nortex97 said:

---

If the NYT were talking to 5-eyes types of folks abroad I'd expect them to have identified that, even though I have an exceptionally low standard/bar for their 'reporting.' (Trying to avoid propaganda vs. press discussion points).

But even if one accepted that as a 'possible' reality, in truth the blob of MI5 and CIA etc. are one entity running our executive branch right now, so the difference is again without a distinction.

The NYT report is quite evidently an early trial balloon from whoever is running our government for giving Zelensky nukes before Trump is sworn in. I've long lamented that Biden is an inept/demented commander but it's interesting this is gaining such steam in the last few weeks of his command, with prevarications about 'well achtually' etc.

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?

---

I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.

---

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."

I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.

---

Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.

---

Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?

---

No one is saying it wasn't, just that there is no definitive certainty it was, and without that definitive certainty, people like you and nortex are incorrect in the continued assertion that it was. Surely even you can recognize the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it."

---

I never said it was definitive but I think it's probably true. If you disagree, I'd love to know what you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it sounds like you're just trying to have a meta argument, which is typical but bores me.

---

True, but everything you've said regarding it, including arguing about giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, starts with the assumption that that's what has been said, which it hasn't.

If everything you say stems from the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it," then everything that follows is equally flawed.

---

The problem with your post is that everything I've said stems from "an official said it, and it was probably Biden's" which is a substantive difference.

So in a delicious bit of irony, you're committing the exact fallacy you're accusing me of, and everything you're posting is flawed. Yummy.

---

No, "Why are you giving Biden the benefit of the doubt?" requires that the status quo be the assumption that it came from the Biden admin, especially when you're asking someone whose position is that it's unknown who it came from. Otherwise, there's nothing to give the benefit of the doubt for.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?

---

I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.

---

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."

I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.

---

Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.

---

Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?

---

No one is saying it wasn't, just that there is no definitive certainty it was, and without that definitive certainty, people like you and nortex are incorrect in the continued assertion that it was. Surely even you can recognize the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it."

---

I never said it was definitive but I think it's probably true. If you disagree, I'd love to know what you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it sounds like you're just trying to have a meta argument, which is typical but bores me.

---

True, but everything you've said regarding it, including arguing about giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, starts with the assumption that that's what has been said, which it hasn't.

If everything you say stems from the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it," then everything that follows is equally flawed.

---

The problem with your post is that everything I've said stems from "an official said it, and it was probably Biden's" which is a substantive difference.

So in a delicious bit of irony, you're committing the exact fallacy you're accusing me of, and everything you're posting is flawed. Yummy.

---

No, "Why are you giving Biden the benefit of the doubt?" requires that the status quo be the assumption that it came from the Biden admin, especially when you're asking someone whose position is that it's unknown who it came from. Otherwise, there's nothing to give the benefit of the doubt for.

---

No.

"Why are you giving Biden the benefit of the doubt" requires the status quo be the assumption that Biden gets more wrong than he does right. I believe that is true. Do you?

If you disagree with my assumption, articulate why - as I have asked no less than 5 times now.

Or, if you agree with my assumption but believe this is one of the things he got right, articulate why.

None of you can, which is hilarious but 0% surprising.

The simple truth of the matter is that Nortex put you in a corner, agree with him or defend Biden- and you can't defend the position you took.

I'm reminded of when Teslag cited TASS in other perspectives after spending months lamenting it was unbelievable Russian propaganda.

Am I the only one who's going to ask the question? Why is "the failing NYT" suddenly a credible news source? Because for quite a few years we've generally disregarded it as utter refuse. Sooooooo… ?

This is more embarrassing than you pretending to use a risk equation

Rossticus said:

---

Am I the only one who's going to ask the question? Why is "the failing NYT" suddenly a credible news source? Because for quite a few years we've generally disregarded it as utter refuse. Sooooooo… ?

---

Why do you trust Biden

Quote:

---

I'm reminded of when Teslag cited TASS in other perspectives after spending months lamenting it was unbelievable Russian propaganda.

---

That the flagship of the Black Sea fleet was sunk? That was more hilarious than the "two weeks, maybe". Thanks for that

GAC06 said:

---

This is more embarrassing than you pretending to use a risk equation

---

Thank you. When this is the best you've got, thats you waiving a white flag. (again)

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm reminded of when Teslag cited TASS in other perspectives after spending months lamenting it was unbelievable Russian propaganda.

---

That the flagship of the Black Sea fleet was sunk? That was more hilarious than the "two weeks, maybe". Thanks for that

---

I think the best part was he believed it actually wasn't the flagship of the Black Sea fleet and thought he was going to try a gotcha to cover up being so ridiculously ignorant. But he got the gotcha wrong too.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

This is more embarrassing than you pretending to use a risk equation

---

Thank you. When this is the best you've got, thats you waiving a white flag. (again)

---

So he waived his opportunity to wave a white flag?

Rossticus said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

This is more embarrassing than you pretending to use a risk equation

---

Thank you. When this is the best you've got, thats you waiving a white flag. (again)

---

So he waived his opportunity to wave a white flag?

---

He went back to the "I'm laughing so hard haha" when he was bested. Its the most delicious form of surrender.

Well this thread has been thoroughly PCG'ed

I am laughing at you

GAC06 said:

---

I am laughing at you

---

And I'm laughing at the fact that you think the idea of you laughing into your phone by yourself while the rest of the world lives life is some kind of own. We are both laughing but we are not the same.

Sorry you're not enjoying this as much as me. It'll be ok.

🤨 https://t.co/OzzAJYjiuh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 21, 2024

That is pretty damning. I heard a fella at the water cooler say there was "0 evidence of any corruption" in the aid that was sent.

At the end of the day, you cannot help those who want to be ignorant.

Quote:

---

- Pentagon can't fully account for $824 Billion

---

At least half of that is the jellyfish UAP budget.

There's been waste and abuse in every war and government ever.

The war mongerers apparently have CNN on their side.

Holy Sht!

Rogan goes off on Zelensky

"Zelensky says Putin is terrified... fck you, man. Fck you, people."👀

"We voted Trump in and his idea to stop all this - hopefully he can do that." 🔥pic.twitter.com/y0rczZHoLc

— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) November 22, 2024

Yes, Ukraine should pause. I bet Russia would totally pause too.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

The war mongerers apparently have CNN on their side.

Holy Sht!

Rogan goes off on Zelensky

"Zelensky says Putin is terrified... fck you, man. Fck you, people."👀

"We voted Trump in and his idea to stop all this - hopefully he can do that." 🔥pic.twitter.com/y0rczZHoLc

— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) November 22, 2024

---

Agree with Rogan, need pause of significant actions --especially by a fading President. Really would like to see the whole `lame-duck' phase abolished--including legislation, after Election Day. Start the TGive-Christmas holiday earlier. Not that this particular problem is caused by Congress as much as it is the White House. But its an example of the whole issue of an outgoing admin allowed to block the will of the voters.

Fortunately, like Rogan said, there is a chance Russia knows what is going on and Putin fully realizes that its the war-profiteer group trying to escalate, and not escalate in turn till Jan 20th.

Wait you think Putin would just pause?

No, pause from escalating to the degree the provocateurs so clearly want.

You mean stop violently attacking a sovereign country with foreign weapons and troops, and then stop launching cruise missiles and drones into Ukrainian civilian areas and infrastructure just before winter?

Ya I bet he'll stop that "escalation".

60-day cease fire.

So odd to see dudes like Tesla become war mongers.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

It's two years old. So what. Was it true or not?

Is there a nuke threat or not? Or is it US propoganda?

Honestly couldn't care less of your answers.

---

Considering we're taking about current (and specific) events and not two years ago, the recency is kind of relevant. Was it true that the Russians were going to put nukes in Cuba? Yeah. Is it true that the Russians are trying to put mine on Cuba? No.

No, there isn't a nuke threat. At least not one I believe in.

---

Everybody has their boiling point.

We have poked, and poked, and poked, and are poking once again.

If we're discussing a threat of WWIII which I believe the OP is concerned about, like many here, then they are all relevant.

---

Considering much of the latest part of this thread is full of crap, I disagree.

And there's been many conflicts and proxy wars since the beginning of the Cold War. Still no nuclear exchange. No WWIII. If Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, and Afghanistan didn't do it, pretty sure this won't either.

---

This.

The situation that could lead to a nuclear exchange is if we pushed Putin into so much of a corner that he felt that his only viable option was to go nuclear. The old "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" kind of thing.

But we aren't doing that here. All Putin has to do is to pull out his military and agree to a peaceful coexistance with the Ukraine. Nobody is pushing him into a use it or lose it situation at all.

'Biden' escalates again with terror weapons to Kiev. After 'allowing' Ukraine to fire U.S. controlled ballistic missiles onto targets in Russia the Biden administration is adding largely prohibited antipersonnel mines into the joyful war.

Biden approves antipersonnel mines for Ukraine, undoing his own policy - WaPo

Over 160 countries, including even 'Ukraine,' have signed treaties which prohibit the use of antipersonnel mines. During his 2020 campaign Biden had spoken against the use of such weapons. But that was then.

Putin remarks about Hazel response to Biden's ATACMS strike. He spoke about Ukraine's recent attacks: the ATACMS strike on 67th GRAU arsenal in Bryansk, and the Storm Shadow attack on some command post in Kursk. Putin said that no real damage was caused in the Bryansk attack. Note that there's no satellite photos (or any other secondary information) even remotely suggesting that any real damage was caused. So, it appears the reports that S-400 systems did shoot down the ATACMS were right, I guess.


More takes on Biden's war path. Countering Biden: send in Rick.

⚡️Trump may name former intelligence director Richard Grenell as Ukraine peace envoy, Reuters reports.

Grenell has previously suggested a peace plan in Ukraine involving the creation of "autonomous zones" and has opposed Ukraine's membership in NATO.https://t.co/Qx5UH2SnTt

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 23, 2024

I can't believe I'm typing this, but...

i guess the best we can hope for is that Putin is the sane, level headed person now and he simply waits out January 20.

fc2112 said:

---

I can't believe I'm typing this, but...

i guess the best we can hope for is that Putin is the sane, level headed person now and he simply waits out January 20.

---

He's been the sane one all along.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

I can't believe I'm typing this, but...

i guess the best we can hope for is that Putin is the sane, level headed person now and he simply waits out January 20.

---

He's been the sane one all along.

---

Yep, pretty sane to launch an unprovoked war against a neighbor and then purposefully and deliberately target civilians in an effort to "liberate" them.


And this must be more that "no one supports Putin" I keep hearing repeated over and over.

And before some one catches you on the "unprovoked" part...

Ukriane was a sovereign nation in 2014. Even if the usa staged a "coup," that took it from a pro Russian vassal state to a pro western state, it would justify a Russia invasion to keep this separate sovereign nation as a vassal status

It's all detailed in Scott Horton's book, fyi. "Provoked"