I am old enough to remember when using foreign allies for politics was an impeachable offense...

[Rebound]

21 hours ago, User said:

That is not what they said, but that isn't the point. Let me know if you want to discuss that. 

It is what he said.  Vance very very clearly said that he wants Ukraine to cede land to Russia. Hard stop. 

[User]

26 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It is what he said.  Vance very very clearly said that he wants Ukraine to cede land to Russia. Hard stop. 

I will give you a chance to admit you have changed your comment here from what you said before. 

[Nationalist]

Errr...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/us/new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-indicted/index.html

Oops...

[Rebound]

On 9/24/2024 at 5:27 PM, User said:

I am all about supporting Ukraine and funding their war efforts against Russia... what I am not for is this administration flying him to a battleground state during the election in what amounts to using him for their campaign. 

This administration used military assets to fly him to America, to a battleground state, where he is engaged in politics against their rival. 

Zelensky calls Vance ‘too radical,’ suggests he study WWII

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4895400-volodymyr-zelensky-jd-vance-too-radical/

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a new interview with The New Yorker that Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R), the Republican nominee for vice president, “is too radical.”

But it’s ok when the Prime Minister of Israel comes to the U.S. and speaks out against Democrats, cause that’s playing on your team? 

[Rebound]

50 minutes ago, User said:

I will give you a chance to admit you have changed your comment here from what you said before. 

No, and I’m sick of your BS.  Just because I didn’t quote Vance precisely word for word doesn’t mean I misstated his position, which is to surrender Ukrainian territory to Russia.  Which is no different than surrendering Czechoslovakia to Hitler… it just emboldens your enemy to continue grabbing land that isn’t his to take.  

[User]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

No, and I’m sick of your BS.  Just because I didn’t quote Vance precisely word for word doesn’t mean I misstated his position, which is to surrender Ukrainian territory to Russia.  Which is no different than surrendering Czechoslovakia to Hitler… it just emboldens your enemy to continue grabbing land that isn’t his to take.  

Well, yeah, it means exactly that. You went from claiming they were going to hand Ukraine over to Russia... to more accurately saying some territory already captured by Russia. 

It means you were exaggerating and I called you out for it and then you acted like I was wrong. 

Don't get all upset, just admit you did what you did. 

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

But it’s ok when the Prime Minister of Israel comes to the U.S. and speaks out against Democrats, cause that’s playing on your team? 

I already addressed this in that you are not looking at all the context here. 

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, User said:

There is no question. Feel free to read the first comment. 

The first comment did nothing but describe what happened and how it makes you feel.  Any explanation for why is missing.  🤷‍♂️

As I mentioned, JD Vance has been openly undermining Zelensky and Ukraine and advocating for "peace" on Putin's terms. You yourself have argued extensively against these sorts of ideas, so it's awkward that you're outraged Zelensky would answer interview questions about him in a negative manner.  

19 hours ago, User said:

As is your approach here. *shrug*

Perhaps, but I don't have to reconcile the contradiction of being pro-Ukraine while supporting a presidential candidate who openly admires Putin, and whose running mate is advocating for Putin's "peace plans".  

[User]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The first comment did nothing but describe what happened and how it makes you feel.  Any explanation for why is missing.

The first comment explicitly laid out what happened, with a link and everything. If you can't figure out how I feel about it by now... well, no worries. Move along, I have no interest in explaining farther to someone playing sea lion right now. 

13 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

As I mentioned, JD Vance has been openly undermining Zelensky and Ukraine and advocating for "peace" on Putin's terms. You yourself have argued extensively against these sorts of ideas, so it's awkward that you're outraged Zelensky would answer interview questions about him in a negative manner.  

That is not why I am outraged. 

14 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Perhaps, but I don't have to reconcile the contradiction of being pro-Ukraine while supporting a presidential candidate who openly admires Putin, and whose running mate is advocating for Putin's "peace plans".  

I don't either. 

[Rebound]

47 minutes ago, User said:

Well, yeah, it means exactly that. You went from claiming they were going to hand Ukraine over to Russia... to more accurately saying some territory already captured by Russia. 

It means you were exaggerating and I called you out for it and then you acted like I was wrong. 

Don't get all upset, just admit you did what you did. 

I already addressed this in that you are not looking at all the context here. 

Context my ass!  There’s no “context” to telling Ukraine that if Trump is elected, he’s going to force Ukraine to surrender land to Russia. 

Ukraine already got invaded, surrendered the Crimea, and what happened? Did they get peace? No, they got invaded again. And if they surrender Eastern Ukraine to Russia, they’ll get invaded again. And then another country will get invaded, and another. Republicans used to understand this. Surrendering to a dictator never works.

So Trump will waltz in and tell Ukraine he’s going to cut military aid unless they surrender land to Russia. And if they do, Trump will walk around like a show off and pretended he brought peace, when he just negotiated a surrender to a dictator who will inevitably invade again.

Edited September 26 by Rebound

[Moonbox]

27 minutes ago, User said:

The first comment explicitly laid out what happened, with a link and everything. If you can't figure out how I feel about it by now... well, no worries. Move along, I have no interest in explaining farther to someone playing sea lion right now. 

Umm:

42 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The first comment did nothing but describe what happened and how it makes you feel.  Any explanation for why is missing.  🤷‍♂️

Get it?  

28 minutes ago, User said:

That is not why I am outraged. 

You're not explaining why.  You're just explaining that you're outraged.  Take a stab at it, or don't.  *shrug*

31 minutes ago, User said:

I don't either. 

You mean you won't. 

[User]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Context my ass!  There’s no “context” to telling Ukraine that if Trump is elected, he’s going to force Ukraine to surrender land to Russia. 

Ukraine already got invaded, surrendered the Crimea, and what happened? Did they get peace? No, they got invaded again. And if they surrender Eastern Ukraine to Russia, they’ll get invaded again. And then another country will get invaded, and another. Republicans used to understand this. Surrendering to a dictator never works.

The context was that you exaggerated saying something that was not true. Instead of owning up to that, you are all upset at me for pointing it out. 

I am not here arguing about the merits of the Ukraine war and if you have followed me here much at all, you know I am a firm supporter of their war efforts and oppose Russia here. That was not the discussion here. 

[Rebound]

28 minutes ago, User said:

The context was that you exaggerated saying something that was not true. Instead of owning up to that, you are all upset at me for pointing it out. 

I am not here arguing about the merits of the Ukraine war and if you have followed me here much at all, you know I am a firm supporter of their war efforts and oppose Russia here. That was not the discussion here. 

Surrender is surrender, and Zelensky is not going to surrender one inch of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, because if you give him an inch he’ll take a mile. 

[User]

36 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Get it?  

Get what?

37 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're not explaining why.  You're just explaining that you're outraged.  Take a stab at it, or don't.  *shrug*

I did. You can keep guessing at it and making up stuff if you want... 

39 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You mean you won't. 

No, I don't have to, just as I said. You can try to rephrase things a little more honestly if you want to try again. 

[User]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Surrender is surrender, and Zelensky is not going to surrender one inch of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, because if you give him an inch he’ll take a mile. 

Zelensky's choices are going to be limited to what NATO countries are willing to support, or it isn't going to be much of a choice at all. But again... that was not the discussion here. 

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Surrender is surrender, and Zelensky is not going to surrender one inch of Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, because if you give him an inch he’ll take a mile. 

in practical terms zelensky will do what he's told by the people supplying him with arms.  Russia takes the whole shebang if the allies stop sending supplies tomorrow.  So lets keep it real. 

The devil will be in the details.  As i understand it (and haven't researched as much as i have other topics) there are areas currently occupied that actually do sort of prefer being part of russia. and the reality is that nobody is going to want to fund this war for the next 10 years.  

If zelensky can't demonstrate an ability to throw the Russians back then at some point it has to end and that will probably involve negotiations and concessions on both sides. If russia wants to keep some land then ukraine might have to be allowed to join nato to ensure no future incursions.  They might keep a small amount and the allies pour enough weapons into ukraine to turn it into a fortress.  Russia may have to pay reparations. Who knows. 

But the fact is that Ukraine does not have the strength itself to continue fighting without allies supplying it. 

And they don't have the ability to take over and defeat russia. So in war if neither side can defeat the other, at some point it comes down to negotiation.  Putin won't give up everything. He's not going to go down in history as the guy who 'lost'.  He'll need SOMETHING to show it was "worth it".  Zelensky won't agree to giving russia all it's taken. He'll want as much back as he can get AS WELL AS promises of more military aid to keep russia at bay. 

 But this war will almost certainly end in negotiation. 

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Get what?

I just got done saying that your initial post did nothing but describe the events and how it made you feel, and your response was that I don't understand how it makes you feel?  Weird. 

How you feel is pretty irrelevant at any rate.  Whether or not you can offer a credible and reasonable explanation for it is more interesting. 

Zelensky isn't traveling on anything but a military plane to the US, considering he's a large target for assassination, so this is nothingburger criticism. 

He visited a munitions factory in Pennsylvania that supplies Ukraine's war effort, and thanked the people there.  I'd love to see you try to describe what the acceptable polling margins are for such visits, but we both know how ridiculous that would be.  

Criticizing JD Vance for his shamelessly Pro-Putin positions seems like a weird thing to be complaining about as well, especially considering the stakes for Zelensky.   

Feel free to address any of the above, or don't.  I'll lose no sleep over it.  *shrug*

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Context my ass!  There’s no “context” to telling Ukraine that if Trump is elected, he’s going to force Ukraine to surrender land to Russia. 

Ukraine already got invaded, surrendered the Crimea, and what happened? Did they get peace? No, they got invaded again. And if they surrender Eastern Ukraine to Russia, they’ll get invaded again. And then another country will get invaded, and another. Republicans used to understand this. Surrendering to a dictator never works.

So Trump will waltz in and tell Ukraine he’s going to cut military aid unless they surrender land to Russia. And if they do, Trump will walk around like a show off and pretended he brought peace, when he just negotiated a surrender to a dictator who will inevitably invade again.

You don't know that Russia will attack other nations. You ASSUME that contrary to all the current evidence. 

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I just got done saying that your initial post did nothing but describe the events and how it made you feel, and your response was that I don't understand how it makes you feel?  Weird. 

How you feel is pretty irrelevant at any rate.  Whether or not you can offer a credible and reasonable explanation for it is more interesting. 

Zelensky isn't traveling on anything but a military plane to the US, considering he's a large target for assassination, so this is nothingburger criticism. 

He visited a munitions factory in Pennsylvania that supplies Ukraine's war effort, and thanked the people there.  I'd love to see you try to describe what the acceptable polling margins are for such visits, but we both know how ridiculous that would be.  

Criticizing JD Vance for his shamelessly Pro-Putin positions seems like a weird thing to be complaining about as well, especially considering the stakes for Zelensky.   

Feel free to address any of the above, or don't.  I'll lose no sleep over it.  *shrug*

Lol...you got caught making assumptions and made a faux pas eh? Lol...such an emotional basket case.

[User]

25 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

How you feel is pretty irrelevant at any rate.

I'm glad you talked that out with yourself! 

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Zelensky isn't traveling on anything but a military plane to the US, considering he's a large target for assassination, so this is nothingburger criticism. 

I did not criticize merely flying him to the US. 

27 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Criticizing JD Vance for his shamelessly Pro-Putin positions seems like a weird thing to be complaining about as well, especially considering the stakes for Zelensky.   

I did not complain about his merely criticizing JD Vance, either. 

However, now that you mention it, it was not a very smart thing for him to do. There is about a 50/50 chance Trump and Vance win, if Zelensky had any politically savvy, he would have avoiding saying anything at all negative about either parties candidates and come up with a much more vague, polished political answer about what Ukraine needs and their desires. 

 

[Moonbox]

17 hours ago, User said:

I did not criticize merely flying him to the US. 

Which is why I challenged your other points of criticism...

18 hours ago, User said:

However, now that you mention it, it was not a very smart thing for him to do. There is about a 50/50 chance Trump and Vance win, if Zelensky had any politically savvy, he would have avoiding saying anything at all negative about either parties candidates and come up with a much more vague, polished political answer about what Ukraine needs and their desires. 

I think you may have this backwards.  

If JD Vance had any political savvy, he would spend less time squawking to his base and wouldn't publicly proclaim how he'd throw Ukraine under the bus, therefore removing any reason for Zelensky to remain vague.  What do you figure Zelensky loses responding to Vance?  Is Vance going to throw Ukraine under the bus...more?   

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

If JD Vance had any political savvy, he would spend less time squawking to his base and wouldn't publicly proclaim how he'd throw Ukraine under the bus, therefore removing any reason for Zelensky to remain vague.  What do you figure Zelensky loses responding to Vance?  Is Vance going to throw Ukraine under the bus...more?   

Nobody Is throwing you crane under a bus. Frankly he's just being honest. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. We are assuming Russia will not defeat Ukraine. The war has to end at some point. So what we are talking about is a negotiated settlement.

That will probably mean concessions on both sides, and the simple fact is it probably will mean Russia will retain some land that is currently claimed by zelensky. Crimea almost certainly, and perhaps a few other areas where support for Russia is fairly High.

The question is what he will get in exchange. Did that deal might very well be worth it if he gets NATO membership and the NATO allies agree to rearm his country as quickly as possible. I doubt Vlad will be eager to take another poke at them if he knows that all of the allies will jump in 100% next time

The devil's in the details but you're not being honest by pretending that somehow this is going to end with Ukraine getting everything it wants and Russia getting nothing. That's just not practical

[User]

46 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Which is why I challenged your other points of criticism...

No, you didn't. 

46 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I think you may have this backwards.  

If JD Vance had any political savvy, he would spend less time squawking to his base and wouldn't publicly proclaim how he'd throw Ukraine under the bus, therefore removing any reason for Zelensky to remain vague.  What do you figure Zelensky loses responding to Vance?  Is Vance going to throw Ukraine under the bus...more?   

Yes. There is less motivation to help Ukraine if their leader is shitting all over you. This is common sense. Yes, Zelensky certainly can lose support more. If Trump and Vance win this election, you think they will be more or less inclined to take a phone call from Zelensky when he was shitting on them?

This is common sense. 

Zelensky is perfectly capable of making the same point and the same argument for his country without ever mentioning either Trump or Vance. 

 

 

[Guest]

On 9/26/2024 at 1:28 PM, CdnFox said:

But this war will almost certainly end in negotiation

Thanks for the hot tip, genius. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Thanks for the hot tip, genius. 

Don't talk to me, talk to Moonbat. He's the one saying that suggesting that is throwing Ukraine under the bus  

Didn't think that through again didja