Corrupt, Convicted Criminal President Proposes Giving American Territory to Putin bc Reasons

Agreed there is certainly a bi-partisan elite consensus in favor of war and the military industrial complex. They do own the mainstream media pushing this view. Their kids never go to the wars and they make profits off of war. So it is easy for them to fall for everything such as Putin is Hitler, anyone not supporting Ukraine is a Putin puppet or the new Neville Chamberlain etc. nonsense. I congraduate you on understanding this.

I wouldn't give Trump too much credit. As a sociopath I totally doubt his concern for Ukrainian lives. He has no empathy, but is smart enough to state concern for Ukrainian and Russian lives. He likes to make money . If he had grown up as an heir to an armament company rather than in real estate.he would be probably be for even more forever wars.

However, if Trump can end the pointless Ukraine War, he has my support on this issue. I see that 20% of Democrats support him on this. In a few years expect that a majority will claim they always knew it was a pointless war. The Repubs overwhelmingly support whatever Trump says.

 

I can't even count all the lies Trump's been spewing this week. It's a sickness with him, and he simply cannot stop his compulsive lying. It makes you wonder how mentally sound anyone can be if they are still believing the words out of his mouth at this point. It also makes you wonder how stupid they must be to think people knowing he's lying wi

Here's two of many doozies this week...

“We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting,” Trump wrote in an Aug. 18 Truth Social post.

Blatant Lie!

Data compiled by a Sweden-based organization that advocates for democracy globally found in an October 2024 report found that 34 countries or territories allow mail-in voting, which it refers to as “postal voting.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...-is-the-only-country-that-uses-mail-in-voting

Trump told reporters Monday, standing beside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, that Democrats have been calling him to express gratitude — claiming Washington, D.C. feels safe again,,with busy restaurants and couples finally able to enjoy dinner out in the city for the first time in years.

“The press says, ‘He’s a dictator, he’s trying to take over.’ No, all I want is security for our people. But people who haven’t gone out to dinner in Washington, D.C., in two years are going out to dinner, and the restaurants the last two days were busier than they’ve been in a long time,” the president said during an Oval Office meeting.

Blatant Lie!

Data from OpenTable found that seated diners in Washington last week started to drop dramatically compared to last year, after Trump first announced he was taking federal control of D.C.’s police department and deploying the National Guard in the city, in what the administration has described as an effort to fight crime.

Beginning Monday, Aug. 11, seated diners at Washington restaurants, according to online reservation numbers, started to drop dramatically in comparison to the prior year, dipping 16 percent. On Wednesday, the number of seated diners at restaurants with reservations fell 31 percent, and Saturday’s drop was 20 percent.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5457982-trump-restaurants-dc-crowded/

 

A lot of truth here. We agree that this conflict is a waste of blood and treasure and is doing absolutely no one any good. End the death, suffering, and financial catastrophe and begin the long rebuilding process.

The USA does not belong in this war.

GOOD DAY

 

@glynch, I think you’ve lost or are in the process of losing your mind. The nonsense is your post. Go see a specialist. Hurry!

 

I for one do not believe you are a sociopath.

 

The other thing to keep in mind here: Russia will continue to take ground. Russia has more resources than Ukraine and will win a war of attrition, absent the US or European nations getting heavily involved (no political will for this). It will take a leader on the level of Trump to persuade Putin to do anything other than continue to win the war slowly, which is what he is doing. There's also no chance Putin steps away from ground that Russia has already taken -- that's just not realistic. Whether Zelensky or the Ukrainian flag hugging American liberals like it or not, Trump is working to save Ukraine right now. Without Trump's diplomacy, Ukraine will just slowly be handed over to Russia as the Russian military advances.


GOOD DAY

 

15 hours apart. You're "maturing" right before our eyes.

 

how has Trump been a warmonger?

 

"take land outside of Ukraine" -- but you knew that. Forced to argue semantics -- you have assumed a losing position!


GOOD DAY

 

For the education of those who believe and only consume the mainstream press and their virtually unanimous opinions on the Ukraine war.

Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace
In Alaska he found reality: he is now embracing an agreement without demanding a ceasefire first, which would have never worked anyway.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ukraine-russia-agreement/

Most of the Western commentary on the Alaska summit is criticizing President Trump for precisely the wrong reason. The accusation is that by abandoning his call for an unconditional ceasefire as the first step in peace talks, Trump has surrendered a key position and “aligned himself with Putin.”

This is nonsense. What Trump has done is to align himself with reality, and the real charge against him is that he should probably have done this from the start, and saved six months of fruitless negotiations and thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. Moreover, by continually emphasising a prior ceasefire as his key goal, Trump set himself up for precisely the kind of criticism that he is now receiving.

He is now entirely correct in saying that he wants “to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire, which often times do not hold up.”

The Russian side made clear from the very start of negotiations that they would not agree to an unconditional ceasefire. Indeed it would have been completely illogical for them to do so, given that military pressure on Ukraine, and advances on the battlefield, are by far the most important leverage that Russia can bring to bear at the negotiating table.

The refusal to recognize this on the part of Western analysts and European governments betrays either an inability to understand obvious realities or a desire that the war should continue indefinitely, in the hope that Russia will eventually accede to present Ukrainian conditions for peace. That would make sense if Ukrainian conditions were realistic, and if developments on the battlefield were in Ukraine’s favor. But some of Ukraine’s demands are completely unacceptable to Moscow, and Ukraine and the West have no way of compelling Russia’s agreement, since it is the Russian army that is advancing (albeit slowly) on the ground and the West cannot provide soldiers to supplement Ukraine’s increasingly outnumbered and depleted forces.

The call for a ceasefire without a peace agreement is also contrary to the real interests of Ukraine and Europe. Such a ceasefire would be extremely fragile, and even if (mostly) observed by the two sides, would lead to a semi-frozen conflict at permanent risk of erupting again. This would make it vastly more difficult for Ukraine to carry out the reforms and economic development necessary for it to even begin to proceed towards membership of the European Union.

It is understandable that NATO governments are distrustful of Moscow’s intentions; but if they are to take a practical and viable approach to peace negotiations they have to recognize that Russians are also distrustful of their intentions, and in part with good reason. In international affairs — and history — there is also no such thing as a permanent and absolute security guarantee, as presently demanded by the Europeans.

Short of the complete defeat and subjugation of one side — which is out of the question in Russia’s case — the best that can realistically be hoped for is a combination of deterrents and incentives that will discourage a return to arms for a long time to come.

A semi-frozen conflict would also be bad for the European continent as a whole. It would create a long-term risk of a return to war in Ukraine and European entanglement in the war, when long-term U.S. military support for Europe in these circumstances is all too obviously no longer guaranteed.

On the other hand, as highlighted last week in Responsible Statecraft, the resulting need and hope for U.S. support would force the EU and European states into deeper and deeper dependence on an undependable U.S., resulting in more of the kind of economic surrender over tariffs and subservience to U.S.-agendas in the Middle East that we have seen in recent months. If continued, such humiliations will undermine the domestic prestige of European establishments and threaten civil peace and liberal democracy in ways that Moscow could never hope to achieve.

 

Deckard, it was understandable your father and I, in my youth, had your views on WW II, Hitler, the US military etc. , but you just can't keep extrapolating those views to every conflict as the world has changed.

 

Touche,

 

Are you here to suggest that calling every military or political opponent "Hitler" is intellectually shallow? Democrats will need an entirely new playbook!


GOOD DAY

 

In Gaza, assuming the genocide is a type of war.

 

Lmao Trump was a big advocate of the Iraq war at the beginning. Try doing some research on your cult leader

Hes such a beta b****

 

LMAO

Rule #1 for manipulating dip$hit: flatter him

Only him and his supporters fall for it…

 

"Excuse me everyone, I dont quite understand what you are saying and I must go call my BFF putin to get some advice.....be right back" trump is a p***y

 

You didn't include that phrase and certainly didn't clarify. Shoddy posting on your part. Did they not teach writing at your college?

Either way, your two posts contradict each other as in the most generous interpretation, your position is that Russia has the might to take ground in Ukraine but wouldn't be able to muster enough manpower and resources to take on Moldova. Seriously?

Also, NATO troops are on the Russian border in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and now, Finland too. That canard about why Putin was forced to invade has always been BS.