She will not pardon Adams, she politcally largely agrees with him, other than being embaressed about his flagrant corruption, they are both centrist to rightwing Democrats. This article is making it seem like she’s some kind of dyed in the wool progressive who really wants to get rid of someone like him which she is absolutely not.

Ukraine should have been given NATO membership, OR at least NATO protection way back when they were forced to give up their nukes. I say it was a mistake that putin took advantage of.

I don’t disagree with this. They should have either kept the nukes or gotten guarenteed protection like a NATO membership they were given a horrible deal by getting neither.

But the right thing to do currently, and something I do think Harris and/or Biden would have done or worked towards (undermining internal US politics not taken in account) is put a permanent American security force inside Ukraine, including naval bases.

I don’t think Harris would have done this at all. I don’t think a single troop would have gone there in a non weapons training capacity if she were the president. I think she would have kept on sending weapons and that’s about it, and, there’s a decent chance a end of hostilties a peace deal whatever you want to call it would have happened under her in the next four years if Trump lost as I personally don’t believe this conflict has 4 years left in it, regardless of who the president is.

However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.

Harris was most likely going to continue what Biden was doing. If you think what Biden was doing was a positive I can’t understand why? I don’t think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive. If she offered to do much more than Biden was doing I could follow your logic.

So it doesn’t count anymore, two years is way too long from today.

How many years until it counts

You want me to give you a citation for what’s going to happen ten years from now?

I was clearly asking you for sources that predict change to happen, not to say what is going to happen in the future. You are just being obtuse.

How they feel or what they will do, I don’t know. But I’m fairly well convinced that those are the options they’ll be choosing between, and that Harris wouldn’t have done that. Can you give me a citation otherwise?

I think Harris would keep on doing exactly what Biden was doing, I never implied she wouldn’t, I just don’t think what Biden was doing past for the past few years has amounted to much.

Russia agrees not to invade, then invades, and you put the onus on the West? I already pointed out that the “one side will stop the other side” is nowhere in the memorandum. I don’t know why you are persistently pretending it is, or ignoring me pointing out that it isn’t.

Yes, why even pressure Ukraine and Kazakhstan to disarm if they weren’t going to do anything if Russia decided to reneg. There was no reason to pressure them to disarm then if it wasn’t implied they would provide security if Russia renegged. It’s the worst deal of all time if that was the case.

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything quite this outrageous but… uh… fair enough?

What do you find so outrageous.

If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering. Instead of just saying you find what I’m saying outrageous.

Dude… bravo, man, for making the effort, I guess. This is actually pretty impressive.

snark

All the blue is Ukraine’s lost territory they got back with the West’s help. There’s also Kursk.

I was not implying it did not, but I don’t see compelling evidence they will get more of it back any time soon militarily Crimea or Donbass.

Did Western countries promise them security? That’s the whole controversy about them joining NATO. For some reason, it is a globe-spanning crisis for Russia if NATO does offer them security, were they to be invaded, instead of just no-strings-attached weapons and a hearty pat on the back for good luck. Wonder why that’s a big issue.

I feel like this phrasing is, maybe, an incredibly artful dodge, inserted into the middle of talking about the Budapest Memorandum to make it sound like any part whatsoever of the betrayal of that agreement came from any source other than Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe I’m reading too much in, though.

Snark and they were promised security for giving up their nukes as you detail, that is not “the whole controversy about them joining NATO” multiple NATO members would almost definitely veto them joining even if most of the other countries were okay with it, and no country is debating kicking out the countries that would veto Ukraine, so it’s a non starter now.

Probably true. They’re working on it. Doesn’t that kind of thing bother you? Wouldn’t it be better to give them conventional assistance to the extent they actually need, and allow them to counterattack without all this nail-biting about how it would be ever so rude and we don’t really care to that extent about dead Ukrainian soldiers and civilians? So they can win the fucking war and we can all go back to our lives?

I was simply referring to the past, I’m not personally advocating that assistance should be halted. I think if the US is unwilling to do more than send weapons a peace deal should be priotized because I don’t think this “semi-stale-mate” is going to change and I think people dying is a bad thing that should stop. Especially when it isn’t accomplishing anything meaningful.

I saved this one for last. I’m going to just sit and ponder at it, in silent contemplation.

Like I say, it’s pretty impressive. You’ve combined true statements that are sort of in the neighborhood of what you’re trying to prove, unrelated assertions, and absolute bald-faced earnest fabrications, into a pretty passable imitation of something that makes sense.

snark

There you go. If you wanted a better response, maybe stop being so fucking snarky and smarmy.

If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.

You have said all of what you said without saying anything that Harris would have done diffrently. Harris would have given them NATO membership really? Why didn’t Biden then? Harris would have given them NATO soliders? Why didn’t Biden then?

What would have Harris actually have done?

By arguments and questions do you mean their meta commentary on what I was saying. Because there is nothing to respond to there. What should I respond to someone telling me I am using rhetorical techniques to obscure what I am actually saying. They should have responded directly to what I was saying.

You can’t educate the unwilling, and you’ve stated your intent to remain unwilling plenty of times.

Give examples to this claim.

Why should anyone waste time with you?

Why did you waste your time writing this?

I’d be your kids say similar things, but maybe behind your back.

What a weird and uncomfortable thing to say to someone.

How are you trying to get away with saying that Ukraine can’t recapture any territory with the West’s help

This was two years ago, I will also make clear I’m not opposed to them taking back the territory, it just doesn’t seem like it’s actually gonna happen on any timeframe, one year from now, two years from now, ten years from now. You can feel free to link me sources if you disagree with me saying this.

Why are you ignoring Trump actively trying to sabotage Ukraine aid and risk the semi-stalemate turning into an outright loss, which is a pretty fuckin’ salient difference and what he got impeached for?

He signed off on giving them weapons, he’s not sabotoging them that hard. I don’t really see any compelling evidence that this “semi-stalemate” would change any time soon even if Biden was the president for the next 20 years, again you can feel free to link sources if you disagree with me saying this.

which is a pretty fuckin’ salient difference

Maybe if you expect things to change from this “semi-stalemate” I just don’t see why it would change from this.

And also, presumably, what he is teeing up to do again by offering unacceptable peace terms to Ukraine right now?

Who is saying these terms are unacceptable Zelensky? I have not seen him say this in those terms. I’m not saying Ukraine should take a deal they find unacceptable, they should do whatever is in their interest.

Whose fault is it, solely and completely, that the Budapest Memorandum didn’t assure Ukraine’s security in this instance?

I put the onus on the west for not enforcing it, otherwise why even offer this assurance, if they are not gonna actually follow through and stop Crimea being taken, Russia obviously also broke the deal, but if the deal is if one side will stop the other side if the other side breaks the deal and the other side breaks the deal and the one side says sorry we’re not gonna do what is required to stop Crimea being taken, the deal was just vapor to begin with.

Fine. I will ignore the snarky elements of this message and simply ask you

If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.

If you want to educate me because “I’m so fucking stupid”, please inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.

Like I say, it’s pretty impressive. You’ve combined true statements that are sort of in the neighborhood of what you’re trying to prove, unrelated assertions, and absolute bald-faced earnest fabrications, into a pretty passable imitation of something that makes sense.

You are so snarky it hurts, you managed to say almost nothing of value in all of these paragraphs. If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.

I surely didn’t. I don’t know what they think Harris would have done. Ukraine was not making progress with the help Biden was giving them and Harris did not indicate that she would change anything in regards to her policy on Ukraine from Biden. So this deal was inevitable unless there was a dramatic increase of what Harris or other western countries were prepared to give them, which I see no evidence that they would have done this.

If you think it would have panned out differently under Harris, I have a bridge to sell you. She would have not have had the influence to get Ukraine into NATO even if she wanted to, what is she going to do? Kick out Hungary? The only thing Trump has done that Harris wouldn’t have is this minerals for protection deal. The US was never an honest ally to Ukraine, they were only interested in offloading weapons onto them and bogging down Russia, they were never prepared to help in a way that would actually lead to Ukraine getting it’s lost territory back. Ukraine should have never given up their nukes, promises are only words, they never should have trusted western countries promising them security to begin with, Ukraine having nukes might be the only scenario where an independent Ukraine doesn’t end up losing territory to Russia.

Some of them are so delusional they think they were actually the first ones on the land.

JD Vance is such a pathetic loser, his wife is Indian, his kids are Indian and he cares about giving another chance to “normalize Indian hate” groyper #3.

I think the conventional wisom is diet is more important than exercise in losing weight, although I think most people would recommend working out once a week regardless if you would lose weight or not, basically any working out would be positive if you aren’t at all, it couldn’t hurt to do sit ups and push ups and see where that takes you.

congratulations on independently coming up with Malthusianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Abacus Data found that Quebec was the province with the highest proportion of respondents (77 per cent) saying they are “absolutely against.”

No surprises here, I’m not gonna do the math, but that might push Anglo Canada up to a 1/3 open to it or something along those lines.