(03-03-2025, 01:07 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-02-2025, 11:16 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK, does Putin want our number with Ukraine to be higher, or lower?
Irrelevant. The U.S. and Europe want the war ended. It's the goal at this point to stop the hostilities in order to hold further talks and it shouldn't be difficult because both sides are exhausted in every sense, although Russia remains the stronger one. It's a matter of changing the demanding bellicose rhetoric on both sides towards the direction of peace. This is why Zelinsky got jumped. He believes he has the heft to question future U.S. diplomatic relations with Russia. He doesn't. Ukraine is the little guy who held his own for a while against a bigger and stronger opponent, but predictably, he's destined to eventually lose the fight and thus is bidding from a position of weakness - despite a combined $400B in aid from the U.S. and Europe.
Additionally, with the long term in mind, Russia will be assuaged. For good or bad, they are an international mover and shaker. They're in a position of power because they are a major player in the global arena. In the following decades, Russia is who the world will continue to deal with. Not Ukraine.
Like the U.S., Russia is big and powerful and can throw its weight around too. Love it or hate it, that's the rules of the road for international relations.
There really are more dimensions to this situation than simply trying to manufacture another Russia collusion lie.
You didn't answer my question and you didn't explain why. Yes the situation has multiple dimensions, but Russia co-opting our political parties is one of them. Again, you are the one who said Putin will respect Republicans but attack Democrats. You started the conversation in this direction. I'm only reflecting back the implications of your words, and you haven't refuted it.
Can you explain exactly what "weakness" Bush 43, Obama, and Biden "projected" in the moments before Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine were attacked, and explain in what sense Trump did not project that same weakness? Because if there is no objective difference, it really looks like Putin picking and choosing his times and places for the sake of narrative only.
In all fairness this was a meeting with Donald and JD. How many hours do those two take each morning just with their makeup? An hour? Two? JD takes great pride in his eyeliner routine and must have been stunned that Zelensky did not reciprocate.
Zelensky after a bit of time wants to now sign the mineral deal as written. I believe after meeting with EU leaders he realized OOPS I believe maybe ambushing the leader of the free world on national TV was not a good thing to do. It will now be interesting to see if the deal is still on the table. Not sure it is.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray...ice-clash/
(03-03-2025, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 01:07 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Irrelevant. The U.S. and Europe want the war ended. It's the goal at this point to stop the hostilities in order to hold further talks and it shouldn't be difficult because both sides are exhausted in every sense, although Russia remains the stronger one. It's a matter of changing the demanding bellicose rhetoric on both sides towards the direction of peace. This is why Zelinsky got jumped. He believes he has the heft to question future U.S. diplomatic relations with Russia. He doesn't. Ukraine is the little guy who held his own for a while against a bigger and stronger opponent, but predictably, he's destined to eventually lose the fight and thus is bidding from a position of weakness - despite a combined $400B in aid from the U.S. and Europe.
Additionally, with the long term in mind, Russia will be assuaged. For good or bad, they are an international mover and shaker. They're in a position of power because they are a major player in the global arena. In the following decades, Russia is who the world will continue to deal with. Not Ukraine.
Like the U.S., Russia is big and powerful and can throw its weight around too. Love it or hate it, that's the rules of the road for international relations.
There really are more dimensions to this situation than simply trying to manufacture another Russia collusion lie.
You didn't answer my question and you didn't explain why. Yes the situation has multiple dimensions, but Russia co-opting our political parties is one of them. Again, you are the one who said Putin will respect Republicans but attack Democrats. You started the conversation in this direction. I'm only reflecting back the implications of your words, and you haven't refuted it.
Can you explain exactly what "weakness" Bush 43, Obama, and Biden "projected" in the moments before Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine were attacked, and explain in what sense Trump did not project that same weakness? Because if there is no objective difference, it really looks like Putin picking and choosing his times and places for the sake of narrative only.
I did answer your question and explain why. You're so fixated on steering the argument that you simply glossed it over and interpreted it with your bias. Where did I say Putin will respect Republicans and attack Democrats? Question for you: Do you believe Biden projected weakness to the world?
Your ultimate rhetorical goal here is to demonstrably prove that Trump is a Putin stooge while ignoring the fact that negotiating with Russia goes beyond Putin. Dealing with Russia is a thorny issue for the reasons I listed. I'm trying to illustrate big picture, but you're fixated on TDS talking points.
(03-03-2025, 09:48 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You didn't answer my question and you didn't explain why. Yes the situation has multiple dimensions, but Russia co-opting our political parties is one of them. Again, you are the one who said Putin will respect Republicans but attack Democrats. You started the conversation in this direction. I'm only reflecting back the implications of your words, and you haven't refuted it.
Can you explain exactly what "weakness" Bush 43, Obama, and Biden "projected" in the moments before Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine were attacked, and explain in what sense Trump did not project that same weakness? Because if there is no objective difference, it really looks like Putin picking and choosing his times and places for the sake of narrative only.
I did answer your question and explain why. You're so fixated on steering the argument that you simply glossed it over and interpreted it with your bias. Where did I say Putin will respect Republicans and attack Democrats? Question for you: Do you believe Biden projected weakness to the world?
Your ultimate rhetorical goal here is to demonstrably prove that Trump is a Putin stooge while ignoring the fact that negotiating with Russia goes beyond Putin. Dealing with Russia is a thorny issue for the reasons I listed. I'm trying to illustrate big picture, but you're fixated on TDS talking points.
Where did you say that? Post 11817:
Quote:However, I will concede your point if another impotent Democrat gains office. In that case, Ukraine would be the least of our worries and it would be left to Europe to do its duty. But that's doubtful considering the puling, supine ideology they've embraced.
You said that if Ukraine agrees to this mineral rights deal that doesn't have an explicit security guarantee, Russia would not invade while a Republican was in office but would invade while a Democrat was in office.
Do I believe Biden projected weakness to the world? Some parts of the world, yes. I believe he projected weakness to Iran, when he chose to ice out the Saudis and tried to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranians. I think this emboldened the Iranians and Hamas to start [BLEEP] they couldn't finish. Biden correctly stood by Israel while the consequences were meted out but it may not have come to that if Biden had been more resolute from the beginning.
But with regard to Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan, it's hard to imagine a President being stronger, more resolute, and less ambiguous in his intentions than Biden was. Maybe he should have been more dithering and ambiguous, but I doubt that.
As for my goal I'm just on a quest for truth. You made a really problematic statement about Putin's intentions and I'm showing you the implications of it.
I think Putin's calculus is more complicated and personal than simply which US party is in the White House. But he wants us to think Republican = strength and peace while Democrat = weakness and war. I don't know why he wants us to think that but he does. It's what his state media pushes.
(03-03-2025, 08:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 01:07 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Irrelevant. The U.S. and Europe want the war ended. It's the goal at this point to stop the hostilities in order to hold further talks and it shouldn't be difficult because both sides are exhausted in every sense, although Russia remains the stronger one. It's a matter of changing the demanding bellicose rhetoric on both sides towards the direction of peace. This is why Zelinsky got jumped. He believes he has the heft to question future U.S. diplomatic relations with Russia. He doesn't. Ukraine is the little guy who held his own for a while against a bigger and stronger opponent, but predictably, he's destined to eventually lose the fight and thus is bidding from a position of weakness - despite a combined $400B in aid from the U.S. and Europe.
Additionally, with the long term in mind, Russia will be assuaged. For good or bad, they are an international mover and shaker. They're in a position of power because they are a major player in the global arena. In the following decades, Russia is who the world will continue to deal with. Not Ukraine.
Like the U.S., Russia is big and powerful and can throw its weight around too. Love it or hate it, that's the rules of the road for international relations.
There really are more dimensions to this situation than simply trying to manufacture another Russia collusion lie.
You didn't answer my question and you didn't explain why. Yes the situation has multiple dimensions, but Russia co-opting our political parties is one of them. Again, you are the one who said Putin will respect Republicans but attack Democrats. You started the conversation in this direction. I'm only reflecting back the implications of your words, and you haven't refuted it.
Can you explain exactly what "weakness" Bush 43, Obama, and Biden "projected" in the moments before Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine were attacked, and explain in what sense Trump did not project that same weakness? Because if there is no objective difference, it really looks like Putin picking and choosing his times and places for the sake of narrative only.
While this is the objective reality, Donald has already made it clear to MAGA that it was Ukraine who invaded, so MAGA brains will filter out the majority of your post, mostly seeing the word ‘Biden’ and immediately formulating a “but Biden” deflection in order to defend Donald’s honor.
(03-03-2025, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 09:48 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I did answer your question and explain why. You're so fixated on steering the argument that you simply glossed it over and interpreted it with your bias. Where did I say Putin will respect Republicans and attack Democrats? Question for you: Do you believe Biden projected weakness to the world?
Your ultimate rhetorical goal here is to demonstrably prove that Trump is a Putin stooge while ignoring the fact that negotiating with Russia goes beyond Putin. Dealing with Russia is a thorny issue for the reasons I listed. I'm trying to illustrate big picture, but you're fixated on TDS talking points.
Where did you say that? Post 11817:
Quote:However, I will concede your point if another impotent Democrat gains office. In that case, Ukraine would be the least of our worries and it would be left to Europe to do its duty. But that's doubtful considering the puling, supine ideology they've embraced.
You said that if Ukraine agrees to this mineral rights deal that doesn't have an explicit security guarantee, Russia would not invade while a Republican was in office but would invade while a Democrat was in office.
Do I believe Biden projected weakness to the world? Some parts of the world, yes. I believe he projected weakness to Iran, when he chose to ice out the Saudis and tried to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranians. I think this emboldened the Iranians and Hamas to start [BLEEP] they couldn't finish. Biden correctly stood by Israel while the consequences were meted out but it may not have come to that if Biden had been more resolute from the beginning.
But with regard to Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan, it's hard to imagine a President being stronger, more resolute, and less ambiguous in his intentions than Biden was. Maybe he should have been more dithering and ambiguous, but I doubt that.
As for my goal I'm just on a quest for truth. You made a really problematic statement about Putin's intentions and I'm showing you the implications of it.
I think Putin's calculus is more complicated and personal than simply which US party is in the White House. But he wants us to think Republican = strength and peace while Democrat = weakness and war. I don't know why he wants us to think that but he does. It's what his state media pushes.
I don’t think he said that at all. I took his comment to say and I paraphrase, Russia would not attack with US corporations on the ground harvesting minerals regardless of party in office. Now I could be mistaken but that is how I interpreted the message.
(03-03-2025, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 09:48 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I did answer your question and explain why. You're so fixated on steering the argument that you simply glossed it over and interpreted it with your bias. Where did I say Putin will respect Republicans and attack Democrats? Question for you: Do you believe Biden projected weakness to the world?
Your ultimate rhetorical goal here is to demonstrably prove that Trump is a Putin stooge while ignoring the fact that negotiating with Russia goes beyond Putin. Dealing with Russia is a thorny issue for the reasons I listed. I'm trying to illustrate big picture, but you're fixated on TDS talking points.
Where did you say that? Post 11817:
Quote:However, I will concede your point if another impotent Democrat gains office. In that case, Ukraine would be the least of our worries and it would be left to Europe to do its duty. But that's doubtful considering the puling, supine ideology they've embraced.
You said that if Ukraine agrees to this mineral rights deal that doesn't have an explicit security guarantee, Russia would not invade while a Republican was in office but would invade while a Democrat was in office.
Do I believe Biden projected weakness to the world? Some parts of the world, yes. I believe he projected weakness to Iran, when he chose to ice out the Saudis and tried to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranians. I think this emboldened the Iranians and Hamas to start [BLEEP] they couldn't finish. Biden correctly stood by Israel while the consequences were meted out but it may not have come to that if Biden had been more resolute from the beginning.
But with regard to Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan, it's hard to imagine a President being stronger, more resolute, and less ambiguous in his intentions than Biden was. Maybe he should have been more dithering and ambiguous, but I doubt that.
As for my goal I'm just on a quest for truth. You made a really problematic statement about Putin's intentions and I'm showing you the implications of it.
I think Putin's calculus is more complicated and personal than simply which US party is in the White House. But he wants us to think Republican = strength and peace while Democrat = weakness and war. I don't know why he wants us to think that but he does. It's what his state media pushes.
I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
(03-03-2025, 11:13 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you say that? Post 11817:
You said that if Ukraine agrees to this mineral rights deal that doesn't have an explicit security guarantee, Russia would not invade while a Republican was in office but would invade while a Democrat was in office.
Do I believe Biden projected weakness to the world? Some parts of the world, yes. I believe he projected weakness to Iran, when he chose to ice out the Saudis and tried to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranians. I think this emboldened the Iranians and Hamas to start [BLEEP] they couldn't finish. Biden correctly stood by Israel while the consequences were meted out but it may not have come to that if Biden had been more resolute from the beginning.
But with regard to Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan, it's hard to imagine a President being stronger, more resolute, and less ambiguous in his intentions than Biden was. Maybe he should have been more dithering and ambiguous, but I doubt that.
As for my goal I'm just on a quest for truth. You made a really problematic statement about Putin's intentions and I'm showing you the implications of it.
I think Putin's calculus is more complicated and personal than simply which US party is in the White House. But he wants us to think Republican = strength and peace while Democrat = weakness and war. I don't know why he wants us to think that but he does. It's what his state media pushes.
I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
Who gives a [BLEEP] what Putin wants?
(03-03-2025, 11:13 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 10:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Where did you say that? Post 11817:
You said that if Ukraine agrees to this mineral rights deal that doesn't have an explicit security guarantee, Russia would not invade while a Republican was in office but would invade while a Democrat was in office.
Do I believe Biden projected weakness to the world? Some parts of the world, yes. I believe he projected weakness to Iran, when he chose to ice out the Saudis and tried to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranians. I think this emboldened the Iranians and Hamas to start [BLEEP] they couldn't finish. Biden correctly stood by Israel while the consequences were meted out but it may not have come to that if Biden had been more resolute from the beginning.
But with regard to Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan, it's hard to imagine a President being stronger, more resolute, and less ambiguous in his intentions than Biden was. Maybe he should have been more dithering and ambiguous, but I doubt that.
As for my goal I'm just on a quest for truth. You made a really problematic statement about Putin's intentions and I'm showing you the implications of it.
I think Putin's calculus is more complicated and personal than simply which US party is in the White House. But he wants us to think Republican = strength and peace while Democrat = weakness and war. I don't know why he wants us to think that but he does. It's what his state media pushes.
I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
Chamberlain actually gave Hitler advance, explicit permission to invade another country. Biden did not give Putin anything of the sort.
Also, people get that story wrong. Chamberlain and Churchill both had open and frank discussions with the British armed forces at the time, they were from the same party, and they were collegial with each other. The British generals privately told Chamberlain in no uncertain terms that he needed to delay war for at least a year. They all knew Hitler wouldnt stop but they weren't yet ready to try to stop him. Chamberlain played his role.
(03-03-2025, 11:33 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 11:13 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
Who gives a [BLEEP] what Putin wants?
Lol, such arrogance surpassed only by your ignorance.
(03-03-2025, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 11:13 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
Chamberlain actually gave Hitler advance, explicit permission to invade another country. Biden did not give Putin anything of the sort.
Also, people get that story wrong. Chamberlain and Churchill both had open and frank discussions with the British armed forces at the time, they were from the same party, and they were collegial with each other. The British generals privately told Chamberlain in no uncertain terms that he needed to delay war for at least a year. They all knew Hitler wouldnt stop but they weren't yet ready to try to stop him. Chamberlain played his role.
Chamberlain holding up the document and proclaiming “Peace in our time” was his undoing.
(03-03-2025, 12:34 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 11:33 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Who gives a [BLEEP] what Putin wants?
Lol, such arrogance surpassed only by your ignorance.
Surely you Russian bots and your Traitor of a President cares but no one besides those two parties give a [BLEEP] a dictator.
(03-03-2025, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 11:13 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I said impotent Democrat. But for the sake of argument, that can be modified to read impotent president, which was Biden. Remember before the invasion when he was asked what he would tell Putin? In a feeble, raspy voice he said he would tell Putin, "Don't. Just don't." Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it better himself.
We don't know what exactly Putin wants. This is why it is imperative to get all sides to the negotiating table to start hammering out a deal. It is irrelevant what you, or anyone else, thinks what Putin's goals are. Especially given that most of that speculation is based in staunch partisanship and dislike for Trump.
Chamberlain actually gave Hitler advance, explicit permission to invade another country. Biden did not give Putin anything of the sort.
Also, people get that story wrong. Chamberlain and Churchill both had open and frank discussions with the British armed forces at the time, they were from the same party, and they were collegial with each other. The British generals privately told Chamberlain in no uncertain terms that he needed to delay war for at least a year. They all knew Hitler wouldnt stop but they weren't yet ready to try to stop him. Chamberlain played his role.
The MAGAs want to argue that it's a win for the US that European countries will have to step up their defense spending and aid to Ukraine. It's a small win for Ukraine. But, it's an overall loss for the US. We are losing the faith and trust of our allies and that's a significant loss. Not only is the US being devalued because of this disaster of a meeting, but the entire world now sees our criminal president licking Putin's [BLEEP] clippings on the world stage. Yes, we are going backwards.
(03-03-2025, 01:14 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 12:34 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, such arrogance surpassed only by your ignorance.
Surely you Russian bots and your Traitor of a President cares but no one besides those two parties give a [BLEEP] a dictator.
(03-03-2025, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Chamberlain actually gave Hitler advance, explicit permission to invade another country. Biden did not give Putin anything of the sort.
Also, people get that story wrong. Chamberlain and Churchill both had open and frank discussions with the British armed forces at the time, they were from the same party, and they were collegial with each other. The British generals privately told Chamberlain in no uncertain terms that he needed to delay war for at least a year. They all knew Hitler wouldnt stop but they weren't yet ready to try to stop him. Chamberlain played his role.
The MAGAs want to argue that it's a win for the US that European countries will have to step up their defense spending and aid to Ukraine. It's a small win for Ukraine. But, it's an overall loss for the US. We are losing the faith and trust of our allies and that's a significant loss. Not only is the US being devalued because of this disaster of a meeting, but the entire world now sees our criminal president licking Putin's [BLEEP] clippings on the world stage. Yes, we are going backwards.
You and your ilk are the overall downfall of this country.. Do us all a favor and go volunteer your services for The Ukraine army.. You won't, because you're a libtarded jackass who just wants any reason to cry about Trump.. We all know this, even you know this. Nobody with a lick of sense is listening to your garbage opinions so stick em back up your prison purse, if there's any room left..
(03-03-2025, 01:09 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 12:32 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Chamberlain actually gave Hitler advance, explicit permission to invade another country. Biden did not give Putin anything of the sort.
Also, people get that story wrong. Chamberlain and Churchill both had open and frank discussions with the British armed forces at the time, they were from the same party, and they were collegial with each other. The British generals privately told Chamberlain in no uncertain terms that he needed to delay war for at least a year. They all knew Hitler wouldnt stop but they weren't yet ready to try to stop him. Chamberlain played his role.
Chamberlain holding up the document and proclaiming “Peace in our time” was his undoing.
Right. While he had no real choice at the time but to let Hitler have the Sudetenland, he really hoped and let people believe he hoped that Hitler would stop there. But he also planned on the downside, and did increase British military spending and did form a public alliance with Poland. And he graciously stepped down in favor of Churchill when the downside came to pass.
(03-03-2025, 01:41 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2025, 01:14 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Surely you Russian bots and your Traitor of a President cares but no one besides those two parties give a [BLEEP] a dictator.
The MAGAs want to argue that it's a win for the US that European countries will have to step up their defense spending and aid to Ukraine. It's a small win for Ukraine. But, it's an overall loss for the US. We are losing the faith and trust of our allies and that's a significant loss. Not only is the US being devalued because of this disaster of a meeting, but the entire world now sees our criminal president licking Putin's [BLEEP] clippings on the world stage. Yes, we are going backwards.
You and your ilk are the overall downfall of this country.. Do us all a favor and go volunteer your services for The Ukraine army.. You won't, because you're a libtarded jackass who just wants any reason to cry about Trump.. We all know this, even you know this. Nobody with a lick of sense is listening to your garbage opinions so stick em back up your prison purse, if there's any room left..
Man....I can feel the hate in that post!
Check in with a doctor
(03-03-2025, 02:45 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: bbTS6.jpg]](https://s3.gifyu.com/images/bbTS6.jpg)
Thankfully increasing the price of food wont put pressure on inflation.
These hayseeds think America can function without trade
(03-03-2025, 04:32 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]These hayseeds think America can function without trade
There's lots of things and people we can function without.. Addition by subtraction.
So when are you registering for The Ukranian Army?