• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Ziggurat said:
No, that's not my point at all. You are absolutely free to disagree, and voice that disagreement. My point is 1) you don't just disagree with Trump, you disagree with Biden and Europe, 2) you and I disagree less than you think, and 3) even if Trump reverses course, you're still not likely to get your policy preference.
Click to expand...
This sidebar started with you asking if someone wanted to fight the war to the last Ukrainian. Implied was that this was the only option, besides getting Ukraine to capitulate.

I answered that question. No, I don't want to fight this war to the last Ukrainian. And no, I don't think that's the only option besides getting Ukraine to capitulate. The fact that I'm at odds with a bunch of cynical Princes in Europe and the US doesn't change my position on this.

And honestly? If the Ukrainians feel that their only choices are capitulation or a fight to the last Ukrainian, and choose the latter, I will support their choice however I can.

I really hope Europe soon realizes that a strong and united Ukraine will be an economic and strategic military benefit to the EU, and should be pursued even at great cost.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why didn't we?

Because, to be honest, the West (meaning both the US and Europe) didn't want Ukraine to win. We didn't want Russia to collapse and route. Why? Because we were worried about the risk of nuclear escalation. That's why we never gave Ukraine enough aid for that to happen. And that's STILL the case. We STILL aren't willing to do that, we are STILL worried about the risk of nuclear escalation, or even direct non-nuclear confrontation. Maybe we should be willing to take that risk, to really arm Ukraine to the teeth and let them take the fight to Russia, but the reality is that we're not. Instead, the path the West chose was attritional warfare, because it weakens Russia at minimal risk to the West, and hey, we're not dying.

There's a Machiavellian cruelty in this approach.

Because that's the only play they have. But it's a really costly one for Ukraine.

Perhaps we should, but we aren't willing to. And I don't just mean Trump. I mean Biden before him, and all of Europe as well.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think it was intentional on the part of Europe (see for example our differing views on allowing strikes inside Russia). Agree we didn't do enough - but not for those reasons.
 
Trump better work on that Nobel Peace Price. Everything else is failing.
"We don't have a CNN poll to compare, but we do have the other three pollsters that we can look at. Trump's net approval rating, the change since January – look at this, Gallup down five points, Quinnipiac down seven points, Ipsos down 13 points. They polled right at the beginning of his presidency, so not a big surprise that that shows the worst, the worst change for Donald Trump. But the bottom line is this: Across the four new polls that we have, all of them have Trump in net negative approval rating, and the three in which we have a trend line, we see Donald Trump heading in the wrong direction, swimming upstream."
Click to expand...
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
Credit where it's due - there is apparently a line he won't cross....
Click to expand...
Nice to see he doesn’t support obsequiously handing over Ukraine to a dictator by the guy who nearly got him hanged. It’s a bit sad that credit can be earned for not wanting to cheerlead abject appeasement by cartoonishly evil buffoons, but that’s where we are in 2025.
 
Andy_Ross said:
It looks like DOGE canceled the Security and Exchange Commission's Westlaw access, because Elon's team saw "Thomson Reuters" and thought it had to do with the news agency.
Click to expand...
That makes me wonder, Bloomberg was also on the list of banned news agencies. since a Bloomberg News subscription is included with the Bloomberg terminal subscription, does that mean the terminal subscriptions are also canceled? I imagine there are several agencies with multiple terminal subscriptions. Last I checked, those were $30k each a year and require 3-5 year contracts.
 
theprestige said:
And there it is.
Click to expand...
What part of what they said is wrong? There are Trumplicans that do think Russia is the ideal model we should be following. I wish that wasn't that case, but it is. I can't help it if they get their news from the back of a frozen dinner box, it's just a sad fact at this point.
 
theprestige said:
This is getting silly. I disagree with this policy. I think it's wrongheaded. I think we can and should do more, both to further degrade Moscow as a power, and to rescue all of Ukraine while we still can.

You're getting close to arguing that I shouldn't disagree with the law, because it's the law.

Trump is trying to do even worse. He's trying to sacrifice Ukraine without even accomplishing Europe's Machiavellian objective.

And, again, I disagree with this "to the last Ukrainian" policy. And I disagree that the only alternative to this policy is for Ukraine to capitulate to Moscow. I think Ukraine should win, and can win with our help. And I'd absolutely prefer the Machiavellian outcome to what Trump is doing.
Click to expand...
I agree.

My interpretation is that Trump is not merely withdrawing support, which I wouldn't like, but could grudgingly accept, but he is actually switching sides and joining the Russian side. Essentially, joining our enemy against our allies. The amount of harm that could do to us and the world is huge.

Should NATO countries spend more on defense? Maybe. Though I'm not sure if they elected to spend less because we had them covered or if we decided to spend more because we were engaged in an arms race during the cold war and have more of a need/desire to project power.

In any event, the time to address that is not during a crisis. The US is number three among NATO countries in defense spending as a percentage of GDP behind Poland and Estonia. Most countries are now above the 2% target, having increased spending over the past four years.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...e-spending-since-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
 
Donal said:
That makes me wonder, Bloomberg was also on the list of banned news agencies. since a Bloomberg News subscription is included with the Bloomberg terminal subscription, does that mean the terminal subscriptions are also canceled? I imagine there are several agencies with multiple terminal subscriptions. Last I checked, those were $30k each a year and require 3-5 year contracts.
Click to expand...


Yes he has

ELON cancelled the SEC and CFPB's Bloomberg Terminals.
Bank regulators don't have access to banking data.
 
State Dept. orders embassies and consulates to cancel all media subscriptions

"Considering this priority, posts are asked to immediately place Stop Work Orders on all non-mission critical contracts/purchase orders for media subscriptions (publications, periodicals, and newspaper subscriptions) that are not academic or professional journals,"

A further memo instructed procurement teams at embassies and consulates to "accelerate the cancellation of contracts with six particular news organizations: The Economist, The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg News, The Associated Press and Reuters."

Embassy security teams will be affected, as they use news coverage from the world's media to prepare in advance for diplomatic trips to conflict zones. So, which ones will be deemed 'mission critical'?

voz.us

State Dept. orders embassies and consulates to cancel all media subscriptions

Particularmente, la Administración Trump pidió que se aceleren las cancelaciones con las siguientes organizaciones de noticias: The Economist, The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg News, The Associated Press y Reuters.
voz.us
 
AmyStrange said:
Sorry, but I disagree.

Unfortunately, I have a few years of experience with unemployment, and being dismissed for cause does not automatically mean they'll be denied unemployment benefits.


-
Click to expand...
It does mean that they can never work for the federal government again, and many state governments. If a non-Nazi person becomes POTUS, hopefully that person will do some mass waivers for all of those fired by The Party.
 
Garrison said:
Why don't you? These are the people who look at the corrupt, authoritarian, homophobic, kleptocracy that is Russia and see the ideal they are striving towards.
Click to expand...
The Republican party, including many who are still in office, has historically been the one most vocal about standing up to Russia, for having the strongest military in the world, and being the world's policeman. This, I think, had been true until Trump. It's very new.

It also has nothing to do with corruption, authoritarianism, homophobia, or kleptocracy. None of those contradict being strong against Russia.

It has occurred to me that a motivation for Trump's actions is based on nothing other than opposing anything Biden was in favor of. "Biden says the sky is blue? Nope, it's gray." Even the things they agreed on (Tik-Tok) he now disagrees with.

But Trump and the Republicans are not the only one who does this. It has gotten to the point that the two parties have to stake out opposing positions on every issue and members are not allowed to agree about anything.

I think it was Bob Dole who said in an interview that I heard that the Democrats were his opponents, not his enemies. Both parties want the best for the country, they just disagree with how to get there. Then he went on a speaking tour with Clinton.
 
TomB said:
The Republican party, including many who are still in office, has historically been the one most vocal about standing up to Russia, for having the strongest military in the world, and being the world's policeman. This, I think, had been true until Trump. It's very new.

It also has nothing to do with corruption, authoritarianism, homophobia, or kleptocracy. None of those contradict being strong against Russia.

It has occurred to me that a motivation for Trump's actions is based on nothing other than opposing anything Biden was in favor of. "Biden says the sky is blue? Nope, it's gray." Even the things they agreed on (Tik-Tok) he now disagrees with.

But Trump and the Republicans are not the only one who does this. It has gotten to the point that the two parties have to stake out opposing positions on every issue and members are not allowed to agree about anything.

I think it was Bob Dole who said in an interview that I heard that the Democrats were his opponents, not his enemies. Both parties want the best for the country, they just disagree with how to get there. Then he went on a speaking tour with Clinton.
Click to expand...
Utter garbage. Only one party tried a coup to overturn a legitimate election result and is now demolishing government.

If Trump was in favour of supporting Ukraine (without demanding unreasonable terms) Democrats would support him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom