₦airaland Forum

Android17:
You're correct.

LOL

Android17:
Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence?

- don't quote RFK Jr- he is a quack
- don't quote Scott Perry - he is a conspiracy theorist

- Susan Rice said she didn't speak to Zelensky. See. I provided evidence.

IjeBos:
You spend hours and hours writing pages of I balther whenever you get asked for the evidence for some claim you make.
If you are as logical as you say you are instead of wasting all that time explaining why you won't post your evidence, why don't you spend less time and just post it?.

Isn't that how logical debates work. You make a claim and you back up that claim with evidence?
You seem to be content with the "making claims" part and fail spectacularly with the evidence part.

IjeBos:
I fear you don't understand how this evidence thing works.
Well, it's actually clear by now that you don't understand how this evidence thing works.

bemeruca:
Ibime in addition to my response to you.

Zelensky did not agree to the deal till he agreed. So your post and source of Zelenskyy not agreeing is outdated.


Check the date. It's 25 feb 5days after your time line. I won't say you are lying. But keep trying
Budaatum you continue to assert no agreement was reached

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/25/ukraine-minerals-deal-signed-zelensky-trump

IjeBos:
Huh?
USAID was a bipartisan effort that was funded through Congress.
The current Secretary of State Rubio was a huge proponent of it. Going as far as to say it needed more funding.
Every programs has some corruption but USAID was probably one of the more tightly accounted for programs.

I see Ukraine differently.
1.) We should be paying Ukraine for what they are doing. They are fighting a war against Russia, weakening them and we are not losing any troops in the process.
2.) We eventually want Ukraine's minerals and grains. At a minimum we want to keep them away from Russia.
3.) We also were able to send Ukraine a lot of our old decommissioned weapons and clean up those stock[iles.
4.) Though we allocated the funding to Ukraine, a lot of that money was spent making weapons in the US. In fact it was spent in a lot of Republican districts making those weapons.
5.) The war has allowed us to test our weapons against a geo poltiical adversary who was supposed to have good weaponry. It also allowed us to see how new battles will be waged. Indispensable knowledge.
I'm sure that's how the politicians who gave the money saw it as well. And I don't think it's a terrible use of money if you're thinking it from that perspective.

You talk about homelessness, how do you want to fix that without funding?
Google the GI Bill.
The VA.
A lot of the programs that are so indispensable in our lives that you don't even know benefit you, the Dems created through that funding.
Once they are cut, you'll understand. But you should understand what it's like as I assume you've lived in Naija at some point.

Court Pause on Trump Cuts to Medical Research Funds Is Expanded Nationwide
The federal order temporarily halts the Trump administration’s plans to slash $4 billion in overhead costs for research at universities and medical centers into diseases like cancer.

Universities hold a starkly different view. The funds support scientific breakthroughs that “are becoming more frequent and more consequential,” Dr. Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard University, said in a statement on Sunday.

“At a time of rapid strides in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, brain science, biological imaging and regenerative biology, and when other nations are expanding their investment in science, America should not drop knowingly and willingly from her lead position on the endless frontier,” Dr. Garber said.
...
In a legal memo related to the lawsuit, universities argued that the funds were indispensable in research, including at facilities where lab animals undergo clinical testing, for the computer systems that analyze large amounts of data, for blood banks and other expenses that cannot be directly tied to a single project.

If the funding cutbacks were to survive legal challenges, the plaintiffs wrote, “research laboratories would literally go dark for lack of electricity.”
Smaller institutions, they argued, might not be able to sustain any research and “could close entirely.”

Congress thwarted an earlier effort during the first term of President Trump to cut indirect research funding. Lawmakers added measures to budget bills to ensure that the funds remained at the levels agreed upon by researchers and federal officials.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/health/nih-research-funding-lawsuit-injunction.html

Android17:
What part of "I'm not interested in convincing you to believe anything" don't you understand?

I saw 2 people on NL argue about Biden's cognition. The leftist retařdinho was insisting Biden was sharp as a tack and only suffered occasional slips due to his age. That person quoted Jake Tapper and legacy media as proof that EVERYONE who met with Joe testified he was as healthy as health could be. No matter the arguments made by the more logical right-leaning person, the leftist never agreed.

Do you think said leftist has changed his mind today? What do you think would have been the clincher?

Yup, that's my new MO when debating fools who cape for legacy media.

raumdeuter:
Trump - “Our message to every child in America is you are perfect exactly the way God made you!”

IjeBos:
You must argue with very stupid people that you think each and everyone of your diversions work.
You've employed mostly of all of them at this point.
Next time research the stuff you write so you won't spend the next 100 posts making up bullshit rationales for not being able to provide evidence that doesn't exist.

budaatum:
I think the fault is in how you reason.

A deal is usually when two people agree terms, and not when dump announces his terms are agreed with.

How you see it is like say I call you are a si, and claim you agree.

Do we?

Two sources close to the Ukrainian government told Axios the deal was agreed on Tuesday after two weeks of tense negotiations.

basilico:
Extrapolate how democrats work.
There is a trans boy who wants to play in the school team. Democrats go like We have to be inclusive , the trans boy has to play in the girls team, use their locker rooms and showers .Virtue signalling.

When it comes to funding research, they are wasting most of it but some is going to good use . When DOGE pauses it, Hey funds for research have been stopped. People are going to die.
The sad part is that they are shopping for like minded judges ,but the whole agenda is sabotage Trump.

IjeBos:
Some random guy on twitter vs the President of Harvard University where some of this research happens.
Tell me, who do you think is more of an authority?

PDPGuy:
USAID contractors are about to get their money..

Ballzproblem2:
4bn to search for cure for cancer,that would have been better off used to subsidized cancer patient treatment ,so you want to tell me every year 4bn is spent on on researching cancer cure no breakthrough since the initiative started,my dear all this emotional blackmailing no go work.

The national cancer-attributed medical care costs in the United States are substantial and projected to increase due to population changes alone, according to the Medical Care Costs Associated with Cancer Survivorship in the United States article, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (1). National costs for cancer care were estimated to be $190.2 billion in 2015. Assuming constant future costs, we project costs to be $208.9 billion in 2020 (2020 U.S. dollars), an increase of 10 percent that is only due to the aging and growth of the U.S. population. These cost estimates include cancer-attributable costs for medical services and oral prescription drugs. National medical services costs were largest for those diagnosed with female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. National oral prescription drug costs were highest for those diagnosed with female breast, leukemia, lung, and prostate cancers. The differences in national costs reflect prevalence of the disease, treatment patterns, and costs for different types of care for the different cancer sites.
https://progressreport.cancer.gov/after/economic_burden

bemeruca:
According to your logic, a deal does not exist until 2 people agree to a term 😂😂😂

bemeruca:
Axios does not understand what a deal is only you.

He said the agreement doesn't mention anything about Ukraine repaying any debt to the US.

Zelensky added that the deal will be signed at a ministerial level and the details of his possible trip to Washington on Friday are still being worked out.

budaatum:
It is you who does not understand Axios, bem, because the below tells me they are negotiating and haven't reached a deal.

Two sources close to the Ukrainian government told Axios the deal was agreed on Tuesday after two weeks of tense negotiations.

bemeruca:
No... The Axios article said this

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/25/ukraine-minerals-deal-signed-zelensky-trump

President Trump told reporters that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will visit the White House on Friday to sign a minerals deal.

Two sources close to the Ukrainian government told Axios the deal was agreed on Tuesday after two weeks of tense negotiations.

budaatum:
The thing with you you is you claim media tells us what to believe then you refuse to think.



And not, Zelensky said he has agreed to visit the White House to sign a deal. The Zelensky we have heard say a deal without security is no deal.

And then, two sources .......



Is that not enough for doubt? After "two weeks of tense negotiations" we were still hearing them arguing the day before?

Then Zelensky turned up and did not agree to sign a deal dump proposed, and the arguing was live. But it is now Axios that you decide knew better, than Zelensky who did not agree to sign a deal?

Let me go ask doge to find payments to them. Maybe it might help.

bemeruca:
What did he go to the white house to do?

budaatum:
To negotiate a deal.

Why it matters: The deal is designed to allow the U.S. to tap some of Ukraine's immense mineral wealth and to spur post-war development in the country. But the meeting will bring together two leaders who were publicly feuding just last week, with Trump calling Zelensky a "dictator" and Zelensky claiming Trump was swallowing Russian disinformation.

The latest: Zelensky told reporters in Kyiv on Wednesday that the minerals deal with the U.S. is a framework agreement that will be followed with a detailed agreement about the joint U.S.-Ukrainian fund to be established for the potential revenue from the minerals.

He said the agreement doesn't mention anything about Ukraine repaying any debt to the US.
Zelensky added that the deal will be signed at a ministerial level and the details of his possible trip to Washington on Friday are still being worked out.

bemeruca:
Same source... Shows you are just straight up making up crap

budaatum:
I can't really blame you. The below is from dump's last night speech.

He says, "negotiate", but see what Telegraph tells you to hear.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/03/04/donald-trump-congress-address-ukraine-aid-russia-war-live/

Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively.