On Trump

[mtbdudex]

This is a hack account right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TankTop5]

Trump just appointed a pardon czar, probably to get white nationalists out of prison

 

[Dude#1279435]

This is a hack account right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure if that pic is but the rest looks to be legit.

I just want any Republican to imagine, just for a moment, if Obama or Biden had tweeted out 'Long live the King!' about ANYTHING!" one person wrote in response. "Right-wing news would have been apocalyptic.

 

[TankTop5]

JD Vance


This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.

 

[Dude#1279435]

JD Vance


This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.

That's nice and everything but my initial point was Trump said the war was Zelensky's fault. Excluding the part about Russian invasion, or do a photo with a Putin handshake. See, all better.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Basically Trump wants 50% of Ukranian minerals and GDP to rebuild. I was thinking 25% was a healthy return but 50%..... its a deterrent to another Russian invasion with an American presence, but I wonder if in the back of my mind Ukraine isn't a country anymore. I presume Russia would like those minerals, but hey we'll protect you if you give the US 50%. Wow, what a victory for peace & stability. (I think even 25% return is a very ambitious number.)

 

[GO-NAD!]

JD Vance


This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Vance is babbling like his boss. Trump would never have prevented the invasion. And, whether Ukrainians had a pathway to victory is irrelevant. It's existential for them and they do not want to be erased as a people and as a nation. They were going to fight back, regardless of the odds.

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

If there is one issue I can - somewhat - agree with the Trump administration on, it's that the rest of NATO has skimped on defence for many years. He isn't the first president to complain. However, nobody has ever forced the US to maintain forces in Europe. Successive US administrations have voluntarily spent inordinate amounts on defence. If you don't want to anymore, then don't!

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Is that why they need North Korean troops to fight for them?
Is that why they are forcing migrant workers to fight their war?
They were promised jobs in Russia. They ended up fighting in Ukraine.
Is that why they are enticing people from poor countries to come and serve?
How Russia is recruiting foreigners to fight in Ukraine – DW – 08/22/2024

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

The US could exercise substantial leverage over Russia, if the will was there and the Trump administration had not already signaled its willingness to toss Ukraine under the bus. Leverage over Ukraine depends on what support the US is willing to offer. If American support hinges on Ukraine giving up the land that the Russians currently occupy (approximately 20% of the country) along with the 3 million people living under occupation, then there is no leverage.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

You could try including the country that was invaded in those talks. Right now, all that the American delegation has heard is the utter BS fed to them by the Russians.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Ohhhh, the impact of the war on the US is the most important factor. I'm glad he clarified that.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.

I'm all for pursuing peace. There could be peace tomorrow if Russia just packed up and went home.

Appeasement!? Do American suggestions that Russia be welcomed back to the G7/8 after their invasion not constitute appeasement? Suggesting that Ukraine give up territory and abandon millions of her people, thus rewarding Putin for his crimes is not appeasement?

Vance is a putz who should go back to being a hillbilly.

 

[highfigh]

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Russia has more people, not necessarily battle-ready. I saw yesterday that Russia has lost more than 430K since this started- if Putin brought NK in, I have to wonder if the Russian people are tired of losing family members.

 

[Trell]

A funny article about a voter for a fictitious mayor trying to defend his vote. Reminds you of someone?

I recommend reading the whole article in the link below.

>>>It’s so easy to label people these days. From the way folks have been talking, you’d think everyone falls into two buckets: those who voted against the mayor who promised to blow up the city and those who voted for the mayor who promised to blow up the city. And now that the mayor, whom I voted for, is blowing up the city, as he promised, I’m one of many people who are being unfairly blamed for something I didn’t want. Okay? I didn’t want the mayor to blow up the city like he mentioned many times; I just wanted him to fix the old bowling alley like he promised in passing once. Anyone saying I’m partially responsible for the explosions is just a sign that they have no argument.

Before you rush to cancel me, try to remember the mayor made lots of promises, and I didn’t expect him to keep them all. Yes, he promised to turn our playgrounds to glass and take a blowtorch to the schools; yes, he said that he was going to use napalm on every grocery store, but, as I said, he also promised he was going to fix the old bowling alley.

Oh, how I loved that bowling alley as a kid. It’s been closed for twenty years, so when the mayor mentioned he’d fix it if we elected him, I had to give it a chance. To be fair, he was also the mayor a few years ago, made the same promise, and failed to fix the bowling alley then. But he did live up to his promise to reintroduce smallpox into local daycares, so at least you know he can get things done, unlike the other guy who did neither of those.
...
<<<

Voting for the Mayor Who Promised to Blow Up the City Doesn’t Mean I Approve of the Mayor Blowing Up the City

It’s so easy to label people these days. From the way folks have been talking, you’d think everyone falls into two buckets: those who voted against...

www.mcsweeneys.net

 

[TankTop5]

I don’t necessarily agree with everything JD stated but there are some points to be made. For me, the EU and Biden administration slow walked arms to Ukraine dragging this out to bleed Russia in another proxy war. I think these strategies need to end and have never been productive in the long run. Russia is a nuclear superpower, it would take EU or US direct involvement to end the war but possibly at the expense of a nuclear war. This was botched from the start and probably should have been fought when Russia invaded Crimea.

Also yes Russia started the war but the EU used Ukraine and baited Russia into it. In the long run Russia lost as Sweden and Denmark are now NATO. A direct conflict with Russia is in nobody’s best interests and America is broke, we can’t continue to fund endless wars. It’s time to change policies around the world and the EU needs to stand on their own and yes it’s our fault for enabling them but it appears that chapter is closing.

Correction, Finland and Sweden.

PS just because I post something does not mean that I necessarily agree with it. Sometimes I just post things for discussion.

 

[GO-NAD!]

PS just because I post something does not mean that I necessarily agree with it. Sometimes I just post things for discussion.

Understood. That's why my comments were directed squarely at Vance's words.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything JD stated but there are some points to be made. For me, the EU and Biden administration slow walked arms to Ukraine dragging this out to bleed Russia in another proxy war. I think these strategies need to end and have never been productive in the long run. Russia is a nuclear superpower, it would take EU or US direct involvement to end the war but possibly at the expense of a nuclear war. This was botched from the start and probably should have been fought when Russia invaded Crimea.

Also yes Russia started the war but the EU used Ukraine and baited Russia into it. In the long run Russia lost as Sweden and Denmark are now NATO. A direct conflict with Russia is in nobody’s best interests and America is broke, we can’t continue to fund endless wars. It’s time to change policies around the world and the EU needs to stand on their own and yes it’s our fault for enabling them but it appears that chapter is closing.

Correction, Finland and Sweden.

I think the EU, the US and other allies could have been less reticent with aid in the early days, but I wonder if they thought Ukraine was doomed and didn't want to throw good money after bad. But, when it became clearer that Ukraine was holding her own, there was a change of heart, which loosened the purse strings. That's all conjecture on my part, but I don't think it's time to write off Ukraine and lock in a loss yet.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how or why the EU baited Russia into invading Ukraine. What incentive could there be?

 

[highfigh]

Understood. That's why my comments were directed squarely at Vance's words.



I think the EU, the US and other allies could have been less reticent with aid in the early days, but I wonder if they thought Ukraine was doomed and didn't want to throw good money after bad. But, when it became clearer that Ukraine was holding her own, there was a change of heart, which loosened the purse strings. That's all conjecture on my part, but I don't think it's time to write off Ukraine and lock in a loss yet.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how or why the EU baited Russia into invading Ukraine. What incentive could there be?

May have thought lower fuel prices were possible? If Russia controls Ukraine, grain proces could be manipulated, too.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Vance is babbling like his boss. Trump would never have prevented the invasion. And, whether Ukrainians had a pathway to victory is irrelevant. It's existential for them and they do not want to be erased as a people and as a nation. They were going to fight back, regardless of the odds.


If there is one issue I can - somewhat - agree with the Trump administration on, it's that the rest of NATO has skimped on defence for many years. He isn't the first president to complain. However, nobody has ever forced the US to maintain forces in Europe. Successive US administrations have voluntarily spent inordinate amounts on defence. If you don't want to anymore, then don't!


Is that why they need North Korean troops to fight for them?
Is that why they are forcing migrant workers to fight their war?
They were promised jobs in Russia. They ended up fighting in Ukraine.
Is that why they are enticing people from poor countries to come and serve?
How Russia is recruiting foreigners to fight in Ukraine – DW – 08/22/2024


The US could exercise substantial leverage over Russia, if the will was there and the Trump administration had not already signaled its willingness to toss Ukraine under the bus. Leverage over Ukraine depends on what support the US is willing to offer. If American support hinges on Ukraine giving up the land that the Russians currently occupy (approximately 20% of the country) along with the 3 million people living under occupation, then there is no leverage.


You could try including the country that was invaded in those talks. Right now, all that the American delegation has heard is the utter BS fed to them by the Russians.


Ohhhh, the impact of the war on the US is the most important factor. I'm glad he clarified that.


I'm all for pursuing peace. There could be peace tomorrow if Russia just packed up and went home.

Appeasement!? Do American suggestions that Russia be welcomed back to the G7/8 after their invasion not constitute appeasement? Suggesting that Ukraine give up territory and abandon millions of her people, thus rewarding Putin for his crimes is not appeasement?

Vance is a putz who should go back to being a hillbilly.

The one thing I will say though is one of the reasons Putin invaded is because Mr Skeleton Biden is viewed as weak. Trump is not, but he manages to screw up the "Noble" Peace Prize award.

 

[TankTop5]

Understood. That's why my comments were directed squarely at Vance's words.



I think the EU, the US and other allies could have been less reticent with aid in the early days, but I wonder if they thought Ukraine was doomed and didn't want to throw good money after bad. But, when it became clearer that Ukraine was holding her own, there was a change of heart, which loosened the purse strings. That's all conjecture on my part, but I don't think it's time to write off Ukraine and lock in a loss yet.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how or why the EU baited Russia into invading Ukraine. What incentive could there be?

EU dangled the idea of Ukraine joining NATO which was a hard line for Russia. It would be like Mexico joining Warsaw Pact. Also Ukraine was doing a ton of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in 4 Oblasts (Crimea and Donbas) and Russia warned them for 2 years before invading Crimea. Ukraine persisted even after until Putin finally invaded. Ukraine has long been considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe. Frankly both countries were in the wrong and the US and EU were complicit in the war. Neither side allowed Ukraine to use Western weapons offensively against Russia until very recently which the US is mostly to blame due to components in EU weapons, ITAR restrictions. Russia and Ukraine are both evil countries and the entire thing has been a train wreck, there’s no such thing as a defensive war and if it doesn’t stop all of Ukraine will be destroyed with the conflict continuing like another Vietnam or Afghanistan. Again these policies that lead to conflicts like this are evil and must stop. If we want to involve ourselves in a conflict we need to give the military a goal and let them accomplish it, it would stop the next 5 wars before they ever begin.

 

[TankTop5]

The one thing I will say though is one of the reasons Putin invaded is because Mr Skeleton Biden is viewed as weak. Trump is not, but he manages to screw up the "Noble" Peace Prize award.

I don’t know, we’ll see about that peace prize… after he makes an example out of Iran which is WAY overdue. If you’re not aware Iran (Khamenei) believes that they will usher in the 12th Imam by nuking Israel and starting a war to wipe out all non Muslims on earth. There is no reasoning with them, this is the most fanatical religious belief on earth, they believe they die to bring about global Islamic rule.

 

[Trell]

EU dangled the idea of Ukraine joining NATO which was a hard line for Russia. It would be like Mexico joining Warsaw Pact. Also Ukraine was doing a ton of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in 4 Oblasts (Crimea and Donbas) and Russia warned them for 2 years before invading Crimea. Ukraine persisted even after until Putin finally invaded. Ukraine has long been considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe. Frankly both countries were in the wrong and the US and EU were complicit in the war. Neither side allowed Ukraine to use Western weapons offensively against Russia until very recently which the US is mostly to blame due to components in EU weapons, ITAR restrictions. Russia and Ukraine are both evil countries and the entire thing has been a train wreck, there’s no such thing as a defensive war and if it doesn’t stop all of Ukraine will be destroyed with the conflict continuing like another Vietnam or Afghanistan. Again these policies that lead to conflicts like this are evil and must stop. If we want to involve ourselves in a conflict we need to give the military a goal and let them accomplish it, it would stop the next 5 wars before they ever begin.

Good grief, you're really like to regurgitate Russian propaganda and lies, don't you?

 

[GO-NAD!]

EU dangled the idea of Ukraine joining NATO which was a hard line for Russia. It would be like Mexico joining Warsaw Pact. Also Ukraine was doing a ton of ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in 4 Oblasts (Crimea and Donbas) and Russia warned them for 2 years before invading Crimea. Ukraine persisted even after until Putin finally invaded. Ukraine has long been considered the most corrupt country in Eastern Europe. Frankly both countries were in the wrong and the US and EU were complicit in the war. Neither side allowed Ukraine to use Western weapons offensively against Russia until very recently which the US is mostly to blame due to components in EU weapons, ITAR restrictions. Russia and Ukraine are both evil countries and the entire thing has been a train wreck, there’s no such thing as a defensive war and if it doesn’t stop all of Ukraine will be destroyed with the conflict continuing like another Vietnam or Afghanistan. Again these policies that lead to conflicts like this are evil and must stop. If we want to involve ourselves in a conflict we need to give the military a goal and let them accomplish it, it would stop the next 5 wars before they ever begin.

Where do you get all this nonsense from!?

EU enticing Ukraine to join NATO? No.
PolitiFact | Ask PolitiFact: What’s Ukraine’s history of trying to join NATO?

"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO," the alliance said in the official "Bucharest Summit Declaration" issued April 3, 2008. "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."

The line was a concession to U.S. President George W. Bush, whose administration had lobbied to give Ukraine a membership action plan but failed to persuade all the other allied leaders, experts said.

Ethnic cleansing? No.
Allegations of genocide in Donbas - Wikipedia
Corruption? While both Russia and Ukraine have had problems with that, only Ukraine has been making efforts to clean its act up.
Both countries in the wrong? Let's be clear - Russia had NO justification messing with the eastern Oblasts, none for grabbing Crimea and certainly none for the full-scale invasion.

The rest of your post...I just can't be bothered with...it's too tiresome.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Trump just appointed a pardon czar, probably to get white nationalists out of prison

Or he is a cash register for pardons. Someone has to collect at arm's length.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Is that why they need North Korean troops to fight for them?
Is that why they are forcing migrant workers to fight their war?
They were promised jobs in Russia. They ended up fighting in Ukraine.
Is that why they are enticing people from poor countries to come and serve?
How Russia is recruiting foreigners to fight in Ukraine – DW – 08/22/2024


...

Don't forget the indigenous people in eastern Russia are on the front lines, their numbers are diminishing and may be wiped out.
Putin doesn't give a rat's behind.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Russia has more people, not necessarily battle-ready. I saw yesterday that Russia has lost more than 430K since this started- if Putin brought NK in, I have to wonder if the Russian people are tired of losing family members.

Not yet.