He'd give up on Ukraine. And call it a win.
"Winning the battle is worth losing the war"
(Trump, The Art of the Deal, pp. 179-181)
Yeah pretty much.
Aka appeasement. We tried it Donny. Though this time it's Trump who wants to be dictator.
The Jews would have had peace if they'd just let themselves be taken to camps peacefully.
This is less funny because Russia literally did commit a holocaust in Ukraine.
He didn’t answer a single fucking question about anything, just ranted about illegals eating pets the whole time.
He is outing gop for eating pets. He just needs to do it under the radar.
Remember every blame the throw around is admission on their part.
This is why I don't watch the debate. I know it'll just piss me off because he won't say anything but crazy shit.
It was obvious as hell that he wants Russia to win.
All we have to do is make him president elect! We don’t even have to inaugurate him!
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
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.
I feel like when Harris said that Putin would be sitting in Kyiv, Trump didn't understand. "Why would he be in Kyiv, Putin would be at home, happier of course" because he's taking it literally like a fucking idiot.
And yes, Trump, of course Putin would be happier with you in charge when he invaded. The Biden administration gave crucial Intel in the months leading up to the invasion and military support. Harris 100% deserves props for being involved in that.
This needs to be very widely publicized.
It was a presidential debate. It was fairly publicized.
I think maybe they mean... Like, not washed out by the other 90 minutes of crazy shit he was saying.
Oh no doubt. I only wish she hadn't spent so much time explaining what a fucking idiot he was instead of taking about herself or her plans. He made all those talking points for her by, well, talking... It was a great beat down nonetheless, and I get it was her one time to really make a fool out of him in person, but again, he did that better than anyone ever could.
Great show overall, would watch season 2.
She walked him like a dog. Flatly stated he could be easily manipulated, and proceeded to do just that. He could not even muster the courage to make meaningful eye contact with her the entire debate. She just stared him down and dominated him. How brutally emasculating for him.
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.
Russian Asset. Better dead than Red.
russia isn't "red" and never really was to begin with
That's what annoys me the most. Tankies will go defend Russia like it's the promised land of communism, when the only remnant of communism it has is rigged elections and propaganda.
Americans being so politically illiterate they think that the government they practically installed is somehow communist.
lol remember to vote I guess
Not only this, but they rephrased the question asking if he thought it would be in America's best interest to win the war and he declined to answer again...
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 is a confusing statement. I understood it to be basically that once he is guaranteed to be president, Putin will know his man on the inside will be in charge, and Putin can end the war/negotiate for favorable terms with the US as enforcer.
Trump can't end it before the election, because there's no guarantee he'll win.
Trump thinks that makes him a brilliant negotiator, instead of what he really is which is a stooge that can be played like a fiddle.
Of course, he wants Russia to win, duh
Putler is betting on trump to win. If Harris wins, it's over for him.
So much conservative talking points about Kamala is pro-genocide with no evidence.
Like motherfucker, your main boy has zero plans and has a history of flying by the seat of his pants and having Americans killed.
That's why he's nothing more than vatnik kompromat.
Reminder that Zelenskyy basically called Trump's bluff on his plan, encouraging him to share it now.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/