LMFAO so if, say, Scholz says to Macron “I don’t think Trump should be US president, he’s not suitable, Harris is a much better option” then it necessarily follows that the EU is controlling US politics.
i’m an individual with imperfect knowledge doing my best to reach the closest thing to truth i can with the information i have available
No you aren’t, or you wouldn’t just take those “US appoints Ukrainian politicians” talking points at face value. You’d use your own head and assess for yourself what that tape means.
You’d use your own head and assess for yourself what that tape means.
it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
like i said in my original comment. it’s an interesting phenomenon. if you were to look in the past, it’s very easy to convince people the US acted covertly in many ways that were clearly imperialist. for example in Guatemala or Cuba or Iraq. It’s hard to find someone trying to defend US actions in these cases. But as it’s happening that goes out the window because propaganda has a powerful hold on emotion
Let’s take a step back and let me ask you a question. Please answer instead of diverting or otherwise trying to deflect
Question is: Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You’re embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.
And, no, of course it’s not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.
And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he’s not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he’d have been my first pick.
You shouldn’t be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That’s not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.
Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine’s own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn’t an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.
Yet another angle: The Russians weren’t able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.
Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?
LMFAO so if, say, Scholz says to Macron “I don’t think Trump should be US president, he’s not suitable, Harris is a much better option” then it necessarily follows that the EU is controlling US politics.
No you aren’t, or you wouldn’t just take those “US appoints Ukrainian politicians” talking points at face value. You’d use your own head and assess for yourself what that tape means.
it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
like i said in my original comment. it’s an interesting phenomenon. if you were to look in the past, it’s very easy to convince people the US acted covertly in many ways that were clearly imperialist. for example in Guatemala or Cuba or Iraq. It’s hard to find someone trying to defend US actions in these cases. But as it’s happening that goes out the window because propaganda has a powerful hold on emotion
Let’s take a step back and let me ask you a question. Please answer instead of diverting or otherwise trying to deflect
Question is: Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You’re embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.
And, no, of course it’s not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.
And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he’s not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he’d have been my first pick.
You shouldn’t be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That’s not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.
Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine’s own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn’t an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.
Yet another angle: The Russians weren’t able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.
Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?