*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10895
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11940 on: January 05, 2025, 10:06:45 PM »
Oh, I have no doubt that it will be Trump who gets the "credit" for handing over to Putin however much of Ukraine he wants.

Correct. And when Zelensky puts his stamp of approval on the agreement it will be very difficult for anyone to argue that Trump forced Ukraine into doing something that they didn't want to do.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11941 on: January 05, 2025, 10:11:45 PM »
I just hear more whining. If Trump is getting the support from Zelensky on this, it will be Trump who ultimately gets the credit for peace in Ukraine. People are not going to go to your internet posts and read them and agree with you that the president of Ukraine was forced into it or doesn't know how peace was made. Zelensky will tell them that Trump brokered the peace between Ukraine and Russia. It will be Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden or any other western politician, who gets credit when peace is made.

But the question is... what is the peace?  If the peace is unconditional surrender of Ukraine, would you consider that to be good? 

Also, didn't Trump say he could end the war in a day? 
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10895
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11942 on: January 05, 2025, 10:29:23 PM »
I just hear more whining. If Trump is getting the support from Zelensky on this, it will be Trump who ultimately gets the credit for peace in Ukraine. People are not going to go to your internet posts and read them and agree with you that the president of Ukraine was forced into it or doesn't know how peace was made. Zelensky will tell them that Trump brokered the peace between Ukraine and Russia. It will be Donald Trump, and not Joe Biden or any other western politician, who gets credit when peace is made.

But the question is... what is the peace?  If the peace is unconditional surrender of Ukraine, would you consider that to be good? 

Also, didn't Trump say he could end the war in a day?

There is no Ukraine anymore. Ukraine can't exist on its own at this point. It is a walking corpse that is being continuously reanimated by the west and fought with mercenaries. It is better off just being absorbed by Russia in total submission.

Here is a report from March 16, 2022:

    "Every day of delayed peace will accelerate a freefall into poverty for Ukraine, warns UNDP - Early data estimates suggest that 90% of the Ukrainian population could be facing poverty and extreme economic vulnerability should the war deepen, setting the country – and the region – back decades and leaving deep social and economic scars for generations to come."

It is now 2025 and Ukraine is a dead pig. I don't want to rebuild that country and spend my tax dollars on them, but Russia wants to do it for some reason. Many of the people there already speak Russian, so it wouldn't be much of a culture shock.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2025, 10:44:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11943 on: January 05, 2025, 10:47:25 PM »
So the answer to Dave's question is yes, basically. "Peace" means "Russian conquest."
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10895
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11944 on: January 05, 2025, 10:57:51 PM »
At this point peace simply means saving them from Joe Biden and the western warmongers. They were never going to win that war.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11945 on: January 06, 2025, 05:17:01 AM »
I'm not surprised.
He Tom, do you think we should just let Russia absorb any country that speaks Russian?  Maybe the entire former USSR?  Why not, right?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Re: Trump
« Reply #11946 on: January 06, 2025, 09:18:52 AM »
"Many of the people there already speak Russian, so it wouldn't be much of a culture shock".

Guess there'd be little problem having the USA absorbed into Mexico then, since "many of them already speak Spanish".  Or more logically, England. 

Welcome back; we've missed you. 

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10895
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11947 on: January 06, 2025, 04:06:57 PM »
I'm not surprised.
He Tom, do you think we should just let Russia absorb any country that speaks Russian?  Maybe the entire former USSR?  Why not, right?

If they are living in poverty, yes they should be absorbed. As a bigger and wealthier country with a shared culture, Russia has more of a responsibility to them than other countries. Charitable handouts from other countries for development only goes so far. The area needs to be paying Russian taxes to get Russian benefits and continuous development effort, which is what the US expects as well from its territories.

Russia is obviously in a better sociocultural and geographic position to support Ukraine than the US is and, for example, could bring in Russian schools and Russian stores far easier than the US could bring in US schools and US stores.

Quote from: DuncanDoenitz
Guess there'd be little problem having the USA absorbed into Mexico then, since "many of them already speak Spanish".  Or more logically, England.

Correct, but it would make more sense for the USA to absorb Mexico since many people in Mexico live in poverty and the US is the bigger and wealthier country.

Many Americans already speak Spanish due to the cultural intermix, as you pointed out, and many Mexicans speak English. If the US absorbed Mexico and enforced tougher policing it would become the new Hawaii and create an economic boom as wealthy and middle class Americans migrated to sunnier climates and beach towns. It would also be easier to build infrastructure and facilitate movement to Mexico than to Hawaii, which has always been the problem.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 12:41:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11948 on: January 06, 2025, 06:23:34 PM »
Define "living in poverty" because every country has people in poverty.  And at present, Russia is having alot of economic issues.

So how many people in a country need to be in poverty to satisfy your criteria?
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Re: Trump
« Reply #11949 on: January 06, 2025, 06:42:10 PM »
for anyone interested in the actual history of modern ukraine and why this war is happening instead of merely swallowing kremlin agitprop, this series is fantastic:

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16342
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11950 on: January 06, 2025, 06:57:21 PM »
It is clear and obvious that the only peaceful solution here is the breakup of Russia into a number of independent* republics, under Donald Trump's watchful guidance and mentorship. I look forward to his strong leadership delivering this outcome. We've let the undesirables hold on to their country after last time, they once again aren't behaving, so now it's time for Trump to finish what Nixon and Reagan couldn't.

* - Western-influenced, naturally. Like Japan, Korea, and other successful projects
« Last Edit: January 06, 2025, 07:06:19 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11951 on: January 07, 2025, 10:57:05 AM »
So... Was it here or the other forum someone said the election wouldn't be certified?

Because it is was.
And without a problem. Or a riot.  Or anyone dying.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3307
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11952 on: January 07, 2025, 11:08:57 AM »
Someone here (like me) said it "was possible," the election would not be certified.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6765
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11953 on: January 07, 2025, 12:21:25 PM »
Someone here (like me) said it "was possible," the election would not be certified.
Why would you think that?
I mean, I guess it's possible in the sense that almost anything is, but what would give you any doubt?
The result was clear, as it was last time. And unlike last time there wasn't a man-toddler whining about how he lost and pretending he hadn't.
So what would plausibly stop certification?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3307
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11954 on: January 07, 2025, 01:13:27 PM »
Given everything you and I have witnessed over the last 8 years (and disagreed about, sometimes vehemently), I can only reiterate my extreme opposition to the type of reasoning necessary in forming the wording of your question.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2025, 01:15:04 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11955 on: January 07, 2025, 02:42:17 PM »
Given everything you and I have witnessed over the last 8 years (and disagreed about, sometimes vehemently), I can only reiterate my extreme opposition to the type of reasoning necessary in forming the wording of your question.
So you're jaded and hate everything.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 3307
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11956 on: January 07, 2025, 06:06:22 PM »
If opposition to faulty reasoning = hate in your world-view, then why the question? I am not going to engage in some dialogue with an entity holding this approach.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 8105
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11957 on: January 07, 2025, 10:53:48 PM »
If opposition to faulty reasoning = hate in your world-view, then why the question? I am not going to engage in some dialogue with an entity holding this approach.
"This has never happened from a democratic president so it's likely not going to happen now" isn't faulty reasoning.
The conviction will get overturned on appeal.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10895
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11958 on: January 08, 2025, 12:15:58 AM »
Actually Congressional Democrat representatives were threatening not to certify Trump's victory

« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 12:51:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #11959 on: January 08, 2025, 04:28:49 AM »
That's been blatantly taken out of context. Raskin was talking about the possibility of passing legislation at the federal level that would prohibit someone like Trump from being on the ballot, which is no more than what the Supreme Court themselves said was the appropriate course of action. That last point deserves emphasis - the SC did not rule in Trump v. Anderson that Trump had a guaranteed right to run for president and nobody was allowed to stop him. They ruled that only Congress had the power to determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the states. In any case, Raskin certainly wasn't saying that they were going to refuse to certify Trump's victory.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y