When you put it that way, it is pretty unbelievable that a US politician would follow through on a promise 🤔

You mentioned that I may want to deflect the responsibility from Biden. -> I don’t have such interests.

Again, why did you feel the need to say that you don’t care about internal US politics when I didn’t say shit about internal US politics?

Whoever did it

Yeah, could be Russia’s biggest geopolitical rival that directly benefited both politically and economically by forcing Europe to buy their gas instead and which said that it would do that exact thing under those exact conditions and easily have the means to do it, or it could’ve been anyone, really.

No, I’m not. I just said that this post was likely Russian propaganda. That’s it.

Because the post criticized the fact that American citizens get zero say over foreign policy, you assumed it was “likely Russian propaganda.”

Maybe you should engage in some critical reflection instead of repeating whatever imperialist genocidal powers tell you to think.

I do, you should try it yourself sometime, bootlicker.

Yes, because you’re claiming that anyone who doesn’t fall in line with your Orwellian “five minutes hate” is a traitor. That’s the definition of bootlicking.

I never denied that Russia has propaganda. I do deny your assumption that anyone who isn’t slobbering over US boots must automatically be licking Russian boots, that anyone who doesn’t do like you do and fall in lockstep behind hating whoever the people in power tell us to hate must be a traitor or spy.

Keep denouncing anyone who’s antiwar for their lack of patriotism, you’re making Goering proud.

Why would I want to deflect blame from Biden? I’m telling you that I’m a European and I don’t care who’s in charge in the US or which president did what.

Why did you feel the need to say that you don’t care about internal US politics when I didn’t say shit about internal US politics?

All I did was post a clip of the US president promising that he’ll stop NordStream if Russia invaded Ukraine, despite not having the legal authority to do so. Then, of course, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the NordStream pipeline mysteriously got stopped (could be anyone, really!)

because that sabotage was very convenient for every party

It certainly wasn’t convenient for Russia or Germany.

Ok? The significance of the clip I posted was not that it was Biden saying it but what he said he would do (and very likely did). Why did that prompt you say, “FYI: in the EU we don’t play the “it was Biden vs it was Trump” game. We stop at “it was the US?””

The reason I posted that clip was to establish the reason why I believe the US blew up the pipeline. Yes, it happens to be Biden in that clip, but you’re the one who started talking about distinguishing between Trump and Biden and then about not distinguishing between Trump and Biden. I’m just talking about the US.

The only thing I can think of is that you’re trying to preemptively shift the NordStream thing away from Biden and onto the US in general as a way of deflecting blame from Biden. But again, I just brought it up to establish US policy on NordStream, not specifically to bash Biden. If it’s not that, then I just straight up don’t understand you at all.

You literally just said that it was because of Republicans that the EU soured on the US and now you’re telling me that in the EU you don’t look at which party is in charge but at the US as a whole. Do you not see how these statements are contradictory?

Republicans just convinced Europe that the USA cannot be trusted anymore

FYI: in the EU we don’t play the “it was Biden vs it was Trump” game. We stop at “it was the US”.

What?

Naturally, the common people don’t want war. . . but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Fucking bootlicker.

https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM

More or less agree with your take, but:

I am reasonably confident this would not have happened in a Dem regime.

I’m fairly confident in my memory that Israel attacked Syria under Biden, taking advantage of the instability to expand it’s illegal settlements in the Golan Heights. Am I wrong?

As opposed to Biden merely calling their decisions “outrageous” and strongly condemning them while supporting Netanyahu after they issued a warrant for his arrest.

I’m not sure how that’s connected to Syria, tbh.

How so?

Will do.

Please tell me specifically what makes this qualify as news. Will you now publish every anniversary from around the world?

No, but this one is important because there are people on here who want to deny these massacres ever happened. Also, it’s an ongoing controversy.

Or are you just another person trying to antagonize Poles and Ukrainians? Because it clearly looks like the latter.

That’s kind of a strange perspective, isn’t it? If someone made a post about the anniversary of, say, The Trail of Tears for example, then I, as an American, would not be offended in the slightest. If I made a post about the Nazi German invasion of Poland, would you say I was “trying to antagonize Germans and Poles?”

Here’s another suggestion perfect for future anniversaries you could commemorate:

Whataboutism.

Makes sense. If we can trust 87 year olds to govern the country, why can’t we trust them to drive? /s

Troll.

I’d just like to remind you that I started out trying to have an intelligent, civil conversation. Sorry you were too dumb to keep up. Sad that this is all you’ve got, I genuinely pity you.

That’s not how logic works, dumbass. That’s not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.

What you’re probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn’t lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you’ve done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn’t prove anything except that you don’t understand how logic works. It’s not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.

But then, of course you don’t understand logic because you operate on blind faith.

Let me dumb this down to your level.

“Double” is a word for when you have two of something.

You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.

You use another standard when looking at whether I’m lying.

1+1=2

So, you’re using a double standard.

That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.

A child could understand this. If you can’t, you’re either brain damaged or trolling.