So first- if you have to use giant gifs to make your point- you don't have a point worth making. As is typical of your responses- there's a lot of half truth and distortion here. I'll tease these out for you:
1) Litvineko (irrelevant comparison): the US immediately participated in the investigation with the UK and supported their extradition requests. The Obama administration also put the suspected murderers on the sanctions list before they left. Contrast that with Trump- who called Putin up, refused to discuss the poisoning, and congratulated him on his recent sham election. Also note that, unlike in 2006, the US is currently being attacked by Russia: hacking critical resource systems, voter registration systems, etc. That wasn't going on in 2006, and the US still had a stronger initial stance.
2) Chinese Nuclear Secrets (irrelevant comparison): They stole IP. They didn't meddle in our elections, fire on our soldiers, hack into our resource systems, etc. And our President certainly didn't respond by getting up in front of the world and talking about how great the leader of China is.
3) Uranium One Deal (inaccurate): This has been fact checked over and over again- including by Fox News. If you used real sources, you would know that by now.
4) NATO (distortions): Your initial claim was that NATO countries aren't meeting their treaty obligations. The 2% isn't a current treaty obligation- it was a goal that various NATO countries agreed to meet BY 2024. If you had read the fact checking article I linked- you'd have known that. None of the NATO countries are in violation of their financial treaty obligations right now. And if you think fact check is a "liberal shill site" then surely you would have no problem engaging with the actual claims in the article as well as the evidence. I mean, someone as insightful and well-informed as you should have no problem doing so. Otherwise, you're just refusing to acknowledge information that counters your worldview.
5) How I would react to Trump implementing sanctions (inaccurate/distortion/irrelevant comparison): First: Sanctions were already enacted- for the election meddling. The point I made was that Trump's administration immediately tried to lift those sanctions when they arrived. You'll notice that's exactly what the dossier said he would do. And no reasonable world leader would immediately lift punishment against a country for trying to upend their democracy with no concessions/behavior changes from the sanctioned country. So your trying to make a hypothetical involving Trump enacting sanctions is irrelevant- the example was about him trying to lift sanctions. Second- your speculation on what I would do is A) not an actual fact and B) is based on no actual evidence. (like most of your arguments)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
