-->
@Dr.Franklin
What obvious strategic error did Obama make with Russia, that allowed Russia to rise? Note: you are not allowed to use hindsight. How has current administration policy reversed or attempted to reverse this strategic error?
How to find reliable sources?
Posts
Total:
108
-->
@Ramshutu
2 words
Crimea,Ukraine
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, that’s a place and event.
It’s not a description of either what strategic error was made, nor an explanation of what the current administration has done to reverse this error.
What was the error he made? And what is the current administration doing to undo it.
-->
@Ramshutu
You see, Russia could do whatever without consequence under Obama, freely bomb Syria and take Ukraine, Trump is supporting Ukraine and crippling the economy of it's crucial allies like China and Iran
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What I see is you being exceptionally generic and vague and not really answering with any specific details, and keeping the argument so light on facts and information that it doesn't appear helpful.
Take the first part “Russia could do whatever without consequence”.
Why so you say that? Do you think the sanctions levied on Russia weren’t substantial? What should or even could Obama have done to that would have successfully reduced Putin’s willingness to act, without potential destabilization or massive publish pushback?
The second point again: Putin still seems able to do what he wants, no? He pretty much kept bombing Syria, has not been sanctioned or punished particularly hard for attempting to undermine American democracy, and assassinating dissidents on foreign soil.
Thirdly, most of the help for Ukraine started under Obama, how has the material assistance to the country changed? How has the punishment of Iran materially affected Russias ability and willingness to act?
Google scholar
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No, left wing presidents have been just as corrupt as right wing. Trump's scandals were all a big nothing burger,
-->
@Ramshutu
The sanctions didn't do anything. Russia was still willing to do whatever. Trump's refusal to work with Iran has lead to Russia backing off
-->
@dustryder
I cant acces yor source, it doesnt load
@Dr.Franklin wait 2 mins for it to load, it's one of those websites that went for a really cheap server-host and gets a lot of traffic. DA may end up that slow if we become super popular.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Try this one then
Or just google "democrat vs republican administration convictions" or something along those lines
-->
@dustryder
Prison time does not equal corruptness, **cough cough Clintons***, also your website is a left wing hell-hole
-->
@dustryder
That talks about Trumps's nothing burger
You visit procon and Vox more than the average Google user does by a large margin. I am surprised at the latter.
if I am wrong about either let me know.
If what I just said is true, Google was not biased towards the left in the results they gave you both times.
Vox, no
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What? How? That doesn’t make any sense. Lol.The sanctions didn't do anything. Russia was still willing to do whatever. Trump's refusal to work with Iran has lead to Russia backing off
Why and how would a “refusal to work with” a fairly low level regional ally of Russia constrain Russias behaviour in any way? This literally makes no sense - It’s a total non sequitur.
Enlighten me: pretend your a Russian President.
It’s in your interests to interfere with an election, poison a dissident, or kill civilians in Ukraine.
Explain how Iran factors into the decision to do it, or not.
-->
@Ramshutu
Buddy, Ukraine and Iran have nothing to do with each-other,
and crippling the economy of it's crucial allies like China and Iran
I said ANDSNanbjsdfkjbsdJNOAIJPW
Then I genuinely do not know why Vox was so high on your list, especially the 'gun rights in america' search.
Anyway Left is not as such the same as Liberal to be clear but you clearly meant left-leaning and I see no such bias. The paper Politico that you call Left Wing is very much aligned with Google; centrist but elite-serving. Their 'about us' is almost a big middle finger to conspiracy theorists by saying:
EthosWe inform the powerful, particularly those who have a political, professional or financial stake in politics and policy. We illuminate this influential audience with insight, edge, and authority. We do this wherever, whenever, and however our customers need it. And we do it better than anyone else.Great journalism and great businesses require a great workplace. We seek passionate, collaborative, and respectful people. Our culture is defined by relentless grit, total integrity, and a prioritization on innovation. We experiment to avoid being disrupted and we have fun disrupting others. And we are not afraid to risk failure if it means being the best at what we do.
They are mocking conspiracy theorists brutally here, playing severe satire. They are corrupt yes but they are worried about informing you of both sides despite it, like Google is.
Just becasue politico says tat doesnt mean its true
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah, you’re making no sense.
You’re claiming that Trumps refusal to work with Iran, and Iran’s and China’s crippled economy has curtailed Russia’s willingness to act.
None of things present any reason for Putin to be reluctant to act; and worse, China’s economy hasn’t been crippled by any meaningful measure.
This is yet again an absurdly naive non-explanation. Russia’s behaviour hasn’t really been curtailed at all by either Iran or China. There is no meaningful consequences as Trump isn’t willing to actually act against Russia, even indirectly. Sanctions had a much bigger impact - they actually led to Russia interfering in the US election to try and harm a more hawkish and constraining presidents election chances.
You're just throwing out nebulous random statements and asserting that despite making no sense, they’re all true.
-->
@Ramshutu
Russia;s willingness has gone down when Trump came,he's tough
He's tough, but all politicians are tough. It's a gritty job, period.
no he isnt;
You just said he is.
who were you talking about
Lol.
lol
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How would you objectively measure how corrupt an administration is then? You seem content to say that both democrat and go
administrations are equally corrupt but you haven't really justified it in an objective manner.
administrations are equally corrupt but you haven't really justified it in an objective manner.
When I show you objective data, your answer essentially boils down to "Lol no that doesn't count"
-->
@dustryder
By the extension of power, scandals and fishy findigns