Her question was a tangent, and your question was an elaboration upon hers. She since my answering it then continued to try to shift goalposts before leaving while you actually stuck to your guns (for a while anyway).
How was my question a tangent when it was a direct inquiry based on what you stated?
It wasn't related to the point, as has been expressed in this topic multiple times now.
As per usual, Misscomm retreats from debate from not having anything to really contribute to it. She instead tried to make it about her own ideas, and when I wouldn't play ball she got frustrated.
Actually, I had to take my cat to a vet appt. I travelled 8 hours for. I wasn't frustrated at all. It's fun to see where this went though.
Where'd it go?
By just going over all that's been said in this topic my stance has been made more than clear, followed by this semantic battle that feels as if it's only here for the sake of it (as well as potential causality risks for your sense of status quo).
Your stance seems to be that the US government(s) have narratives that they push and Putin could somehow reveal something not otherwise known about the hypocrisy inherent in some American foreign policy?
You're welcome to read the topic.
