jakee
-
Content
24,925 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74 -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jakee
-
Is that why she's going to loose again? Anyway, you still haven't said who you have ever considered to be uniquely qualified for the VP position.
-
I guess he figured he didn't need to worry about cancer at that point.
-
I don't think I've ever seen a Russia expert describing that dynamic. My understanding is that (while there's always some element of symbiosis) Putin is unquestionable the daddy bear of everything over there, and the oligarchs prosper via his patronage.
-
You just said her winning or losing is irrelevant. I asked you who has ever been uniquely qualified to be VP. Are you saying Clinton is that person?
-
Just gotta hope he's not the only one who knows where they keep the Novichok.
-
If it's true. Only source so far seems to be the Ukrainian government and they're going to have an understandable tendency to be 'optimistic' in their reporting right now. That said, if it was a column of the Chechen military - Ramzan Kadyrov and his cronies like the general reportedly killed are basically what you'd get if the Sons of Anarchy were given a country to run. They're not exactly the epitome of competence and discipline.
-
Why did you bring that into the discussion if winning or losing is irrelevant to the topic? Anyway - I asked you who you have ever considered to be uniquely qualified for the VP position. Are you saying that you agree with headoverheels that Hilary Clinton is that person?
-
Right. "Could have" and "implying" is the damning evidence from your one same source who is paid directly by anti-AGW propaganda outlets. Lying POS indeed.
-
No, this thread is about you using a the claims of a lying, unqualified right wing shill to attack one of the few public figures in the world who has spent his entire career being a good and decent human being. Frankly, the fact that you're trying to insist that criticism of your one and only source has no place in this thread just shows that you know you don't have a leg to stand on. Your attack is not based on truth but on politically motivated spite. That's low even for you.
-
Then do something Jordan Peterson never does - speak plainly and consistently. If Harris helping Biden to win has no impact on whether she was a good VP choice, then retract your statements that Clinton was not well qualified because she lost. If Harris not being uniquely qualified to be VP is the reason why you are compelled to so intensely criticise her specifically, tell which VPs have ever been uniquely qualified?
-
Don't you know him better than that by now?
-
Says a woman who presents herself as a polar bear expert but has never formally studied or published about polar bears, who is paid on retainer by the Heartland Institute and other climate change denial think tanks and who has found a lucrative late career niche in writing books that pander to the anti-AGW crowd. Well I'm convinced.
-
So what you're saying is if Covid hadn't happened the VP selection was irrelevant anyway. But Covid did give Biden the opportunity for victory, Harris helped him take that victory, therefore your position is that in the real world in which we live, she was a good, sensible choice for VP. Glad we had this talk.
-
Someone who would help him win. Oh hey look, they won. QED, she's qualified according to your own standards. Thank you for helping demonstrate exactly why Kamala Harris was a good and sensible choice for VP.
-
What, in any VPs portfolio ever, made them uniquely qualified? Seriously, any of them. Pick one. Just one VP ever who was unequivocably the bestest person in the whole of the USA who coud possibly have been chosen to be VP.
-
But you just said there were plenty of qualified people who share her gender and ethnic minority status who could have been selected. So how on earth is 'identity politics' then the reason that she, specifically, as a supposedly unqualified and incompetent person was selected? How is it any different than when any of the tens of thousands of unqualified and incompetent white guys were selected for important positions over the past 200 years of your Republic when a white guy was always the default choice? I'm pretty sure you'd recognise that on those occasions it was only the specific selection process that failed, because they could have simply picked another, better qualified white guy. But on this occasion you believe identity politics as a whole is at fault, despite the fact that her selection wasn't dictated by it and you've acknowledged that there were plenty of qualified and competent non-white, non-guy candidates.
-
I don't really understand the budgetary argument here. Western inaction in Ukraine isn't because we think the combined armies of Nato are not strong enough or well equipped enough to repel Russian forces in Ukraine. Of course they are, several times over. The issue is that Russia is one of the world's biggest nuclear powers and Putin has spent many years cultivating the appearance of being belligerent enough to consider using them for real. No amount of extra military spending in Europe is going to change that.
-
Can you please point to any time in the past where you have advocated for relaxing sanctions against Iran?
-
Jesus. Where we are now with Zelensky's brave and impassioned leadership in the face of the Russian forces over the last few days I hope Ingraham rewatches this clip and really thinks about what a terrible person she is.
-
Can you not? I see personal digs, lifestyle suggestions, nothing on topic…. I’ll wait for the always honest and consistent JoeWeber to tell you off for that.
-
Crikey, please don’t tar the rest of us with the oblivious brush. You can’t post links from obviously biased and untrustworthy sources and then just say “Oh I’m an atheist and it’s not from the Vatican so that just shows how much of an independent thinker I am!” It just shows that you’re lazy, credulous and lacking any discernible intellectual curiosity.
-
Man, you stalked me across multiple threads for months on end making constant personal digs because you were too petty to let go of a single disagreement. You even commented on threads I wasn’t in just to make personal digs that had nothing to do with the subjects at hand. Do you honestly not realise that you are the last person to be throwing stones in this glass house? Besides, if I was Bigun I’d find your suggestion that he isn’t intelligent enough to know what he’s doing to be far more insulting.
-
How is it a personal dig? You’re intelligent enough to know it’s true. If you’re too sensitive to deal with it being pointed out when you’re intentionally misrepresenting reality then you should stop doing it. Aren’t you supposed to be in favour of personal responsibility?
-
I thought it was pretty straightforward too. The Republicans do it when they’re losing and they do it when they’re winning. They do it with far more national coordination and commitment and they’ve been successful to the point where numerous state senate majorities are locked in for perpetuity regardless of popular vote outcome. It’s not like you don’t know the Republicans are THE anti Democratic Party.
-
The Democrats control the house after getting millions more votes. When the Republicans control the house they do it after getting fewer votes. The republicans also control numerous state legislatures where their voters are significantly in the minority. By arguing that both sides must game the system the same way because sometimes the Democrats win things you are being wilfully dishonest. You know damn well that sometimes the Democrats win because more people vote Democrat. ”I will agree the pendulum has swung towards to the Republicans being more guilty for this next election.“ The pendulum has swung to them being more guilty since Nixon.
