ewsieg

I went back to review Biden's comment again and I apologize. I, stupidly, took this to mean Putin cannot remain in power. My incredible hatred for Biden forced my mind to insert 'regime change'. How stupid of me. I just reviewed the entire transcript of his speech, is 'this man' even Putin? He references Pope John Paul right towards the end, so maybe it was just a history lesson about how Pope John Paul was unable to remain in power (due to being dead). Plus, even if it is Putin, I can now see so many different things he could be saying. For 1), the end of his speech indicates the US will back democracies in eastern Europe with no limit. He very well could just be pointing out that we're willing to outlast Russia and we're prepared for a proxy war in Ukraine until Putin dies of natural causes. Putin is only 69, so I mean, potentially only a 15-20 year proxy war. Folks, seriously. It was not scripted, it was a mistake that even Biden's administration admitted. It was not part of some crazy strategic matter. No, you can't 'but Reagan' this pointing out 'evil empire', the relational strain was not near the level it is right now and Biden already matched Reagan earlier with his monster/butcher comments, this was an escalation of that rhetoric and I guarantee this was on Russian state TV, right with something Tucker said, to 'prove' the West really is after Russia. Your side can make a mistake without it being the end all/be all. It's not like you have to thrown away your Dem cards and vote for Trump in the next election just because you admit a mistake happened.

Wait, so with a straight face you're trying to tell me Biden may have purposefully said it, because he knew he'd get a great reaction from it and then had it planned for his administration to walk it back in regions that he knew where it would be a problem? And in that scenario, you're cool with it?

I did read it, and I don't think stating regime change when he's in a border country of Russia, or if he did it from the Oval office really makes any difference, nor does the audience. It should not have been publicly stated anywhere, to any audience, period. His own administration appears to agree with me.

Oh come on. Biden shouldn't have said it, to anyone. Period, end of story. Do I agree with it, yes, but as the head of state, it caused trouble. His own administration is walking it back which they would only do if Biden himself realized it was a mistake as well. Overall, is it a huge mistake, no, especially with how his admin is walking it back. But still, I feel like this spin from some that it's nothing is exactly what we all laughed at the Archie's/Stan's of the world where they would try and spin some Trump comment as some great strategic, well thought out plan. Biden made a mistake, it's not the end of the world. His own administration is admitting it was a mistake based on their actions afterwards. In the end, I just trust the folks Biden has assembled to be able to handle a speech gaffe and not allow it to modify policy. Within a day or two, it'll blow over.

Umm, Joe Biden did. What am I missing here?

I certainly hope that our governments goal is to do this, but again, it probably shouldn't be stated publicly unless you actually plan on ensuring that happens by any means necessary.

Intelligence information has been pretty solid so far, and they have been warning of these cyber attacks, so I don't have an issue with the media speculating on it. That said, i'm with you on this. As I was listening this morning, I felt like they weren't digging into the reasons why we haven't seen it, but rather just kept saying they are coming and wondering why we haven't seen them yet. It definitely could be Russia doesn't want to escalate it, or another thing I was thinking after reading a story about a 'brain drain' happening in Russia, with mostly younger, educated Russians fleeing the country or the younger generation being against this war, is there internal sabotage or other concerns that are keeping top level officials from pulling that trigger even if they would like to.

To be fair, we're not that far removed from a president that not only said things off of the cuff, but administrative policy would sometimes change based on his response. It's been ingrained into the media's heads that 'words matter' and that's not a bad thing. I do think it's different here as Biden has shown consistency with his policies, despite any off of the cuff remarks.

So in reviewing my post, I realize i made a mistake, while at the same time realizing that you, Pfife, read Archie's posts, while ignoring mine. That's hurtful. I wasn't backing Archie's completely fucked up thoughts on Biden's comments leading to WWIII, I was merely contradicting my initial post which stated Biden's comments were scripted and backing his initial statement which stated Biden's admin was backtracking Biden's comments as well.

This is my post claiming it was bold, as I thought it was scripted at the time. It still was bold regardless. I'm still not claiming one way or the other if it's wrong. Gehringer responding in a way that seems to match up with what I initially posted/stated. Archie, who I rarely agree with, saying they are walking back the comments and blaming it on senile because that's what his media tells him to believe. You claiming it's not happening. Me, simply pointing out that new reports actually are stating that it was off of the cuff. Going further, I added that I agreed with you that I really wasn't upset at Biden's comments, but noted there is a concern. and than you: I don't see where I mentioned war. So maybe if you took the time to read what I post, instead of ignoring it, as you've stated multiple times you do, you'd have an idea what I was talking about.

Actually, looks like that is exactly what is happening. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-biden-sparked-a-global-uproar-with-nine-ad-libbed-words-about-putin/ar-AAVxgGu?ocid=uxbndlbing I agree with what you said earlier, Putin doesn't deserve to be in power. That said, not everything in this world is just. We may need to try and improve relations with a Putin run Russia in the future, and that will be more difficult now. That said, i'm hoping for a solution that allows us for improved Russian relations without Putin.

sorry, meant to add it https://www.vox.com/22992772/hunter-biden-laptop

NYT authenticated the emails, it was actually pretty big news. I'll even post this, which I know you're going to skim to point out a specific portion that points out the laptop as a whole hasn't been verified. Of the emails on the laptop that NYT's verified are the two that actually are legitimate pieces of information in relation to POTUS. Again, not saying either of these are damning. But to someone that doesn't simply follow anything a (D) says or the media that backs them, it raises questions. As i've mentioned before with Biden/Ukraine, it's not that he necessarily had a conflict of interest as on paper, he was eliminating a prosecutor that was corrupt himself and not going after potentially corrupt businesses, including possibly Burisma. But even Obama's team was worried about the appearance of a COI.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/26/biden-says-putin-cannot-remain-in-power-in-sweeping-speech-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine.html Damn! I mean, we all feel that way, but this is pretty bold to say. I know many wondered if his 'Putin is a war criminal' was off the cuff, this comes in a scripted speech.

Emails exist on the laptop, which "finally" is confirmed as Hunter Biden's, which show emails where they indicate 'Hunter to hold 10% for the big guy', along with other emails where Hunter and others refer to Joe as 'the big guy' along with other corroborated evidence. Add in the fact of how it was handled by Biden administration. I know you get upset when I say this, but I say it because it is true, if it was Biden (R), you'd demand questions from the MSM and demand answers from Biden (R). If MSM does ever push for answers here, whatever Biden says, you'll accept, but you wouldn't if it were the same answers from Biden (R).

My understanding is that as Ginni sent from her personal device and it wouldn't have been covered in the documents that the State was asking to be released when Thomas voted no anyway. I'm still for a subpoena though, her texts, whether her husband was involved or not, clearly show that she was involved in the attempted coup. Rather she was nothing but a cheerleader from the sidelines that just had access to high level folks or directly involved in the decision making is worth finding out.

Speculation? Please, it's obvious Joe was a silent partner in a company that worked with Chinese interest. As stated by others, there is nothing illegal with it. I'd just like to know if Joe either proved he got out of it before becoming president or if he noted it on his financial documents. No one in the MSM is asking that though. I hope you're not referring to me when saying this. It is true I don't consistently point out things the Trump kids have done, but that's because 99% of this board is adamant to compete to share that type of information first. Note - This Thomas thing is a huge COI, I do think the technically I raised would make it tough to prove any official means to remove Thomas from the bench, but we all know it's bullshit. My complaint and sarcastic response to this is due to the response i've been given in regards to Hunter/Joe Biden. Is the conflict of interest with Hunter/Joe over Ukraine, or the conflict of interest with Joe/China investment to the level of Trump, absolutely not. Not even close, but just because it doesn't come up to the level of Trump, IMO, doesn't mean it should be ignored. That's really been my only point in regards to Joe/Hunter and Joe/China.

Him running the US portion of the Ukraine delegation combatting against a prosecutor that was bribing companies, when his son was a board member of a major Ukraine company certainly was a COI. Him having a 10% interested in an investment firm partnered with Chinese interest definitely sounds like it has the potential to be another.

What?!?!?! Conversely, the side that said the Hunter Biden laptop was fake news, until it was proven to be true, yet still doubled down that some of the information obtained from it should be ignored now suddenly feel family members actions should be tied to the public official (as it always should if that information indicates any potential COI).

Unless someone can prove that Ginni told her husband she was sending texts to the inner Trump circle than this really is a non-story. You guys always get so hung up on conflict of interest stories with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

IDK, I think this is just an attempt to 'both sides' stuff. The only people that care about Ginny Thomas are crooks looking to deflect from their own bullshit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/592027-democrats-topped-gop-in-raising-spending-dark-money-from-undisclosed-donors Might be more support from the right than you'd think.

If someone was a friend/ally of mine, I'd hope in times when i'm under extreme duress, they'd be willing to say anything they feel they need to say to me. It doesn't mean I have to listen to them. And as I stated, one of the tools I mentioned we could possibly give them if we moved forward with that conflicting thought I had in the back of my head to push hard for a quick ending could be to give Ukraine the ability to pull the sanctions off of Russia and use that as a bargaining chip, again, their decision.

They have just been invaded, they certainly feel the aspect of war, hopefully better than any of us ever will, it doesn't mean they are reacting objectively or at least will in the future. They are literally fighting for the lives right now and seeing much more success than anyone believed. They are also fighting the 2nd best armed forces in the world, which made horrible tactical errors, but will learn from them. Russia also can inflict a ton of damage on Ukraine from planes/missiles launched from their home and still have a lot of troops they can continue to send in. Just because they are can claim a stalemate or some wins now, doesn't mean it'll be like that in a week, month, or year from now. They need people to remind them of this part, not to talk them out of what they are doing with Russia, but to help them make an informed decision.