Political rants

Putin is a smart man though if he did it under the guise of this nation being part of russia and really only wanted the resources then it is a smart move to basically move in under those pretenses instead of outright saying this land belongs to us. This is almost the exact situation as china and taiwan. Why tf does china want a nation that has nothing to do with it? Taiwan is actively resisting and Americans are willing to defend it (or so we think) this goes deeper. They want resources and land to build up their infrastructure.

He's post soviet KGB. I'm sure he is fiercely intelligent and highly competent in the strategic, geo political, manipulative and machiavellian kind of way. But like most Narcissistic types, he doesn't always make the smartest move, especially in matters of state management. When it comes to the illusion of strength, the man's a master. Not the kind of man you want to play a game of nuclear chicken with. Also, I got the impression that the current administration hasn't stopped watching China, even if the media has. For all the shit you give them, remember. This is that coalition of the DNC that the Clintons, Obama, and the more hawkish types come from. They may be civil liberals, but they are not really consistent with liberalism. They're probably looking for an excuse to go after China, Russia, North Korea, and whoever else they can, so long as they can make the illusion that they are the good guys in the conflict while profiting off of it on the side. All the more reason I hope they don't get the excuse. When the war mongers win, the rest of us don't.

Also those sanctions are basically retarded you criple the entire country over the actions of one sitting member. A guy who his own people dont even want. Alex navaly and the protests there from people supporting him. Is proof. The man was poisoned. https://youtu.be/incPdVulA3c

On the fact of china i highly doubt this administration will go after china. Unlike russia who has basically no ties to the US besides select officials in government. China is holding corporations by the balls they are are all over our government and has bought out alot politicians while some Republicans are arguing against china they are all on the same side. These guys are friends they might seem to attack each other but they all go out to eat and all that at the end of the day.

Well, there's a huge disparity between what Crimlin man says and what his army is doing, as we've figured out by now. He's playing poker face, his army is slowing and logistics have been kind of a nightmare on the Russian side. And trust me, I know all about how corporations play puppet show with our elected officials. I'm a progressive, remember? Been trying to tell you that for years. I don't care if they are Chinese or whatever, it's just another layer of interference between the american people and our nation. Its the way it's been since I came into this world, and it's a nagging reminder that issues like climate change will never be addressed. The fact that you are starting to take concern for it is welcome as we've needed bipartisan support for a long time now.

At first russia seemed to scare the world with invasion but seeing how everything is falling apart and now he is threatening nuclear. It confirms what i have been saying all along russia isnt iur real enemy its the chinese. The chinese has more affect on our government than russia idek what our government was arguing about with people being russian spies and whatever this isnt the cold war era. Russia isnt gonna invade our land our fight will be nuclear one. China if anything will be a war thats fought on land/maritime potentially. But china seems to be influenced a bit by the west with how they are pushing for men to be more masculine.

North korea i have basically counted out completelythey arent even baring their teeth anymore and i lowkey think kim jong un died of covid. He disappeared came back skinnier missed a bunch of his military parades and celebrations. Either way korea hasnt been a real threat for a while now.

Oh yeah, China is actually very conservative, and that's one reason they've had a backlash among the younger generations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5o6vP0Obdg&t Those peeps are pretty cool, despite how awful they dress. They remind me of the hippies and punk rock movements. I don't know how closely you've been following them lately, but they've taken quite the hit to their economy thanks to a real estate crisis. And they don't have the best navy, especially compared to the US, so they face their own logistical challenges to wide spread invasion. India is more threatened by them than we are. Though obviously they have other ways to fight us than boots on the ground.

What did I say that was incorrect? Sigh, I can't believe I have to over explain such simple English. But here we are. What’s the difference between the following two sentences? I stated that: (1) "A president can be impeached, but also not be removed from office." I did not state: (2) A president can be impeached, but also cannot be removed from office. Sentence (1) states a possibility on what could happen. While sentence (2) states something that cannot happen. I said statement (1). If I had said statement (2). Then you would have been correct on your assessment. Stating that impeachment and removal from office are two different things. Does not imply you can't remove a president. Nor does stating a possibility of not being removed from office imply that Congress cannot actually remove the president from office. The only difference between sentences (1) and (2) is the single word "can." Which completely changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Ah, you may say, you're just playing word games. No, I am not. There’s a big difference between saying NOT doing something and CANNOT do something. Here's a real-world example using sentences (1) and (2). Using sentences (1): -Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. "But also, not removed from office." Using sentences (2): -Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. "But also, cannot be removed from office." Sentence (1) tells you that the president was impeached, but not removed. Which via historical context is what actually happened. Sentence (2) tells you that the president was impeached, but cannot be removed. Which I never stated and is simply not true. Do you see the difference between (1) and (2)? There is a big difference between (1) and (2). I never stated a president couldn't be removed from office. I simply stated that a president can be impeached, and not be removed from office. That does not mean you cannot remove a president. Of course, Congress can. Likewise, a president can be impeached, and be removed from office. I simply mentioned the former and didn’t say you couldn’t do the latter. Jacob u a dunce as well @jacobl89