my pleasure..I'll ask for my "like" button back now that Rune isn't hear to junk it up with endless groaning
Pence won on style.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Pence won on style
He lost on fact.
This evening's NBC News did a fact check.
Kaine said Pence said Putin has been a stronger leader in his Russia than Obama has been in the U.S.
Pence replied:
"That is absolutely ... inaccurate."
Here's the Pence quotation:
"Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country."
Pence won on style
What difference does winning on style make, if he loses on substance?
He lost on fact.
This evening's NBC News did a fact check.
Kaine said Pence said Putin has been a stronger leader in his Russia than Obama has been in the U.S.
Pence replied:
"That is absolutely ... inaccurate."
Here's the Pence quotation:
"Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country."
Pence won on style
What difference does winning on style make, if he loses on substance?
He pownes the current administration every time.
You don't have to like Vlad his politics or beady little eyes but as a head of state he embarrasses the administration at will.
Obama, by far!
Invading and annexing Crimea is the act of boor, a troglodyte.
With the high concentrations of ethnic Russians in Crimea, Putin could have sponsored a plebiscite. They could have voted themselves back into the fold; and there wouldn't have been a peep out of NATO or the West.
Instead:
Putin has:
- Bounced himself out of the G8
- plunged the Russian ruble
- tanked the Russian economy
- degraded Russia's standing in the world.
And Syria's Assad is a wildly unpopular and ruthless dictator.
Putin supports Assad.
And Russian military ops are blamed for very high collateral casualty warfare to prop Assad up.
Putin is a thug.
And if your idea of strength is thugishness then I hope you won't be voting this November.
You think I'm kidding?
Testosterone poisoning is fine.
But perhaps the most powerful leader in Western Europe doesn't even have external gonads.
She's Germany's Angela Merkel. And she punches above her weight class both in NATO & in the E.U.
The problem with thinking as simple-minded as yours is, as in this case, it's so often simply WRONG.
It became a necessity when Kyiv was being lobbied from the west.
It was an act of a Russian bear , not a boor - don't try to corner Putin away from his naval base
yes there would have been a peep, that a plebiscite was not legitimate. Why take a risk of failure, or get bogged down in questions of legitimacy.
Carpe diem by seizing the national security needs of unfettered access
I
Russia's standing amoung it's allied has never been stronger. They are even getting some working security /economic relations with China, that weren't there before..Who cares about the G-8? as mentioned before it's cheap gas that is hurting Russia.
with the carnage in Syria -Russian bombings of hospitals are barely noticed. the country is a cauldron- 9000dead by Russian bombers goes un-noticed.
Assad is still the elected ruler. But no one in Syria is widely popular. It's completely fractured.
Allof whis is of secondary importance to Russia - expansion with hard/soft power into the mideast is the goal.
Syria is now a naval and air base to do it.
Thug or not he is effectively winning his gambits. The countries of the middle east do not seeany moral leadership by Obama as worthy.
The only thing that matters is power, and alliances, and Putin is expanding his, while our's falter.
Merkel's only strength is she is PM of Germany. I don't see her as effective, other then the fact Germany is the most powerful counrty in the EU.
Her leadership adds nothing to Germany's extant
Putin's message at the U.N. podium Monday was a simple one: U.S. interventions and unilateralism have backfired in the Middle East, and it is time to try something new.
His speech will do little to undercut a widespread impression in many Western capitals that his aim in Syria is not just to bolster a Moscow ally but, primarily, to thwart U.S. power and influence in the Middle East.
Putin took particular aim at U.S. involvement in Iraq and Libya, which he said fostered a power vacuum filled with "extremists and terrorists."
"Do you realize now what you've done?" he asked.
Russia, which straddles Europe and Asia, has sought a role in the rest of Europe since the reign of Peter the Great in the early 18th century.
An alliance with Ukraine preserves that. "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire," the American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in 1998.
Russian President Vladimir Putin wants Ukraine to join his Eurasian Union trade bloc, not the European Union.
Russia's Black Sea naval fleet is headquartered in Sevastopol, a formerly Russian city that now belongs to Ukraine.
Last year Russia's state-controlled Gazprom (OGZPY) sold about 160 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Europe -- a quarter of European demand—and half of that traveled through a maze of Ukrainian pipelines.
Those pipelines also supply Ukrainian factories that produce steel, petrochemicals, and other industrial goods for sale to Mother Russia.
"Ukraine is probably more integrated than any other former Soviet republic with the Russian economy," says Edward Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/02/the-real-reason-russia-invaded-ukraine.aspx
An alliance with Ukraine preserves that. "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire," the American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in 1998.
Russian President Vladimir Putin wants Ukraine to join his Eurasian Union trade bloc, not the European Union.
Russia's Black Sea naval fleet is headquartered in Sevastopol, a formerly Russian city that now belongs to Ukraine.
Last year Russia's state-controlled Gazprom (OGZPY) sold about 160 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Europe -- a quarter of European demand—and half of that traveled through a maze of Ukrainian pipelines.
Those pipelines also supply Ukrainian factories that produce steel, petrochemicals, and other industrial goods for sale to Mother Russia.
"Ukraine is probably more integrated than any other former Soviet republic with the Russian economy," says Edward Chow, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/02/the-real-reason-russia-invaded-ukraine.aspx
Althea
Althea told me...
Not our problem. They uninstalled Bush's hand picked govt., and they made a decision based on the wishes of the people.
If they want to renegotiate the status of arms now, so be it.
Althea
Althea told me...
By your logic, Obama should invade Mexico instead of worrying about a border wall?
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
Pence lied dozens of times denying that he and Trumpf said easily provable things Kaine brought up.
How do republicans gauge who won a debate? The guy who lied the most?
Seems to be.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
He's a gifted ass-kisser.
There there
no need to be bitter. Things change all the time. At least we are keeping the name and the elephant alive. Although we would like to include the lion too.#166
I virtually NEVER follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to quote from it, it's not important enough for me.
The sad thing is:
a) Putin wanted more respect for Russia. What he's gotten is the opposite. Russia is now a pariah.
b) The long suffering Soviets are now (in Russia, and perhaps in Ukraine) plunged back into needless loss of prosperity and hardship.
Now he's out because of thuggery.
Lookit anatta: my apparent hypocrisy is not lost on me *. I'm asserting territory should not be obtained by military conquest, from a nation (the United States of America) that was obtained by military conquest.
None the less, Russia is paying a steep price for something it could have had that would have burnished rather than burned its reputation.
Whatever the case (depending on wording and electoral corruption) likely more legitimate than rolling tanks. Votes express the will of the people. Tanks express the will of their commander. And the U.S. is Founded on at least the fig-leaf of doing the will of the People. Why should not even Crimeans have a right of self-determination? That's not what military annexation is about.
I didn't say there's no benefit to robbing a bank. The expression is "crime doesn't pay".
Fabulous. So Putin has improved his status among thugs, a den of thieves. Do you really think sucking up to Syria will benefit Russia 10 years from now more than being a reliable trading partner with the West?
It's a club of economic titans. Putin got in not with economic prowess but with arm-twisting and pouting.
I've owned German cars.
I've lived in Germany for years.
I married a German woman.
Think what you will. Obviously a plurality of the German electorate did not agree with you. And while Putin rolls tanks and drops bombs to get what he wants, Merkel is a bit more genteel.
* I did not vote for manifest destiny. I simply observe I am the apparent beneficiary, again, at enormous cost. The loss to humanity of the American nations wiped out by Westward expansion is incalculable.
I virtually NEVER follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to quote from it, it's not important enough for me.
Why not lobby from the East?
The sad thing is:
a) Putin wanted more respect for Russia. What he's gotten is the opposite. Russia is now a pariah.
b) The long suffering Soviets are now (in Russia, and perhaps in Ukraine) plunged back into needless loss of prosperity and hardship.
Putin got into the G7 in the first place, by whining.
Now he's out because of thuggery.
Lookit anatta: my apparent hypocrisy is not lost on me *. I'm asserting territory should not be obtained by military conquest, from a nation (the United States of America) that was obtained by military conquest.
None the less, Russia is paying a steep price for something it could have had that would have burnished rather than burned its reputation.
You've presumed.
Whatever the case (depending on wording and electoral corruption) likely more legitimate than rolling tanks. Votes express the will of the people. Tanks express the will of their commander. And the U.S. is Founded on at least the fig-leaf of doing the will of the People. Why should not even Crimeans have a right of self-determination? That's not what military annexation is about.
Right.
I didn't say there's no benefit to robbing a bank. The expression is "crime doesn't pay".
Fabulous. So Putin has improved his status among thugs, a den of thieves. Do you really think sucking up to Syria will benefit Russia 10 years from now more than being a reliable trading partner with the West?
Putin.
It's a club of economic titans. Putin got in not with economic prowess but with arm-twisting and pouting.
If that's the case then the U.S. should invade and conquer Canada immediately.
anatta added:
I know a thing or two about Germany.
I've owned German cars.
I've lived in Germany for years.
I married a German woman.
Think what you will. Obviously a plurality of the German electorate did not agree with you. And while Putin rolls tanks and drops bombs to get what he wants, Merkel is a bit more genteel.
* I did not vote for manifest destiny. I simply observe I am the apparent beneficiary, again, at enormous cost. The loss to humanity of the American nations wiped out by Westward expansion is incalculable.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
And yet, where would they be without us?
This has been an interesting debate to follow. But all Trump meant when referring to Putin is that he is an effective world leader. And it's hard to argue the point when Putin's the biggest thorn in ISIS's side.
Who is "they"?
I don't have the Trump quotations before me, but I gather my following comment on Pence applies equally to Trump:
Your words are false.
That is NOT "all" that was meant.
Pence contrasted Putin w/ Obama, indicating Putin was superior.
And that's vastly worse than a mere falsehood.
WHY ?
Because the U.S. presidential charter is not the Borg directive: "You will be assimilated!" [as in Putin's annexing Crimea]
The U.S. presidential charter includes:
Putin has substantially LOWERED the standard of living of the Russian people. The international economic sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's aggressions are severe.
In vivid contrast, by the Ronald Reagan (the Republican demigod) standard: "are you better off?" the U.S. suffered terribly under 8 years of the most recent Republican administration:
- the worst terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland in U.S. history
- the worst economic downturn since the great depression
- UBL was the FBI's most wanted, he killed ~3K innocent U.S. citizens. Yet during that same 8 year span, U.S. President Bush killed ~5K, more than UBL, more than the FBI's most wanted!
President Obama has lifted the U.S. from the Bush recession quite well. Obama is a job creator. Obama has promoted prosperity across the nation.
Asserting Putin is superior is to promote the most groundless militaristic criteria.
We don't want war. We want prosperity! Putin provides the former. Obama provides the latter. Yet Trump and Pence praise Putin.
What better reason to vote against them this November?
Right.
It's bedrock Middle East geopolitical philosophy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The U.S. and Russia having a common enemy makes us allies ON THAT ONE BATTLEFIELD. It does not render Russia's anti-Western agenda acceptable.
man what is with the facile statements? The Ukraine is historically Russia -Mexico and the US are not .
Putin has NATO expansionism up his western border - we got a shitload of illegals, but they don't mass at the border..
++
I mean that is one of the most silliest statements you've ever posted..My time is short before the hurricane takes me off the grid.
I'll not waste it responding to such junk