There were a lot of questions that didn't come up. These two ladies delivered the Democrat talking points and what is important to Democrats. That's the way I read it.
Bernie, we all know who Trump is as a person, and his policies. Voters either recognize we were bettter off when he was President, or they don’t. We don’t know any specifics about Harris’s policies,
and she won’t take questions to defend them. Fair statement?
I'm not sure Bernie will see this, since this it's my column, but I would argue that we don't really know Trump's policies either. He's all over the place, and like her, he's producing more platitudes than specifics.
I will however add this question to next week's Q&A.
Thank you. My general context was that after 8 years of Trump as President, and campaigning, we know more about him than Harris. But, yes, he’s all over the place with most everything. And as a person, he’s not changing.
This was the first time I listened to Vance. I found him not to be the monster the press has portrayed him to be. In fact, I wish Trump would step down and pass the torch to him. He would win. All he has to do is make a promise to Trump immunity after he gets in. Trump could hold a speech to announce his withdrawal and use all of the pending legal issues and that the fact the MSM won't let him concentrate on the race which is partially true on both issues. Vance could beat Harris and Trump would be doing the right thing. And since I am wishing out loud, I also want flying pigs.
>>This was the first time I listened to Vance. I found him not to be the monster the press has portrayed him to be.
I've been listening to him for a while. The Vance we saw at the debate hardly resembles the Vance of the last three years. As Matt Lewis aptly described, he switched from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll for the debate. It was a crafty move politically, because a lot of people (you included) were hearing from him for the very first time. I think Walz was actually prepped for the Hyde guy, which I think contributed to his poor performance.
I'm not so sure Sen. Vance would beat VP Harris. Remember, the MAGAites - probably 30+% of the Rep. base adore Trump. If Trump stepped down, would enough MAGAites vote for Vance? It's possible. But rumors would fly of a type of coup e' etat. I suspect too many of them would bare their pitchforks. That's why so many Republicans are Trump's bootlickers. It's not because of Trump, but because of his followers.
Bob, you could beat Harris. The only person that can lose to Harris is Trump. And how about those loyal DEMOites? Do you believe the MAGA crowd is any different than the teachers unions that goose step to party orders? And talk about pitch forks, that's exactly what the DEMOites used at the state capital in Madison, WI. I come from a family of teachers, and I know how cheap they are. When the DEMOites were protesting in Madison the Health care union members were handing out to the teacher's sick slips so they wouldn't lose pay.
Unfortunately, in the US, Americans don’t care about Ukraine. Before you rip my response apart, I have asked around and despite my point about how it does impact us here in the US-it doesn't resonate.
Most important issue is the cost of groceries, gas, insurance, and utilities which are still higher despite the recent decline.
I have served in the military and know that despite Ukraine being a European regional issue it will impact us. However, I do think European’s neeed to show numbers of monetary support that is similar to the US. Also, I don't believe an exit Strategy has been made to this issue by Biden/Harris. We just see more of US tax dollars being shovelled into Ukraine while Americans in the US are suffering from a devastating aftermath of a storm.
>>Unfortunately, in the US, Americans don’t care about Ukraine.
I disagree. Poll after poll from the beginning of the conflict has shown that most Americans approve of our support for Ukraine. What it's not is a TOP issue for most Americans, despite it being a top foreign policy issue globally.
The reason I pointed out how much time was spent on climate change at the debate is that that issue consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans' ranking of issues.
>>Before you rip my response apart, I have asked around and despite my point about how it does impact us here in the US-it doesn't resonate.
I do agree that most Americans aren't following the issue closely, and that our leaders don't do a good job or explaining the conflict's significance to America and beyond (while people like Vance outright lie about Ukraine funding preventing domestic issues from being resolved).
>>However, I do think European’s need to show numbers of monetary support that is similar to the US.
As a percentage of GDP, 23 countries (most of them European) give more money to the Ukraine effort than the United States.
>>Also, I don't believe an exit Strategy has been made to this issue by Biden/Harris.
Nor should there be by a U.S. administration. The Ukrainians are the ones fighting this war, not the United States.
>>We just see more of US tax dollars being shovelled into Ukraine while Americans in the US are suffering from a devastating aftermath of a storm.
U.S. defense-funding for Ukraine is about 1% of the federal budget, and close to 90% of that funding never leaves the United States, but rather goes to updating our own defense technology, weaponry, vehicles, etc. as the old, outdated stuff gets shipped to Ukraine. Ukraine-defense funding isn't taking money away from U.S. storm victims. If anything, our updated technology, vehicles, etc. are being used help storm victims.
Nor should there be by a U.S. administration. The Ukrainians are the ones fighting this war, not the United States.
-So, when I say exit strategy I’m talking about support financially or boots on the ground. From your statement it would appear you support more tax payer support without a timeline or objective. How much more do we pour in and for how long?
American boots on the ground isn't going to happen.
Financially, why would we need an exit strategy? We've been sending defense-aid to Israel since the 1970s. Should we demand an exit strategy for them? No one but the most extreme anti-Israel lefties ever call for one. We recognize Israel as a democratic ally who is under constant threat and attack from their neighbors. If one day that threat goes away, our financial support will as well (or at least be significantly reduced).
>>From your statement it would appear you support more tax payer support without a timeline or objective.
The objective is Ukraine sovereignty -- its right to exist as a free nation. Same with Israel. Declaring an arbitrary end date for our support of these countries only lets their attackers know how much longer they need to hold out.
>>How much more do we pour in and for how long?
Again, around 1% of our federal budget goes to Ukraine defense-aid, 90% of which never leaves our own country, and pays the salaries of the U.S. workers who are updating and expanding our U.S. military arsenal.
Meanwhile, over 50% of our federal budget is being poured into our collapsing entitlement programs that both parties and presidential candidates refuse to reform, despite our national debt skyrocketing toward $36 trillion. Ukraine is chump change in the grand scheme of things (same with Israel), but the modern right acts like it's what's breaking the bank. Why? Because folks like Tucker Carlson say so?
I'm not in favor of Tucker Carlson position, in my opinion we do have to support Ukraine and Isreal. However, it should be defined as to the future of tax payer dollars in this support.
I have now discussed Ukraine with 10 people within the past two days mostly Democrat voters-sadly they don't even know where Ukraine or Isreal is and they don't care about them. Additionally, they will vote for Harris and Walz because they will take care of them because they are Black. Trump voters will vote Trump regardless as well.
In my opinion, none of the discussions matter or will matter until it impacts the day to day lives of most Americans.
Yes, the money does come back to the bombs and bullets makers here in the US. So, I guess your point of 90% comes back to the US makes sense if you can sleep knowing that Russians, Ukrainian, Isrealies, and Arab’s are the benefactors of our investment of barely 1% of our GDP. Guess no strategy needs to be defined in that case. Maybe Harris will show strength and apply political pressure if she's elected.
No, I don't think you are in favor of other people dying. Just trying to make the point of some sort of strategy is needed here. Maybe its a lot more money but how much? Maybe more pressure on economic sanction.
>>No, I don't think you are in favor of other people dying.
Cool, because defense aid for Ukraine and Israel is about keeping Ukrainians and Israels alive and free against those illegally attacking and terrorizing their respective countries.
>>Just trying to make the point of some sort of strategy is needed here.
Should U.S. defense aid to Israel be contingent on specific strategies for their survival?
I disagree. Poll after poll from the beginning of the conflict has shown that most Americans approve of our support for Ukraine. What it's not is a TOP issue for most Americans, despite it being a top foreign policy issue globally.
So, when I said they didn't care, it meant in the terms of current top concerns for their day to day. I further explained this below.
Ukraine once had nukes and Clinton talked them into giving them up. Obama sat back and did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea. Russia invaded Ukraine under Biden's watch. The Afghanistan debacle occurred under Biden's watch. Trump clearly sucks, but dang, I am not convinced any Democrat is a better option regarding foreign policy. I do believe we should do everything possible to help Ukraine win, but one has to wonder if it would have even happened had it not been for Democratic administrations. QED
Russia invaded Georgia under Bush. Russia attacked Ukraine throughout the Trump administration, though Putin was primarily focused on intervening in Syria during that time. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched after our Afghanistan withdrawal, which Trump was going to do too. I'm happy to entertain the idea that better leaders could have done more to deter Putin, but we unfortunately don't elect people like Reagan any more.
Further, Trump let the Saudis rain hell on the Houthis. Biden stopped the Saudis and took the Houthis off the Terrorists list and later said "Woops I F##ked up" and put them back on. He is also permitting the Houthis influence of shipping through the Suez Canal. Obama gave Iran Billions of dollars that have been sent to Hamas, Houthis, and more dangerously, Hezbollah.
Good points of the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama:
Inspectors were on the ground monitoring inbound shipments, and they were permitted in some production facilities. Also Manifests originating out of Europe were reviewed and shipments inspected. The equipment to refine was also held to small numbers.
Bad points of the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama:
Much of the technology of a Nuclear threat is the delivery systems of which was not under restrictions or could be researched and designed outside of scrutiny. This includes software, electronics, guidance systems as well as the casings and rockets. Another bad aspect is they got the money. If Bush or any other President would have delivered cash in dark of night on a landing strip with pallets of money the press would have called for impeachment. one more point, everyone agreed that it would only delay the Iranians efforts to become a nuclear power.
Lastly, If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, it's a whole new world.
It's not a question of if, but WHEN Iran gets nuclear weapons. Anything short of an all out invasion/occupation of Iran will not stop them from joining the nuclear club. The benefits to THEM of possessing the bomb outweigh any consequences, or at least that is the calculation I believe they have made.
The game the US and Europe are playing is essentially to delay, so that "it doesn't happen on MY watch". I believe that was the goal of the nuclear deal made by the Obama administration - "I can't really stop you from developing a nuke, but do me a solid, and just don't do it such that I get blamed for it."
Having said that, while the thought of Iran having the bomb is unnerving, keep in mind, Pakistan and North Korea also have nukes, and while it's not a great situation, it's not the end of the world either. Everyone knows Israel has nukes, even though they don't officially say so, and the mullahs in Iran may be fanatical, but I don't believe they are suicidal. They have pretty good lives, and know full well those lives would end if they tried to nuke Israel.
Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war. Let’s assume that Trump wins the election. If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party. By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal. If he’s elected I think a deal will be reached quickly. Trump is right on one very important foreign policy principle. It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one. Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
>>Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war.
He did?
>>If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party.
The United States absolutely should not be a disinterested third-party. It should be one that sides with our invaded, democratic allies. Do you think we should be a disinterested party in the case of Israel and its assailants in the Middle East?
>>By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal.
Remain neutral? Broker a deal? Trump would just as soon let Putin take Ukraine, and that's a "deal" Ukraine would never agree to. Putin sees Trump as little more than a fan-boy, not a man of strength or conviction. There's a reason Putin wants him back in office, and is spending big money on that initiative.
>>It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one.
The U.S. has been trying to have a "good relationship" for Putin for decades. It has gotten us nowhere. He's going to do what he wants to do, unless the cost of doing so is believed to be much steeper than the benefit. Handing him Ukraine would only validate his decision to invade.
>>Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
Putin and China were in bed together before Trump, during Trump, and after Trump. Abandoning Ukraine would only embolden both of those countries.
But it takes two parties to have good relations. Or more to the point, mutual interest breeds "good relations" in geopolitics. Do you actually think begin nice to Putin will somehow get him to change behavior? Countries don't enter into alliances or conflicts with one another because the leaders of those countries like or dislike each other - it's about the degree to which both countries' interests converge or diverge that sets the tone for their relationship.
Another excellent and engaging, newspaper-worthy, opinion piece!
Vance may have won on style and delivery, I'm not sure about substance.
Walz had a golden opportunity to nail Vance on a number of issues but didn't even bring them up.
Where Walz fell short, was in pegging Vance to his hypocrisy. By signing onto Trump, the once "never Trump guy" acquired all the abuse and lies, including January 6, and who knows what if Trump loses again this time?
The point Walz needed nail is that pledging a commitment to democracy must be a two-way street. Candidates who reject the peoples' verdict were morally unfit to run in the first place.
I think you just helped me figure out who to vote for.
There were a lot of questions that didn't come up. These two ladies delivered the Democrat talking points and what is important to Democrats. That's the way I read it.
I read it the exact same way Tim. And the ladies came out looking the worst because of it. QED
Should have brought up Ukraine rather than abortion and the State of the Democracy (J6). Tired of going the same ole worn route with these topics.
Bernie, we all know who Trump is as a person, and his policies. Voters either recognize we were bettter off when he was President, or they don’t. We don’t know any specifics about Harris’s policies,
and she won’t take questions to defend them. Fair statement?
I'm not sure Bernie will see this, since this it's my column, but I would argue that we don't really know Trump's policies either. He's all over the place, and like her, he's producing more platitudes than specifics.
I will however add this question to next week's Q&A.
Thank you. My general context was that after 8 years of Trump as President, and campaigning, we know more about him than Harris. But, yes, he’s all over the place with most everything. And as a person, he’s not changing.
Oh, we definitely know more about Trump than Harris.
This was the first time I listened to Vance. I found him not to be the monster the press has portrayed him to be. In fact, I wish Trump would step down and pass the torch to him. He would win. All he has to do is make a promise to Trump immunity after he gets in. Trump could hold a speech to announce his withdrawal and use all of the pending legal issues and that the fact the MSM won't let him concentrate on the race which is partially true on both issues. Vance could beat Harris and Trump would be doing the right thing. And since I am wishing out loud, I also want flying pigs.
>>This was the first time I listened to Vance. I found him not to be the monster the press has portrayed him to be.
I've been listening to him for a while. The Vance we saw at the debate hardly resembles the Vance of the last three years. As Matt Lewis aptly described, he switched from Mr. Hyde to Dr. Jekyll for the debate. It was a crafty move politically, because a lot of people (you included) were hearing from him for the very first time. I think Walz was actually prepped for the Hyde guy, which I think contributed to his poor performance.
I've watched Waltz for a long time. You didn't see the real Waltz.
Agreed! My point is that the media largely isn't to blame for people's perception of Vance. His own words are.
I'm not so sure Sen. Vance would beat VP Harris. Remember, the MAGAites - probably 30+% of the Rep. base adore Trump. If Trump stepped down, would enough MAGAites vote for Vance? It's possible. But rumors would fly of a type of coup e' etat. I suspect too many of them would bare their pitchforks. That's why so many Republicans are Trump's bootlickers. It's not because of Trump, but because of his followers.
Bob, you could beat Harris. The only person that can lose to Harris is Trump. And how about those loyal DEMOites? Do you believe the MAGA crowd is any different than the teachers unions that goose step to party orders? And talk about pitch forks, that's exactly what the DEMOites used at the state capital in Madison, WI. I come from a family of teachers, and I know how cheap they are. When the DEMOites were protesting in Madison the Health care union members were handing out to the teacher's sick slips so they wouldn't lose pay.
Unfortunately, in the US, Americans don’t care about Ukraine. Before you rip my response apart, I have asked around and despite my point about how it does impact us here in the US-it doesn't resonate.
Most important issue is the cost of groceries, gas, insurance, and utilities which are still higher despite the recent decline.
I have served in the military and know that despite Ukraine being a European regional issue it will impact us. However, I do think European’s neeed to show numbers of monetary support that is similar to the US. Also, I don't believe an exit Strategy has been made to this issue by Biden/Harris. We just see more of US tax dollars being shovelled into Ukraine while Americans in the US are suffering from a devastating aftermath of a storm.
>>Unfortunately, in the US, Americans don’t care about Ukraine.
I disagree. Poll after poll from the beginning of the conflict has shown that most Americans approve of our support for Ukraine. What it's not is a TOP issue for most Americans, despite it being a top foreign policy issue globally.
The reason I pointed out how much time was spent on climate change at the debate is that that issue consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans' ranking of issues.
>>Before you rip my response apart, I have asked around and despite my point about how it does impact us here in the US-it doesn't resonate.
I do agree that most Americans aren't following the issue closely, and that our leaders don't do a good job or explaining the conflict's significance to America and beyond (while people like Vance outright lie about Ukraine funding preventing domestic issues from being resolved).
>>However, I do think European’s need to show numbers of monetary support that is similar to the US.
As a percentage of GDP, 23 countries (most of them European) give more money to the Ukraine effort than the United States.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
>>Also, I don't believe an exit Strategy has been made to this issue by Biden/Harris.
Nor should there be by a U.S. administration. The Ukrainians are the ones fighting this war, not the United States.
>>We just see more of US tax dollars being shovelled into Ukraine while Americans in the US are suffering from a devastating aftermath of a storm.
U.S. defense-funding for Ukraine is about 1% of the federal budget, and close to 90% of that funding never leaves the United States, but rather goes to updating our own defense technology, weaponry, vehicles, etc. as the old, outdated stuff gets shipped to Ukraine. Ukraine-defense funding isn't taking money away from U.S. storm victims. If anything, our updated technology, vehicles, etc. are being used help storm victims.
Nor should there be by a U.S. administration. The Ukrainians are the ones fighting this war, not the United States.
-So, when I say exit strategy I’m talking about support financially or boots on the ground. From your statement it would appear you support more tax payer support without a timeline or objective. How much more do we pour in and for how long?
American boots on the ground isn't going to happen.
Financially, why would we need an exit strategy? We've been sending defense-aid to Israel since the 1970s. Should we demand an exit strategy for them? No one but the most extreme anti-Israel lefties ever call for one. We recognize Israel as a democratic ally who is under constant threat and attack from their neighbors. If one day that threat goes away, our financial support will as well (or at least be significantly reduced).
>>From your statement it would appear you support more tax payer support without a timeline or objective.
The objective is Ukraine sovereignty -- its right to exist as a free nation. Same with Israel. Declaring an arbitrary end date for our support of these countries only lets their attackers know how much longer they need to hold out.
>>How much more do we pour in and for how long?
Again, around 1% of our federal budget goes to Ukraine defense-aid, 90% of which never leaves our own country, and pays the salaries of the U.S. workers who are updating and expanding our U.S. military arsenal.
Meanwhile, over 50% of our federal budget is being poured into our collapsing entitlement programs that both parties and presidential candidates refuse to reform, despite our national debt skyrocketing toward $36 trillion. Ukraine is chump change in the grand scheme of things (same with Israel), but the modern right acts like it's what's breaking the bank. Why? Because folks like Tucker Carlson say so?
I'm not in favor of Tucker Carlson position, in my opinion we do have to support Ukraine and Isreal. However, it should be defined as to the future of tax payer dollars in this support.
I have now discussed Ukraine with 10 people within the past two days mostly Democrat voters-sadly they don't even know where Ukraine or Isreal is and they don't care about them. Additionally, they will vote for Harris and Walz because they will take care of them because they are Black. Trump voters will vote Trump regardless as well.
In my opinion, none of the discussions matter or will matter until it impacts the day to day lives of most Americans.
Yes, the money does come back to the bombs and bullets makers here in the US. So, I guess your point of 90% comes back to the US makes sense if you can sleep knowing that Russians, Ukrainian, Isrealies, and Arab’s are the benefactors of our investment of barely 1% of our GDP. Guess no strategy needs to be defined in that case. Maybe Harris will show strength and apply political pressure if she's elected.
>>However, it should be defined as to the future of tax payer dollars in this support.
Why should we commit now to how much we're willing to spend on Ukraine defense aid in the future? We don't do that with Israel.
>>Additionally, they will vote for Harris and Walz because they will take care of them because they are Black.
Huh?
>>In my opinion, none of the discussions matter or will matter until it impacts the day to day lives of most Americans.
I agree that most Americans prioritize what impacts them in their day-to-day lives over foreign policy matters.
>>if you can sleep knowing that Russians, Ukrainian, Isrealies, and Arab’s are the benefactors of our investment of barely 1% of our GDP.
How are Russians a benefactor of Ukrainian defense aid?
Link during latest visit from the Ukrainian and Shapiro signing bombs https://www.850wftl.com/zelensky-signs-bombs-at-a-u-s-munitions-plant/
No, I don't think you are in favor of other people dying. Just trying to make the point of some sort of strategy is needed here. Maybe its a lot more money but how much? Maybe more pressure on economic sanction.
What are we going to do?
>>No, I don't think you are in favor of other people dying.
Cool, because defense aid for Ukraine and Israel is about keeping Ukrainians and Israels alive and free against those illegally attacking and terrorizing their respective countries.
>>Just trying to make the point of some sort of strategy is needed here.
Should U.S. defense aid to Israel be contingent on specific strategies for their survival?
I disagree. Poll after poll from the beginning of the conflict has shown that most Americans approve of our support for Ukraine. What it's not is a TOP issue for most Americans, despite it being a top foreign policy issue globally.
So, when I said they didn't care, it meant in the terms of current top concerns for their day to day. I further explained this below.
Ukraine once had nukes and Clinton talked them into giving them up. Obama sat back and did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea. Russia invaded Ukraine under Biden's watch. The Afghanistan debacle occurred under Biden's watch. Trump clearly sucks, but dang, I am not convinced any Democrat is a better option regarding foreign policy. I do believe we should do everything possible to help Ukraine win, but one has to wonder if it would have even happened had it not been for Democratic administrations. QED
Russia invaded Georgia under Bush. Russia attacked Ukraine throughout the Trump administration, though Putin was primarily focused on intervening in Syria during that time. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine was launched after our Afghanistan withdrawal, which Trump was going to do too. I'm happy to entertain the idea that better leaders could have done more to deter Putin, but we unfortunately don't elect people like Reagan any more.
Further, Trump let the Saudis rain hell on the Houthis. Biden stopped the Saudis and took the Houthis off the Terrorists list and later said "Woops I F##ked up" and put them back on. He is also permitting the Houthis influence of shipping through the Suez Canal. Obama gave Iran Billions of dollars that have been sent to Hamas, Houthis, and more dangerously, Hezbollah.
Good points of the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama:
Inspectors were on the ground monitoring inbound shipments, and they were permitted in some production facilities. Also Manifests originating out of Europe were reviewed and shipments inspected. The equipment to refine was also held to small numbers.
Bad points of the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama:
Much of the technology of a Nuclear threat is the delivery systems of which was not under restrictions or could be researched and designed outside of scrutiny. This includes software, electronics, guidance systems as well as the casings and rockets. Another bad aspect is they got the money. If Bush or any other President would have delivered cash in dark of night on a landing strip with pallets of money the press would have called for impeachment. one more point, everyone agreed that it would only delay the Iranians efforts to become a nuclear power.
Lastly, If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, it's a whole new world.
It's not a question of if, but WHEN Iran gets nuclear weapons. Anything short of an all out invasion/occupation of Iran will not stop them from joining the nuclear club. The benefits to THEM of possessing the bomb outweigh any consequences, or at least that is the calculation I believe they have made.
The game the US and Europe are playing is essentially to delay, so that "it doesn't happen on MY watch". I believe that was the goal of the nuclear deal made by the Obama administration - "I can't really stop you from developing a nuke, but do me a solid, and just don't do it such that I get blamed for it."
Having said that, while the thought of Iran having the bomb is unnerving, keep in mind, Pakistan and North Korea also have nukes, and while it's not a great situation, it's not the end of the world either. Everyone knows Israel has nukes, even though they don't officially say so, and the mullahs in Iran may be fanatical, but I don't believe they are suicidal. They have pretty good lives, and know full well those lives would end if they tried to nuke Israel.
Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war. Let’s assume that Trump wins the election. If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party. By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal. If he’s elected I think a deal will be reached quickly. Trump is right on one very important foreign policy principle. It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one. Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
>>Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war.
He did?
>>If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party.
The United States absolutely should not be a disinterested third-party. It should be one that sides with our invaded, democratic allies. Do you think we should be a disinterested party in the case of Israel and its assailants in the Middle East?
>>By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal.
Remain neutral? Broker a deal? Trump would just as soon let Putin take Ukraine, and that's a "deal" Ukraine would never agree to. Putin sees Trump as little more than a fan-boy, not a man of strength or conviction. There's a reason Putin wants him back in office, and is spending big money on that initiative.
>>It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one.
The U.S. has been trying to have a "good relationship" for Putin for decades. It has gotten us nowhere. He's going to do what he wants to do, unless the cost of doing so is believed to be much steeper than the benefit. Handing him Ukraine would only validate his decision to invade.
>>Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
Putin and China were in bed together before Trump, during Trump, and after Trump. Abandoning Ukraine would only embolden both of those countries.
But it takes two parties to have good relations. Or more to the point, mutual interest breeds "good relations" in geopolitics. Do you actually think begin nice to Putin will somehow get him to change behavior? Countries don't enter into alliances or conflicts with one another because the leaders of those countries like or dislike each other - it's about the degree to which both countries' interests converge or diverge that sets the tone for their relationship.
Another excellent and engaging, newspaper-worthy, opinion piece!
Vance may have won on style and delivery, I'm not sure about substance.
Walz had a golden opportunity to nail Vance on a number of issues but didn't even bring them up.
Where Walz fell short, was in pegging Vance to his hypocrisy. By signing onto Trump, the once "never Trump guy" acquired all the abuse and lies, including January 6, and who knows what if Trump loses again this time?
The point Walz needed nail is that pledging a commitment to democracy must be a two-way street. Candidates who reject the peoples' verdict were morally unfit to run in the first place.
Much less a second.