Trump Zelensky today.....
- Thread starter dr.jb
- Start date
Because he has a man crush on Trump. He would literally do anything for the man.
This came out on Sanders:
"The worst formal interview I've ever been in in my life,” a longtime assistant coach said. “He's so entitled. He takes unnecessary sacks. He never plays on time. He has horrible body language. He blames teammates. ... But the biggest thing is, he's not that good."
So true. Trump does look like he's been put in time out and is getting a stern talking to. Do you think he forgot to clean his room or left the sprinklers on when he and JD were running through them on the White House lawn?
Yeah, I've never understood the hype.
Pittsburgh needs a qb and passed, twice. I believe Cleveland needs one, and they passed three times.
If his dad wasn't Prime, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Trump wouldn’t like you characterizing him as a five year old. The people who know him best have him pegged at least as a fifth grader.
Well I mean it’s possible and would explain a lot. Would anyone be stunned if Trump has a few others running around out there
It’s an extraordinary image. Only an imbecile would spin it as you have. You’re pathetic.
Unless the hush money she was paid had run out and she was asking for more or else.
Totally agree with turning down the volume and working behind the scenes. Putin and Zelensky both probably feel backed into a corner and don't have much wiggle room with their people.
The other day he posted “Vladimir STOP!” after Putin bombed Kyiv. That night, Putin bombed Kyiv again.
Two months ago, he issued a “last warning” to Hamas and promised that all the Hamas scumbags would be quickly annihilated if they “don’t do as I say” (i.e. immediately release all the hostages). Dozens of hostages remain in captivity.
The world is learning what most of us already know - - that’s he’s full of bluster and bullshit.
I think a lot of your criticisms on this topic should be directed at Obama and the Western leaders in 2014, too.
The Long, Destructive Shadow of Obama’s Russia Doctrine
A series of bad decisions during the Obama years prepared the ground for Vladimir Putin’s war.foreignpolicy.com
In 2014, after Russia had already annexed Crimea, shot down MH17, and sent Russian troops and security services into combat in Ukraine’s Donbas, Obama staunchly opposed sending arms to Ukraine. He responded to the Russian invasion of Crimea with only minor sanctions targeting Russian individuals, state banks, and a handful of companies. He rejected a leading U.S. role in diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war, delegating responsibility to France and Germany. While it makes logical sense to expect European countries to take charge of security on their continent, these countries lack the United States’ geopolitical heft, and Putin has never accepted them as peers of or negotiating partners for Russia. What’s more, these two European countries were heavily dependent on trade with Russia and showed little interest in the security of Eastern European countries. Most damaging was Obama’s clear statement that Ukraine was not a U.S. strategic priority.
Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: “Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” In other words, a U.S. president all but acknowledged Ukraine as a Russian client state, telegraphing to the leader of an aggressive, revisionist power that the United States would stand down if Russia were to widen its war. Moreover, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance—that the Kremlin would always be willing to exercise superior power to get its way in Ukraine, whereas the United States would not—became the governing principle of U.S. policy. This principle echoes to this day, holding back U.S. support for Ukraine.
Can an argument be made that Obama was pretty much right?
No foreign nation has sent their own troops there - or seems eager to do so, even considering where things stand.
Europe obviously fears further Russian aggression and expansion, and understandably so. But as much as they huffed and puffed about having to take the lead following Trump’s insouciance, have they?
I gather that American concerns in Asia pretty far outweigh what’s happening in Europe. Maybe they shouldn’t - but they do.
Arm the Ukes with everything short of nukes...and let them use all of it on the mother facking invaders.
Pretty much correct.
The 'war' is lost.
NATO has no options.
The German and US tanks didn't stop Russia.
The F-16s didn't stop Russia.
HIMARS didn't stop Russia.
Patriot systems didn't stop Russia.
US 'mercenaries ' didn't stop Russia.
Obama warned anyone who would listen publicly against the folly of fighting in Ukraine, yet the unelected warpigs, USAID,the State Department, VOA , CIA , and of course the military-industrial-surveillance complex lobbyists were all in. Obama was ignored.
And here we are.
You know I've met you and I could kick your ass in about 2 seconds flat. Do not be an ankle biting POS. Just be your normal POS self.
Ukraine has beaten the shit out of the Russians with our equipment. They haven't won the war, but Russia has lost far more personnel and equipment than the Russians because their equipment sucks and their military training sucks too.
If you admit Obama was right, it becomes more difficult to criticize Trump and unfortunately, that's the focus of most thought on this issue--either defending or attacking the man.
But everyone thought then that Russia would or could roll over Ukraine. Our intelligence about their military capabilities was clearly woefully misinformed. Now, we know that is not the case so I think it's fair to say it's a different situation, at least on that front.
Do you follow ANYONE a who is sane? Seriously anyone? Roger Stone, Catturd, Laura Loomer, Dan Dakich, Jack P…..a whole bunch of loons.
You'd be shocked to learn how many stories she has broken. Sometimes she gets stuff wrong yes. But she's right a lot. And other outlets are reporting the same.
Unfortunately, so much of our thought on a lot of issues comes down to the personalities pushing/opposing them, rather than the merits. And it’s never in my lifetime been more the case than it is now - because Donald Trump engenders such strong feelings on both sides.
It really wasn’t that long ago that tariffs and other forms of protectionism were curse words in Republican circles. Nowadays, gobs of Republicans think they’re the hallmark of strong and sound macroeconomic governance…because (and only because) Donald Trump had said so.
It’s really frustrating and is going to lead to a lot of bad outcomes.
The Republican Party has changed a ton. Many people who were previously Democrats are now Trump voters. See his record votes with minorities.
And no, we don't agree with Trump on everything. His vaccine was incredibly stupid. His $5k proposal to have more kids seems dumb too. But he's right most of the time and the Dems are completely insane.
On that, we definitely agree. On whether it’s a change for the better, I’m sure that we don’t.
But I will say that I think the old guard GOP brought this all upon themselves. They were a lot better at talking than they were at doing. And I think they got to a very different place on immigration than most of their voters - Trump noticed and capitalized on it.
No. I was a reluctant Republican voter because it was the lesser of 2 evils. I disliked both parties before the Trump era.
Then there was a candidate stupid enough to inspire you. Congratulations.
