Will one or the other of you stop with the cryptic Redwall geopolitics-riddles and just tell me what the fuck you’re talking about?
It sounds like you’re saying that Hungary got bribed to make this decision, in some way. Yes?
Edit: If you don’t feel like navigating the labyrinth of replies below, don’t bother. Neither of these people ever get to the point, and eventually they wander away, with one complaining that I “do not argue in good faith.”
The quote I gave is from the article you linked, if my comment is cryptic to you I’d suggest reading the article again? Orban threatened to veto unless Ukraine agreed to get the Russian gas flowing again, so the EU threw him a bone.
How does wanting some lip service to be inserted into the agreement, to at least ally to some performative degree Hungary’s concerns about where their energy is going to come from if it can’t be Russia, translate into “pockets full of cash”?
So he’s trying to do popular things, in this case by being slightly cautious about the energy supply for his country on behalf of his constituents, and you summarized that decision with “pockets full of cash”? “Cash” meaning his political career. Have I misunderstood something?
He’s a massive POS and blackmails things like this out of the EU, usually using vile ways like this one. Or do you think he legitimately thought Lukachenko won the “election”?
I’m not "argue"ing. I’m asking what the fuck you’re talking about, because I cannot make any sense of what you keep vaguely hinting at. Why that is offensive to you, I have not the slightest idea, but okay.
I did, and for some reason, you answered. So you weren’t trying to answer the question “Allegedly by who?” when you replied to that question?
I’m sorry if I seem prickly about it, but vague insinuations of corruption which then evaporate into silence or deflections when questioned even slightly seem like kind of a bad-faith thing to throw around. Right?
I answered your question “Allegedly? By who?”, not the one regarding the “pockets full of cash”. But I’m sorry for trying to answer you, it won’t happen again. Also, here’s a reel of a sea lion for you.
Will one or the other of you stop with the cryptic Redwall geopolitics-riddles and just tell me what the fuck you’re talking about?
It sounds like you’re saying that Hungary got bribed to make this decision, in some way. Yes?
Edit: If you don’t feel like navigating the labyrinth of replies below, don’t bother. Neither of these people ever get to the point, and eventually they wander away, with one complaining that I “do not argue in good faith.”
The quote I gave is from the article you linked, if my comment is cryptic to you I’d suggest reading the article again? Orban threatened to veto unless Ukraine agreed to get the Russian gas flowing again, so the EU threw him a bone.
How does wanting some lip service to be inserted into the agreement, to at least ally to some performative degree Hungary’s concerns about where their energy is going to come from if it can’t be Russia, translate into “pockets full of cash”?
The “cash” is for his political career, not himself if course. Could have worded that better.
So he’s trying to do popular things, in this case by being slightly cautious about the energy supply for his country on behalf of his constituents, and you summarized that decision with “pockets full of cash”? “Cash” meaning his political career. Have I misunderstood something?
Slightly cautious?
He’s a massive POS and blackmails things like this out of the EU, usually using vile ways like this one. Or do you think he legitimately thought Lukachenko won the “election”?
It is incredibly difficult to get you and the other person to explain what you mean.
Can you simply explain what you mean by “things like this”? And “vile ways like this one”?
I feel you do not argue in good faith.
Look up Orban in the news the last 3-4 years if you are sincerely interested.
It’s called sealioning. Draw your own conclusions.
I’m not "argue"ing. I’m asking what the fuck you’re talking about, because I cannot make any sense of what you keep vaguely hinting at. Why that is offensive to you, I have not the slightest idea, but okay.
Don’t ask me, ask @[email protected]
I did, and for some reason, you answered. So you weren’t trying to answer the question “Allegedly by who?” when you replied to that question?
I’m sorry if I seem prickly about it, but vague insinuations of corruption which then evaporate into silence or deflections when questioned even slightly seem like kind of a bad-faith thing to throw around. Right?
I answered your question “Allegedly? By who?”, not the one regarding the “pockets full of cash”. But I’m sorry for trying to answer you, it won’t happen again. Also, here’s a reel of a sea lion for you.