On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 01:54:45 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > Another blow to Russiagate.
> The Trump that suggested the US should pull out of NATO? Yeah.... Trump was Putin's bitch.

Why would *that* be your response? Why look so feeble, so desperate, so evasive? Why beg the very question you purport to be answering?

Rodney

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:24:51 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 March 2022 at 01:54:45 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > > Another blow to Russiagate.
> > The Trump that suggested the US should pull out of NATO? Yeah.... Trump was Putin's bitch.
> Why would *that* be your response? Why look so feeble, so desperate, so evasive? Why beg the very question you purport to be answering?

?

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
>
> Another blow to Russiagate.

Another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3?r=US&IR=T

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 08:09:38 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > Another blow to Russiagate.
> Another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3?r=US&IR=T

Confirmation of what? His proof-free assertions aren't themselves proof of anything.

I appreciate that, like all good liberals, you've come in recent years to adore the neocons, but some of us have longer memories, and decline to take their word as fiat. Bolton was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs between 2001 to 2005, in which capacity he twirled infinite tarradiddles about WMD in Iraq, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe a word he says.

Rodney

True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:38:05 AM UTC, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 08:09:38 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > > Another blow to Russiagate.
> > Another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!
> > https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bolton-putin-waiting-for-trump-to-withdraw-from-nato-in-2nd-term-2022-3?r=US&IR=T
> Confirmation of what? His proof-free assertions aren't themselves proof of anything.
>
> I appreciate that, like all good liberals, you've come in recent years to adore the neocons, but some of us have longer memories, and decline to take their word as fiat. Bolton was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs between 2001 to 2005, in which capacity he twirled infinite tarradiddles about WMD in Iraq, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe a word he says.
>
> Rodney

I see Mr Undulate has slithered back into the ng ... RH

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.

Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.

Your second declares your belief in his evidence-free "conclusions."

Quite an admission.

Incidentally, he doesn't even *pretend* to be privy to some hidden intelligence. He's mouthing off. The only reason you believe him is that you like what he says. You've dug in your heels. Like Putin, you've no way of saving face except by a desperate doubling down.

Rodney

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.

I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
But he can't win. If he had provided proof you'd probably have said that he was breaking national security laws and therefore couldn't be trusted....

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> But he can't win. If he had provided proof you'd probably have said that he was breaking national security laws and therefore couldn't be trusted....

"Probably." What makes that my "probable" position? Again you equate what you'd like to be true with what you believe to be true.

I don't give a fuck about nat-sec laws. I'm on the record as a supporter of Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg and William Binney and John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden.

I have principles, you see. You have only allegiances.

Rodney

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.

And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"

Idiot.

Rodney

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"

I used the same standard as you.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:25:29 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> I used the same standard as you.

Sans the uncontrollable rage.

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> I used the same standard as you.

What standard is that? When did I apply it?

Rodney

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:28:02 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:25:29 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > I used the same standard as you.
> Sans the uncontrollable rage.

But with the addition of the most naked duplicity.

There's nothing more pathetic than this desperate clutching at the pretense of irony or reductio -- "oh, I was only mocking *you*!" -- once the earnest defences have proven otiose.

Rodney

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > I used the same standard as you.
> What standard is that? When did I apply it?

You may as well have said;
"it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:34:34 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > > I used the same standard as you.
> > What standard is that? When did I apply it?
> You may as well have said;
> "it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".

*When* might I as well have said this? Have you forgotten the second of the questions you purport to be answering?--"When did I apply it?"

Rodney

Seriously, man. Aren't you embarrassed? Aren't you ashamed? Can't you see how this makes you look? You say something stupid; it's shown to be stupid; and so the only option you have left to you is to pretend that I said the same stupid thing myself.

Rodney

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:34:34 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > > > I used the same standard as you.
> > > What standard is that? When did I apply it?
> > You may as well have said;
> > "it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".
> *When* might I as well have said this? Have you forgotten the second of the questions you purport to be answering?--"When did I apply it?"

Here, in making this conclusion;
"UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
Another blow to Russiagate."

Especially now we have a much more convincing theory about the invasion's timing.
Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out of NATO. Trump hinted this might happen.
Trump then lost in 2020. Probably a shock to both Putin and Trump.
Putin realises US will remain in NATO, oh well, invades.

And let's not forget why Trump was impeached (the first time)...

Ukraine: we'd like to buy some more guns and shit eg stingers
Trump: Not so fast. I want you to dig up some dirt on my political opponents first
Trump, eventually: Ok we'll sell you some Javelins, but on the condition you don't use them. They're only there as a “strategic deterrent”...

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:53:54 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:34:34 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > > > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > > > > I used the same standard as you.
> > > > What standard is that? When did I apply it?
> > > You may as well have said;
> > > "it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".
> > *When* might I as well have said this? Have you forgotten the second of the questions you purport to be answering?--"When did I apply it?"
> Here, in making this conclusion;
> "UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> Another blow to Russiagate."

When I call you an idiot, I'm not being gratuitously insulting. I really do think you're a dumb-dumb. You simply don't know how to make an argument, do you? You just point at things, or link to articles, or cite the vague opinions of your favoured psychopaths. You don't know how to show; heck, you can barely tell. Imagine hanging out on a newsgroup for the unhealthy amount of time you do, and not grasping these fundamentals. "This is an analogous to that" is no argument. You're supposed to explain *how*.

> Especially now we have a much more convincing theory about the invasion's timing.
> Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out of NATO. Trump hinted this might happen.
> Trump then lost in 2020. Probably a shock to both Putin and Trump.
> Putin realises US will remain in NATO, oh well, invades.

Your "theory" takes no account of a painfully obvious point: Trump could have withdrawn from NATO in his first term. He was there for four years. If he were Putin's puppet, and Putin were as worried about NATO as this week he's shown himself to be, what was the point in delaying?

And why -- oh why, for the umpteenth time -- did his puppet send to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) its largest deployment in more than a quarter-century?

Rodney

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 13:12:17 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> And let's not forget why Trump was impeached (the first time)...
> Ukraine: we'd like to buy some more guns and shit eg stingers
> Trump: Not so fast. I want you to dig up some dirt on my political opponents first
> Trump, eventually: Ok we'll sell you some Javelins, but on the condition you don't use them. They're only there as a “strategic deterrent”...

Which in your mind is evidence of collusion with Putin. Again, you make no argument, no attempt to relate this point to the case you're defending. I have to assume that the reason you don't is because you can't.

Idiot.

Rodney

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:17:07 PM UTC+11, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:53:54 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:34:34 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > > > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > > > > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > > > > > I used the same standard as you.
> > > > > What standard is that? When did I apply it?
> > > > You may as well have said;
> > > > "it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".
> > > *When* might I as well have said this? Have you forgotten the second of the questions you purport to be answering?--"When did I apply it?"
> > Here, in making this conclusion;
> > "UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > Another blow to Russiagate."
> When I call you an idiot, I'm not being gratuitously insulting. I really do think you're a dumb-dumb. You simply don't know how to make an argument, do you? You just point at things, or link to articles, or cite the vague opinions of your favoured psychopaths. You don't know how to show; heck, you can barely tell. Imagine hanging out on a newsgroup for the unhealthy amount of time you do, and not grasping these fundamentals. "This is an analogous to that" is no argument. You're supposed to explain *how*.
> > Especially now we have a much more convincing theory about the invasion's timing.
> > Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out of NATO. Trump hinted this might happen.
> > Trump then lost in 2020. Probably a shock to both Putin and Trump.
> > Putin realises US will remain in NATO, oh well, invades.
> Your "theory" takes no account of a painfully obvious point: Trump could have withdrawn from NATO in his first term.
> He was there for four years. If he were Putin's puppet, and Putin were as worried about NATO as this week he's shown himself to be, what was the point in delaying?

He can't unilaterally withdraw from NATO
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/12/trump-nato-threat-withdraw-what-would-happen
"In fact, the organisation was established by a formal and binding treaty, which means Trump cannot use his executive power to pull America out of the alliance, in contrast to other international agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal or the Paris climate agreement, both of which Trump has withdrawn from.

Trump would normally first need to win approval in the Senate and to persuade Republican senators that the move is necessary and in the US’s long-term security interests."

>
> And why -- oh why, for the umpteenth time -- did his puppet send to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) its largest deployment in more than a quarter-century?

You do realise that the USA isn't actually a dictatorship don't you?

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:17:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> Your "theory" takes no account of a painfully obvious point: Trump could have withdrawn from NATO in his first term. He was there for four years. If he were Putin's puppet, and Putin were as worried about NATO as this week he's shown himself to be, what was the point in delaying?

Delaying the Ukraine invasion was no skin off Putin's nose.
Withdrawing USA from NATO in term 1 would've had big blow-back, politically.. It might have cost Trump the election. Far better to do it in the 2nd term when Trump was term limited anyway.

> And why -- oh why, for the umpteenth time -- did his puppet send to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) its largest deployment in more than a quarter-century?

Perhaps a gentlemen's agreement. The deployment, in the end, did nothing. Other than give Russia another excuse to build up troops on the border. They came in handy, didn't they...

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 13:39:52 UTC+2, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:17:07 PM UTC+11, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:53:54 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:41:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:34:34 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:28:21 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:25:29 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:19:53 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 11:11:36 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 7:07:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 10:59:37 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > True. OTOH, he did serve as Trump's National Security Advisor.
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe his conclusion more than I believe yours.
> > > > > > > > > > Your first paragraph begins with the word "true." So it's true that he gives no evidence.
> > > > > > > > > I think even a child reading that would realise it's an opinion.
> > > > > > > > And yet you, a presumed adult, described it as "another blow confirming (parts of) Russiagate!"
> > > > > > > I used the same standard as you.
> > > > > > What standard is that? When did I apply it?
> > > > > You may as well have said;
> > > > > "it's a fact that 1ltr of water weighs 1kg, therefore everything in Russiagate is disproved".
> > > > *When* might I as well have said this? Have you forgotten the second of the questions you purport to be answering?--"When did I apply it?"
> > > Here, in making this conclusion;
> > > "UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
> > > Another blow to Russiagate."
> > When I call you an idiot, I'm not being gratuitously insulting. I really do think you're a dumb-dumb. You simply don't know how to make an argument, do you? You just point at things, or link to articles, or cite the vague opinions of your favoured psychopaths. You don't know how to show; heck, you can barely tell. Imagine hanging out on a newsgroup for the unhealthy amount of time you do, and not grasping these fundamentals. "This is an analogous to that" is no argument. You're supposed to explain *how*.
> > > Especially now we have a much more convincing theory about the invasion's timing.
> > > Putin wanted Trump to pull the US out of NATO. Trump hinted this might happen.
> > > Trump then lost in 2020. Probably a shock to both Putin and Trump.
> > > Putin realises US will remain in NATO, oh well, invades.
> > Your "theory" takes no account of a painfully obvious point: Trump could have withdrawn from NATO in his first term.
> > He was there for four years. If he were Putin's puppet, and Putin were as worried about NATO as this week he's shown himself to be, what was the point in delaying?
> He can't unilaterally withdraw from NATO

I didn't say he could. Perhaps the reason you two can't form an argument is that you can't read either.

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/12/trump-nato-threat-withdraw-what-would-happen
> "In fact, the organisation was established by a formal and binding treaty, which means Trump cannot use his executive power to pull America out of the alliance, in contrast to other international agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal or the Paris climate agreement, both of which Trump has withdrawn from.
> Trump would normally first need to win approval in the Senate and to persuade Republican senators that the move is necessary and in the US’s long-term security interests."

None of which he attempted to do in his first term. Why do you two assume he had this planned only for his second? And I mean "why" in the broadest sense: I want the logic, and I want the evidence. Will I get either?

> > And why -- oh why, for the umpteenth time -- did his puppet send to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) its largest deployment in more than a quarter-century?
> You do realise that the USA isn't actually a dictatorship don't you?

On foreign policy it is. Congress never exercises its war-making (and by extension its war-ending) powers. The United States deploys troops on presidential fiat. Jack's buddy Bolton, and *his* buddy Dick Cheney, were pioneers here.

Rodney

On Saturday, 5 March 2022 at 13:41:31 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:17:07 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > Your "theory" takes no account of a painfully obvious point: Trump could have withdrawn from NATO in his first term. He was there for four years. If he were Putin's puppet, and Putin were as worried about NATO as this week he's shown himself to be, what was the point in delaying?
> Delaying the Ukraine invasion

Yep. I'm convinced of it now. You can't read. The delay referred to was the withdrawal from NATO, not the invasion of Ukraine. Idiot.

> Withdrawing USA from NATO in term 1 would've had big blow-back, politically. It might have cost Trump the election. Far better to do it in the 2nd term when Trump was term limited anyway.

Hey! Look at that! We got an argument! Good on you!

At least your conspiracy theory is (somewhat) coherent now. As such it takes its place with 9/11 Truth and The International Jew. Like those, of course, there's not a particle of evidence for it.

> > And why -- oh why, for the umpteenth time -- did his puppet send to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) its largest deployment in more than a quarter-century?
> Perhaps a gentlemen's agreement.

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. But you're making a positive claim about the world.. You don't meet your burden of proof with a "perhaps."

> The deployment, in the end, did nothing. Other than give Russia another excuse to build up troops on the border. They came in handy, didn't they...

Time is such a malleable, contractable thing. One thing happens, then another. The Russia build-up, which you claim as a response to Trump's, followed it by several years, by which time Trump was gone. Idiot.

Rodney