If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
I think what Trump is trying to do is to induce, or leverage as the case might be, the European leadership (by extension NATO) to assume the burden (cost in dollars and war fighting material) of keeping Putin from achieving his goals in Ukraine. Trump wants it to be up to them, not the US. Trump's desired outcome in this matter is far from assured. Its a gambit in which Trump is working to change the contextual dynamic within which the war is being fought in order to shift the burden of defending Ukraine to those countries that are most threatened by an imperial and expansionist Russia. The US is not directly threatened by that outcome. It's global standing, OTH, may get diminished by an unfavorable outcome for Ukraine as China and Russia work to replace the US as the dominant global power. Let's see how this gambit pans out before we pay much attention to press reports that, not unexpectedly, megaphone speculation that suggests interested parties are going to let Zelenski hang out to dry.
Probably true. US has given Ukraine $ 300 billion or so. Trump is trying to "secure" it with agreements that give the US rare earths, oil, and agricultural products. The Europeans have LOANED Ukraine about $ 100 billion. As in most things, it is time for the Europeans to step up or shut up.
I still want to see an audit of where the $ 300 billion has gone.
Look, let's getting something straight here. Progs are intent on showing two things about Trump and his administration. One, is that Trump is an incompetent imbecile and in capable of carrying out the duties of POTUS. Two, that presidential actions being taken by Trump are unlawful or unconstitutional. These assertions are sounding more and more like fingernails clawing across a chalkboard.
Kindof the last straw for me in the panoply of dumb complaints by Trump's opponents is complaints about the denial of AP access to the oval office and Airforce One. It's alleged to be a violation of free speech protections in Amendment One to the US Constitution. Non-sense. Yes, the White House is public property and the public is allowed to visit under specific regulations. The press is granted access passes. These passes can be rescinded at any time by the authorizing agent for any reason. It's similar to the authority of the TSA to deny access to boarding areas of publicly owned airport facilities.
Stop the non-sense clearly intended to send shade Trump's way and start writing about something that is important. Denying the AP access to the WH is not one of these.
Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. But the shine on the NC Trophy is embarrassingly wearing off. It's M B-Ball ..... or hockey or volley ball or name your college sport favorite time ...... until next year.
I’m not sure if you’re calling me a prog or not Jeff. If you are, you’re more senile than I ever imagined. Double up on the Aricept (or the CHeI of your choice).
But restricting previously granted access for refusal of a news org to adopt the mind-numbingly ridiculous “Gulf of America” horseshit is beyond the pale and absolutely could be considered a breach of the 1A. Would it win in court? I have no idea. Should it? Absolutely. Imagine had Biden restricted previously granted access for something so stupid.
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is sometimes hard to verify their authenticity." -Abraham Lincoln
Tweet
Comment