I don't think you understand what a "red herring" is. A red herring is a false lead. Something that looks suspicious, but turns out to be completely innocent.
This whole discussion between the two of us today is about real evidence that the US "invaded" Ukraine. You have no real evidence money changed hands between the US and coup leaders, or between the US and anyone esle suspicious. You have no real evidence. That is not called a "red herring." That is called a fucking fact. You could change that fact in an instant by providing some real evidence. But you are apparently too dim to know what that fucking looks like.
Maybe because it doesn't ACTUALLY indicate that ANYONE was "bought" by the US. Even the Wikipedia link you just posted doesn't say anything about that content in the actual tape recording.
I watched the tape. And she said what I said.
Shame that your link doesn't support you then. No evidence.
Uh, no, I called your source a likely liar. You know that politicians have been known to lie, right? But you are right, I was being hyperbolic. I actually know some good Russians. Sorry about that, I'm sure you have never told a lie, Right?
That must be very convenient. If you can't call opponent a liar, you call it red herring. got it.
Sorry man, liars are your sources.
Come visit the rest of us in reality dude, it's nice here. ... Well on second though, its not that nice. We've got a fucking megalomaniac threatening global nuclear war if we don't let him murder and steal all the land his neighbors own. Maybe you're happier in your little bubble of insipid ignorance.
About Nino, she may have been with Saakashvili during the Russian theft of Ossetia etc, but she became Saakashvili's main political opponent after that and was happy to sling all kinds of insults at him
yep, and she spilled everything she had on that piece of shit. And CNN ...... ignored it.
Maybe because she didn't offer any real fucking evidence. In the US hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law because it is so easily forged. But gullible rubes are still fooled by it every day.
You are doing great so far. Nothing can shake your faith in Biden&Co and US democracy in general.
My beliefs aren't based on faith. I believe what I can see. Your beliefs are clearly based on faith as you remain completely blind to the OBVIOUS flaws in your shitty evidence that you are trying to feed us. These flaws are pointed out to you and guess what, you refuse to acknowledge them.
Fine, What about Brzhezinsky where he admits that Soviet Invasion in Afghanistan was provoked by US and he is very proud of it.
WTF? I thought we were talking about Ukraine here. You are off in LA LA land now, dude.
What about the current CIA chief where he privately admits that Russian "invasion" into Unraine was not "unprovoked" as your senile piece of shit president has claimed multiple times?
Link please? I don't know what you are talking about here. Maybe If this guy has some evidence you could share it with us here as it is very pertinant to our current discussion.
What about US congress designated Azov regoiment as Neo-nazis (before this shit)? red herring too?
Maybe that is true, I don't know, but it is completely irrelevant to the US "invading" Ukraine, so, ... yeah, it kind of is a red herring as it has nothing to do with this conversation.
What about John Kerry caught on tape cheering for ISIS?
Huh? Again this does not seem to be relevant at all to the US "invading" Ukraine. This has nothing to do with the discussion.
What about US funding for gathering of scum In Europe and discussing how Russia should be split?
You do know what we are talking about here right? Or have you gone completely mental?
you think i am going to buy your shit?
I'm not slinging shit. I'm merely pointing out exactly how brown stinky and slimy your "evidence" is. Get a clue. You've been sold a pack of lies that you happily regurgitate even though they don't pass the slightest brush of scrutiny.
OK, Sachs is a liar. Then go to CNN and call his lies. why do you ignore him?
You seriously choose that fucking cunt Nuland over Sachs?
fucking unbelievable!
I called Sachs an idiot, not a liar. I looked him up and to my surprise he tried to support his claims with evidence (good for him) But then I checked his evidence and it was bullshit, so I knew in that moment I couldn't trust him. If he wasn't an idiot, he wouldn't link to evidence that contradicts the narrative he was trying to sell.
