Trump is entering Palin Territory

Pull Up the Roots

Talking? During horse head bookends?
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
26,066
Reputation
13,559
Daps
112,452
Reppin
Detroit
Keep ignoring reality, member of the Russian troll-army.

Nothing you post is grounded in fact.

None < Read the actual link and stop playing dumb.

We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union?

The State Department said yes.

"The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.

Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.

About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction,Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).

The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose.

But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate.

And Obama was elected in 2008, so any connection between $5 billion and Obama also is inaccurate.

Contrary to claims, the United States did not spend $5 billion to incite the rebellion in Ukraine.

That’s a distorted understanding of remarks given by a State Department official. She was referring to money spent on democracy-building programs in Ukraine since it broke off from the Soviet Union in 1991.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

There's much more there too. But keep pushing lies fed to you by Russia Today.
 

ill

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,234
Reputation
372
Daps
17,297
Reppin
Mother Russia & Greater Israel
Keep ignoring reality, member of the Russian troll-army.

Nothing you post is grounded in fact.

None < Read the actual link and stop playing dumb.





There's much more there too. But keep pushing lies fed to you by Russia Today.

I laughed. Its like you've never read a book on US interventions in foreign countries.

How did the US destabilize Libya, Syria, etc.? Answer: They fund rebel groups :gladbron:

How did the US destabilize Ukraine? Answer: They fund rebel groups :gladbron:
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,984
Reputation
4,628
Daps
45,616
You mean Trump, right?
Yeah you're right, it is Trump who the entire neoconservative establishment is coalescing around, not Hillary. Trump is the one who is calling for a more aggressive stance towards Russia. Trump is the one who aggressively lobbied Obama for more direct intervention in Libya and Syria. It is Trump's supporters who drowned out chants of "No more war!" with "I'm with her!" at his convention. It is Trump whose speech to AIPAC got a rousing applause.
 

ill

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
10,234
Reputation
372
Daps
17,297
Reppin
Mother Russia & Greater Israel
Yeah you're right, it is Trump who the entire neoconservative establishment is coalescing around, not Hillary. Trump is the one who is calling for a more aggressive stance towards Russia. Trump is the one who aggressively lobbied Obama for more direct intervention in Libya and Syria. It is Trump's supporters who drowned out chants of "No more war!" with "I'm with her!" at his convention. It is Trump whose speech to AIPAC got a rousing applause.

When hardcore neocons are going against their party affiliation because they agree with your 'liberal' war hawk policies, it might be time to re-evalute the situation.
 

King Kreole

natural blondie like goku
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
16,984
Reputation
4,628
Daps
45,616
When hardcore neocons are going against their party affiliation because they agree with your 'liberal' war hawk policies, it might be time to re-evalute the situation.
I'm telling you man, they don't give a shyt about policy, they just want to laugh at Trump. This election is a total joke.
 

BucciMane

Kristina Schulman Bro
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
37,918
Reputation
-2,446
Daps
82,743
Reppin
The Real Titletown
People are trying to make this into a major story when he was just responding to comments made about him. The comments he made about McCain were ten times worse than this. It was at that point that I knew nothing would stick to him. That was the worst of his comments and nothing stuck to him there.
 

Pull Up the Roots

Talking? During horse head bookends?
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
26,066
Reputation
13,559
Daps
112,452
Reppin
Detroit
No, as Trump is neither of those. I don't agree with all of his comments or everything he does, but he is a significantly better option than Hillary Clinton.
Nah. A guy who wants to put Scalia-esque justices on the bench is a far worse option.

People are trying to make this into a major story when he was just responding to comments made about him. The comments he made about McCain were ten times worse than this. It was at that point that I knew nothing would stick to him. That was the worst of his comments and nothing stuck to him there.

Why did he attack Ghazala Khan?

 

BucciMane

Kristina Schulman Bro
Bushed
Supporter
Joined
Mar 4, 2015
Messages
37,918
Reputation
-2,446
Daps
82,743
Reppin
The Real Titletown
Nah. A guy who wants to put Scalia-esque justices on the bench is a far worse option.



Why did he attack Ghazala Khan?



Scalia followed the U.S. Constitution, unlike the liberal justices that want to piss on the U.S. Constitution, but I'm not going there now. Two completely different mind sets. And, I don't think Trump would make them all Scalia-esque. If it were Cruz, then I would agree.

I'm not defending him mentioning her. I wouldn't have said what he said, but he did.
 
Top