The Trump Presidency 2.0

This is one approach from the Trump administration I don’t support.

We absolutely needed to stop sending billions of unaccountable funds to Ukraine. That's common sense and I'm on board. But, to pretend Russia/Putin is anything other than an imperialistic aggressor that invaded it's neighbor is more than intellectually dishonest -- it's flat-out denial of reality.

We can still support and facilitate an end to hostilities while keeping our dignity and integrity in check. Trump's approach doesn't do this and it's absurd to think it does. It's merely gaslighting us like officials did with Covid or the 2020 riots. So, miss me with that nonsense.
I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. I agree with the first bolded sentence and unequivocally concur with your assessment of Russia/Putin. But at the end of the day, what is in our best national interests? Do we want ANOTHER forever war that, over time, will most likely involve US troops getting killed or our other interests asymmetrically attacked, or do we want to draw a firm line in the sand that reaches the best possible alternative outcome. where we can move on to things that are more important and are a better use of our time, effort, and money?
 
Last edited:
I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. I agree with the first bolded sentence and unequivocally concur with your assessment of Russia/Putin. But at the end of the day, what is in our best national interests? Do we want ANOTHER forever war that, over time, will most likely involve US troops getting killed our our other interests asymmetrically attacked, or do we want to draw a firm line in the sand that reaches the best possible alternative outcome. where we can move on to things that are more important and are a better use of our time, effort, and money?
Much like our first-ever Assistant Deputy Director of the FBI, I am an outputs guy.

I'd like the Russia/Ukraine war to end. Speaking specifically to the rhetoric and semantics of the forward facing statements of the administration while we negotiate, if playing nice gets us there, +1.

Well, that, and anytime anyone wants to force another person to use the words the insist upon lest the speaker be shamed for it, I am naturally resistant. I am contrarian like that.
 
Much like our first-ever Assistant Deputy Director of the FBI, I am an outputs guy.

I'd like the Russia/Ukraine war to end. Speaking specifically to the rhetoric and semantics of the forward facing statements of the administration while we negotiate, if playing nice gets us there, +1.

Well, that, and anytime anyone wants to force another person to use the words the insist upon lest the speaker be shamed for it, I am naturally resistant. I am contrarian like that.
I think that's just your white privilege talking ;)
 
I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. I agree with the first bolded sentence and unequivocally concur with your assessment of Russia/Putin. But at the end of the day, what is in our best national interests? Do we want ANOTHER forever war that, over time, will most likely involve US troops getting killed or our other interests asymmetrically attacked, or do we want to draw a firm line in the sand that reaches the best possible alternative outcome. where we can move on to things that are more important and are a better use of our time, effort, and money?
Concur. They aren't mutually exclusive at all. That's kind of my point. Maybe I'm just one of these Polly-Anna-ish fools, but integrity is still important to me.

Surely, the great negotiator can find a way to gain agreement to end the war while still keeping America's ideals and integrity intact, right? That's not a particularly overly complicated ask.
 
Concur. They aren't mutually exclusive at all. That's kind of my point. Maybe I'm just one of these Polly-Anna-ish fools, but integrity is still important to me.

Surely, the great negotiator can find a way to gain agreement to end the war while still keeping America's ideals and integrity intact, right? That's not a particularly overly complicated ask.
Integrity is still important to me personally. That's why I didn't vote for President Trump the first time he ran. But at the national level, there are things that are far more important to me, like not devolving into a far-left dystopia. If there were someone other than Trump who can deliver the kinds of things that Trump can deliver, and more importantly prevent the kinds of jackassery that were happening in the last 4+ years, I'd vote for him/her. Regardless of party. But we've got what we've got. And if you're going to give me a binary choice, that's an easy one for me to make.
 
Integrity is still important to me personally. That's why I didn't vote for President Trump the first time he ran. But at the national level, there are things that are far more important to me, like not devolving into a far-left dystopia. If there were someone other than Trump who can deliver the kinds of things that Trump can deliver, and more importantly prevent the kinds of jackassery that were happening in the last 4+ years, I'd vote for him/her. Regardless of party. But we've got what we've got. And if you're going to give me a binary choice, that's an easy one for me to make.
I am personally done winning a game that no one else is playing.

I'll take the outputs and worry about ancillary issues later.
 
If there were someone other than Trump who can deliver the kinds of things that Trump can deliver, and more importantly prevent the kinds of jackassery that were happening in the last 4+ years, I'd vote for him/her.
but integrity is still important to me.

I can't think of a president in my lifetime with impeccable integrity.
 
I can't think of a president in my lifetime with impeccable integrity.
That's because there are none.

To @Marauder06's previous point, I don't necessarily need them to be impeccable either, but at least act like we have a moral compass. We don't have a problem calling out the UK on their free speech bullshit. So, why is this so difficult?

That said, we can all probably agree there's a significant difference between completely disregarding reality while reiterating a false narrative from one of the bad actors vs. simply taking a position that it's in everyone's interest to end the war. It's kind of akin to kids fighting, "I don't care who started it, it ends now."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top