Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://media1.tenor.com/m/fPDFOE2cL...david-rose.gif
https://media.tenor.com/RHgE4wEwqIwA...e-negative.gif
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://media1.tenor.com/m/fPDFOE2cL...david-rose.gif
https://media.tenor.com/RHgE4wEwqIwA...e-negative.gif
“He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (‘if it was 2013 — when did I stop being Vice President?’), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (‘in 2009, am I still Vice President?’),” the report said.
Biden also had difficulty remembering the timing of his son Beau’s death, as well as a debate about Afghanistan.
“He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died,” the report said.
This is our president.
So, Biden's own DOJ just basically said he is too incompetent to charge with anything... do you believe this is the Democrats way of getting him out and putting in someone else to run for President?
Jesus.. why would you get up and do a national address.. for this? It's 8pm, well past Cottage Cheese and Apple Sauce Snack Time.
Angry old senile man.
His handlers are trying to shut this down now because he's losing control.
Just watched it. I actually feel bad for him. Putting him in front of a press box is just cruel at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
During the hastily scheduled remarks at the White House, Biden blasted special prosecutor Robert Hur for saying he did not remember when his son Beau died. But minutes after defending his memory, he mistakenly referred to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the president of Mexico.
Our founders are literally rolling over in their graves. The country is being ran by unelected officials, senile invalids, people that think islands can tip over from too many people standing on it and corporate lobbyists. I'd take a monarchy over this bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Lol, duh.
Quote:
The comparison came as Hur was explaining why he was not recommending charges in Biden’s case.
“It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump’s case and Mr. Biden’s are clear,” the report reads. “Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.”
“Most notably,” it continues, “after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it.” In contrast, the report continues, Biden cooperated fully.
Hur uses the careful language of allegations, as he and we should. But the evidence bolstering those allegations is robust. What’s understood about Trump’s case demonstrates months of effort by the U.S. government to reclaim material — and months of stonewalling or incomplete responses from Trump’s camp. In early June 2022, his attorneys attested that all material with classification markings had been returned to the government; two months later, the FBI found more than 100 at Mar-a-Lago.
So.. Biden DOJ said that Biden won't be charged because he's a senile old man.. BUT TRUMP IS DIFFFFEREENT!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I'm shocked.
Really.
Not entirely sure how Republicans can countenance Orange Man announcing NATO is fair game for Russian invasion, but this is consistent with his trying to destroy the alliance when he was in office. Sad Trump is such a Russian puppet.
Quote:
Trump’s incendiary NATO remarks send very real shudders through Europe
Remarks by Donald Trump normally reverberate in an echo chamber of his own creation, a sort of vacuum that often strips them of any consequence globally. It is white noise, one might think – rhetoric designed to project strength and the rejection of the status-quo, rather than an expression of any actual policy. It is just Trump being Trump.
But when the former president suggested on Saturday that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member that doesn’t meet spending guidelines, the impact was acute.
He recalled what he said was a conversation with a “large” NATO ally – it was unclear who he was referring to or when the conversation took place – which, according to his telling, had declined to spend the 2% recommended equivalent of their GDP on defense, but nevertheless wanted assurances from the US that they would be protected if Russia attacked. Trump said he would not give such an assurance, as the ally was “delinquent,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin should feel free to have his way.
Trump’s opinion of NATO has been known for years – he thinks it is the epitome of everything he despises about of America’s allies, taking advantage of US strength without giving anything in return: a store loyalty club in which you get points without proportionate spending.
As with much foreign policy, the Republican frontrunner radically misunderstood the nature and purpose of this relationship. NATO is not an alliance based on dues: it is the largest military bloc in history, formed to face down the Soviet threat, based on the collective defense that an attack on one is an attack on all – a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty.
It’s purpose which suits the US profoundly: The White House invoked Article 5 after 9/11. And since NATO’s creation, US might has been often packaged globally as the expression of a dozens-strong consensus. NATO helps bolster the US’s ebbing position as the sole hyperpower. Strip away this vast alliance, and its diplomatic and economic might, and the US looks quite lonely on the world stage.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/12/europ...ntl/index.html
I like how Seran rips on Fox 24/7 while unironically posting CNN trash every day.
If certain NATO allies aren't paying their fair share, why should they get the benefits?
You love the term "Paying their fair share" so why shouldn't it apply to NATO as well?
These are all rhetorical questions, since you don't have any thoughts of your own to answer with in the first place even if you weren't a big gaping unshaven unwashed vaginahead.