He also still refused to admit he lost four years ago, and admit any fault or regret for Jan 6th. And he showed zero remorse or awareness about the Central Park Five. Pure deflection for every single question.
This stood out to me. Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win? Anyone at all?
That question is awkwardly worded, why are you putin it that way?
Just not russian to any conclusions
Tsar right to know if he’s compromised.
Moscows are fat. Trump is fat. Coincidence? Probably not.
?
Moscows=most cows
Ah.
Thanks
Fun fact: at his mother’s deathbed, Stalin reportedly told her that he had “become something like the Tsar”. Perfectly accurate FWIW.
What is confusing to me is why would it matter to Putin if Trump lied here? The Russian mode of government is lying and deception after all.
Does he actually think that his voters want Ukraine to lose? Oh fuck, do his voters actually want Ukraine to lose?
Their line isn’t that Ukraine should lose, it’s that America shouldn’t give them money while homeless vets, Ukraine is corrupt, biden crime family, nato expansion, etc. Which coincidentally are all Russian talking points.
Those damn russians, constantly bringing up recent history like that.
Didn’t Hunter get like millions of dollars from both Russian and Ukranian oligarchs? It’s so cool how the kids of politicans always end up with these sweet deals- and to think Trump is claiming to be the deals guy
Oh thanks, I forgot hunter Biden.
Now go and Google what the Budapest memorandum was.
Russia stated that it had never been under obligation to “force any part of Ukraine’s civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.” Russia suggested that the US was in violation of the Budapest Memorandum and described the Euromaidan as a US-instigated coup.
Yes, the CIA psyop’d over 70% of the country to support joining the EU, then forced yanukovitch to say “screw that we love Russia” and piss everyone off. And the totally organic resistance movement in the east that happened to have russian equipment and… Soldiers? Yeah just the people self determining or whatever.
So what about the ethnic Russians, and the rest of the non-Ukranian speakers?
There was a base of people (30% per your post) who didn’t support this and when the government cracked down on resistance, city centers ended up shelled with artillery for years.
Just a shitty situation to get caught in the middle of, frankly. Did you support NATO intervention against Serbia when it used its military on a breakaway region?
Half the big right wing youtubers are getting paid by Russia.
Yes. They want Ukraine to lose.
They’ve been listening to the Russian trolls and bots.
And bought and paid for Tim pool
I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
The whole reason he tried to keep weapons from Ukraine was because he was given instructions by Putin to make Russia’s planned invasion easier.
Trump being Trump, he tried to extort some political favors or of Zelenskyy first, but clearing a path for Putin was always the goal.
Putin’s mum.
Do we know of anyone who Trump might be worried about upsetting if he said he wanted Ukraine to win?
Yes, I think there’s this one man, Trumps big idol, I think his name was Vladimir the war criminal Putin.
I remember when Russia did go in, briefly Fox News was full of editorializing that Russia should get to have Ukraine. They at least tried to got full on pro-Russia when they thought the narrative might fly and Ukraine was going to just get conquered in a week or so. Clearly they were trying to set things up for blithe acceptance for what Russia had done and for the world to move on (until next time).
I think that between the prolonged conflict and the fact that their boomer audience actually may still be inclined to remember their cold war feelings that this won’t fly, that they backed off to less aggressively calling for complete Russian victory. But as seen here, there’s still a theme of making it clear that you’re ok with whatever outcome, leaning toward “but should we spend our money?” to undermine things rather than calling for a pro-russia outcome outright.
That’s why he’s nothing more than vatnik kompromat.
Translation: He wants Russia to win the War and for America to be signed over to the Kremlin, but he knows he can’t say that aloud
I found it interesting that Trump claims if he wins the election, he’ll have the Russia / Ukraine conflict resolved BEFORE he even takes office. I’m paraphrasing there, but that’s how I interpreted what he stated.
If that’s the case, then it seems like he could choose to end the conflict at any time. Why doesn’t he just end it now? Save countless lives. Minimize injuries. Prevent suffering. Save money. I’m sure that’d change some voters’ minds if he did it. Might even win him the election.
Yes, this is a rhetorical question. I have no doubt that he can’t actually end it without basically giving in entirely to Russia.
It’s not a mystery how he plans to do it. He’ll demand Zelenskyy cede taken territory to Russia. If Zelenskyy doesn’t accept those terms, then the funding to Ukraine will stop.
He doesn’t mean he could end it at any time. He says “if I’m elected” cause he’s talking about the time period after he won the election but before he actually took office.
The moment you win the election and become the person who will DEFINITELY be the president in a couple of months, your bargaining power with other nations (and anyone really) goes through the roof compared to what you had as a mere candidate.
I’ve stated that last as a fact though it’s just what seems self-evidently true to me.
Of course, he wants Russia to win, duh
Same reason you don’t see tankies in this thread.
He refused to answer any question
That’s not true, he very clearly answered that he’s stronger than Superman and smarter than Batman.
He could beat Batman for sure, especially with prep time to make a concept of a plan.
Reminder that Zelenskyy basically called Trump’s bluff on his plan, encouraging him to share it now.
It’s the concept of a plan. Wat a weird concept.
Nice avatar, laughing man
It’s hardly worthy of being called a bluff.
Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.
Everyone knows Trump would just force a Russian victory. He could do that just by refusing further support for Ukraine.
It would be great if we stopped spending money on foreign wars, but why can’t the democrats adopt an anti-war position rather than trying to out-warmonger the republicans?
It would be great if we stopped spending money on fighting Hitler, but why can’t we all just adopt an anti-war position and give Hitler what he wants rather than out-warmonger him!?
Genius plan.
You want the warmongering to stop? Then get on Telegram and starting telling that to Russians. Tell Putin.
Putin sucks but he’s no Hitler.
Also I can’t even get Putin to comp my rent why do you think he would listen to me?
Yes he is. He’s pretty much Hitler in every way. What, are you waiting for 1940s Hitler and literal gas chambers to pop up until the dots become connected?
- Invading foreign nation under the false pretenses of protecting Ethnic minorities.
- All the while actively purging dissidents inside Russia.
Seems pretty Hitler-like to me. You’re right, Hitler didn’t listen to calls for him to step down either.
You seem like you’ve got it all figured out
No, not all; just more so than you.
If a country (Russia) has decided it wants to be aggressive, then there are really only two ways to prevent a war with them:
- Increase your own strength
- Decrease their strength
Usually, number 1 is the only feasible way for a country without outright opening up hostilities. However, Russia has given the world an opportunity, by attacking Ukraine, to enact number 2 relatively risk-free.
I fully believe that if Russia is given leeway then they’d just continue on. Appeasement, as World War 2 has shown, does not work with personalities like that. By supporting Ukraine in this conflict, number 2 can be accomplished.
And this war can be stopped, today! By Russia withdrawing from Ukraine. So please, aim your ire at Putin who started and stubbornly keeps this war going.
I would expect nothing less from a .de domain 😬
Smartest lemmy.ml user
Thank you for that insightful rebuttal.
Sorry I just get a bit triggered when I hear Germans talking about needing to increase their strength due to aggressive outside threats causing internal economic strife.
You know, there’s good people on both sides. People with a lot of value and good ideas. It reminds me of my businesses, so many good people. There’s a lot of good people in this world. You know what else is good? Watermelon. It’s a melon… Made… From water. How incredible. It’s delicious. How do they do that?
- Trump, probably.
I want to save lives that are being uselessly
Yeah that sounds about right
He has said several times before that he would end the ruzzian occupation by making a deal with them. Most definitely a loser’s deal where Ukraine would give up land.
Everyone else with half a brain cell left in our brain and with some heart, we think ruzzians should get the fuck out and pay for all the damage and murdering. That’s the negotiation that needs to happen. And you see, am just a regular person with a low IQ. I’m sure Harrys will do way better. And I’m sure any person could probably do better at least at deciding if ruzzia is doing something bad.
What does “win” even mean? NATO starting World War 3? Well, they’re getting there.
You mean Russia starting the conflict that might turn into WW III two years ago?
The conflict started more than a decade ago. Currently it’s a proxy war mostly limited to the territory of Ukraine and Russia. Other countries are in the pipeline.
Oh we know. If Russia wins, Poland is next. Russia salami slicing started in 2014 with its first annexation of part of Ukrainian.
The next target after Russia loses against NATO will be China actually. And then Iran, North Korea. But you’ll get a total nuclear exchange well before, so it’s academical.
So likely next proxy is Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Belorus. Poland is also a possibility, but not at first. Unless Belorus, but then we’re at tactical nukes stage already.
Russia was the aggressor here. Ukraines wanted to go towards the west for a better life and protection from being further invaded by Russia. Putin is of the school of thought that Ukraine isn’t real. But it is the people of Ukraine who decide that.
This war started more than a decade ago. Russian Federation only became a party some two years ago.
This was the start : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
Da, comrade!
Vatniks gonna vatnik.
Focusing in on his one singular good take to criticize as usual.
Minimizing loss of life by negotiating peace is a good thing. The hawks didn’t get enough from our last 20 year war that just ended so they want to indefinitely commit to another conflict, and it doesn’t matter how many die or whether there’s anything other than rubble left afterwards, all that matters is nationalist pride and defense industry profits. I wish they’d asked Harris what the timetable was, how long and exactly how much blood and treasure she’s willing to commit over a couple provinces on the other side of the world.
How quickly we forget the past. People learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan.
If only we could get someone who’s consistently anti-war, and not an absolutely horrible and disgusting person in every other aspect.
Marxist-leninist account made inconsolable from others that say supporting a country resist russian invasion is worth fighting and funding a defensive war. Go figure
Hmmm… I’m a staunch pacifist and also 100% behind helping Ukraine. These things are not at odds because the enemy of pacifism is aggression. The person that can actually end the war is on the other side of the world.
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don’t get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it’s your own fatherland, which in this case I’m assuming it’s not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I’m a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I’m a “staunch pacifist,” you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I’m out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome’s honor. But I’m a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does “pacifism” mean to you?
Here’s how Google defines it:
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I’ve read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any “pacifist” who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn’t warrant a response.
What does the word ‘take’ mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use…
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I’m sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You’re being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn’t warrant a response?
Sorry, I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you’re pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I’ve read further shows that I’m obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I’m a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don’t. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I’m sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I’m not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn’t want any punches thrown in the first place.
That’s nonsense. If “pro-war” means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I’m not “pro-war” because I don’t actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I’d say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly “pro-war”, as they went in without provocation and the justification of “WMD” was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it’s weird to characterize self-defense as “pro-war” or “being a war hawk”. One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it’s wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as “pro-war”.
For example, I haven’t thrown a punch in decades, I don’t want to throw a punch and I’ll avoid doing so if there’s a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
Don’t you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?
Then you are not a pacifist
Ofcourse not. I’m Atlanticist. Pacific should shove a dildo up its ring of fire and fuck right off.
Go tell Putin and his friends to stop the invasion and hand back all the Ukrainian territory they’ve stolen. It’s easy!
Wow, if it’s that easy, then I definitely don’t think people should be going out and dying over it, there’s just no reason for it when anybody could just pick up the phone and tell him to give the territory back instead.
You were so close to understanding sarcasm
So were you.
I agree that people shouldn’t have to die over this, but Putin is dedicated to the invasion on Ukraine. He won’t stop just because someone kindly ask him to stop over the phone. He’ll continue until there’s no Ukraine anymore, and then he might also go for Moldova and other former Soviet countries.
Ukraine has to defend themselves for as long as Putin is willing to continue the war.
Exactly. You can always tell when uninformed people chime in with their opinions on this topic. Ukraine has already attempted to achieve peace with Russia multiple times, under the condition that they return stolen territory. That’s a pretty easy thing for Russia to do but they won’t.
So, 20 years from now, if Putin is still willing to continue the war, which is to say, not fully recognize all Ukrainian claims including claims that Russia held before the war as a precondition to negotiations, then you’ll still be sending more and more guns and bombs in until there are no two stones left on top of each other in the whole country.
Okay, so what’s your timetable then?
It’s a shame Putin is a bloodthirsty weirdo who won’t listen, I guess.
To be unwavering anti-war including defensive wars, is appeasement, and WWII is a demonstration of exactly where that leads. Even if you ignore all the combat related deaths, millions were still just butchered by the nazis in non-combat situations, and that number would have been even more if no one stood up to counter. The reluctance to forceful resistance resulted in more deaths including innocent non-combatants. Problem is in reality, if all the ‘good’ folks are anti-war, then the one asshole who is pro-offensive war conquers all. Being highly skeptical of war, especially offensive war I can see, but to stand aside as evil just takes and takes is too far.
Further, it’s not our blood to commit, it’s the Ukrainians. We are supplying but it’s their skin in the game, not our forces. It’s their choice to make and we are supporting that decision in the face of a completely unjustified invasion. This is distinct from Iraq and Afghanistan, where we went in with our own forces to unilaterally try to force our desired reality on a sovereign nation. If Ukraine decided to give in, we would not stand in the way, even if we were disappointed in the result.
Also, the only reason the goalposts moved to ‘a couple of provinces’ is that Russia was stopped when they tried to just take the whole thing. If Russia had just rolled in to easy three day victory, then the goalposts would have moved to have even more Russian expansion (as happened in WWII with Germany).
Thank you for that argument on why pacifism is wrong but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that that’s what pacifism means.
This was a reply to your stance, not a rejection of your definition of pacifism. Your comment didn’t claim anything about the definition of pacifism, and neither did mine.
Now maybe you meant my other comment, where you responded to someone asserting being a pacifist is actually “pro-war”. In which case I also did not speak one way or another on your definition of pacifism, but your characterization of people supporting self-defense as being “pro-war”.
My mistake.
Regarding your previous comment, the comparison to Hitler has been used by high ranking figures in the US to justify every major conflict for the past 70 years, from Korea, to Vietnam, to Iraq. In retrospect, it’s easy to see how completely nonsensical such claims were - somehow, Vietnam did not go on to conquer the world after we lost.
However, no matter how clearly wrong such comparisons and such conflicts are, they are generally accepted, and each of those conflicts was begun with overwhelming popular support.
I happen to think that one conflict from 70 years ago isn’t the only thing we should be thinking about or comparing conflicts to when we judge them in the modern day. Why is it necessary to go back so far to find a conflict where the US was justified?
Because the US is frequently not justified and has the history of being the warmonger, so they are often unjustified. That says nothing about the Ukrainian situation though, where a well established independent nation was subject to a military invasion. There isn’t significant “gray area” to find in this scenario.
There are justified US military operations in more recent history but those aren’t useful as an example either. Because the prospect of someone actually “caving” to invasion is a rare situation, and we do have to go back 70 years to cite an example of what happens when major powers try the “let the dictator win without resistance” strategy. The major powers learned something in the 1930s and have not repeated that behavior.
Here’s another example of “letting the dictator win without resistance.” The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviet revolutionaries had rallied the people in opposition the the meat grinder of WWI, in which the Russian people were being slaughtered en masse for no real benefit. So when Lenin came to power, he signed a treaty with Kaiser Wilhelm that was very favorable to Germany and ceded a considerable amount of territory to him. The resulting peace stopped the killing and allowed the Russians to focus on rebuilding.
If you take a broader historical view, you can see that the reality is more complex. There are numerous differences between the situation in the 30’s and the situation now, and even then it’s only one example, and one that’s vastly overused. And the reason that it’s overused is that it can be used as a pretty generic pro-war argument for any war imaginable. “If we don’t beat them now, they’ll keep coming forever.” All you have to do is paint the people you’re fighting in a negative light and you can sell people on it.
For these reasons, I reject the comparison. I think it’s intellectually lazy.
In the WWI scenario, Russia was able to have a reprieve because the central powers had other things to do. So “appeasement” worked at least in the scenario where the opposition has multiple other fronts to contend with, and also when that would-be opponent ultimately lost. WWI was a lot more “gray area” so it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.
For the opposite experience for Russia, see WWII where they started off with appeasing Germany and then got invaded two years later.
But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace. We don’t have US military being ordered to go in to fight and die in that conflict.
Exactly how much Ukrainian land should Russia get to keep in this negotiation? Percentage is fine.
The exact lines would have to be negotiated. For starters, obviously Russia is going to keep Crimea which they held before the war started. At most, they’d receive the disputed provinces which had been fighting in the civil war before they got involved, which requested Russian assistance. I don’t know what percentage of Ukrainian territory those provinces are.
The exact amount of loss that’s acceptable to achieve peace is debatable, but there hasn’t been any discussion of it whatsoever. Zelensky has insisted on zero territorial concessions at all, including retaking Crimea, which is completely unrealistic.
I’ve never read such dumb bullshit in my life… until I found your comments…
And, I suppose, all Ukraine gets out of the deal is that Russia stops taking more of their territory. For now. This sounds like it’s all in Russia’s favor.
As opposed to what, exactly? Like, even in your wildest fantasies, how does this go exactly? Ukraine reclaims all of it’s lost territory, including Crimea somehow, and then negotiates peace. For now. Oh, I guess that’s not enough then, is it? So what, does Ukraine seize Russian territory? Does Russia get coup’ed, and the US hand picks someone to be in charge to make sure that Russia is never threatens anyone ever again, like it did in the 90’s? Hey, wait a minute…
Sometimes conflicts end without one side being completely annihilated, and no matter how the conflict ends, that’s how it’s going to end. Ukraine can negotiate for security guarantees, but what that would look like exactly would have to be worked out in the negotiations that aren’t happening.
Well you’ve decided how I fantasize it will go, so I guess I don’t have to tell you. Congratulations on your psychic powers.
deleted by creator
I made a guess, if I’m wrong, explain it to me.
You didn’t make a guess, you told me what is not enough for me. Don’t try to weasel out of it now. You’re clearly not interested in knowing what I think.
And Kamala refused to say whether babies can be aborted at 9 months. Politicians being politicians.
EDIT: She didn’t respond to the Chinese tariffs question either. Stop glorifying politicians. None of them are being straight with you, because they’re playing the fence for votes. You can admit that politicians are bad AND you can still support and vote for them.
That’s an amazingly stupid take from someone who apparently didn’t watch the debate.
Trump claimed that babies were being aborted at 9 months and after they were born. This is a lie he repeats over and over at rallies that you apparently do watch. The moderators made it clear that that was illegal in all 50 states.
Why would Harris need to debunk something insanely stupid that the moderators already debunked?
Just because its illegal doesnt mean it doesnt happen… i mean, just give a kid an AR-15… too soon?
Abortions after birth?
Yeah that’s called murdering an infant.
Pls, provide the sources you obviously have on this.
Removed by mod
It was exactly what I was referring to
I would thought the “give a kid an Ar-15” would had made that obvious.
I accept it was a joke in bad taste, but its accurate that republicans are only pro life until the kid pops out and becomes an inconvenience to them.
I would thought the “give a kid an Ar-15” would had made that obvious
We’re in a thread that’s discussing the former president of the US actually claiming shit like this, so no, there’s really nothing you could say that would “make it obvious”.
At the rate we’re going, it’s always too soon.
Trump kept saying abortion after 9 months, they put the baby aside and decide it’s fate. They execute the baby. And the debate just kept going on… how in hell can the debate just keep going on after that?
Sane response would be to “wait what?!” Stop everything wtf are you talking about?
The moderator answered that, because it was a moronic question to ask.
Because it’s not a thing.
An abortion at 9 months is to remove a dead baby from the whomb (leaving it in there kills the mother too). Babies die in utero… it’s horrible but happens.
Same as with babies that are born with previously undiagnosed developmental or birth defects that turn out not to be viable… it’s horrible but it happens.
Keep messing with medical care for political reasons and more mothers and babies will die…
Noone is removing a viable baby and then killing it. But since every accusation is a confession, I’m now worried about republicans.
The only one vying for babies to be abortable at 9 months is this god fellow in the form of miscarriages.
Was that a legit question?
The answer seems kinda obvious.
She rolled her eyes at the claim. That was enough. Only idiots who were going to vote for Trump anyway believe that.
