or and here me out here, he is not lieing? just maybe, like you are doing lots of mental gymnastics to get to the point of he is lieing for reverse phycology and doing like a tripple bluff, when accams razer would sugest it is just he means what he says.
Note in no way am I pro Trump … nor do I want trump to win.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn’t that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
I am not trying to degrade the conversation, but I know how they usualy go. What I am saying is I feel that there is a fundimental lack of understanding of the geoplolitical interists of russia, and not only that, it would be the simpliler solution to assume that Putin is speaking honestly when he says he would prefer to work with Biden, even if that reasoning is as simple as he thinks biden has a better chance of winning and saying this now will make deplomacy easier in the future. I think it is a bit bold to just jump to the conclusion that because Putin has said X he really means Y, and it feels much more like the world view you subscribe to requries putin and the Russian Federation to want Y so no matter what is being said you will make it so it really means he belives Y.
I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing for. All politicians lie constantly. I’m sure the ones you named also lie frequently. It’s all just mind games to confuse people during a war.
Agian, is this a universal truth or just in the US system or Liberal democratic system, is it not possible (and I am not saying the Russian Federation is this system I am now asking in hypotheticals) where that would not be the case
What do you even mean by universal truth? In math this makes sense, but not here. You cannot say anything meaningful in this context using such a qualifier. The closest you get to universal truth is that people have some property, unfortunately, so that saying certain things makes you popular because it is what people want to hear, regardless of truth value.
or and here me out here, he is not lieing? just maybe, like you are doing lots of mental gymnastics to get to the point of he is lieing for reverse phycology and doing like a tripple bluff, when accams razer would sugest it is just he means what he says.
Note in no way am I pro Trump … nor do I want trump to win.
It doesn’t exactly take mental gymnastics to think Putin might lie about something if he thinks it’ll give him an advantage.
Agian I ask of Trudeau made the same claim, or the Prime Minister of New Zeeland, would you be making the same argument
Wouldn’t that depend on their particular geopolitical interests, which could be entirely different from those of Russia?
I feel like these questions are so absurd sometimes not because an answer is being sought but because it succeeds at the goal of degrading the quality of conversation.
I am not trying to degrade the conversation, but I know how they usualy go. What I am saying is I feel that there is a fundimental lack of understanding of the geoplolitical interists of russia, and not only that, it would be the simpliler solution to assume that Putin is speaking honestly when he says he would prefer to work with Biden, even if that reasoning is as simple as he thinks biden has a better chance of winning and saying this now will make deplomacy easier in the future. I think it is a bit bold to just jump to the conclusion that because Putin has said X he really means Y, and it feels much more like the world view you subscribe to requries putin and the Russian Federation to want Y so no matter what is being said you will make it so it really means he belives Y.
I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing for. All politicians lie constantly. I’m sure the ones you named also lie frequently. It’s all just mind games to confuse people during a war.
For 2., to be successful mostly so, unfortunately.
Agian, is this a universal truth or just in the US system or Liberal democratic system, is it not possible (and I am not saying the Russian Federation is this system I am now asking in hypotheticals) where that would not be the case
What do you even mean by universal truth? In math this makes sense, but not here. You cannot say anything meaningful in this context using such a qualifier. The closest you get to universal truth is that people have some property, unfortunately, so that saying certain things makes you popular because it is what people want to hear, regardless of truth value.