>It takes a little more comprehension skills to understand words. I understand if you didn't get that comprehensive education.

I vehemently disagree with rayiner, often, but you personally attacking them only serves to weaken your position.

> I vehemently disagree with rayiner, often, but you personally attacking them only serves to weaken your position.

Glad you see the reality. I don't care about my position but only the reality.

> It takes a little more comprehension skills to understand words. I understand if you didn't get that comprehensive education.

Like the sibling comment says, this is an embarrassing way to cap out an otherwise reasonable comment.

You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?

> He said that it could come to American shores - the bite, the cyberwar, the nukes - not necessarily only the army.

> You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?

jump right to the most extreme possible claim to pull from the above and _strrrretch_ it -- impeccable form! It's not even a logical fallacy, it's just lying about what the person before you said, presented as though they look foolish for saying it. Smooth, hollow, soulless stuff.

> You think Russia is going to nuke America if Ukraine loses the war?

No. But can it escalate to that via cyber attacks, territorial attacks, and global warfare? Yes.

Rule number 1 of untrustworthy counterparties: They will always be untrustworthy, even if they are temporarily friendly.