By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
AsGryffynn on 09 March 2018
Edit Thread
Puppyroach said:
AsGryffynn said:

This is exactly the same response I use to refer to the anti Russian hawks BEFORE the horrific accusations against anyone were leveled... You're daffy if you think Trump was going to appoint Romn even when Mr Tangerine hadn't liked him... 

You hate Russia for doing you a favor. Some of the people, meanwhile, over at my hometown wish Russia had rolled tanks down La Rambla after the CG reached Barcelona... 

If there's no proof, I refuse to believe it. Testimony from people with interests involving Russia are automatically rejected. Also, I refuse to believe loons like Christopher Steele, who cited something as ridiculous as a "piss-dossier" as proof... 

Then there's your sanctions, which translate to "The European Union must sanction Russia, because we say so..." and the fact we have already made it clear we are not going to do that. 

1. I never claimed Trump would have appointed Romney. I only say that the timeline of Steeles memos are important and relevant. And you are the one making the assumptions here once more.

2. I don't hate Russia. Being critical of the leadership of a country doesn't mean you hate the country. I oppose the way Russia basically invaded Crimea just as I oppose any cases where the US invades other countries or conduct made up wars just to fuel their own industries. I try to be consistent in that criticism.

3. So you mean the police for example should never use testimony from, say, other criminals in their investigations since those criminals have a vested interest and are not trustworthy? Then you would not solve basically any high profile criminal cases. I do agree that you shouldn't believe anything without proof. But you should then atleast  be consistent and open to accept evidence from anyone, even those who have their own agenda. Evidence is evidence, regardless of the source.

4. Nope, the sanctions has nothing to do with the EU. They were agreed upon by a super majority in both the house and the senate and still not enforced by the president. Let us speculate and imagine how Trump and the GOP would have reacted if Clinton or Obama would have refused to enact sanctions after a decision from a super majority? Well, we do have some indication on how they would have reacted considering the response to Obamas executive actions through the years and how Trump thought Obama was "weak" in his approach to other countries. 

Well, if he wouldn't have picked Romney, then it makes no sense whatsoever to dissuade him from naming him instead. Thus the argument logically dissolves. Also, I think we made it clear the Steele dossier is not to be believed. Among all incriminating materials, it's right there with Fire and Fury. 

Also, that puts us on the same channel, as I too believe invasions are unwarranted, but at this point I've realized neither country intends to back down and be the moral example here, so I no longer expect either to pony up in this regard... 

Testimony can be used only when it's exhaustive enough. It needs evidence that hints it might be true. So far we have evidence Russians basically ran their own lobbying group, but I don't see torches and pitchforks outside AIPAC. When we have evidence the Russians violated laws and committed criminal offenses or administrative ones, then I will voice my disapproval. 

The sanctions the House approved sanction companies abroad with Russian investment. The latest Nordstream and European power companies conveniently left out would then be sanctioned for doing business as usual solely because the US said so. This didn't sit well with the talking heads in Brussels at all. They voiced this much themselves.