Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

If Putin could run for US president, would you vote for him?

@Noflaps said in #26:

YOU and others say in the thread?
YOU are the one who started talking about Donald Trump. You are the one derailing this thread.

@Noflaps said in #26: > YOU and others say in the thread? YOU are the one who started talking about Donald Trump. You are the one derailing this thread.

Indeed in #30 you're right, @awkward-aardvark . I apologize for accidentally ascribing to you what was said by @salmon_rushdie , and I have edited my previous post (although it was #24, not #26 as you indicated) to correct that.

That sort of confusion can begin to happen when suddenly I'm confronting more than one attempt to refute my words and fail to recall that somebody new has joined in. As you can tell, yourself, by mixing up #24 and #26, it is easy to become mixed up when many are posting in rapid succession.

But that's mere excuse making, and I should have been more careful. Thanks for correcting me.

BUT -- Trump is a "Republican." Indeed, he is the Republican candidate. So he provides an immediate counter-example to DISPROVE the notion that "Republicans" are Putin supporters.

As we learn in logic and mathematics, disproving a false conjecture can be done, instantly, by furnishing a counter-example for it.

Trump is the most prominent counter-example readily available.

Responding pertinently to something said IN the thread is obviously not "derailing" the thread. Even if the response disagrees with some who prefer not to be disagreed with.

Indeed in #30 you're right, @awkward-aardvark . I apologize for accidentally ascribing to you what was said by @salmon_rushdie , and I have edited my previous post (although it was #24, not #26 as you indicated) to correct that. That sort of confusion can begin to happen when suddenly I'm confronting more than one attempt to refute my words and fail to recall that somebody new has joined in. As you can tell, yourself, by mixing up #24 and #26, it is easy to become mixed up when many are posting in rapid succession. But that's mere excuse making, and I should have been more careful. Thanks for correcting me. BUT -- Trump is a "Republican." Indeed, he is the Republican candidate. So he provides an immediate counter-example to DISPROVE the notion that "Republicans" are Putin supporters. As we learn in logic and mathematics, disproving a false conjecture can be done, instantly, by furnishing a counter-example for it. Trump is the most prominent counter-example readily available. Responding pertinently to something said IN the thread is obviously not "derailing" the thread. Even if the response disagrees with some who prefer not to be disagreed with.

@awkward-aardvark said in #1:

Would you? And why?

So what is your answers? ;-P

@awkward-aardvark said in #1: > Would you? And why? So what is your answers? ;-P

@bfchessguy said in #33:

So what is your answers? ;-P
No. I wouldn't, obviously. Because I wouldn't want Putin to become the dictator of US as he became the dictator of Russia. Plus he would probably try to invade Mexico or something.

@bfchessguy said in #33: > So what is your answers? ;-P No. I wouldn't, obviously. Because I wouldn't want Putin to become the dictator of US as he became the dictator of Russia. Plus he would probably try to invade Mexico or something.

@awkward-aardvark said in #34:

No. I wouldn't, obviously. Because I wouldn't want Putin to become the dictator of US as he became the dictator of Russia. Plus he would probably try to invade Mexico or something.

Or Canada for the sakes of pleasing Elon and Trucker. ;-P

@awkward-aardvark said in #34: > No. I wouldn't, obviously. Because I wouldn't want Putin to become the dictator of US as he became the dictator of Russia. Plus he would probably try to invade Mexico or something. Or Canada for the sakes of pleasing Elon and Trucker. ;-P

@bfchessguy , I don't believe that either Elon or Trucker (apparently meaning "Tucker") would like to see Putin become dictator of, or otherwise invade, "Canada."

Or I suppose I should ask some others, first, if I can dare to note my readily defensible belief since doing so is merely responsive to #35, given that "Canada" is not mentioned in the thread's topic. Ho ho ho.

@bfchessguy , I don't believe that either Elon or Trucker (apparently meaning "Tucker") would like to see Putin become dictator of, or otherwise invade, "Canada." Or I suppose I should ask some others, first, if I can dare to note my readily defensible belief since doing so is merely responsive to #35, given that "Canada" is not mentioned in the thread's topic. Ho ho ho.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/24/tucker-carlson-canada-00137380

A year ago, Tucker Carlson was calling on Americans to invade and “liberate” Canada from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Now, he’s getting the red carpet treatment in Alberta.

Carlson’s two-stop tour of Canada brings MAGA to its heartland just as Trudeau’s government is suddenly consumed by how it would respond to a second Donald Trump presidency.

Trump has floated Carlson as a potential running mate, never mind their hot-and-cold relationship, but the former Fox News host says he doesn’t want to talk about it.

“There was a time when journalists knew that talking about the future was a fruitless endeavor. In fact, it wasn’t journalism. So I’m not going to respond to that,” Carlson told POLITICO in an interview before ending the call with some dramatic flourish.

“I have to go because my plane is taking off,” he said. “I’m gonna go liberate Canada.”

The far-right darling’s liberation mission features two sold-out events in Alberta, with 4,000 people attending in Calgary and 8,000 in Edmonton. Entry tickets in Calgary cost C$200, plus hundreds more for a seat with catered lunch, organized by a small PR firm that has produced separate events in Canada for George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama.

The Canadian junket follows a string of international trips that have fueled chatter about the fantasy draft role Carlson could play as vice president or foreign envoy in a potential Trump administration.

Speculation about the latter was fueled by Carlson’s decision to spend the fall rubbing shoulders with far-right populists such as Argentina’s Javier Milei and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. A visit to Spain placed him at a Madrid protest with far-right Vox party leader Santiago Abascal, accusing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for being a tyrant and dictator over an election deal with Catalan separatists.

Carlson was poised last spring to release “O Canada,” a documentary he teased with a provocative trailer that included Trudeau in the likeness of Adolf Hitler. The project was permanently shelved after the anchor was suddenly sacked by Fox News.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/24/tucker-carlson-canada-00137380 > A year ago, Tucker Carlson was calling on Americans to invade and “liberate” Canada from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. > >Now, he’s getting the red carpet treatment in Alberta. > >Carlson’s two-stop tour of Canada brings MAGA to its heartland just as Trudeau’s government is suddenly consumed by how it would respond to a second Donald Trump presidency. > >Trump has floated Carlson as a potential running mate, never mind their hot-and-cold relationship, but the former Fox News host says he doesn’t want to talk about it. > >“There was a time when journalists knew that talking about the future was a fruitless endeavor. In fact, it wasn’t journalism. So I’m not going to respond to that,” Carlson told POLITICO in an interview before ending the call with some dramatic flourish. > >“I have to go because my plane is taking off,” he said. “I’m gonna go liberate Canada.” > >The far-right darling’s liberation mission features two sold-out events in Alberta, with 4,000 people attending in Calgary and 8,000 in Edmonton. Entry tickets in Calgary cost C$200, plus hundreds more for a seat with catered lunch, organized by a small PR firm that has produced separate events in Canada for George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. > >The Canadian junket follows a string of international trips that have fueled chatter about the fantasy draft role Carlson could play as vice president or foreign envoy in a potential Trump administration. > >Speculation about the latter was fueled by Carlson’s decision to spend the fall rubbing shoulders with far-right populists such as Argentina’s Javier Milei and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. A visit to Spain placed him at a Madrid protest with far-right Vox party leader Santiago Abascal, accusing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez for being a tyrant and dictator over an election deal with Catalan separatists. > >Carlson was poised last spring to release “O Canada,” a documentary he teased with a provocative trailer that included Trudeau in the likeness of Adolf Hitler. The project was permanently shelved after the anchor was suddenly sacked by Fox News.

@Noflaps said in #29:

You CLAIM that Biden blew it up or helped, @salmon_rushdie . But I doubt that you have any certain knowledge of that, and, indeed, there are other quite plausible theories.

What ISN'T just conjecture -- unlike what you claim -- is that the sanctions which Trump put in place to STOP the pipeline WERE WAIVED after Trump left office.

You can't just brush that off for the sake of argument. You can CHECK IT if you wish.

And if Russia doesn't have a lot of revenue -- such as Russia can obtain from a large pipeline -- then Russia is less likely to invade Ukraine TO BEGIN WITH.

People SCRAMBLE to hold on to cherished beliefs. But it's better to avoid an invasion to begin with, rather than to make it more likely and THEN try to stop it after it occurs.

And the invasion happened well AFTER Trump left. Perhaps it's coincidence. But it has to be NOTICED from time to time, for goodness sakes.
An invasion of Ukraine is not a profitable prospect by any means - or an economically viable plan in any short term thinking, its really quite the opposite and has cost Russia's economy dearly - maybe in decades it could produce profit. Nord stream never delivered so I don't know how thats really part of the convo tho

And this didn't take place in a vacuum - it took place -because- they had invaded Crimea, etc. They were being sanctioned because they already had invaded. So I hope you're not insinuating that we should've folded to Russia to have appeased them after they already had initiated aggression and violated Ukraine's sovereignty.

And no you're right I can't pretend to entirely know what happened - but Biden did make a claim that did come true soon after, and there aren't that many countries that can pull off that type of attack successfully - given its location, political pressures and circumstances. So draw your own conclusions.

@Noflaps said in #29: > You CLAIM that Biden blew it up or helped, @salmon_rushdie . But I doubt that you have any certain knowledge of that, and, indeed, there are other quite plausible theories. > > What ISN'T just conjecture -- unlike what you claim -- is that the sanctions which Trump put in place to STOP the pipeline WERE WAIVED after Trump left office. > > You can't just brush that off for the sake of argument. You can CHECK IT if you wish. > > And if Russia doesn't have a lot of revenue -- such as Russia can obtain from a large pipeline -- then Russia is less likely to invade Ukraine TO BEGIN WITH. > > People SCRAMBLE to hold on to cherished beliefs. But it's better to avoid an invasion to begin with, rather than to make it more likely and THEN try to stop it after it occurs. > > And the invasion happened well AFTER Trump left. Perhaps it's coincidence. But it has to be NOTICED from time to time, for goodness sakes. An invasion of Ukraine is not a profitable prospect by any means - or an economically viable plan in any short term thinking, its really quite the opposite and has cost Russia's economy dearly - maybe in decades it could produce profit. Nord stream never delivered so I don't know how thats really part of the convo tho And this didn't take place in a vacuum - it took place -because- they had invaded Crimea, etc. They were being sanctioned because they already had invaded. So I hope you're not insinuating that we should've folded to Russia to have appeased them after they already had initiated aggression and violated Ukraine's sovereignty. And no you're right I can't pretend to entirely know what happened - but Biden did make a claim that did come true soon after, and there aren't that many countries that can pull off that type of attack successfully - given its location, political pressures and circumstances. So draw your own conclusions.

@salmon_rushdie , I believe we agree upon not liking the invasion of Ukraine. But the Nord Stream 2 pipeline wouldn't have been there to be sabotaged if it could simply have been stopped to begin with.

Trump applied sanctions in an attempt to stop it. After Trump left, those sanctions were LIFTED. Making its completion easier.

Which was the mistake? WHY ON EARTH were those sanctions lifted?

I've got a LOT of questions like that -- several things that have been done over the last almost four years that make me wonder to myself, WTF? (what the fudge). That isn't even remotely the MOST wonder-producing occurrence over those recent years.

And I don't believe I'm alone in having such wonders. Indeed, polls seem to indicate that the number who are wondering is increasing, not declining. No matter how much spin attempts to prevent that.

@salmon_rushdie , I believe we agree upon not liking the invasion of Ukraine. But the Nord Stream 2 pipeline wouldn't have been there to be sabotaged if it could simply have been stopped to begin with. Trump applied sanctions in an attempt to stop it. After Trump left, those sanctions were LIFTED. Making its completion easier. Which was the mistake? WHY ON EARTH were those sanctions lifted? I've got a LOT of questions like that -- several things that have been done over the last almost four years that make me wonder to myself, WTF? (what the fudge). That isn't even remotely the MOST wonder-producing occurrence over those recent years. And I don't believe I'm alone in having such wonders. Indeed, polls seem to indicate that the number who are wondering is increasing, not declining. No matter how much spin attempts to prevent that.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.