╌>

Readout Of President Biden Telephone Call With Putin

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  3 years ago  •  54 comments

Readout Of President Biden Telephone Call With Putin

Esrq-uuU0AELrJr?format=jpg&name=900x900


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    3 years ago
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
· 19h
PETER DOOCY (Fox News):      Mr President, what did you talk to Vladimir Putin about?
-
PRESIDENT BIDEN:      You.   He sends his best.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    3 years ago
Joseph R. Biden is your POTUS  
·
18h
Replying to
Sound like Biden did more in the 1 phone call with Putin, than Trump did in 4 years....
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    3 years ago

Stopping the keystone pipeline, giving Putin the treaty extension he wants....

It’s Back to the Obama golden years for Putin... I guess now he has to figure out which former Soviet republic he wants to invade, knowing Biden might send pillows, at most, in response.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 years ago

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1    3 years ago

Is that the only way you have to communicate?  Stupid dumbass memes?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 years ago
Stopping the keystone pipeline

Why would you be for the Keystone Pipeline?

giving Putin the treaty extension he wants

As opposed to putting Putin in charge of US cyber security like Trump wanted?  Do you even know what is in the treaty you are opposing???

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    3 years ago

President Biden doesn't bend over for dictators/authoritarian/killers/thugs  like the former 'president' who had a Putin tramp stamp.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    3 years ago
Why would you be for the Keystone Pipeline?

You have to be kidding. About 11,000 jobs both here and in Canada. As long as we are on that subject, perhaps you can help a guy out.

256

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    3 years ago
"I am so confused."
Nothing new . . . . . 
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    3 years ago
"You have to be kidding.  About 11,000 jobs both here and in Canada."

Source?

That is not true.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    3 years ago
removed for context

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    3 years ago

Temporary or not, it seems it is................

TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the Keystone XL pipeline with the Alberta government, has said more than 1,000 people are out of work because of Biden’s executive order. The 11,000 and $2 billion figures cited in the Facebook post are estimates published by the company, but most of the jobs would be temporary.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    3 years ago
President Biden doesn't bend over for dictators/authoritarian/killers/thugs  like the former 'president' who had a Putin tramp stamp.

Biden addressed Russian bounties on US servicemen on his 1st phone call.  Trump has not mentioned anything about it to Putin since he was notified about the bounties a year ago.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.2    3 years ago
About 11,000 jobs both here and in Canada. As long as we are on that subject, perhaps you can help a guy out.

TC Energy said more than 1,000 people are out of work because of Biden’s executive order.

All except a few hundred jobs are seasonal or temporary.  Most permanent jobs were for the Canadian workers.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.4    3 years ago
I see you've brainwashed by Putin's internet trolls. Sad!

So, can't come up with an answer for yourself, so dropped to personal insults.  Typical...  And a sure sign you have no clue about what you're talking about.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.10    3 years ago

Why did it take you so long to come to that obvious conclusion?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    3 years ago

NOTE TEMPORARY

143716714_3696273470410633_4158365777510112956_o.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=FB0VUj5jT3AAX-Q0rYX&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=9903f66abe954487dde5f5e6130ff74d&oe=6035E5B7

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.12    3 years ago

Isn't every construction job in America and everywhere else in the whole wide world "TEMPORARY" until the project is complete?

That is one of the lamest arguments in the world. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.13    3 years ago
That is one of the lamest arguments in the world. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.2.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.7    3 years ago
the Canadian company that owns the Keystone XL pipeline with the Alberta government, has said more than 1,000 people are out of work because of Biden’s executive order.

Apparently Trump supporters claiming they support an "America First" policy was all a worthless lie, though it's not surprising coming from slimy pond scum invertebrates.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.15    3 years ago

Gee, I wonder where some people think the oil will go to be processed, and by who?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.14    3 years ago
That is one of the lamest arguments in the world. 

That is exactly what I said!

Nice to see you agree!

"Temporary jobs" IS a spectacularly weak and ineffective argument!

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
3.2.18  arkpdx  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.13    3 years ago
That is one of the lamest arguments in the world. 

Considering who is making that argument, it's part for the course. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.2.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.16    3 years ago
Gee, I wonder where some people think the oil will go to be processed, and by who?

"However, the pipeline would send more products to be handled and refined in the Gulf region, increasing employment there to some extent, and it may increase investment in oil producing regions in the U.S. and Canada."

It was unclear how many potential jobs might have been created in the long term in the gulf coast States where the refineries are already exporting 2/3rds of the oil products they produce. So yes, the pipeline would have had an effect "to some extent" as Forbes points out, in those Gulf States and likely increased the Gulf States State income from taxes. Was it really worth the potential damage to all the States it would have had to run through to get there? Most people don't think so. 48% of Americans oppose the pipeline while only 42% support it.

There are hundreds of pipeline spills each year, one in Michigan spilled 840,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River costing tax payers $800 million to clean up with irreparable damage to the environment. We could have paid almost $75,000 to each of those 11,000 workers for doing nothing and that would have been cheaper than the one spill in Michigan. Are 11,000 temporary jobs and jobs "to some extent" in gulf States really worth the risk? Again, a majority of Americans don't believe it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.19    3 years ago

Potential damage is very vague.

DO you have any earthly ideas how many existing pipelines there already are?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.9    3 years ago
All except a few hundred jobs are seasonal or temporary.

Temporary jobs don't matter? I imagine they were pretty important to the people who were working those jobs and paying their bills as a result. You got any jobs to replace them with?

Most jobs that have anything to do with building something are - by the very nature of the work - "temporary." You build the thing and then you're done. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.21    3 years ago
Most jobs that have anything to do with building something are - by the very nature of the work - "temporary." You build the thing and then you're done. 

I had made that point earlier. It is the weakest and stupidest argument to not do something.

Using THAT "impeccable logic", shouldn't we scrap all infrastructure jobs since they are merely temporary?

LOL! 

I swear, you can't make up an argument any sillier!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.23  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.21    3 years ago
Temporary jobs don't matter?

Nope, not in this instance.

I imagine they were pretty important to the people who were working those jobs and paying their bills as a result. You got any jobs to replace them with?

New Data Shows Solar Energy Creates More Jobs in America Than Any Other Industry

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.24  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.23    3 years ago

Yeah no biggie. These people can just get up and move to follow the solar jobs, right? Screw their mortgages. They can just set aside any seniority they might have and start over in a new industry for which they may have no experience or training. They're only flyover people, after all.

New Data Shows Solar Energy Creates More Jobs in America Than Any Other Industry

Sure, we can just build solar plants and it will totally replace oil. /s

Good thing my car runs on solar. Oh wait . . . Well, it's a good thing solar is so useful in plastics. Oh wait . . . Well at least solar can be used to build asphalt roads. Oh wait . . . 

There's also a host of useful chemicals derived from petroleum that solar doesn't replace.

It's not like this pipeline was being built for no reason. And this oil will get to market regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built, so if you think killing the project is somehow pushing us toward solar, it's not.

By the way, I'm a fan of solar. But I can be a fan of solar and still think killing this project was stupid.

It's also an example of the US going back on its word. But instead of pissing off Iranians or international environmentalists, like Trump did, this move only screws over the hillbillies in the middle of the country, and they don't matter, right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.24    3 years ago
Yeah no biggie. These people can just get up and move to follow the solar jobs, right?

Now you are trying to argue fictions. 

Who says there wouldn't solar jobs where they are already at? 

In your mind, did they move there for temporary Keystone jobs? 

Would you be willing to relocate for a temp job???

Sure, we can just build solar plants and it will totally replace oil.

Another strawman argument.  WE DO NOT USE KEYSTONE PIPELINE OIL!!!

Good thing my car runs on solar.

Do you think at all about what you type???

YOUR CAR DOES NOT RUN ON KEYSTONE PIPELINE OIL EITHER!!!

There's also a host of useful chemicals derived from petroleum that solar doesn't replace.

You are getting further and further off topic.  We are talking the Keystone pipeline.  Got it?

It's not like this pipeline was being built for no reason.

Correct, it was built for Canadian profits.  Nothing for America.  In fact it may even push up American gas prices by taking over one of our refineries.

And this oil will get to market regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built, so if you think killing the project is somehow pushing us toward solar, it's not.

So let Canada export it from one of their own ports.

But I can be a fan of solar and still think killing this project was stupid.

Solar and Keystone pipeline have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Concentrate!  Focus on what this conversation is about.

It's also an example of the US going back on its word.

Fuck trump's word.  He was the only one for it, pipeline was dead until he was elected.  So you could even say that Trump went back on Obama's word.

But instead of pissing off Iranians or international environmentalists, like Trump did, this move only screws over the hillbillies in the middle of the country, and they don't matter, right?

I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating myself.

The states don't want the pipeline.

Biden doesn't want the pipeline.

AMERICA DOES NOT USE KEYSTONE PIPELINE OIL!!!

YOUR CAR DOES NOT RUN ON KEYSTONE PIPELINE OIL!!!

KEYSTONE PIPELINE IS FOR CANADIAN PROFITS ONLY!!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.26  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.25    3 years ago
Who says there wouldn't solar jobs where they are already at?

You brought it up, but you aren't saying there are such jobs. You certainly haven't linked to any. 

Would you be willing to relocate for a temp job???

Maybe, but how about you go first? Or maybe the politicians with a guaranteed job could go first. It's real easy to talk about forcing other people to pick up stakes and change their lives. Not so much when it's you.

You are getting further and further off topic.  We are talking the Keystone pipeline.  Got it?

Hey, you're the one trying to bring up alternatives to oil. I'm only responding to your change in the topic.

So let Canada export it from one of their own ports.

I'm guessing that might make it more expensive or they would be doing that already.

Solar and Keystone pipeline have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Concentrate!

I didn't bring it up! You did!

Fuck trump's word.

How about Fuck Obama's word? That sound like a good policy? Are you saying it's ok for the United States to go back on its deals as long they were put in place by a Republican?

The states don't want the pipeline.

The states already have many pipelines. What's one more? And if people didn't want it, it wouldn't be controversial. You need two sides to have an argument, so it doesn't make any sense to claim the thing is unwanted.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.2.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.26    3 years ago
You brought it up, but you aren't saying there are such jobs.

Yes I fell for one of your deflections.  But you were talking generalized replacing oil jobs with others and I pointed out that solar would do that.  Neither I, or you, were talking specific Keystone jobs.

Maybe, but how about you go first?

I would not uproot my family for a temp position.

Hey, you're the one trying to bring up alternatives to oil.

That's a lie.  YOU'RE the one asking about OIL job ALTERNATIVES.

I'm guessing that might make it more expensive or they would be doing that already.

Possibly, or they might be concerned about their own aquifers.

I didn't bring it up! You did!

Off of your deflection and only in reference to jobs.

How about Fuck Obama's word?

So you cheer Trump going back on what Obama said, but condemn Biden for doing it to Trump.  Little hypocritical of you, isn't it?

Are you saying it's ok for the United States to go back on its deals as long they were put in place by a Republican?

How do you feel about the Paris Climate accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal, among others?  How do you feel about Trump breaking America's word on them? Little hypocritical of you, isn't it?

The states already have many pipelines.

Doesn't matter, they don't want that one.

And if people didn't want it, it wouldn't be controversial.

That is a claim utterly devoid of any honesty.  The people don't care, it is the politicians in the pockets of big oil that are pushing for it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.2.28  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.27    3 years ago
Yes I fell for one of your deflections.

What the ...? Is this Opposite Day? You bring something up; I respond to it; and then you call it my deflection. Holy Wow.

I would not uproot my family for a temp position.

Ok good. So then let’s not act like it’s a small thing and let’s also acknowledge that politicians treat matters like this like a small thing because it doesn’t effect them. They have jobs. I don’t think our president has taken to heart the human cost of what he just did with his pen.

That's a lie.  YOU'RE the one asking about OIL job ALTERNATIVES.

No, I asked about jobs for these people specifically - not general alternatives to oil. Jobs they can already do and they don’t have to uproot their families.

Possibly, or they might be concerned about their own aquifers.

Seems a little late for that. Just like us.

So you cheer Trump going back on what Obama said

When did I do that? My comment was obvious sarcasm to get you see your own hypocrisy. It was also said with a question mark and followed with the next question “That sound like a good policy?” Cherry pick much?

How do you feel about the Paris Climate accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal, among others?  How do you feel about Trump breaking America's word on them? Little hypocritical of you, isn't it?

Look at how you assume the worst without evidence. As a matter of fact, I have said multiple times on this site that I think it was wrong for Trump pull out of both of those deals. I have even said so in this very seed @ 4.1 .

That is a claim utterly devoid of any honesty.

Mulitple times now you have accused me of lying, but you have repeatedly misrepresented the details of our conversation and my own comments. I have detailed those misrepresentations here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    3 years ago

"Why would you be for the Keystone Pipeline?"

Because the former 'president' was?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @4    3 years ago
"Why would you be for the Keystone Pipeline?" Because the former 'president' was?

In this case? Yes - considering that investment has been made, construction started, and people hired based on the approval from a previous president. People have relied on that approval to make important decisions and that's actually reason enough. I'm sure you disapproved (as I did) when Trump went back on our word and withdrew us from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal. Even though I didn't think those were great deals, they were deals all the same. Here, Biden is doing the same thing and directly screwing Americans in the process. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1    3 years ago

President Biden is not screwing any Americans in the process.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    3 years ago
President Biden is not screwing any Americans in the process.

So either your claim is that no Americans lose jobs over this, or that they just don't fucking matter.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    3 years ago

No

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
4.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.2    3 years ago

Apparently certain people in certain parts of the country aren't really Americans.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    3 years ago

Who said that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    3 years ago

either jobs are lost and they are cool with it or not.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5  Just Jim NC TttH    3 years ago

Would be interesting to see the full transcript of this call to be able to deduce the tone. You know like they so generously did during the previous administration. Let's see how many weasel words are actually being stated by the two.

I shall search for it in a little while.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5    3 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.1    3 years ago

Just because you can do something NOW doesn't mean you have to do it. [deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5    3 years ago

I shall search for it in a little while.

Since you're search for full phone call transcripts.  How about looking for the full transcript for Trump's Ukraine call while you're at it.  Still waiting for it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    3 years ago

WHAT?  I thought we generously provided all details from all those perfect calls from the former 'president' regarding quid pro quo and the one to Georgia about finding 'some' votes'???

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2    3 years ago

At this point what difference does it make? He's gone and I don't recall anyone other than never trumpers who need to see it. It was seen for all intents and purposes or he wouldn't have been impeached.

Maybe this will help.............

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
5.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.2    3 years ago
Maybe this will help.............

Nope, that's the same transcript that the White house released that left out key words and details.

"The document warned its contents were “not a verbatim transcript."

"From the moment the White House released its partial transcript of President Trump's Ukraine call, a huge unknown was: What was said during the ellipses?

The state of play: Multiple national security officials, and current and former administration officials, have told Axios that they're concerned about the gaps."

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.2.2    3 years ago
At this point what difference does it make?

So you don't care about the truth?  Okay, explains a lot.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.4    3 years ago

The truth is Trump was impeached and not convicted on that very thing.

Beat a dead horse all you want, but them's the facts!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.2.3    3 years ago

"From the moment the White House released its partial transcript of President Trump's Ukraine call, a huge unknown was: What was said during the ellipses?

The state of play: Multiple national security officials, and current and former administration officials, have told Axios that they're concerned about the gaps."

Instead of Watergate, tRumpgate

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    3 years ago
Beat a dead horse all you want, but them's the facts!

So you also do not want the truth to come out.  Not surprised.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.7    3 years ago
So you also do not want the truth to come out. 

The habit of claiming what I want when you haven't got clue one about it is rather tiresome and fucking boring.

In debate, it is best to formulate your own arguments against what the other side claims--not what you want the other side to have stated.

This habit is weak, intellectually dishonest, and stupid.

Not surprised.

Me, neither--I am getting used to these tactics here.

The fact is that Trump was impeached for that and was not convicted. 

You can spin it into whatever fantasy you choose to dream up.

But it will continue to remain a fact no matter how you spin it.

 
 

Who is online






Drakkonis


456 visitors