Is Putin finished?

nuskool89

Well-Known Member
Why all the hate for putin? He's a very smart man. Just ask trump who loves to shower him with praise.
Half of US politics and all US media:

“these brash off script comments Trump makes are going to start WWIII!”

Biden:

“hold my beer”

- "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.

- On Friday, Biden was speaking to U.S. troops in Poland, and he said that Ukrainian people "have a lot of backbone" before appearing to suggest that the troops would soon be in Ukraine itself -- something U.S. officials have repeatedly ruled out.

"And you're going to see when you're there," he told the 82nd Airborne Division. And some of you have been there. You're going to see -- you're going to see women, young people standing -- standing… in front of a damn tank, just saying, "I'm not leaving. I'm holding my ground." They're incredible. But they take a lot of inspiration from us."

- On Thursday, Biden was asked if the U.S. would respond if Russia were to use chemical weapons as part of its invasion of Ukraine. Biden said that such a move by the Russians would "trigger a response in kind."




Half of US politics, WH staff, and media:

“oh shit how do we fix this and cover?”


- His ad-libbed words -- "For God's sake, this man cannot remain power" -- caught even US advisors off guard, representing a stark departure from oft-stated American policy.
The White House sprung immediately into action, clarifying within minutes that Biden was not advocating "regime change" in Russia.
But the comments by Biden -- who hours earlier called Putin a "butcher" -- drew predictable fury from Moscow, raised eyebrows in allied countries, and sent the president's advisors into high gear to mollify the criticism.

“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change”

- A White House spokesperson later clarified that remark: "The President has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position."

- After that remark, it was up to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to clarify. Sullivan was asked what Biden meant by "in kind." Sullivan said that meant "we’ll respond accordingly" and that Russia would pay a "severe price."
 
Last edited:

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Half of US politics and all US media:

“these brash off script comments Trump makes are going to start WWIII!”

Biden:

“hold my beer”

- "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.

- On Friday, Biden was speaking to U.S. troops in Poland, and he said that Ukrainian people "have a lot of backbone" before appearing to suggest that the troops would soon be in Ukraine itself -- something U.S. officials have repeatedly ruled out.

"And you're going to see when you're there," he told the 82nd Airborne Division. And some of you have been there. You're going to see -- you're going to see women, young people standing -- standing… in front of a damn tank, just saying, "I'm not leaving. I'm holding my ground." They're incredible. But they take a lot of inspiration from us."

- On Thursday, Biden was asked if the U.S. would respond if Russia were to use chemical weapons as part of its invasion of Ukraine. Biden said that such a move by the Russians would "trigger a response in kind."




Half of US politics, WH staff, and media:

“oh shit how do we fix this and cover?”


- His ad-libbed words -- "For God's sake, this man cannot remain power" -- caught even US advisors off guard, representing a stark departure from oft-stated American policy.
The White House sprung immediately into action, clarifying within minutes that Biden was not advocating "regime change" in Russia.
But the comments by Biden -- who hours earlier called Putin a "butcher" -- drew predictable fury from Moscow, raised eyebrows in allied countries, and sent the president's advisors into high gear to mollify the criticism.

“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change”

- A White House spokesperson later clarified that remark: "The President has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position."

- After that remark, it was up to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to clarify. Sullivan was asked what Biden meant by "in kind." Sullivan said that meant "we’ll respond accordingly" and that Russia would pay a "severe price."
Are you seriously suggesting Biden is more destructive than the one he replaced?
 

nuskool89

Well-Known Member
Are you seriously suggesting Biden is more destructive than the one he replaced?
I’m suggesting everyone deserves the same level of scrutiny, skepticism, and hard questions Trump faced. Biden has a cake walk in comparison

No matter your opinion of Trump, that shouldn’t dismiss Biden’s gaffes. I’m still of the mind he was the wrong candidate and will be a one term president. No one has a crystal ball but the midterms should be an interesting indicator. You can see Democrats’s messaging strategy change as their constituents face hardships they perceive as Biden’s fault; even if it may not directly be his fault.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I’m suggesting everyone deserves the same level of scrutiny, skepticism, and hard questions Trump faced. Biden has a cake walk in comparison

No matter your opinion of Trump, that shouldn’t dismiss Biden’s gaffes. I’m still of the mind he was the wrong candidate and will be a one term president. No one has a crystal ball but the midterms should be an interesting indicator. You can see Democrats’s messaging strategy change as their constituents face hardships they perceive as Biden’s fault; even if it may not directly be his fault.
Who do you believe would have been a two-term contender for the Democrats?
 

nuskool89

Well-Known Member
Who do you believe would have been a two-term contender for the Democrats?
Broadly, anyone who wasn’t Clinton or Biden.

my personal opinion

1) Tulsi Gabbard would have dismantled the you vs me mentality as President (nuskool is a Republican cannabineer is a democrat but we are still at peace and it’s not a problem we think differently)

she is a strong leader and I appreciate her service experience. Although I’m not a Sanders fan, I respect her decision to resign as DNC vice chair in 2016 to support someone who wasn’t Clinton.

2) Andrew Yang has a lot of great ideas - some of the more extreme would be kept in check just by how things work in politics, but I liked his approach to reducing fossil fuels while embracing nuclear energy because it’s the only energy source that could actually replace coal/oil long term on a mass scale for the next 3 decades. His entrepreneur mentality and outsider stance is something I align with. He is also hyper intelligent and The War On Normal People is a great read


^those are the only two I would have voted for over Trump.

3) Cory Booker - likeable, palatable, and more of that you are not my enemy mentality I think we need. I like his work with Rand Paul

4) Gillibrand



Those are just my opinions.
 

Fardsnarp

Well-Known Member
Who do you believe would have been a two-term contender for the Democrats?
No one. George Bush 1 inherited Regan's deficit and paid the price. Remember 'no new taxes'? At that time Republicans actually were a little more fiscally conservative and did the right thing by raising taxes to ease it. Bush paid and Clinton cashed in as the only modern president to reduce the deficit.

Pretty much ANYONE taking office after Trump was doomed. The wheels were coming off when Trump left. Dems bailed him out by winning. Biden will pay the price just as GB1 did.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Broadly, anyone who wasn’t Clinton or Biden.

my personal opinion

1) Tulsi Gabbard would have dismantled the you vs me mentality as President (nuskool is a Republican cannabineer is a democrat but we are still at peace and it’s not a problem we think differently)

she is a strong leader and I appreciate her service experience. Although I’m not a Sanders fan, I respect her decision to resign as DNC vice chair in 2016 to support someone who wasn’t Clinton.

2) Andrew Yang has a lot of great ideas - some of the more extreme would be kept in check just by how things work in politics, but I liked his approach to reducing fossil fuels while embracing nuclear energy because it’s the only energy source that could actually replace coal/oil long term on a mass scale for the next 3 decades. His entrepreneur mentality and outsider stance is something I align with. He is also hyper intelligent and The War On Normal People is a great read


^those are the only two I would have voted for over Trump.

3) Cory Booker - likeable, palatable, and more of that you are not my enemy mentality I think we need. I like his work with Rand Paul

4) Gillibrand



Those are just my opinions.
Gabbard turned out all hollow iirc.

I dislike Yang’s border attitude.
 

Fardsnarp

Well-Known Member
Show me one year under Bush senior that showed or approached a net surplus.
I pretty much covered that. Bush raised the taxes and Clinton reaped the benefits. But I always considered the Clintons 'republicans lite'. Hillory was even president of the Young Republicans in college. The legislation deregulating some securities passed under Clinton and GB2 ultimately ate the consequences of that in the last financial crisis.

If you want to go back a little further. Carter appointed Volker which set up Regan. Regan kept Volker which was probably his best move. Some consider Regan the father of modern day runaway spending. But Bush 1 paid for that. Insert above comments here. ;)
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I pretty much covered that. Bush raised the taxes and Clinton reaped the benefits. But I always considered the Clintons 'republicans lite'. Hillory was even president of the Young Republicans in college. The legislation deregulating some securities passed under Clinton and GB2 ultimately ate the consequences of that in the last financial crisis.

If you want to go back a little further. Carter appointed Volker which set up Regan. Regan kept Volker which was probably his best move. Some consider Regan the father of modern day runaway spending. But Bush 1 paid for that. Insert above comments here. ;)
Had Bush senior actually paid for it, we would not have this pathological evolution of R fiscal policy.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Half of US politics and all US media:

“these brash off script comments Trump makes are going to start WWIII!”

Biden:

“hold my beer”

- "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power," Biden said during the speech in front of the Royal Castle in Warsaw, Poland.

- On Friday, Biden was speaking to U.S. troops in Poland, and he said that Ukrainian people "have a lot of backbone" before appearing to suggest that the troops would soon be in Ukraine itself -- something U.S. officials have repeatedly ruled out.

"And you're going to see when you're there," he told the 82nd Airborne Division. And some of you have been there. You're going to see -- you're going to see women, young people standing -- standing… in front of a damn tank, just saying, "I'm not leaving. I'm holding my ground." They're incredible. But they take a lot of inspiration from us."

- On Thursday, Biden was asked if the U.S. would respond if Russia were to use chemical weapons as part of its invasion of Ukraine. Biden said that such a move by the Russians would "trigger a response in kind."




Half of US politics, WH staff, and media:

“oh shit how do we fix this and cover?”


- His ad-libbed words -- "For God's sake, this man cannot remain power" -- caught even US advisors off guard, representing a stark departure from oft-stated American policy.
The White House sprung immediately into action, clarifying within minutes that Biden was not advocating "regime change" in Russia.
But the comments by Biden -- who hours earlier called Putin a "butcher" -- drew predictable fury from Moscow, raised eyebrows in allied countries, and sent the president's advisors into high gear to mollify the criticism.

“The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change”

- A White House spokesperson later clarified that remark: "The President has been clear we are not sending U.S. troops to Ukraine and there is no change in that position."

- After that remark, it was up to National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to clarify. Sullivan was asked what Biden meant by "in kind." Sullivan said that meant "we’ll respond accordingly" and that Russia would pay a "severe price."
"Hold my beer" to someone talking about the size of their nuke button and his fire and fury shit, is what Biden said?

lmao this belongs on a 'you might be a cuckservative' meme.
 

injinji

Well-Known Member
Half of US politics and all US media:

“these brash off script comments Trump makes are going to start WWIII!”. . . . . . . . . .
Yep. All US media was saying it. I remember when Fox News was saying how dangerous trumpf was. Him threatening to bring fire and brimstone on lil Kim. Tucker really called him out for that. You are 100% correct on your observations.
 
Top