• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Putin Deploys Belgorod Nuclear Submarine


How many reports directly from those in the business of insurance claims do you need? You really have projected your ignorance on this topic and as you say, it is not a good look. I suggest you drop this one for your own sake. I am intimately familiar with this field and you are not. This only includes private property losses and not governmental property. Don't double down.
So, according to your Russian news source the 100 day or so George Floyd protest cost $2 billion. Other sources say $1 billion. Here’s one point of comparison. Back in April, Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, pulled a political stunt at the border with Mexico, temporarily imposing extra security checks that caused a major slowdown of traffic, disrupting business and leading to a lot of spoiled produce. Total economic losses have been estimated at around $4 billion; that is, a few days of border-security theater appear to have caused more economic damage than a hundred days of mass protests.
 
No, Ukrainian military & internal security sicked the Azov militia on those civilians, and that was wrong. There were indeed atrocities committed against the civilian minorities.

United Nations observers stationed in the conflict zone reported that the overwhelming bulk of the casualties in the disputed regions of Donetsk and Luhansk were by the Azov militias engaging in ceasefire violations through spontaneous shelling of civilian areas populated by Russians. That's vile, and that's what forced Putin to intervene with his invasion.
You claim not be Russian but you do here is traffic in Russian lies and propaganda. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Must be a duck! Putin is a war criminal.
 
I understand the words just fine. In summer of 2014 Russian marked vehicles and uniformed soldiers entered Ukraine and direct contact with UAF forces. Elements of the VDV and 76th guards specifically. It wasn't until after this fact that the little green men showed up, as Russian military members who were "volunteered" to LPR and DPR military action.
It doesn't seem as if you do. Openly engaged means as in exchanging direct fire upon one another with the full knowledge of whom and what they're firing upon. What you claim happened there, did not happen. There were 3 deaths associated with the Crimean annexation and all 3 occurred under isolated circumstances.
 
So, according to your Russian news source the 100 day or so George Floyd protest cost $2 billion. Other sources say $1 billion. Here’s one point of comparison. Back in April, Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, pulled a political stunt at the border with Mexico, temporarily imposing extra security checks that caused a major slowdown of traffic, disrupting business and leading to a lot of spoiled produce. Total economic losses have been estimated at around $4 billion; that is, a few days of border-security theater appear to have caused more economic damage than a hundred days of mass protests.
you deal all the time in false equivalency
 
That doesn't make it America's business either. Americans shouldn't be forced to sort out every local ethnic feud on the planet, with MSDNC or NYT deciding which ethnic groups are good and which are bad.

The American people decide, both before and after. Remember in 2002 and 2004 they had a very positive view of invading Iraq and Afghanistan ... and they later realized they were wrong ... but only because it was never disclosed how long an occupation would be necessary to inculcate American values including Democracy.

To have half the population raised in a democracy, needs at least 2 generations (eg Afghanistan which has a young demographic) and more like 3 in a country like Iraq with a more cylindrical age pyramid. That's 40 to 60 YEARS, and knowing that the US and allies would never stick it that long, I opposed both invasions.

When I went to protest against the Afghanistan invasion, more than half the other protesters were ethnic. Protests against invading Iraq were much larger and less noticeably ethnic, reflecting that from the start it was less popular. Not everyone bought that WMD stuff, and quite a few thought it didn't matter since the US maintains enough WMD to kill half the people on Earth.

I wonder where you stood on WMD's in Iraq? Did you trust UN inspectors who said there were none? Did you say it was just a problem for the Iraqi people, and their neighbors?

Why would UN Security Council members hostile to Russia cooperate with that? The US, Britain and France have already said they don't recognize the right of Donetsk and Luhansk to secede.
Elon Musk recently proposed exactly what your saying, in a post on Twitter -- and Zelensky immediately responded angrily, accusing Musk of being against Ukraine. I didn't see anyone in the US govt embracing Musk's proposal, or even commenting on it.

Elon Musk proposed a UN-supervised referendum NOW, after Russia has smashed up half of Ukraine ... as if nothing ever happened. That is completely different from seeking a referendum through international law, without a shot fired. That option is off the table, unless Russia would like to pay trillions in reparations? And btw, retreat entirely until the referendum is finished.
 
Man, Ukraine's entire everything has been sunk. The only reason they still have stuff is because their crooked crony Biden is replenishing their coffers constantly. November will change the equation of power for the Democrats, and they'll be forced to scale back their Napoleonic plans.

The American people don't care about the money, they care about American lives lost. If Republicans do win the House (as is likely) and cut off funding for weapons for Ukraine, they will suffer for it in 2024.

It's quite unlikely that Republicans will win a LARGE majority in the House, therefore on funding for Ukraine there will be enough to cross the floor. They're not all Trumpists and even if they were Trump's complicity in the Yemen war shows what I'm saying: even Trumpists don't care about the money.

Some kind of "lend lease" arrangement could be made. Then some time in the future, if Ukraine survives, a Democratic government in Washington can forgive the debt. Trumpists need the Republican party (and vice versa) but that can only be pushed so far.

This CBS poll has 72% support for sending weapons to Ukraine. Republicans aren't going to mess with figures like that.
 
The American people don't care about the money, they care about American lives lost. If Republicans do win the House (as is likely) and cut off funding for weapons for Ukraine, they will suffer for it in 2024.
Americans care about both. No way Republicans will suffer for opposing Biden's distant wars. Republicans better fix and protect the sanctity of America's destroyed borders first, before worrying about Ukraine's borders.

It's quite unlikely that Republicans will win a LARGE majority in the House, therefore on funding for Ukraine there will be enough to cross the floor. They're not all Trumpists and even if they were Trump's complicity in the Yemen war shows what I'm saying: even Trumpists don't care about the money.
Your strategizing is pretty much par for the course among Democrat warmongers. You've done this before and ended up badly disappointed. Democracy has a way of doing that.

Some kind of "lend lease" arrangement could be made. Then some time in the future, if Ukraine survives, a Democratic government in Washington can forgive the debt. Trumpists need the Republican party (and vice versa) but that can only be pushed so far.
Trump doesn't need Republicans - it's Republicans who need Trump. GOP politicians need Trump's endorsement, not the other way around.


This CBS poll has 72% support for sending weapons to Ukraine. Republicans aren't going to mess with figures like that.
Haha, these days anybody can conduct polls that will conform to results they want.
 
Americans care about both. No way Republicans will suffer for opposing Biden's distant wars. Republicans better fix and protect the sanctity of America's destroyed borders first, before worrying about Ukraine's borders.


Your strategizing is pretty much par for the course among Democrat warmongers. You've done this before and ended up badly disappointed. Democracy has a way of doing that.


Trump doesn't need Republicans - it's Republicans who need Trump. GOP politicians need Trump's endorsement, not the other way around.

If Trumpists in the House try to suppress debate on Ukraine, they will find out that Republicans are not so easily led to their own destruction.

Haha, these days anybody can conduct polls that will conform to results they want.

26. Biden Friendly or Hostile to Russia
As president, do you think Joe Biden is too friendly toward Russia, too hostile toward Russia, or is his approach about right?

Total​
Biden​
Trump​
Dem​
Ind​
Rep​
Too friendly​
34%​
15%​
64%​
20%​
30%​
59%​
Too hostile​
20%​
10%​
25%​
10%​
26%​
25%​
Approach is about right​
46%​
75%​
11%​
70%​
44%​
16%​
Weighted N​
2543​
812​
739​
856​
817​
705​

Source, CBS/YouGov

No margin of error is going to save you. Republicans want Biden to be harder on Russia even more than Democrats do.
 
Trump doesn't need Republicans - it's Republicans who need Trump. GOP politicians need Trump's endorsement, not the other way around.

Trump isn't running for anything this year. That's a mistake in my opinion, he'd have a much better chance if he showed enough humility to be a governor for a couple of years.

Of course Trump needs the Republican Party endorsement (ie nomination) in 2024. Running as an independent would be disastrous for both him and the Republican party. I hope he's fool enough to do it AFTER failing in the Republican primary, as he'd be denied ballot access at all in Texas (one of only 2 states where sore loser laws apply to Presidential candidates.) That would be ****ing hilarious!
 
Genocidal Russia, especially in its gangster-state form beneath the rule of Czar Polonium, does not rescue. It exists only to pillage and destroy.
You ned not speak to the post you responded to.

If you have a valid response I'd like to hit it.
 
Trump isn't running for anything this year. That's a mistake in my opinion, he'd have a much better chance if he showed enough humility to be a governor for a couple of years.
Nah, that's ridiculous - nobody's ever done that. That's like going back to being a manager after you've been a CEO.

Of course Trump needs the Republican Party endorsement (ie nomination) in 2024. Running as an independent would be disastrous for both him and the Republican party. I hope he's fool enough to do it AFTER failing in the Republican primary, as he'd be denied ballot access at all in Texas (one of only 2 states where sore loser laws apply to Presidential candidates.) That would be ****ing hilarious!
Trump is the Republican Party. He'll run like he did the previous time, and will win the votes regardless of what party elders say. That's how he won the last time -- he fought his way up the ranks, as a challenger to the existing hierarchy.
It's those like Bernie who failed against the party establishment to win a nomination from them, since their establishment crookedly closed ranks to shut him out.
 
If Trumpists in the House try to suppress debate on Ukraine, they will find out that Republicans are not so easily led to their own destruction.
I disagree with you -- Jeb Bush and other Republicans found out how very easily/effortlessly they could be destroyed. GOP is just a vessel - a means to an end - not the ends itself.


26. Biden Friendly or Hostile to Russia
As president, do you think Joe Biden is too friendly toward Russia, too hostile toward Russia, or is his approach about right?

Total​
Biden​
Trump​
Dem​
Ind​
Rep​
Too friendly​
34%​
15%​
64%​
20%​
30%​
59%​
Too hostile​
20%​
10%​
25%​
10%​
26%​
25%​
Approach is about right​
46%​
75%​
11%​
70%​
44%​
16%​
Weighted N​
2543​
812​
739​
856​
817​
705​

Source, CBS/YouGov

No margin of error is going to save you. Republicans want Biden to be harder on Russia even more than Democrats do.

Your handpicked pollsters will always come out with poll results that satisfy your pre-conceived needs.

The viewership of such "news" organizations has fallen to abysmal levels. Look at what's happened to CNN, which has recently had to undergo some house-cleaning. Even then they won't be able to build their brand back.
 
Nah, that's ridiculous - nobody's ever done that. That's like going back to being a manager after you've been a CEO.

Trump could never win election as a governor. Theres no Electoral College involved in gubernatorial elections.
Trump is the Republican Party. He'll run like he did the previous time, and will win the votes regardless of what party elders say. That's how he won the last time -- he fought his way up the ranks, as a challenger to the existing hierarchy.
It's those like Bernie who failed against the party establishment to win a nomination from them, since their establishment crookedly closed ranks to shut him out.
Trump didnt win the votes. He got into the White House through a backdoor technicality. He could not do that again.
 
Trump could never win election as a governor. Theres no Electoral College involved in gubernatorial elections.
There's nobody who's ever ran for governor after the presidency. Care to show me anyone? I don't know why you're seguing into this weird topic.
Next you'll tell me that "Trump could never pilot a moon-landing" -- as if Obama has? Or Biden? Or Clinton? What a weird deflection from you.

Trump didnt win the votes. He got into the White House through a backdoor technicality. He could not do that again.
Trump won fair and square. People just don't like Hillary all that much -- that's why she lost to Obama previously. Black vote didn't turn out for Hillary, like they did for Obama.
 
Nah, that's ridiculous - nobody's ever done that. That's like going back to being a manager after you've been a CEO.

The only example there is in history, is Grover Cleveland. Cleveland took a job with a law firm after being President, and that's a lot more humble than being a Governor.

Trump is the Republican Party. He'll run like he did the previous time, and will win the votes regardless of what party elders say. That's how he won the last time

That's not how he won the last time. He LOST the last time.

-- he fought his way up the ranks, as a challenger to the existing hierarchy.
It's those like Bernie who failed against the party establishment to win a nomination from them, since their establishment crookedly closed ranks to shut him out.

You pretending to care about Bernie is not credible at all. Bernie did a whole lot WORSE his second time, so I guess he has that in common with Trump.
 
Trump didnt win the votes. He got into the White House through a backdoor technicality. He could not do that again.

The Electoral College is not a "backdoor technicality." It's the law of the land.

There was however a large element of chance. He needed PA or MI (WI alone would not be enough) but he won all three. Which looks good in the college, but his winning margins were tiny. To the argument sometimes vented that it shows what a skilled campaigner Trump was, um, NO. Trump made campaign stops in Colorado, among other states he had no chance of winning.

We can't be complacent. We have to turn out with a safety margin, like we did in 2020. And of course, that's whoever the Republican candidate is. We can't know in advance how strongly the Electoral College will favor Republicans, but it's a safe bet it won't favor Democrats.
 
I disagree with you -- Jeb Bush and other Republicans found out how very easily/effortlessly they could be destroyed. GOP is just a vessel - a means to an end - not the ends itself.

I disagree with you too. If Trump could have won without the Republican party on his side then why didn't he do that?

How does joining one of the swamp monster teams serve to "drain the swamp"?

Fact is, if Trump tried to go to election on his own merits, he might come second. But a Democrat would certainly win.

Your handpicked pollsters will always come out with poll results that satisfy your pre-conceived needs.

I'm not going to double down with more pollsters. You'll just change your accusation from "hand picked" to "vast conspiracy of" pollsters.

You want to believe Trump is hugely more popular than Biden is. And I'm sure you can find your own hand-picked sources to uphold that for you.

The viewership of such "news" organizations has fallen to abysmal levels. Look at what's happened to CNN, which has recently had to undergo some house-cleaning. Even then they won't be able to build their brand back.

We're not debating facts here, so I'll just let it go. Not interested in your conspiracy theories, so sorry.
 
The annexation of Crimea was not such an instance. And Trump did turn a blind eye to it. He basically invoked the same sorry-ass both sides excuse he used for Charlottesville, saying: "I don't like what is happening either way".
Trump wasn't President in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. He's not the one who turned a blind eye to it. By the time Trump took office in 2017, Crimea was long gone.
 
Trump wasn't President in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. He's not the one who turned a blind eye to it. By the time Trump took office in 2017, Crimea was long gone.
Try a little harder to pay attention, will ya. This was in reference to the Kerch Strait Incident which occurred in 2018, when Trump was President. The incident marked a significant escalation of the tensions in the shared Sea of Azov and first time since Russia's unrecognized annexation of Crimea 4 years earlier that Russia publicly acknowledged opening fire on Ukrainian forces. An act of aggression as defined by UN Resolution 3314 Article 3 D. - 'An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;"

On the morning of November 25, 2018 the Ukrainian Navy was conducting a planned in advance transfer of 3 vessels, a tugboat and 2 military escorts, from Odessa to Mariupol via the Kerch Strait, the only passage way to the Sea of Azov. And where Putin had built his precious bridge. As the Ukrainian vessels approached the strait they were intercepted by Russian Coast Guard vessels. One of those Russian vessels, the Don, proceeded to deliberately ram the tugboat. The Russian vessels also sought to ram the the Berdyansk and Nikipol gunboats as well, but the smaller, more agile Ukrainian ships were able to successfully out maneuver them. In the process one of the Russian vessels was accidentally rammed into by another Russian vessel. Possibly the Don. The 3 Ukrainian ships then maintained station for much of the day at the southern entrance of the strait in Russian controlled waters. In the meantime Russia place a large tanker beneath the arch of the bridge to blockade the strait. A clear violation of the 2003 agreement between Ukraine and Russia states that Ukrainian- and Russian-flagged ships, both merchant ships and state non-commercial vessels, have a right to free navigation in the Strait of Kerch and Sea of Azov, which the sides consider the internal waters of Ukraine and Russia. Russia also mobilized jets to the helicopters and a special forces team to the strait thus turning it into a full blown military operation. After several hours the Ukrainian vessels having determined they would not be allowed passage through the strait then turned south away from the entrance of the strait toward the Black Sea. This is when Russia decided to up the ante and pursued the Ukrainian vessels into the Black Sea. Eventually intercepting the Ukrainians and firing upon them, wounding several Ukrainian sailors, and afterwards proceeded to forcefully board and seize the Ukrainian vessels and their crews. Ukrainian and Russian data both confirm that the attack and seizure took place in international waters more than 12 nautical miles off the coast of Russian-occupied Crimea. The Russian action was indefensible as the Ukrainian ships were clearly heading away from the Kerch Strait when attacked.
 
Last edited:
Try a little harder to pay attention, will ya. This was in reference to the Kerch Strait Incident which occurred in 2018, when Trump was President. The incident marked a significant escalation of the tensions in the shared Sea of Azov and first time since Russia's unrecognized annexation of Crimea 4 years earlier that Russia publicly acknowledged opening fire on Ukrainian forces. An act of aggression as defined by UN Resolution 3314 Article 3 D. - 'An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;"

On the morning of November 25, 2018 the Ukrainian Navy was conducting a planned in advance transfer of 3 vessels, a tugboat and 2 military escorts, from Odessa to Mariupol via the Kerch Strait, the only passage way to the Sea of Azov. And where Putin had built his precious bridge. As the Ukrainian vessels approached the strait they were intercepted by Russian Coast Guard vessels. One of those Russian vessels, the Don, proceeded to deliberately ram the tugboat. The Russian vessels also sought to ram the the Berdyansk and Nikipol gunboats as well, but the smaller, more agile Ukrainian ships were able to successfully out maneuver them. In the process one of the Russian vessels was accidentally rammed into by another Russian vessel. Possibly the Don. The 3 Ukrainian ships then maintained station for much of the day at the southern entrance of the strait in Russian controlled waters. In the meantime Russia place a large tanker beneath the arch of the bridge to blockade the strait. A clear violation of the 2003 agreement between Ukraine and Russia states that Ukrainian- and Russian-flagged ships, both merchant ships and state non-commercial vessels, have a right to free navigation in the Strait of Kerch and Sea of Azov, which the sides consider the internal waters of Ukraine and Russia. Russia also mobilized jets to the helicopters and a special forces team to the strait thus turning it into a full blown military operation. After several hours the Ukrainian vessels having determined they would not be allowed passage through the strait then turned south away from the entrance of the strait toward the Black Sea. This is when Russia decided to up the ante and pursued the Ukrainian vessels into the Black Sea. Eventually intercepting the Ukrainians and firing upon them, wounding several Ukrainian sailors, and afterwards proceeded to forcefully board and seize the Ukrainian vessels and their crews. Ukrainian and Russian data both confirm that the attack and seizure took place in international waters more than 12 nautical miles off the coast of Russian-occupied Crimea. The Russian action was indefensible as the Ukrainian ships were clearly heading away from the Kerch Strait when attacked.

Did you write this all yourself? If so, I award you an A in Journalistic Writing, and B+ in Background Research!
 
Try a little harder to pay attention, will ya. This was in reference to the Kerch Strait Incident which occurred in 2018, when Trump was President.
Sure, and what would you suggest he do when faced with an incident where Ukrainian counter-intelligence boats enter Russian territorial water (which Ukraine denies doing, but the Kerch Straight is literally between "crimea" (already annexed under Obama) and mainland Russia. You're suggesting that a single maritime incident merits what?
The incident marked a significant escalation of the tensions in the shared Sea of Azov and first time since Russia's unrecognized annexation of Crimea 4 years earlier
This is the key - when you do jack and squat about their ANNEXATION of the crimea, you can't really blame the next guy, who doesn't start a war over a maritime incident where one side says they were engaged in "routine counterintelligence movement" (Ukraine) and the other side, Russia, says they entered Russian waters, were warned to leave, and refused. What do you propose to do? Ignore the former, but go to war over the latter? Come on.
that Russia publicly acknowledged opening fire on Ukrainian forces.
Sure, after they refused to leave what Russia said was Russian waters.
An act of aggression as defined by UN Resolution 3314 Article 3 D. -
So is entering Russian waters. And it's even MORE of an aggression to literally Annex Crimea - which you appear not to give **** about and you think ignoring that was justified, but ignoring Kerch - a minor boat incident - must be seriously addressed? Jesus Christ....
'An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;"
Like Annexing Crimea. What's your criticism of that? Be very specific. What do you think should have been done by the Obama Administration? Sepcifically.
 
Back
Top Bottom