Are democrats quietly supplying Iran with weapons and munitions?

Uncensored2008 said:
Hardly. democrats are so tight with Iran that you are virtually the same group at this point.



What a stupid lie. But then consider the source.




Sure he does, Epsteinite.

Bet you jack off to that fantasy every night.



Retard claiming "Putin owns TWUMP" accusing others of "conspiracy theories." How precious.

Fact remains that Iran remains as close to Putin as they do to you traitor dims.

In 1914 democrats fell in love with Vladimir Lenin, Woodrow Wilson called him "the new George Washington." democrats swooned when Lenin murdered the Czar and his entire family, children as young a 3. democrats had a new hero.

In 1931, darling of the democrats, "Uncle Joe" Stalin launched the Holodomor and by 1933 had murdered virtually every actual Ukrainian on earth. democrats. through their press, the New York Times sent Bolshevik Walter Duranty to cover up Stalin's genocide and support the Soviet cause. Duranty was given a Pulitzer prize for his efforts in perpetrating genocide. democrats NEVER change.

WWII - democrat love for Stalin is in full bloom. FDR has the man crush of the ages on "Uncle Joe" and puts concentration camps in America to emulate his hero - democrats NEVER change.

During the war, American soldiers get a glimpse of the USSR and find it is identical to the Nazis. Public sentiment toward communism sours. But democrat spies for the Soviets, like Harry Dexter White deeply infested the U.S. Government. So democrats had their top demagogue, Edward Murrow - a man with no shame - slander and smear those exposing democrat spies. democrats NEVER change.

In 1968, the USSR took full control of the democrat with the Chicago riots. In 1972, the democrats ran open Communist George McGovern for president. He lost 49 states.

in 1982, the democrat controlled house under 5th column Jim Wright openly aided the USSR in the invasion and occupation of Nicaragua, in a planed northern push through Mexico to sit on the border of the USA. Reagan funded El Salvador to repel the Soviet controlled Sandinista's. democrats, openly working for the USSR, attempted to impeach him for it. democrats NEVER change.

So, for well over 100 years, democrats and Russia have been joined at the hip. democrats are openly Communist again - figuring this time they will seize power with another McGovern. democrats NEVER change.

But sure, Trump is the one controlled by Russia and the Marxist democrats are opposing them... Talk about RETARDED Conspiracy Theories, Comrade.
Click to expand...
Obvious someone ^ didn’t get the point, not a surprise
 
Uncensored2008 said:
You remain dedicated to Russia and Communism - that has never changed. democrats NEVER change. From Lenin to Mamdani - democrats are 100% aligned with Communism - and Russia has been your leader since 1914.
Click to expand...
And again to respond in kind,

Republicans worshiped Hitler, fought FDR in aiding the UK, and strived for neutrality instead of confronting the dictator

Got anymore bullshit conspiracies
 
archives said:
And again to respond in kind,

Republicans worshiped Hitler, fought FDR in aiding the UK, and strived for neutrality instead of confronting the dictator
Click to expand...

ROFL

You tell the dumbest lies and Conspiracy theories, Comrade.

Arachnid claims Republicans worshiped Hitler, fought FDR in aiding the UK, and strived for neutrality instead of confronting the dictator

The claim is a heavy exaggeration and largely false. Republicans (and many Democrats) were heavily isolationist or non-interventionist before Pearl Harbor, opposing steps that risked drawing the U.S. into the European war. That is not the same as “worshiping Hitler,” and the party was not uniformly opposed to aiding Britain or confronting Nazi Germany. Isolationism had broad public and bipartisan roots after World War I; it was stronger in the GOP, especially the Midwest, but not unique to it.


What actually happened​


  • Neutrality and isolationism were mainstream. Congress passed multiple Neutrality Acts in the mid-to-late 1930s that restricted arms sales and loans to belligerents. These had significant support from both parties and reflected widespread American reluctance to repeat World War I. FDR himself operated within those constraints early on and publicly reaffirmed neutrality when war broke out in Europe in 1939, while privately and incrementally pushing aid “short of war.”
  • Aid to Britain faced strong Republican opposition, but not unanimous. Key measures such as the 1940 destroyers-for-bases deal and especially the 1941 Lend-Lease Act passed with clear partisan divides. House Lend-Lease vote: Democrats 236–25 in favor; Republicans 24–135 against. Senate was similar (most Democrats yes, most Republicans no). Isolationist Republicans such as Sen. Robert A. Taft (“Mr. Republican”) opposed Lend-Lease, the Selective Service Act, and related steps, arguing U.S. security did not require them and that involvement would be a costly mistake. Taft explicitly said he detested Hitler’s actions and utterances; he simply did not believe defeating Hitler was vital enough to risk American entry into another European war.
  • There was a Republican interventionist wing. The 1940 GOP nominee, Wendell Willkie, supported aid to Britain and cooperated with FDR on foreign policy after the election (despite campaign rhetoric). FDR appointed prominent Republicans Henry Stimson (War) and Frank Knox (Navy) to his cabinet in 1940 precisely to broaden support for preparedness and aid. Eastern, internationalist Republicans and groups such as the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies pushed for more assistance. The party platform opposed “involving this Nation in foreign war,” but the party was not monolithic.
  • America First and fringe elements. The America First Committee (1940–41) was the largest organized anti-intervention group (~800,000 members at peak). It argued for strong U.S. defenses, opposed aid that risked war, and claimed a prepared America could not be successfully attacked. Membership cut across parties and ideologies (including some socialists/pacifists and communists until mid-1941). It attracted antisemites, nativists, and people with soft or admiring views of aspects of the Nazi regime (Lindbergh’s speeches and associations being the most notorious example). Some Republican members of Congress spoke at its events or voiced isolationist arguments that downplayed the Nazi threat. The committee dissolved after Pearl Harbor and urged support for the war effort. Mainstream isolationist leaders were not pro-Hitler; they prioritized non-involvement.

“Worshiped Hitler” does not hold​


Some individuals on the far right, certain isolationist spokesmen, or propagandists expressed admiration for German recovery, discipline, or anti-communism, or trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories. A few members of Congress made outrageous or naïve statements. That is documented and indefensible. It does not describe the Republican Party, its congressional majorities, its presidential nominees, or the bulk of America First. Taft and most serious isolationists condemned Nazi totalitarianism while still opposing U.S. entanglement. Public opinion shifted toward aiding Britain as German victories mounted; after Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war, the isolationist position collapsed almost overnight.


In short: many Republicans fought FDR’s steps toward aiding the UK and preferred strict neutrality or limited “aid short of war,” reflecting isolationist sentiment shared by large parts of the country. That is historically accurate. Equating it with “worshiping Hitler” or party-wide sympathy for the dictator is rhetorical inflation, not a fair summary of the record. The same period also featured interventionist Republicans, bipartisan elements of preparedness, and rapid wartime unity once the U.S. was attacked.

 
Uncensored2008 said:
ROFL

You tell the dumbest lies and Conspiracy theories, Comrade.

Arachnid claims Republicans worshiped Hitler, fought FDR in aiding the UK, and strived for neutrality instead of confronting the dictator

The claim is a heavy exaggeration and largely false. Republicans (and many Democrats) were heavily isolationist or non-interventionist before Pearl Harbor, opposing steps that risked drawing the U.S. into the European war. That is not the same as “worshiping Hitler,” and the party was not uniformly opposed to aiding Britain or confronting Nazi Germany. Isolationism had broad public and bipartisan roots after World War I; it was stronger in the GOP, especially the Midwest, but not unique to it.


What actually happened​


  • Neutrality and isolationism were mainstream. Congress passed multiple Neutrality Acts in the mid-to-late 1930s that restricted arms sales and loans to belligerents. These had significant support from both parties and reflected widespread American reluctance to repeat World War I. FDR himself operated within those constraints early on and publicly reaffirmed neutrality when war broke out in Europe in 1939, while privately and incrementally pushing aid “short of war.”
  • Aid to Britain faced strong Republican opposition, but not unanimous. Key measures such as the 1940 destroyers-for-bases deal and especially the 1941 Lend-Lease Act passed with clear partisan divides. House Lend-Lease vote: Democrats 236–25 in favor; Republicans 24–135 against. Senate was similar (most Democrats yes, most Republicans no). Isolationist Republicans such as Sen. Robert A. Taft (“Mr. Republican”) opposed Lend-Lease, the Selective Service Act, and related steps, arguing U.S. security did not require them and that involvement would be a costly mistake. Taft explicitly said he detested Hitler’s actions and utterances; he simply did not believe defeating Hitler was vital enough to risk American entry into another European war.
  • There was a Republican interventionist wing. The 1940 GOP nominee, Wendell Willkie, supported aid to Britain and cooperated with FDR on foreign policy after the election (despite campaign rhetoric). FDR appointed prominent Republicans Henry Stimson (War) and Frank Knox (Navy) to his cabinet in 1940 precisely to broaden support for preparedness and aid. Eastern, internationalist Republicans and groups such as the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies pushed for more assistance. The party platform opposed “involving this Nation in foreign war,” but the party was not monolithic.
  • America First and fringe elements. The America First Committee (1940–41) was the largest organized anti-intervention group (~800,000 members at peak). It argued for strong U.S. defenses, opposed aid that risked war, and claimed a prepared America could not be successfully attacked. Membership cut across parties and ideologies (including some socialists/pacifists and communists until mid-1941). It attracted antisemites, nativists, and people with soft or admiring views of aspects of the Nazi regime (Lindbergh’s speeches and associations being the most notorious example). Some Republican members of Congress spoke at its events or voiced isolationist arguments that downplayed the Nazi threat. The committee dissolved after Pearl Harbor and urged support for the war effort. Mainstream isolationist leaders were not pro-Hitler; they prioritized non-involvement.

“Worshiped Hitler” does not hold​


Some individuals on the far right, certain isolationist spokesmen, or propagandists expressed admiration for German recovery, discipline, or anti-communism, or trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories. A few members of Congress made outrageous or naïve statements. That is documented and indefensible. It does not describe the Republican Party, its congressional majorities, its presidential nominees, or the bulk of America First. Taft and most serious isolationists condemned Nazi totalitarianism while still opposing U.S. entanglement. Public opinion shifted toward aiding Britain as German victories mounted; after Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war, the isolationist position collapsed almost overnight.


In short: many Republicans fought FDR’s steps toward aiding the UK and preferred strict neutrality or limited “aid short of war,” reflecting isolationist sentiment shared by large parts of the country. That is historically accurate. Equating it with “worshiping Hitler” or party-wide sympathy for the dictator is rhetorical inflation, not a fair summary of the record. The same period also featured interventionist Republicans, bipartisan elements of preparedness, and rapid wartime unity once the U.S. was attacked.
Click to expand...
Jaysus, now we got another groker

That’s grok’s opinion, now what’s your’s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top