.

She does this all under the guise of a grave fear of nuclear war. And that's fine to have that fear. I just think it borders on somewhat irrational thoughts, especially with regard to Putin. All of this boils down to how much of a danger to the world you feel Putin is. She thinks Putin is no danger at all were we to just leave him alone and let him do whatever he's going to do. There's clear evidence however to the contrary, part of which is that he invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea!

She's at minimum a war weary isolationist who thinks the US is more dangerous to the world than Russia and Putin. Feel free to listen for yourself. I'm sure some of you would enjoy listening to her nonsense.
Thank you for this. It was well written and thoughtful (except the last line ;) )

It IS possible she is correct on some things.

I don’t know a lot about the complexities of geopolitical workings so for me to say what she says is nonsense would be rather pompous of me. If you do understand these things and believe what she says as nonsense - I’d trust your judgement.

The problem I see is people are always trying to force an either-or.

Either you are for Russia or For Ukraine. You are either for masks or against vaccines. You are either for Faucci or against vaccines.

Vector2 is a master of the either-or fallacy (lots of examples on this thread). Lots of others wield the fallacy well ( but alas, it is still a fallacy).

We tend to do that with picking sides. For example, it seems you don’t like Tulsi for a single issue. I like her because she has been saying the same thing for 6 years and now in the current environment, what she is saying looks a little off.

It was the same with Yang. He had about 599 great ideas and the ******ed right couldn’t get past his ONE idea of UBI. A forced either or fallacy that concrete operational thinkers struggled with.

Oh my gosh how much better our country would be had Yang been our president instead of Drumph.
 

What a brilliant business move--dont pay for obligations your company agreed to. Any Musk supporters who would be cool if the new hospital CEO refused to pay a stipend they were contractually obligated to pay as a cost cutting maneuver?
 
Yes. It apparently is. But you won’t hear a valid response from others stating “you know what, I defend Fauci but he should know better than to have that conflict of interest. Def bad optics.”

I typically give more credence to people who can admit fault on their side. But it doesn’t seem to be the norm.


She’s chief of bioethics at the NIH Clinical Center. She provides guidance when enrolling patients in clinical trials. She doesn’t report to Fauci. James Gilman is head of the NIH Clinical Center. Francis Collins was head of NIH when she was appointed in 2012. Laurence Tabak is the current director of NIH. Fauci is head of NIAID. Lots of couples work in the same organization. Heck, a lot of my partners are married to each other.

Can we talk about Ginny Thomas who is an actual political activist?


It’s striking how Fauci has a background and education very similar to the Catholics on SCOTUS but the outcome was very different.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Care
Reactions: 4 users
You’re too funny. You say I don’t care about the evidence. I said what he did was legal and I guess you are arguing that it wasn’t legal. I guess Biden and the left just don’t want to prosecute him even though they have evidence he did something illegal? No, wait. That sounds stupid. Provide evidence he did something illegal. Until then, I think it is way worse that he said “you got to grab women by the xxxxx.”

I can’t believe that I tell you I don’t like Trump, but it isn’t enough for you. I have to dislike him for the same reasons you do or it isn’t enough.


Your link to CREW was eye opening. The fact that you frequent a place that blatantly biased is enlightening. If I was frequenting Newsmax, I would at least try to hide it from others
There you go again with that selective quoting / ignoring the 4 other things I mentioned he was lying about that are serious concerns. What a surprise.

But in regard to just the illegal activity, it’s pretty clear you don’t even read the posts you’re replying to before you feel compelled to get another word in. Look at what I wrote:
Both he and the trump org (Alan Weisselberg is going to jail) are facing liability for falsely inflating the net worth of both his commercial and personal properties in an effort to better rates on loans and insurance policies, and to gain tax benefits.​

Do you know who Weisselberg is and how long he worked for trump? Do you care? Nah, of course not. How bout the suit trump faces from the NY AG?
Mr. Trump made known through Mr. Weisselberg that he wanted his net worth on his statements to increase every year, and the statements were the vehicle by which his net worth was fraudulently inflated by billions of dollars year after year. All told, Mr. Trump, his children, the Trump Organization, and the other defendants as part of a repeated pattern and common scheme, derived more than 200 false and misleading valuations of assets for the 11 statements covering 2011 through 2021.​

Because we’re talking about someone who had to pay back $2 million to eight different charities because he stole the money from his own foundation. We’re talking about someone who also had to settle a lawsuit for $25 million against all the people he defrauded with his trump university scheme. We’re talking about who has a history of hundreds of liens, judgements and at least 60 lawsuits against himself and his businesses alleging that he has not fully paid workers for their labor and in some instances refused to pay commissions for his own lawyers and real estate brokers.

So let me just preempt you and laugh in your face before you cry witch-hunt about any tax investigation into someone who has this kind of history of financial deception and malfeasance.

“Vector2” said:
Ok. Who'd you vote for in 16 and 20?

Still waiting…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
.

Vector2 is a master of the either-or fallacy (lots of examples on this thread). Lots of others wield the fallacy well ( but alas, it is still a fallacy).

We tend to do that with picking sides. For example, it seems you don’t like Tulsi for a single issue. I like her because she has been saying the same thing for 6 years and now in the current environment, what she is saying looks a little off.
.
Or maybe you and a few other folks here are just incredibly skilled at ignoring the weight of the evidence if it happens to slant negative on someone whom you’re biased for?

@Southpaw has made a compelling case, supported by the entirety of Tulsi’s history, which points to the fact that she has Russian sympathies and hints of being a Putin apologist, and that this behavior extends beyond just the fact that she’s purportedly anti-war. Anyone who is neutral on her can easily see that. Is it a 100% certainty she’s a Putin apologist? No. But the preponderance of the evidence suggests so.

However, rather than accept that, what you’re doing is setting a practically impossible threshold of evidence to meet. Seriously, what would convince you? To us it seems like she’d literally have to say “I’m a Russian stooge and a Putin puppet” on national tv before you changed your mind. And if that’s the case, that indicates you’re approaching the debate on her from a bit of a disingenuous angle.
 
Last edited:
You’re too funny. You say I don’t care about the evidence. I said what he did was legal and I guess you are arguing that it wasn’t legal. I guess Biden and the left just don’t want to prosecute him even though they have evidence he did something illegal? No, wait. That sounds stupid. Provide evidence he did something illegal. Until then, I think it is way worse that he said “you got to grab women by the xxxxx.”

I can’t believe that I tell you I don’t like Trump, but it isn’t enough for you. I have to dislike him for the same reasons you do or it isn’t enough.


Your link to CREW was eye opening. The fact that you frequent a place that blatantly biased is enlightening. If I was frequenting Newsmax, I would at least try to hide it from others


Biden is not a leftist. Leftists hate Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Biden is not a leftist. Leftists hate Biden.
I don’t hate him, just feel like he’s definitely not left enough…. I need more left.

1672612401728.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
There you go again with that selective quoting / ignoring the 4 other things I mentioned he was lying about that are serious concerns. What a surprise.

But in regard to just the illegal activity, it’s pretty clear you don’t even read the posts you’re replying to before you feel compelled to get another word in. Look at what I wrote:
Lol. No. Believe it or not I got dragged back into putting up Christmas decorations. I came back to finish my msg and see it must’ve got sent somehow. I think it is a sign this conversation with you is going nowhere. Lol
Both he and the trump org (Alan Weisselberg is going to jail) are facing liability for falsely inflating the net worth of both his commercial and personal properties in an effort to better rates on loans and insurance policies, and to gain tax benefits.​

Do you know who Weisselberg is and how long he worked for trump? Do you care? Nah, of course not. How bout the suit trump faces from the NY AG?
No. don’t know who he is. Don’t care. If they find evidence that he or a trump did something illegal, then prosecute and put in jail. I don’t know why you can’t understand that I couldn’t care less. I’m not a trump fanboy or a fanboy of really any politicians. They are there to do a job, not to line their pockets.
Mr. Trump made known through Mr. Weisselberg that he wanted his net worth on his statements to increase every year, and the statements were the vehicle by which his net worth was fraudulently inflated by billions of dollars year after year. All told, Mr. Trump, his children, the Trump Organization, and the other defendants as part of a repeated pattern and common scheme, derived more than 200 false and misleading valuations of assets for the 11 statements covering 2011 through 2021.​

Because we’re talking about someone who had to pay back $2 million to eight different charities because he stole the money from his own foundation. We’re talking about someone who also had to settle a lawsuit for $25 million against all the people he defrauded with his trump university scheme. We’re talking about who has a history of hundreds of liens, judgements and at least 60 lawsuits against himself and his businesses alleging that he has not fully paid workers for their labor and in some instances refused to pay commissions for his own lawyers and real estate brokers.

So let me just preempt you and laugh in your face before you cry witch-hunt about any tax investigation into someone who has this kind of history of financial deception and malfeasance.
Who are you arguing with or talking to? Bc you keep acting like I care.
Still waiting…
Trump and trump. My wife was shocked in 2016 since I’d ran him down nonstop (he was my last choice in the primaries). I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for Hillary. No shame in that. 2020 I had no problem since he did a better job than I would’ve guessed. Again, akin to Shapiro’s take.

Let me guess. You voted Biden? I have no problem with that if you were voting against trump. I’m worried about you though if you are happy with the job he is doing (or whoever is pulling his strings)
 
She’s chief of bioethics at the NIH Clinical Center. She provides guidance when enrolling patients in clinical trials. She doesn’t report to Fauci. James Gilman is head of the NIH Clinical Center. Francis Collins was head of NIH when she was appointed in 2012. Laurence Tabak is the current director of NIH. Fauci is head of NIAID. Lots of couples work in the same organization. Heck, a lot of my partners are married to each other.

Can we talk about Ginny Thomas who is an actual political activist?


It’s striking how Fauci has a background and education very similar to the Catholics on SCOTUS but the outcome was very different.

If their paths never cross then that is fine. But if she would have the possibility of ruling on him that would be a definite issue
 
Lol. No. Believe it or not I got dragged back into putting up Christmas decorations. I came back to finish my msg and see it must’ve got sent somehow. I think it is a sign this conversation with you is going nowhere. Lol

No. don’t know who he is. Don’t care. If they find evidence that he or a trump did something illegal, then prosecute and put in jail. I don’t know why you can’t understand that I couldn’t care less. I’m not a trump fanboy or a fanboy of really any politicians. They are there to do a job, not to line their pockets.

Who are you arguing with or talking to? Bc you keep acting like I care.
That's cool. Let me just say thanks for confirming that all your bloviating, minimizing, and apologia stems from a position where you really haven't looked at, nor care, about the evidence of the myriad unethical and/or illegal things he's done.

Which is fine. Really, it is, because it's better than this song and dance a lot of trump voters do where they kinda downplay his crassness, or his tweets, or his personality while totally ignoring the utter corruption, incompetence, and inability to govern. For instance, I thought it was a breath of fresh air when blade was transparent enough to openly admit that he would vote for a "narcissist and criminal" if it meant his party came out on top.

Trump and trump. My wife was shocked in 2016 since I’d ran him down nonstop (he was my last choice in the primaries). I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for Hillary. No shame in that.
There's no shame in not casting a vote for Hillary. I didn't vote for her either. The shame is in voting for trump / not voting third party. Especially the second time around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Funny that I just recently used the word bloviate to describe vector’s posts for the last few years and I guess he liked the word, since now he’s slinging it around accusing Bobloblaw of it.
I taught one guy the word obtuse and now he uses it in most of his posts. Now I’ve taught another the word bloviate and I guess he’ll do the same.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Funny that I just recently used the word bloviate to describe vector’s posts for the last few years and I guess he liked the word, since now he’s slinging it around accusing Bobloblaw of it.
I taught one guy the word obtuse and now he uses it in most of his posts. Now I’ve taught another the word bloviate and I guess he’ll do the same.
And you taught me the definition of “woke” and anything else that trends on FOX News, breitbart and Musk’s twitter account! You’re a good resource from a very select group of folks!
 
Funny that I just recently used the word bloviate to describe vector’s posts for the last few years and I guess he liked the word, since now he’s slinging it around accusing Bobloblaw of it.
I taught one guy the word obtuse and now he uses it in most of his posts. Now I’ve taught another the word bloviate and I guess he’ll do the same.
Slow down, hoss. You're about to set a record for making the most pointless comments about word choice or there being too many ellipses or too many periods or whatever other inane thing you're perseverating about.

Fingers crossed, maybe one day you'll actually become more interested in the meaningful substance of a debate rather than your grammatical nitpick du jour. (and not like the facts matter to you, but here's me using "your" word 3 years ago).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Slow down, hoss. You're about to set a record for making the most pointless comments about word choice or there being too many ellipses or too many periods or whatever other inane thing you're perseverating about.

Fingers crossed, maybe one day you'll actually become more interested in the meaningful substance of a debate rather than your grammatical nitpick du jour. (and not like the facts matter to you, but here's me using "your" word 3 years ago).
Nicely played, hoss.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

@pgg said it a lot better than I ever could. Guess who he was responding to? @Moonbeams. I really think some of you can’t get past Hunter Biden with regard to Ukraine to see the real danger in Putin and Russia invading Ukraine.

I’m not surprised some of you moderate conservatives like Tulsi after she left the Dems. But geez, some of the stuff you all say just gets a little too close to friendliness toward Putin/Russia for my taste. Kinda gives me the heebie jeebies.

I basically agree with Gabbard on these issues. I reject the notion that if you are opposed to the US funneling its tax base to fight a proxy war in Ukraine that you are automatically pro-Putin. You can not like both Putin and Zelenskyy. That's possible. I do.

Gabbard is an Al-Assad shill? Of course she is. Vector heard it on Twitter. She loves him.

With regards to the invasion, it's not as clear cut as some who are mindlessly regurgitating propaganda from Western media. There is a deep history of Russia in that region, and it is ridiculous to say that Ukraine was minding its own business bothering nobody until Putin decided he wanted to take stuff and started killing people. It's also ridiculous this comes from the same crowd that was largely opposed to the Vietnam War and the Iraq wars (with similarly stupid logic -- America invaded Iraq because we wanted more oil for our Ford Explorers).

Acknowledging the provocation in Ukraine does not make one a Putin apologist.

Lets think about leaders that dress in military dress or brown plain clothes instead of suits. Castro. Kim. Mao. Stalin. Does anyone else come to mind? Why do they do this? Worth thinking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Gabbard is an Al-Assad shill? Of course she is. Vector heard it on Twitter. She loves him.

Misrepresentation and misinformation is your game, so unsurprising you left out the part where she said al-Assad wasn't one of our adversaries. And the part where as a sitting Congressman she secretly met with the guy (who has killed 200,000 civilians) without informing anyone.

Only stupid or cynical people believe the sincerity of the "brutal dictator" line she was forced to give (because her questionable history on al-Assad was making her look bad in the debates). Everyone else with half a brain watching it realized the lady doth protest too much.
 
Misrepresentation and misinformation is your game, so unsurprising you left out the part where she said al-Assad wasn't one of our adversaries. And the part where as a sitting Congressman she secretly met with the guy (who has killed 200,000 civilians) without informing anyone.

Only stupid or cynical people believe the sincerity of the "brutal dictator" line she was forced to give (because her questionable history on al-Assad was making her look bad in the debates). Everyone else with half a brain watching it realized the lady doth protest too much.
Or it could be that, maybe, she is simply, like, opposed to like war and stuff.

Miss the days when you guys understood this.

7d3a7ebfca1f5f31fa3cfa557084a68088be5fb708eb95ff60ed76a2ecd27de2._UY500_UX667_RI_V_TTW_.jpg


Also, your Neville Chamberlain/Hitler comparison was one of the most asinine things I have seen here, and that says a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Or it could be that, maybe, she is simply, like, opposed to like war and stuff.

Miss the days when you guys understood this.

7d3a7ebfca1f5f31fa3cfa557084a68088be5fb708eb95ff60ed76a2ecd27de2._UY500_UX667_RI_V_TTW_.jpg


Also, your Neville Chamberlain/Hitler comparison was one of the most asinine things I have seen here, and that says a lot.

See, ignorant people like you probably look at her visit with al-Assad and think "What's the big deal deal? It's just a meeting. "

And other people who know a little bit more about diplomacy beyond a middle school social studies level realize that a US Congressman meeting solo in a secret and likely unsanctioned fashion with a war criminal is an insanely bizarre and inexplicable act that adds legitimacy and bargaining power to a tyrant who deserves absolutely none.

Sad that someone has to explain that to you, but unfortunately international relations is also one of those things you've arrogantly Dunning-Kruger'ed yourself into thinking you're an expert on.
 
Lets think about leaders that dress in military dress or brown plain clothes instead of suits. Castro. Kim. Mao. Stalin. Does anyone else come to mind? Why do they do this? Worth thinking about?

Ell Oh F'ing Ell. You can't be serious, right? Zelensky's clothes are the big story the alt right trolls have got you worked up about?

john-jonah-jameson-lol.gif
 
Ell Oh F'ing Ell. You can't be serious, right? Zelensky's clothes are the big story the alt right trolls have got you worked up about?

I'm dead serious. If you don't think there is a reason he wore a green sweatshirt to talk to the US congress you are a fool.
 
you've arrogantly Dunning-Kruger'ed yourself into thinking you're an expert on.

That's what, the ninth or tenth time you've mentioned that in less than a week? The same way a college sophomore who just learned about Keynes in econ and won't shut up about aggregate demand because he is convinced he is now an economic genius because he learned a thing.

It's actually ironic.

Yes my dude, I'm aware of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. We all are. Since forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yes my dude, I'm aware of what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. We all are. Since forever.

I wish I could stop bringing it up over and over but you just keep demonstrating it over and over. Cause your arrogance makes it impossible for you to realize you're its posterchild.
 
Last edited:
Nah, my dude. Funny is you trying to convince everyone that bad Ukrainian man wearing green pants is something to get worked up about
You literally cannot not have the last word in even the dumbest back and forth exchange, can you?
 
You literally cannot not have the last word in even the dumbest back and forth exchange, can you?

Speaking of which, remind me, is this the 3rd or 4th time now that you've said you were gonna put me on ignore only to go on and keep @'ing me? Get on with it.

I'd return the favor, but it seems like you've moved on to Charlie Day-level Ukraine conspiracies, and I wouldn't want to miss that hilarity.
 
Speaking of which, remind me, is this the 3rd or 4th time now that you've said you were gonna put me on ignore only to go on and keep @'ing me? Get on with it.

I'd return the favor, but it seems like you've moved on to Charlie Day-level Ukraine conspiracies, and I wouldn't want to miss that hilarity.

I replied to Southpaw, not you. You took it upon yourself to get all triggered and reply vomiting up some MSNBC nonsense about Tulsi Gabbard secretly being a fan of murdering Syrian civilians because you and your crowd is completely unable to process anybody not being so radically left you can't figure out what a woman is anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I replied to Southpaw, not you. You took it upon yourself to get all triggered and reply vomiting up some MSNBC nonsense about Tulsi Gabbard secretly being a fan of murdering Syrian civilians because you and your crowd is completely unable to process anybody not being so radically left you can't figure out what a woman is anymore.
I do find it strange how right wing people seem to give Russia the benefit of the doubt when they are invading a country and killing thousands of civilians ….
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I replied to Southpaw, not you. You took it upon yourself to get all triggered and reply vomiting up some MSNBC nonsense about Tulsi Gabbard secretly being a fan of murdering Syrian civilians because you and your crowd is completely unable to process anybody not being so radically left you can't figure out what a woman is anymore.

Uh huh, you quoted him and then, as you're saying, you couldn't help but bring up my name and reply to the substance of my post with your clownish alt-right takes on Tulsi. Despite your supposed assurances otherwise that you were done.

Lol or was this not you? "Happy new year. Back to ignore."
 
I do find it strange how right wing people seem to give Russia the benefit of the doubt when they are invading a country and killing thousands of civilians ….

There are lots of right wing people that are champing at the bit to engage Russia over this.

People like myself and Tulsi Gabbard (not right wing btw) are not giving Russia the benefit of the doubt or clamoring for Russian victory. The conflict in eastern Ukraine did not suddenly start out of the blue when Putin sent tanks in a year ago. The conflict there has been going on for quite a while and is far more complicated that the flag-emoji crowd makes it out to be.

Will be interesting to see how the virtue signalers react when China invades Taiwan this year. Something tells me the media that fills their empty head holes with marching orders will be a little less forthcoming. Wonder why. Just a hunch.
 
Uh huh, you quoted him and then, as you're saying, you couldn't help but bring up my name and reply to the substance of my post with your clownish alt-right takes on Tulsi. Despite your supposed assurances otherwise that you were done.

Lol or was this not you? "Happy new year. Back to ignore."

You keep using the phrase "alt right." There are two possibilities here:

1. You don't know what it means. Which would be not be surprising given your understanding of foreign relations.
2. You think it's some kind of burn on me, which would only make sense if I were not on the far right, as people who are members of this group (the nick fuentes crowd) readily accept that identity and label and do not go to great lengths to try and distance themselves from it. Ironically this would mean that you accept my more centrist and moderate position, something that bizarrely pisses you off to the point of writing page long diatribes to try and disprove.

Regardless, yes you are only person I have felt the need to set to ignore, for good reason, and if you don't want to engage with me, don't reply to me. I won't click on the "show ignored content" link quoting my post. I promise. You've been here, for what, 15+ years trying to drive out anyone who threatens the existence of a far left echo chamber you want? Might want to think about that and what it is you hope to accomplish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You keep using the phrase "alt right." There are two possibilities here:

1. You don't know what it means. Which would be not be surprising given your understanding of foreign relations.

I'm certainly not surprised that "No, you " was among your first choice of rebuttals.

£
2. You think it's some kind of burn on me, which would only make sense if I were not on the far right, as people who are members of this group (the nick fuentes crowd) readily accept that identity and label and do not go to great lengths to try and distance themselves from it. Ironically this would mean that you accept my more centrist and moderate position, something that bizarrely pisses you off to the point of writing page long diatribes to try and disprove.

I honestly don't care if you think it's a burn or not. Your views and positions regarding Tulsi and Russia are pretty much identical to many on the right and alt-right, so a spade is going to get called a spade. But feel free to keep making up whatever magical definitions of "moderate" that you like. Doesn't change reality.



Regardless, yes you are only person I have felt the need to set to ignore, for good reason, and if you don't want to engage with me, don't reply to me. I won't click on the "show ignored content" link quoting my post. I promise. You've been here, for what, 15+ years trying to drive out anyone who threatens the existence of a far left echo chamber you want? Might want to think about that and what it is you hope to accomplish.

Lol, what is this? You were the one who initiated all the whining and threats about putting me on ignore. And now you're going to accuse me of wanting the echo chamber? Think the logic through on that one, buddy.

And honestly, I don't want to block you. I find your naivety on Russia and your dead certainty about how everyone is wrong and you are right wrt investing in the Stock Market thread to be absolutely hilarious. I do wish though you'd take it easy on all the lying, misrepresentation, and specious arguments...but I guess we gotta take the good with the bad.
 
This is what "not giving Russia the benefit of the doubt" apparently looks like

 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
I'm certainly not surprised that "No, you " was among your first choice of rebuttals.



I honestly don't care if you think it's a burn or not. Your views and positions regarding Tulsi and Russia are pretty much identical to the alt-right, so a spade is going to get called a spade. But feel free to keep making up whatever magical definitions of "moderate" that you like. Doesn't change reality.



Ok, you've actually crossed a line now, which I guess was your objective. People like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes are absolutely disgusting vile people, and I, nor Tulsi Gabbard, nor the many millions of decent Americans who vote across the aisle and are not on the radical left like yourself. have nothing in common with them and I completely denounce them and hate everything they represent as much as I can possibly hate anything. I have no interest in continuing any sort of discussion with somebody who disingenuously tries to align people like me with monsters like Richard Spencer by trying to find some tangential viewpoint about Ukraine or something, and anybody that does can F off.

If you followed my advice on the stock market thread, you would have made money last year. I'm going to take a wild guess where you have your head stuck when it comes to investing as well.

And Tulsi Gabbard is 100% correct in her comments you quoted above. My believing that does not make me a neo Nazi. If you want to find a bunch of neo nazis, you know where you will find them? Ukraine.

You win. No more. It took comparing me to a literal neo-Nazi to do it. Congrats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
have nothing in common with them

Except Tulsi, you, and many others parroting lines about Zelensky being thug wearing spooky green fatigues actually do have something in common with them. It's why her foreign policy is a darling of the alt-right and others on the far-right. Your outrage doesn't change that commonality.


I guess we all must've forgotten this:

Screenshot_20230102_141958_Chrome Beta.jpg

Screenshot_20230102_142017_Chrome Beta.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Except Tulsi, you, and many others parroting lines about Zelensky being thug wearing spooky green fatigues actually do have something in common with them. It's why her foreign policy is a darling of the alt-right and others on the far-right. Your outrage doesn't change that commonality.

Ah, the Hitler was a vegetarian/had a dog fallacy.

Such an enormous waste of time, even worse than my time on Bogleheads I think. Watching reasonable people like FFP who could have honest debate driven away. I get it. Great little community you've made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ah, the Hitler was a vegetarian/had a dog fallacy.

Such an enormous waste of time, even worse than my time on Bogleheads I think. Watching reasonable people like FFP who could have honest debate driven away. I get it. Great little community you've made.

You've engaged in so much dishonest misrepresentation of what others have said by trying to put words in their mouth that you've probably become oblivious to how transparent it is.

To reiterate, I stated that "Your views and positions regarding Tulsi and Russia are pretty much identical to many on the right and alt-right. " That statement was true 5 minutes ago and it's true now.

Any other extrapolations you're making are your own. The only person calling you a Nazi is you. But I suspect it's easier to keep feigning outrage and deflect rather than defend what truly is a horrible foreign policy position.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
I do find it strange how right wing people seem to give Russia the benefit of the doubt when they are invading a country and killing thousands of civilians ….
You are 100% correct.

Regardless of the complexities of why it started, the images of the illegal phosphorus bombs on civilians in the thousands turns the stomach.

Russia needs to be hurt.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is what "not giving Russia the benefit of the doubt" apparently looks like


Vector2,

You disagree with her statement right?

Do you think the Russian invasion was inevitable and there was nothing (from a historical perspective) that could have been done different, say in the last 10-15 years to avoid it?
 
Vector2,

You disagree with her statement right?

Do you think the Russian invasion was inevitable and there was nothing (from a historical perspective) that could have been done different, say in the last 10-15 years to avoid it?

I think it's very unlikely that anyone could've done anything to stop it.

Putin's first problem is that the Ukrainian people generally will not stand for a Russian puppet leader anymore. This has been apparent since the ouster of Yanukovych and Putin's subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea. Most Ukrainians (at least those not on the eastern border) want democracy and stronger ties with the West, and I don't think it's incumbent on the West (or in our best interests) to tell them that they don't deserve our help to win the autonomy and right to self-governance that all nations should have.

Putin's second problem is that he has delusional ideas about returning Russia to its former Soviet glory. He is a former KGB officer who has never gotten over the tremendous economic and political fall that the Soviet Union took when it broke up. He wants to relitigate the Cold War and install himself (and his oligarch friends) as the permanent kleptocracy of a new expanded empire. And thinking we can change that by appeasement or tiptoing around where NATO can put its missiles is the height of folly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I do find it strange how right wing people seem to give Russia the benefit of the doubt when they are invading a country and killing thousands of civilians ….

Is it that strange? Look at what the most popular national politician and pundit on the right have been saying...

FMS5eTwXwAUgDQn.jpg


 
There you go again with that selective quoting / ignoring the 4 other things I mentioned he was lying about that are serious concerns. What a surprise.
Vector talks about selective quoting and ignoring comments that he mentioned…
Still waiting…
Or ignoring questions he asked about personal voting records for president…

Then proceeds to selectively quote me, ignore my comments, remove my questions about his president vote and ignore/not reply about his presidential vote.

If you @vector2 are going to accuse people of doing something at least have the common decency to wait one post before doing the same thing yourself. Lol. The hypocrisy is strong with this one
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Vector talks about selective quoting and ignoring comments that he mentioned…

Or ignoring questions he asked about personal voting records for president…

Then proceeds to selectively quote me, ignore my comments, remove my questions about his president vote and ignore/not reply about his presidential vote.

If you @vector2 are going to accuse people of doing something at least have the common decency to wait one post before doing the same thing yourself. Lol. The hypocrisy is strong with this one

Last I checked, your reply said the convo was going nowhere followed by a "Don't care" and a "Who are you arguing with or talking to? Bc you keep acting like I care." when presented with (a fraction of) your favorite prez's various misdeeds. Essentially confirming that you never really had any interest in the evidence of his and his company's laughably obvious financial malfeasance. And then I said that was fine, at least you were dropping the charade, and moved on.

And as far as being selective, let's look at the things I mentioned in this post which you never addressed:


"Which, to reiterate, is that almost everyone who voted for him did so in part because he was supposedly a "good businessman." He wasn't. Trump claimed he was paying millions of dollars of taxes when he was first running. He wasn't. He stated he couldn't release his taxes because they were under audit. He could. He implied he and his companies were only utilizing legal means of tax minimization. They weren't. He implied that there weren't any major conflicts of interests, foreign or domestic, stemming from the fact that he and his children didn't divest themselves of their business while working for the taxpayer in the WH. Of course there were.​

Out of that laundry list of lies, you selectively replied to just the part about he and his company's tax minimization being legal, and then when told that not even that part was true (given that Weisselberg is going to jail and trump has a big pending suit against him), you got all huffy with a case of the I don't cares. Which honestly makes your whole dramatic production with cries of hypocrisy about selective replying pretty hilarious.
 
Last I checked, your reply said the convo was going nowhere followed by a "Don't care" and a "Who are you arguing with or talking to? Bc you keep acting like I care." when presented with (a fraction of) your favorite prez's various misdeeds. Essentially confirming that you never really had any interest in the evidence of his and his company's laughably obvious financial malfeasance. And then I said that was fine, at least you were dropping the charade, and moved on.

And as far as being selective, let's look at the things I mentioned in this post which you never addressed:

"Which, to reiterate, is that almost everyone who voted for him did so in part because he was supposedly a "good businessman." He wasn't. Trump claimed he was paying millions of dollars of taxes when he was first running. He wasn't. He stated he couldn't release his taxes because they were under audit. He could. He implied he and his companies were only utilizing legal means of tax minimization. They weren't. He implied that there weren't any major conflicts of interests, foreign or domestic, stemming from the fact that he and his children didn't divest themselves of their business while working for the taxpayer in the WH. Of course there were.​

Out of that laundry list of lies, you selectively replied to just the part about he and his company's tax minimization being legal, and then when told that not even that part was true (given that Weisselberg is going to jail and trump has a big pending suit against him), you got all huffy with a case of the I don't cares. Which honestly makes your whole dramatic production with cries of hypocrisy about selective replying pretty hilarious.
…and follows up with another sidestep!!! I couldn’t make this up
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Top