Jump to content

DeSantis on Ukraine


Recommended Posts

On 3/14/2023 at 11:56 PM, myata said:

DeSantis, Carlson

Burned, annihilated to dust cities; bombed hospitals, schools and maternity wards. Hundreds, probably thousands of documented war crimes... only a "territorial dispute".

A decision to participate in other people's war is an important one; it should not be taken lightly; objectivity and honesty; remembering the lessons of the past and the principles is an important part of it too.

"Territorial dispute", really? This is what you call a brutal invasion by a power-hungry dictator; not a bit better than that of Hitler in the past war? "Territorial dispute between Germany and Poland, 1940?"? "Should not have provoked Hitler?"

Liar.

For whatever reasons, if one begins ones path with a lie of this proportion, what else is there to see? Where would it develop? How can you take it back, words burned into the history? It's sad and pathetic that for whatever reasons this individual has chosen to lie to achieve whatever purposes, appeal to whoever. He does not have to like Ukraine or support it. He can have a different opinion. But he chose to lie.

In the world of tomorrow, if Putin is allowed to prevail, run by emboldened and encouraged Putins, Uns and any imaginable crazy dictator stuff with nukes you gonna focus on your more important priorities? Brainless. Stupid.

The take is clear: he did not find other, honest ways to make a convincing point. And, there's no reason to expect that having done it in this obvious, as clear as can be moral case he wouldn't do it again. Nothing else to see here. End of the story.

I don't get why you're so upset. Do you think the US should go to war? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I don't get why you're so upset. Do you think the US should go to war? 

Unlike that pathetic POS Donald Trump, we have a President whose policy regarding Ukraine is clear, understandable, and unambiguous, predictable.  Joe Biden explained his policy during last year’s state of the union address in about two sentences.  
 

Donald Trump and DeSantis are a hot mess of BS. Trump’s “policy” is his claim that he could end the war in a day.  But how he’d do that? Oh, it’s a secret. The “most transparent president in history” is keeping secrets.  
 

Neither Trump nor DeSantis will condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, even though DeSantis was resolutely pro-Ukraine when he was a Congressman.  But now he’ll throw those people under the bus cause getting elected matters more than the lives of those people.  
 

And… most Republicans are pro-Ukraine.  I don’t even know why this is a tough call: Sanction Russia viciously, ship weapons non-stop to Ukraine, get NATO support, and make it very clear to Russia if they step ONE INCH inside any NATO country, it will be all-out warfare until they retreat.   Donald Trump never said any of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I don't get why you're so upset.

Did I say it? I'm commenting on a misrepresentation bordering on a lie. Was WWII only a "territorial dispute"? Why lie when he could explain his position clearly and honestly?

42 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Do you think the US should go to war? 

Between shrugging it off as an insignificant affair and entering this war (United States was a guarantor of Ukraine's security under the Budapest memorandum that didn't have the status of a collective defense agreement, but could, theoretically) there are many options. Ignoring, or diminishing its impact though is dangerous because as much as Ukraine, it is also about the international order and pattern of international relationships going forward. It merits an honest and serious consideration, not populist talking points. In addition to lying on a whim, DeSantis appears to not understand the seriousness and significance of this situation. Can it be any easier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2023 at 8:28 PM, OftenWrong said:

Well done. That didn't take you long, given the mass media manipulation machine is 100% behind you.

But it doesn't prove a thing. What does abducted mean in a war zone? Were they abducted, or just evacuated? Because evacuating civilians in a war zone is a common thing that armies do.

Now prove they were abducted, not evacuated.

When soldiers take kids, that is ABDUCTION. As the EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE ICC shows.

Prove that the ICC is so corrupt that they have no evidence for the arrest warrant ISSUED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, myata said:

Did I say it? I'm commenting on a misrepresentation bordering on a lie. Was WWII only a "territorial dispute"? Why lie when he could explain his position clearly and honestly?

Between shrugging it off as an insignificant affair and entering this war (United States was a guarantor of Ukraine's security under the Budapest memorandum that didn't have the status of a collective defense agreement, but could, theoretically) there are many options. Ignoring, or diminishing its impact though is dangerous because as much as Ukraine, it is also about the international order and pattern of international relationships going forward. It merits an honest and serious consideration, not populist talking points. In addition to lying on a whim, DeSantis appears to not understand the seriousness and significance of this situation. Can it be any easier?

Then you should be commenting on every f*cking thing that comes out of Washington, and I don't see you nearly that busy. 

I asked if you thought we should go to war. Are you opposed to that idea or just undecided? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Then you should be commenting on every f*cking thing that comes out of Washington, and I don't see you nearly that busy.

He is a new face in the federal politics commenting on the issue that is of interest to me. I paid attention.

24 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Are you opposed to that idea or just undecided? 

At this time I don't see a pressing cause for that. Ukraine is doing fine on its own, as long as it has means to fight. However, if a new totalitarian Axis becomes a fact of reality, the free world should consider it very seriously. Putin was encouraged by a weak Western response to his earlier transgressions and by apparent weakness of NATO in Afghanistan. His success in Ukraine would be a major rule changer for the entire world.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rebound said:

I answered that question. 

OK, then based on that m*ronic word salad you just served up, I'm going to go ahead and say "Yes". Yes you are in favor of going to war. 

Now, have you considered the impact of your fake president's decision should he decide to go to war? The cost of human lives? the fact that yet another democrat president would be leading us to war? 

There was a time where nanny statists were opposed to war. Has that changed for you? 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, myata said:

He is a new face in the federal politics commenting on the issue that is of interest to me. I paid attention.

At this time I don't see a pressing cause for that. Ukraine is doing fine on its own, as long as it has means to fight. However, if a new totalitarian Axis becomes a fact of reality, the free world should consider it very seriously. Putin was encouraged by a weak Western response to his earlier transgressions and by apparent weakness of NATO in Afghanistan. His success in Ukraine would be a major rule changer for the entire world.

I see, so it's the actual topic that draws you in, not Trump? 

I don't see any kind of axis rising from the Kremlin, so you're safe there. 

Glad to see that you don't have a hard on for war, like some other democrats seem to have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Deluge said:

OK, then based on that m*ronic word salad you just served up, I'm going to go ahead and say "Yes". Yes you are in favor of going to war. 

Now, have you considered the impact of your fake president's decision should he decide to go to war? The cost of human lives? the fact that yet another democrat president would be leading us to war? 

There was a time where nanny statists were opposed to war. Has that changed for you? 

You cannot understand plain English if you think I am a proponent of going to war. I said that we should go to war only if Putin invades NATO territory. This has been US foreign policy since the 1950’s and it is a legally binding obligation of the United States of America.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Deluge said:

like some other democrats seem to have. 

I don't count myself as a Democrat and don't fancy partisan politics generally, how they try to coerce one into a binary reference frame. I barely vote in Canada anymore, reluctant to be forced to pick between default options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, myata said:

I don't count myself as a Democrat and don't fancy partisan politics generally, how they try to coerce one into a binary reference frame. I barely vote in Canada anymore, reluctant to be forced to pick between default options.

But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Deluge said:

But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech, right? 

Abortion has nothing to do with Ukraine. 
Most Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of Ukraine. The entire nation would be United except for Donald Trump.

 

Some day, the truth will come out and we will learn that Trump got money or loan guarantees or something from Putin in exchange for Trump’s otherwise nonsensical love of Russia.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Deluge said:

But you do have opinions on things like climate, abortion, or curtailing other people's speech

This is off the topics but again, I can't find it productive that in a partisan system one has to pick the whole package of issues regardless on the position on each one. This is quite inevitable in a system that forces you to pick one winner instead of the issues you consider important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Abortion has nothing to do with Ukraine. 
Most Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of Ukraine. The entire nation would be United except for Donald Trump.

 

Some day, the truth will come out and we will learn that Trump got money or loan guarantees or something from Putin in exchange for Trump’s otherwise nonsensical love of Russia.  

It's fairly clear that Trump thought he could make $200M from building a tower in Moscow and he needed Putin's approval so bad he would be GIVEN a penthouse in that tower.

To Trump, foreign policy is ALL ABOUT how he could PROFIT from his decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

This is off the topics but again, I can't find it productive that in a partisan system one has to pick the whole package of issues regardless on the position on each one. This is quite inevitable in a system that forces you to pick one winner instead of the issues you consider important.

Just say that you don't have an opinion on any of the three things I just asked you about, and I'll let it rest - unless, of course, I find you later sharing your thoughts on one of those three, and then we will talk about where you stand at that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It's fairly clear that Trump thought he could make $200M from building a tower in Moscow and he needed Putin's approval so bad he would be GIVEN a penthouse in that tower.

To Trump, foreign policy is ALL ABOUT how he could PROFIT from his decisions.

Diplomacy is the key here. Trump was being diplomatic, first. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Was asking Zelensky to dig up dirt on Biden before shipping any weapons an act of diplomacy?

I'd say that is more like a request. 

We know for a fact that threatening Ukrainian leaders to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless they fired a prosecutor who was looking into a Biden money laundering operation isn't diplomatic, in fact it was probably illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Diplomacy is the key here. Trump was being diplomatic, first. 

^His desire to profit from building a tower in Moscow is a LUDICROUS form of "diplomacy."

AKA, you have no idea what the word means. Diplomacy DOES NOT mean getting together with foreign leaders and making deals for PERSONAL PROFIT. That is what DICTATORS do, and that's why Trump thought keptocrat Putin would go for it. ?

Is that the kind of leader YOU WANT for the US? A Sellout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, robosmith said:

^His desire to profit from building a tower in Moscow is a LUDICROUS form of "diplomacy."

AKA, you have no idea what the word means. Diplomacy DOES NOT mean getting together with foreign leaders and making deals for PERSONAL PROFIT. That is what DICTATORS do, and that's why Trump thought keptocrat Putin would go for it. ?

Is that the kind of leader YOU WANT for the US? A Sellout.

Sorry, chump, even with Trump's faults, he still beats the shit out of your guy, and it's not even a debate. 

I'm sure you disagree, so let's take a closer look at Trump's accomplishments: 

https://www.mcleancountyrepublicans.org/trump_administration_accomplishments

Now, go get a list of Biden's accomplishments and we'll compare the two. 

Oh, and I disagree. He was being diplomatic, first. 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rebound said:

You cannot understand plain English if you think I am a proponent of going to war. I said that we should go to war only if Putin invades NATO territory. This has been US foreign policy since the 1950’s and it is a legally binding obligation of the United States of America.  

Are you saying that the US should get out of this "legally binding obligation" so that we never have to go to war again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...