╌>

History Will Remember Today As The Day America Abandoned All We Stand For

  
By:  John Russell  •  3 days ago  •  129 comments


History Will Remember Today As The Day America Abandoned All We Stand For
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


Liz Cheney - 

“Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day— when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    3 days ago

There was a guest on MSNBC a little while ago who put his finger on the base of all this. Years ago Trump believed an insane conspiracy theory that Ukraine was hiding Hillary Clintons computer to keep it out of the hands of investigators. Trump became convinced Ukraine had conspired against him in 2016, which was known Russian disinformation.  Now our asshole in chief is getting his revenge, and abetting the deaths of thousands of people OR the surrender of Ukraine to the invading war criminal. To Trump it is always about HIS GRIEVANCES. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 days ago

What do we stand for? Surely not some ungrateful, disrespectful asshole comedian trying to set the terms of the agreement

We and other countries have sent all kinds of aid to Ukraine and Zelensky is no closer to winning this war since the day it started

Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US. It's Europe's problem, let them handle it.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 days ago
Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US.

Just their minerals ... @!@

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.2  Split Personality  replied to  Hallux @1.1.1    3 days ago

and the nukes they say they no longer have, but can't prove it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 days ago
Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US.  

That's the same thing Trump thinks about the rest of Europe.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 days ago

Ungrateful how , exactly?

Ukraine’s President Zelensky says ‘Thank you America’ after Oval Office spat with Trump, Vance

“Thank you America, thank you for your support, thank you for this visit. Thank you @POTUS, Congress, and the American people,” Zelensky wrote on X. “Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working exactly for that.”

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
1.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    3 days ago
Surely not some ungrateful, disrespectful asshole comedian trying to set the terms of the agreement

We weren't talking about Trump.

We and other countries have sent all kinds of aid to Ukraine and Zelensky is no closer to winning this war since the day it started.

Russia has a long history of "sending in the tanks" to Eastern Europe, more recently Chechnya, Georgia and Azerbaijan to grab key states and grant them sovereignty and Russian Protection. The fact that Russia has only been able to nail down 20% of the Ukraine border speaks volumes for the Ukranian's grit and determination Especially since Russia grabbed the Crimea 11 years ago.

Ukraine is of no strategic interest to the US. It's Europe's problem, let them handle it.

Maybe so, and all it costs us is our world standing and leadership which until this morning had lasted 80 years.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.3    3 days ago

Festung Amerika

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @1.1.5    3 hours ago

I can't say I remember my history correctly, but didn't Germany invade Ukraine first on its was to Russia during WWII?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
1.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.7    3 hours ago
didn't Germany invade Ukraine first

I don't think so. The direct route from Berlin to Moscow doesn't go through Ukraine. Belarus, more likely. All three - Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine - were parts of the USSR, of course.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.8    3 hours ago

Ok....but I thought they attacked Stalingrad before Moscow

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 days ago
Trump believed an insane conspiracy theory

Followed by an equally insane conspiracy theory.... 

I'm guessing the irony is unintentional.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2  Gsquared    3 days ago
an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for

This is what the magas voted for.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @2    3 days ago

And when the rest of the world turn their backs on us then can we say we told you so?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    3 days ago

Under the Trump regime the U.S. is turning its back on the free world.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.1    2 days ago

cult members living the rest of their lives in absolute terror after their leader expires is my comforting thought.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
2.2  George  replied to  Gsquared @2    3 days ago

As opposed to a [] who couldn't string a three word sentence together, not so bad.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  George @2.2    3 days ago

What a stupid fucking comment. Pathetic.  Idiotic.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
2.2.2  George  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.1    3 days ago
What a stupid fucking comment. Idiotic.  Pathetic.

That's exactly how i feel about yours.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  George @2.2.2    3 days ago

Another trash comment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Gsquared @2    3 days ago

Today was the first day I believed that Trump is actually capable of starting world war three. 

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
2.3.1  George  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3    3 days ago

With who John? Surely not Putin so who the fuck is he going to start WW3 with? 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3    3 days ago

What Trump is capable of is expressing solidarity with his closest partner and ally Putin.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @2.3.2    3 days ago
ble of is expressing solidarity with his closest partner and ally Putin.

Whoops! he just extended sanctions on Russia.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.3.4  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.3    3 days ago
Whoops! he just extended sanctions on Russia.  

The sanctions haven't affected Putin's actions against the Ukraine since 2014, in fact he invaded in 2022 despite the sanctions.

The sanction extension may look like Trump putting lipstick on the Pig, but in reality, given Trump's tariff goals,

reducing or relaxing the sanctions would only hurt the US energy industry that Trump is trying to supercharge.

trump had no other option.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.3.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.4    3 days ago
sanctions haven't affected Putin's actions against the Ukraine since 2014, in fact he invaded in 2022 despite the sanctions.

Yet if Trump were, in fact, Putin's "closest ally" he'd have removed them as well as the sanctions Biden put in place, don't you  think? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
2.3.6  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3.5    3 days ago
Yet if Trump were, in fact, Putin's "closest ally"

Please do not assign other people's words to me.

he'd have removed them as well as the sanctions Biden put in place, don't you  think? 

I already wrote what I think.

"given Trump's tariff goals, reducing or relaxing the sanctions would only hurt the US energy industry that Trump is trying to supercharge. 

Trump had no other option than to protect our own oil industry and extending the tariffs at this point just looks like the WH scrambling to put a good spin on today's diplomatic clusterfuck.

Meanwhile Zelinsky is on FOX NEWS with Bret Mair sounding like the reasonable adult about today's White House meeting.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3  sandy-2021492    3 days ago

Thread 2.2 locked for slap fighting.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
4  Bob Nelson    3 days ago

No shame. Absolutely none.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    3 days ago

We are dead broke. We've spent more money on Ukraine than we did on the entirety of Europe in the Marshall Plan (in today's dollars) even though we were running an actual budget surplus when we started that program. We have to borrow every single dollar we give to Ukraine, penalizing our posterity and endangering our own security.  Russia, which is a shadow of it's former self (literally) has a small economy and presents no actual danger to American interests.  There's no strategic reason to bankrupt ourselves over a third rate regional power. 

Yet the left  wants to throw billions more with no end in sight. They have no plan for victory. They don't even care.  Just borrow, borrow, borrow because Putin their best buddy during the Obama years double crossed them by not supporting Hillary.  That's all this is.  Democrats sure didn't want to support Ukraine when Obama refused to give them arms in 2014.  It's all anger over 2016. 

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.1  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    3 days ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @5.1    3 days ago

is this diplomacy ?

is this showing the world that we are the world leader ?

or is this the child in chief, that good grief people, what more does one need to see besides Trump blaming one leading and fighting for free people as the cause of WWIII, instead of his hero Putin, the aggressor and head of the invading forces ?

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
5.1.2  George  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.1    3 days ago

How much money and how much American blood do you need? I’m willing to send every federal dollar that is currently being spent in Blue states to Ukraine.  Do you support that?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  George @5.1.2    3 days ago

Thought Trump had that all worked out. 

Trump ALWAYS has an angle that is overlooked by the obtuse, the obtuse that was let loose by propagandists who play the populace so they remain in their ‘right’ place irregardless of how damn wrong

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    3 days ago
We've spent more money on Ukraine

We actually spend it on ourselves. Ukraine gets our old weapons, and the money goes to Americans weapons manufacturers to build new ones for us.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    3 days ago
e actually spend it on ourselve

(1) That's not true. (2) and arguing "we are just paying double for the same amount of equipment" isn't much of an argument. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    3 days ago

Really?

Is that the reason we had to get munitions from South Korea to cover our own military needs?

To date, the United States has   committed   more than 3 million artillery shells of different calibers. The $300 million military aid package   announced   on March 12 will provide a short-term resupply of ammunition and other military equipment. The $60 billion supplemental Ukraine funding being debated in Congress would sustain Ukrainian resistance for many months. It would also help the United States increase monthly shell production to 100,000 by the end of 2025—up from the current monthly output of around 30,000—which will supply Ukraine's needs and sustain U.S. global war reserves.

The injection of new funding is vital for Ukrainian resistance but still leaves an ammunition gap because it will take months for production to ramp up.

Calling Seoul Again

South Korea has stepped up before. Press reports in April 2023 suggested that South Korea agreed to lend 300,000 155 mm artillery shells to the United States, likely with the understanding that the ammunition would allow the United States to replenish its stocks and send more ammunition to Ukraine. While the details of the agreement remain unknown, the United States may eventually replace the munitions, for example, by purchasing new munitions from South Korean producers.

So much for that money staying in the US.

Is that the reason the pentagon had a 10 billion short fall to replace weapons it sent to Ukraine?

The Pentagon has a funding shortfall of about $10 billion for U.S. military weapons needed to replace those already sent to Ukraine, a shortfall that requires additional money from Congress to fix, top Defense Department officials said Monday.

“We don't foresee a likely alternative outside of the supplemental funding [bill] or having that money added into an appropriations bill in order to achieve the replenishment that we need,” Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks told reporters.

“We are probably looking at about $10 billion to replace everything, everything that we’ve given in terms of supplies to Ukraine,” one official told VOA.

Pentagon officials expected to get the funding to replenish those stocks in a supplemental request from the Biden administration, which included billions of additional dollars in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. However, Congress has yet to pass a supplemental aid bill because of arguments on spending and U.S. border security.

The shortfall is tied to the way the Pentagon has accounted for the aid sent to Ukraine. Last June, the Pentagon said it overestimated the value of weapons sent to Ukraine by about $6.2 billion over the past two years.

When calculating its aid package estimates, the Department of Defense was counting the cost incurred to replace the weapons given to Ukraine, while it said it should have been totaling the cost of the systems actually sent, officials told VOA at the time.

The error provided the Pentagon the legal cover needed to send more aid to Ukraine, but the problem remained that more funds would be needed to replenish U.S. military stockpiles with newer, costlier weapons.

Failing to replenish U.S. stockpiles would negatively affect the military’s readiness, another defense official told VOA.

What Ukraine really needs is bodies for the Russian meat grinder. What are all those supporting Zelensky still doing here? The country you really love needs you now!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.1    3 days ago
(1) That's not true.

It is true.

What the U.S. Has to Gain from Supporting Ukraine

90% of Ukraine aid spending stays in the U.S., creating thousands of jobs

Although some may claim U.S. aid vanishes into a cesspool of unchecked Ukrainian corruption , one study has shown that 90% of Ukraine aid dollars are not actually sent to Ukraine after all. Rather, these funds stay in the U.S., where leading defense contractors have invested tens of billions in over 100 new industrial manufacturing facilities, creating thousands of jobs across at least 38 states directly, with vital subcomponents sourced from all 50 states.

But hey, if this country decides it no longer wants to help Ukraine from being absorbed back into a growing Russian empire, that’s cool. Don’t help if you don’t want to. But there is no justification for the lies Trump has been telling or the bullying we saw from him and his vp today at the White House.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @5.2.2    3 days ago

See 5.2.3.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.3    3 days ago
t is true.

So it's literally not true. It's gone from we spend it all on ourselves to well, we spend 90% (disputed, depending on who you ask) of a category of aid in America.  Just ignore the other billions. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
5.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.5    3 days ago
It's gone from we spend it all on ourselves to well, we spend 90%

Find where I said we spend it all on ourselves. And meanwhile, you’re just going to ignore the link to 90%.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
5.2.7  CB  replied to  Tacos! @5.2.3    3 days ago
But hey, if this country decides it no longer wants to help Ukraine from being absorbed back into a growing Russian empire, that’s cool .

And there it is: What does not 'kill' Russia will make it stronger. There is a song about it. Ukraine would be good nutrition for a grow-spurt in Russia! (It's ' brain-food ' too! If Russia can get it!  jrSmiley_102_smiley_image.gif )

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  author  JohnRussell    3 days ago
Garry Kasparov
@Kasparov63
·
Zelensky is a wartime leader watching his people suffer and die under Russian attacks every day. To be lectured and lied to by Trump and Vance, as they defend the war criminal dictator committing these atrocities, is unimaginable agony. An everlasting shame for America.
-
Trump would never in a million years address the murderous war criminal Putin like that. He's the weakest President in our history, an impotent, gibbering fool rooked, hooked, and compromised by Putin. Trump is Putin's sniveling, whinging bitch.
Rick Wilson
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 days ago
Josh Marshall
@joshtpm
·
Everyone knows what happened here. Trump can only exist around people he can causally humiliate. Guys lie JD and Rubio. He wanted to do a ritual humiliation of Zelensky and Ukraine but Zelensky wouldn’t accept that and so Trump reacted like a stung bitch.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 days ago

So Zelensky is a prideful fool who sacrificed the needs of his country in order to look tough?  Tough look for Zelensky. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    3 days ago

or perhaps a man of principle 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    3 days ago

Your personal philosophy is might makes right.  There was a time when most people didn't think that way, but now we have Trump and the expectation that people must grovel to him. Good job Sean. 

Alexander Vindman has a new book coming out titled The Folly Of Realism. I am looking forward to seeing it. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.1.2    3 days ago
or perhaps a man of principle 

I'm sure principle will come in more handy than billions in military aid when the Russian offensive resumes.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.3    3 days ago
nal philosophy is might makes right

It has nothing to do with "right".  It's about looking at the world as it actually is, rather than how you wish it to be. Wouldn't it be great if Ukraine kicked Russia out and Russia paid to rebuild Ukraine is a nice daydream? Sure.  But  "Wouldn't it be great if" is what led to Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan.  "If you just get rid of the evil dictators and let people vote everything will be fine" was a beautiful sentiment, but reality smacked us in the face. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.5    3 days ago
It has nothing to do with "right".  It's about looking at the world as it actually is, rather than how you wish it to be.

Thats what might makes right means. 

The only way the "free world" will go along with us now is out of fear of Donald Trump.  What a hell is coming for the next four years. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.6    3 days ago

256 256

  a realistic view of what's happening from a "pro-Ukraine expert" per Jack Tapper

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.8  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.7    3 days ago

Why was Trump, a proven coward, attacking a man who has been at war alongside his countrymen for three years.   Why cant Trump keep his fucking mouth shut and do this "diplomacy" behind doors?

Because he's mentally ill.  You think the fall of Ukraine will be the end of this?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.8    3 days ago
Why cant Trump keep his fucking mouth shut and do this "diplomacy" behind doors?

Lol. That's the question you should be asking Zelensky.  His mouth just cost him billions in aid. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.9    3 days ago

What is Trump been defending for the past 3 years besides stop the steal lies?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.9    3 days ago

The reason Putin invaded Ukraine hasn’t changed one bit throughout this war.  Giving a single inch of territory will only embolden future repeat invasions from Russia to “reclaim” what Putin falsely thinks belongs to Russia.  Ukraine is just the first of many territories that Putin considers to be part of Russia.  How will you feel when it happens  a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.11    3 days ago
How will you feel when it happens  a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time?

Russia has a  rapidly aging population that is dying off with a birth rate so low its faces demographic collapse. It's poor and getting poorer, despite China propping it up.  It will likely collapse on its own within a decade or so. Putin's fantasies about restoring the Russian empire are just that. 

Russia can't even conquer Ukraine.  The only reason it remains relevant is its nuclear capability.  It is not the USSR and it's silly to pretend it presents that type of threat after three years of being bogged down in Ukraine.  It's just a fading power expending the last of its conventional capabilities. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 days ago
hat is Trump been defending for the past 3 years besides stop the steal lies?

Are we at war?  Do you really want to be that badly? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.13    3 days ago

Try answering the question

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.15  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.12    3 days ago

Then the smart thing for the USA is to apply more pressure, everything we can do short of US troops.  The results will be worth the costs.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.15    3 days ago
n the smart thing for the USA is to apply more pressure, everything we can do short of US troops.  The results will be worth the costs.

How much money is enough? At some point, America is going to need to actually borrow money to deal with an emergency here.  Borrowing tens of  billions forever when we already have a trillion dollar deficit is suicidal.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.16    3 days ago

the other interesting question is what is Ukraine's long term strategy. If they keep fighting this war of attrition they will lose a generation and the war has caused a large scale fleeing of the population. Who knows how many would want to come back to a war ravaged land. 

Will there even be a Ukrainian nationality left in 50 or 75 years?  3 times as many Ukrainians died as were born last year. It's fertility rate is less than one.  There simply aren't going to be any Ukrainians left to live in Ukraine if this keeps up.

 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.18  Ronin2  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.15    3 days ago

Or it might just make Putin go nuclear. Then the whole planet loses.

But keep poking the Russian bear. It is what got us into this mess in the first place with NATO flipping former Soviet satellite states like flap jacks until it was literally at Russia back door.

I am sure Putin is bluffing. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.19  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.16    3 days ago

We are going to be going up against Russia for a long time if we don't stop them now.  How much money will we need to spend to deal with Russia if they win in Ukraine and have time to build back up. 

Give Ukraine the money to bleed the Enemy while they have been weakened.  It will be cheaper in long run and the casualties won't be our troops  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.20  charger 383  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.18    3 days ago

Give Ukraine enough to keep hurting Russia badly and it will end Putin 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.19    3 days ago
e are going to be going up against Russia for a long time if we don't stop them now.

I don't see them as much of a threat over the short to medium term. They are reduced to using a lot of cold war era equipment (outside drones) and have lost troops they simply can't replace.  They aren't the USSR with uncounted masses anymore.  They used to have a massive population advantage. Now Russians are sick, aging and not replacing themselves.  It's a failing society and Putin isn't going to be around forever.  Outside of nukes,  Russia's day has passed.  Russia is no longer the threat we have to worry about.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.22  charger 383  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.21    3 days ago

So let Ukraine knock them all the way down. Don't let them get up

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
6.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.11    3 days ago

Apeasement, apeasement, apeasement.....

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.19    3 hours ago

You remember the Cold War well, charger

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    3 days ago

The World Is Aghast!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8  Jack_TX    3 days ago

World class melodrama.  

Argentine soccer players aren't this good.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @8    3 days ago

If only we were all libertarian what a paradise earth would be.  /S

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    3 days ago
If only we were all libertarian what a paradise earth would be.

I'm sure from the socialist perspective, we all must look libertarian.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  Vic Eldred    3 days ago

Oh, an opinion piece from a Trump-hater.

I was hoping for a factual based seed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 days ago
Oh, an opinion piece from a Trump-hater.

You mean someone who can see things clearly.   

Your hero is deranged. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.2  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 days ago
I was hoping for a factual based seed

I totally agree!  jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

The actual facts are of paramount importance!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.3  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 days ago
I was hoping for a factual based seed.

???

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
9.3.1  Hallux  replied to  Krishna @9.3    3 days ago

Like his.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
9.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @9.3    3 days ago

I know, right?  jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9.3.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hallux @9.3.1    3 hours ago

????

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  author  JohnRussell    3 days ago
Uk-kkcCi_normal.jpg
George Conway
@gtconway3d
Donald Trump has disgraced the United States of America in countless ways since he first entered political life ten years ago. But he had never disgraced the nation as badly as he did today. He has brought shame on this country to an extent I had never thought possible. And he has only just begun.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
10.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @10    3 days ago

Start the "Let's go to War with Russia" campaign for 2028.  

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1    3 days ago
Start the "Let's go to War with Russia" campaign for 2028.

???    jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1    3 days ago
He has brought shame on this country to an extent I had never thought possible. And he has only just begun.

Well, MAGA is shameless so they have that to fall back on

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1    3 days ago
Start the "Let's go to War with Russia" campaign for 2028. 

let's start out with the russian collaborators here first ...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.4  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @10.1.3    3 days ago

It’s entertaining to see our MAGA members defending a hillbilly and a deranged narcicist.. desperate times for them I guess.

”I don’t need a ride I  need ammo.” President Zelensky.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kavika @10.1.4    3 days ago

g to see our MAGA members defending a hillbilly

Can't win on substance, go to the slurs....

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
10.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.5    3 days ago

Says the member who’s idea of substance is slurs. Amazing transition your trying, Sean.

 
 
 
shona1
Professor Quiet
10.1.7  shona1  replied to  Kavika @10.1.6    3 days ago

Arvo...oh for someone who can shoot straight in America...

 
 
 
shona1
Professor Quiet
10.1.8  shona1  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.1.5    3 days ago

We call it as we see it...

In what you have as a so called leader....

God help America, but even he would have enough brains to know, Trump is a lost cause when he sees it...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.1.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  shona1 @10.1.7    3 days ago

problem with thoughts like that ? look who is next in line for the seat , i thought the same about Putin , but have no clue who would replace him , chances are likely to be worse .

 i thought it would take a lot to be embarrassed about the executive branch after Nixon or Clinton was in office , but ( mark this on the calendar) I was wrong . 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.10  devangelical  replied to  shona1 @10.1.7    2 days ago
Arvo...oh for someone who can shoot straight in America...

.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @10.1.4    2 days ago

the orange menace spews bullshit and zelensky counters. vance jumps in to deflect and change the subject to respect and litigating the dispute in the media. then the orange menace tries to re-litigate the 2016 and 2020 elections. then some asswipe maga twit complains that zelensky isn't wearing a suit in the oval office, forgetting that the orange felon lets elon wear tee shirts in the white house.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @10.1.11    3 hours ago

And a ball cap.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
11  Robert in Ohio    3 days ago

John

Seldom do you and I agree 100% on anything

But you have hit the nail on the head here - today I am ashamed of the President of the United States and those that cling to and support him.

I served my country and we fought for others all over the world - today Trump turned his back on those people and the world.  

The POTUS is no longer the "leader of the free world" in the eyes of many people.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Robert in Ohio @11    3 days ago
The POTUS is no longer the "leader of the free world" in the eyes of many people.

Should they ever have been ?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
11.1.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.1    2 days ago

If you do not know and accept that the POTUS has been the leader of the free world for a very long time then you have little understanding of history.

The U.S. has always "stepped up" when others needed assistance, it looks like Trump's ambition is to "step aside" and try to extort countries in their time of need.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Robert in Ohio @11.1.1    2 days ago
If you do not know and accept that the POTUS has been the leader of the free world for a very long time then you have little understanding of history.

Oh I understand it Robert ,  and that has been the case for the last 80 years or so since the end of WW2.

But as you yourself pointed out , POTUS is in the eyes of many , not the leader of the free world any longer .

So my question is most likely in the minds of the people that dont see the POTUS, no matter who holds the office , as  said leader , and likely are also asking  not only should the POTUS be said leader , but how and why was the title even started.to be just handed to the POTUS.

I think the answers to that is as many as there are that care to answer those questions. And my answers will be different than the next persons . 

And my answer may sound very much like the Jeff Daniels bit about , "what makes America the greatest country in the world "

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
11.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.1.2    2 days ago

This isn't about defending anything. This is about naked aggression by a fascist dictatorship.

And about a would-be fascist dictator assisting that aggression.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1.3    2 days ago

Thanx for your opinion Bob .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
11.1.5  CB  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1.3    2 days ago

Just sharing:

After victory in the Second World War, the Soviet Union installed puppet governments in Central and Eastern Europe. In 1946, now out of office, Churchill gave a speech in Missouri in which he declared that an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic.” (Churchill apparently had a high opinion of Americans’ knowledge of geography.) In the years following, the phrase “Cold War” rapidly grew popular as a description of the growing hostility between the former allies.

To go with “Cold War,” the American press dusted off “free world” and turned it into a self-flattering shorthand for the liberal democracies squaring off against the Soviet bloc.

But by the late 1940s, British economic, military, and political power had plunged. And by the time NATO was formed in 1950, there was clearly only one remaining “leader of the free world.” It was the United States. Which made the President the “leader of the free world.

That phrase spread rapidly, too. Here’s a chart of “leader of the free world” in American newspapers:

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9c0f623c-f1c8-458e-96a3-c231bc873843.heichttps://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9c0f623c-f1c8-458e-96a3-c231bc873843.heic 848w, 1272w, 1456w" sizes="100vw" >

Dwight Eisenhower played a major role in that rise.

Ike had been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during the Second World War. He had been instrumental in the creation of NATO and he became its first commanding officer in 1950. Then, in 1952, he defeated an isolationist senator for the Republican nomination and he won the presidential election.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F44aa2ce9-f4cc-457c-8632-be79f62f1cd6.heichttps://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_848,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F44aa2ce9-f4cc-457c-8632-be79f62f1cd6.heic 848w, 1272w, 1456w" sizes="100vw" >
The original “leader of the free world.”

When that happened, on November 4, 1952, it was unmistakable that the United States had reached a major watershed. Four days later, the phrase “leader of the free world” first appeared in  The New York Times .

The author was Anne O’Hare McCormick, a  Times  editorialist. And she absolutely nailed the moment.

These pictures illustrate two striking facts of the 1952 campaign. One is the broadening popular base on which the United States policy rests. The other is the widening reverberations of the American debate. There were no forgotten men or submerged fractions in this election; in the niagara is of words that flooded the country, every segment of the population was appealed to and every one had its say. And in distant lands, people argued over issues and candidates almost as hotly as we did. They took sides. In some places governments held their breath and postponed important decisions until a vote was counted.

This means that more people outside the United States recognize that  as America goes, so go the free nations . Likewise it means that more people inside the United States exercise influence on international policy.  The American voters, in other words, whether or not they thought beyond local issues, assumed last Tuesday the double responsibility of choosing a president for this country, and the man predestined to be the leader of the free world for four decisive years.  (emphasis mine)

There hasn’t been an election since 1952 in which those words could not be repeated.

Even today — especially today — people “in distant lands” pay  astonishingly close attention  to the United States today while foreign governments hold their breath and postpone important decisions. American voters (let’s be generous) are not renowned for their international concern and cosmopolitan perspective, but whether they think “beyond local issues” or not, those voters still determine who leads the American executive. And the American executive unavoidably influences much of what happens around the world.

But are American voters still choosing “the leader of the free world?”

In 1952, there was an alliance of nations that very much looked to the United States for leadership in what they viewed as an existential struggle with a hostile foreign power. However much British pride may have been bruised, however much it may have galled the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese or anyone else, people who saw themselves as part of an alliance facing off against the Soviet Union had to see President Dwight Eisenhower as their ultimate leader— their supreme commander, if you will — in that struggle.

When the Soviet Union crumbled in 1992, and the Cold War became history, one might reasonably have expected that to end. NATO was a defensive alliance with nothing to defend against, after all.

But in the late 1990s, the American superpower got upgraded to “hyperpower” and the United States became what Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously called “the indispensable nation.” Famine in Somalia? Genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda? Tsunami in the Indian Ocean? Earthquake in Haiti? Pirates in the Red Sea?

Who you gonna call?

Sometimes the United States screwed up. Sometimes it arrived late. Or it didn’t answer the phone. But still the nations of the world called. There was no one else, after all.

Take a look at that chart, above. References to the United States or the American president as “leader of the free world” actually hit new highs in the Clinton era. The “free world” may not have needed a leader to stand against the Red Army. But Americans were more sure than ever that their guy was the free world’s guy. And that wasn’t unreasonable. The United States had built the international order and the United States was the ultimate protector and guarantor of that order. It was the Pax Americana and far from withdrawing from the world, America was doing more than ever. Calling the American president “the leader of the free world” seemed like small compensation.


And that is how it is recorded as "happened". . . .

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
11.1.6  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.1.2    2 days ago
since the end of WW2.

Actually, since a little after WWI

POTUS is in the eyes of many , not the leader of the free world any longer

Because he is proving himself unworthy of that respect and responsibility

The POTUS became seen as the "leader of the free world" because for around a century, the U.S. has cared about and for the "little guy" battling oppression sometimes at the expense of the lives and money of this country - because it is the right thing to do.

The "right thing to do" matters not at all to the current POTUS

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
11.1.7  charger 383  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.1    2 days ago

        "Should they ever have been?"

Is it worth being the leader if the others won't do their part? 

Is the leader the one who does most of the work, pays most of the bills, gets most of the blame and criticism and little of the credit and help?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
11.1.8  Robert in Ohio  replied to  charger 383 @11.1.7    2 days ago

Is the leader the one who does most of the work, pays most of the bills, gets most of the blame and criticism and little of the credit and help?

YES!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
12  JBB    3 days ago

Art Of A Deal or Fart Of A Steal?

original

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
13  CB    3 days ago

Zelensky is a man who is familiar with war and is hardened by fighting and death around him. He has seen it. Clearly he is principled, and could not abide that strange feeling that must have assailed him as he sat there watching these. . . men trying to take his 'balls' from him through verbal castration—planned or 'in the moment.' 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
14  CB    3 days ago
In a social media post, Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, wrote: “Ukraine is Europe! We stand by Ukraine. We will step up our support to Ukraine so that they can continue to fight back against the aggressor." “Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader. It’s up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge," she added.

Addressing Zelenskyy directly, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote: “Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone.” “We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace," she furthered.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
15  charger 383    2 days ago

We should support Ukraine to a win ; otherwise all we have spent has been wasted. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
16  Robert in Ohio    2 days ago

Trump's behavior in the meeting with Zelensky can best be summed up by a quote from "Dear Abby" in Abigil Van Buren's Book "The Best of Dear Abby".

"The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back."   

That would make the index of Trump's character a "0" (zero)

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
17  Greg Jones    2 days ago

Zelensky has no interest in peace, he only wants the means to continue this war, under the delusion he will win. He deserved the smackdown he got. The current reality is that Russia holds all the cards. Trump has given him a possible solution and Zelensky rejected it. He will come crawling back before long and the mineral deal will go through. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Greg Jones @17    2 days ago
POTUS is in the eyes of many , not the leader of the free world any longer

Hypotehtical

If the EU comes to the rescue of Ukraine, will Trump honor Article 5 and join the fight?

Or will he choose to leave NATO and slink away to be Putin's partner after the war

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
17.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1    2 days ago
f the EU comes to the rescue of Ukraine, will Trump honor Article 5 and join the fight?

Article 5 only applies if a member of NATO is attacked, not if NATO members go to war in another country. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1    2 days ago

Hypothetical

If we try to restore SEATO and put Taiwan, Japan, Australia and the Philippines into the middle of it, how many democrats will be in favor of it?

Will he be hearing about defending a key ally?

Will we still hear tough talk?

Or will they stay in bed with Xi?

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.3  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Sean Treacy @17.1.1    2 days ago

Sean

Should the EU members of NATO actively support Ukraine on the battlefield, you can be assured that Putin will retaliate against the bordering NATO countries and Article 5 will most definitely apply.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.4  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.2    2 days ago

Vic

The way Trump treats allies, no one is going to want to join an organization in which he is a key member.

Or will they stay in bed with Xi?

You mean the way Trump is ready to perform in Putin's bed?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
17.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1.3    2 days ago
of NATO actively support Ukraine on the battlefield, you can be assured that Putin will retaliate against the bordering NATO countries and Article 5 will most definitely apply.

(1) That's a different scenario and not necessarily true at all.  

(2) Article 5, even if properly invoked,  doesn't require an armed response. The US could simply send aid in response and be in compliance with its treaty obligations 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
17.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1.4    2 days ago
The way Trump treats allies

In the Ukraine deal he was acting as the negotiator & arbiter. Zelensky told Bret Baier that he didn't want Trump sitting between him and Putin, he wanted Trump sitting next to him. We may view Ukraine as the injured party and an ally, but you can't negotiate a deal with anyone if you are also representing one side.

Did you notice that Zelensky said security guarantees must be a condition for a cease fire?  The deal called for a cease fire to begin negotiations.  

You want Trump to be an ally?  Fine we will root for Ukraine to win the war. 


You mean the way Trump is ready to perform in Putin's bed?

You just lost objective status with me.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.7  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.6    2 days ago

You just lost objective status with me.

I am crushed

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.8  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Sean Treacy @17.1.5    2 days ago

From COPILOT

Article 5 is the most important article of the NATO charter. It states that an "armed attack" against one member is an attack against all and sets in motion the possibility of collective self-defense. This means that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. NATO has only invoked Article 5 once in its history—in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The other members of NATO came to our aid when we needed it and like you say Trump would likely look for a way to weasel out of the responsibility to fight and protect NATO.

 
 
 
George
Senior Expert
17.1.9  George  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1.8    2 days ago

Robert, are you trying to say that if a NATO ally purposely send troops into war with Russia provoking them to act in return that Trump is now responsible for their actions? You are willing to kill how many Americans to satisfy a TDS blood lust? Just a round number will do.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.10  Robert in Ohio  replied to  George @17.1.9    2 days ago

No

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
17.1.11  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.6    2 days ago
Did you notice that Zelensky said security guarantees must be a condition for a cease fire? 

President Trump has already put on the table that what Russia holds of Ukrainian property is apportioned to Russia to gain a stated peace (to be defined). What President Zelensky and the Ukraine people are stating is this: verifiable peace that can be sustained indefinitely using DEFINITE MEASURES, not something that can/will be transitory depending on whom is in the presidency of the United States and can be revisited time and time again. After-all, it is not as if Ukraine can up and 'move' from near/by Russia's 'armpit.'

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
17.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.6    2 days ago
In the Ukraine deal he was acting as the negotiator & arbiter.

... as the russian shill trumpski is.

you can't negotiate a deal with anyone if you are also representing one side

... like the russian shill trumpski is.

gee, I wonder how well respected those ukranian mineral rights will be when putin invades again ...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
17.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1.8    2 days ago
ump would likely look for a way to weasel out of the responsibility to fight and protect NATO.

There is no responsibility to fight under Article 5. Read it.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
17.1.14  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @17.1.13    2 days ago

If Trump's administration refuses to commit to lead NATO under 'any' reasonable expectation of circumstances, then Trump's United States must get the hell out of the 'way.' Plain and simple. Straddling the fence at this moment is a 'no confidence' position. The United States can not lead from behind and in isolation.

I hope we can agree.

As I have no intention of being overlong with the obvious. If we are just going to 'that country' that wants it way or the 'highway' then we need to put the world of FULL-ALERT (and watch what happens to other countries that 'buy-in' to fill the vacuum created by our full-on departure from the leader slot/scene.

Sure, the United States needs to get its house in order, but using oppressive tactics and strategies to accomplish new ways and means of attitudes and actions around the world comes with serious consequences as only the international level can deliver. Namely, more acts of aggression, unease (in settled lands), and internal state conflicts which can unsettle - settled markets.  As a result disrupting global markets and productions.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
17.1.15  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Sean Treacy @17.1.13    2 days ago

I read it and I understand it - I served under NATO command so I know what is expected and required.

Trump is showing his true colors - 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
17.1.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sean Treacy @17.1.5    2 days ago

The US could simply say here are the keys to all the supply depots across the alliance and say , here is our part and have filled their Art 5 commitment .

 Art 5 does not require boots on the ground or armed response , something others think it requires .

 also the NATO charter , is very different from the EU charter , the way you worded your question , If a member of the EU .... the US is not a member of the EU and has no obligations under that charter . 

 Now some countries are members of both , if one of those should act in an aggressive manner , such as send troops , then they could be told they are on their own  and no assistance is required under art 5 of NATO. .

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
17.1.17  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @17.1.2    yesterday
Or will they stay in bed with Xi?

... you mean like trump and musk are now?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
17.1.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Robert in Ohio @17.1    3 hours ago
Or will he choose to leave NATO and slink away to be Putin's partner after the war

that's too horrific to think about. I joined the military because I saw the USSR as a big bully and wanted to punch them in the nose if they went too far

 
 
 
CB
Professor Expert
18  CB    2 days ago

BTW, Russian expansionism is the spread of authoritarianism. GOPers and MAGA have aligned themselves with the SENTIMENT. 

MAGAs complain about communism, but want AUTHORITARISM to flourish and fester (as long as it is them controlling the levers). We must continue to SHAME the SHAMELESS!

 
 

Who is online








CB


45 visitors