That'd not Tulsi. That's Padma, but I'll allow it.
Tulsi Gabbard doing the Kremlin's work...
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
Why won't you answer the question?
Armageddon can occur without nuclear weapons. I enjoy exposing your foolishness.
But Biden is talking about nuclear weapons, so the Sunday school version isn't germane.
The context is specifically nuclear weapons.
If you have to drop the context to try and make your point, you don't actually have a point.
Why do you believe Biden’s speculation about a possible outcome means the Democrats are dragging the world to nuclear war?
If a cop shoots a robber who has just killed someone, was it the cop who escalated the situation?
He's talking about destruction and fury that will rain down on Russia. It doesn't have to be nukes and likely would not be. You're simply wrong again.
Is you're point that the US should not get involved no matter what?
Again, why won't you answer the question?
If it was a Republican president trying to gin up WW3 I'd give them credit too.
Instead of picking apart a bad analogy, let's stick with the reality:
If Putin nukes Ukraine, that is an escalation.
If the US goes to war with Russia, that is an escalation.
If the US goes to war with Russia that can lead to nuclear war.
For the sake of mankind, we want to avoid that escalation.
Imagine Musk's frustration if warmongers nuke the planet before he can get off of it!
If Putin nukes Ukraine it would already be a nuclear war.
You know what, go ahead and run a poll let's see how many people share your interpretation of this statement:
“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily use tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with Armageddon.”
Correct.
I did, Biden is using Armageddon in the nuclear war context the way it has been used your whole life.
Go ahead and post a poll and let's see how many think Biden means something else by that quote.
I don't think you'll do it, because you know you're full of shit.
In the sense that WW2 was a nuclear war.
If Putin uses a nuke on Ukraine, what then has to happen for 'Armageddon' to follow?
So I guess this gets to the question of what do you and Tulsi want out of this? Russia gets whatever it wants is your answer, apparently.
Post the ****ing poll yourself. It's your stupid idea. Why do you always want others to do your work for you?
Fact is you're demonstrating the same isolationist position as sympathizers like Lindbergh did before WWII. It falls in line with your other antiquated and foolish stances.
Nothing for the area that gets nuked.
You're a freaking clown. Russia goes on a nuclear rampage and your position is for the US to do nothing. JFC.
Not only that the US do nothing, but that it’s the US’s/Democrats’ fault that Putin would nuke in the first place!
You lose your foreign policies credentials when your stance can be boiled down to give in to Putin.
I respect anyone who’s anti-war. Anyone with sense should be. But at some point you also have to stand up to bullies.
I think his history suggests he wants Putin to have whatever he wants.
I want to avoid Armageddon.
Did they get what they wanted in Afghanistan?
She introduced a bill that would have mandated life-saving medical care for any baby that survived an attempted abortion. That’s not exactly extreme.
Has she changed her view on universal background checks? Lots of people, myself included, own and shoot guns but also support universal background checks and other reasonable restriction on firearms.
I’m not the one who suggests Biden had some secret, as yet undetermined operative definition Armageddon when discussing nuclear weapons.
I knew you wouldn’t post it, because even you realize it is preposterous spin.
Even you don’t believe your bullshit, or you’d make your point by posting the poll.
Non-interventionist.
Pacifist would be someone that wouldn’t fight under any circumstances (e.g. someone who attacked them).
Yes you are. You're the one making up what you think he meant. I gave another option, among many. You're a clown who throws out guesses as fact and then runs when exposed for it. Happens consistently.
I'm not posting it because it's your stupid claim and idea. You won't do it because you're a coward who tries to get others to do your bidding.
Complete fail. LOL at you. Trying so hard to get posters to participate and being denied. Classic. Another self own.
Pathetic.
How’s the vote count looking?
Are their many who profess your shared confusion over what Biden meant?
LOL.
Unlikely, given her support for much of Bernie's positions in the past. OTOH, that's also why she would be the best possible GOP candidate. I'd certainly be a lot less worried with her as the R President vs any other R President under consideration.
Perhaps we libs should start a movement to get the Rs to nominate her.
Have you listened to her new podcast? You might not feel the same way after hearing her now. She sounds like a politician whose views are very much in flux.
