REBOOT: 62% of Americans think Putin WOULDN'T have invaded Ukraine if Trump POTUS

6,599 Views | 117 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
…since the weirdo lefty got the other thread locked.

A recent survey revealed that 62 percent of Americans polled felt that Putin would not invade Ukraine if Trump was still in office
A total of 38 percent of Democrats agreed that Trump would have held Putin back, with a whopping 85 percent of GOP voters agreeing
A total of 38 percent of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, believed that Putin would have invaded Ukraine regardless of who was president
Another 59 percent of Americans polled believed that the Russian president moved on it's neighboring country because Putin saw weakness in Biden
Another 41 percent said that the person sitting in office did not play not a factor in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine
The survey, which was conducted between February 23 and 24, included 2,026 registered voters

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10554157/62-Americans-think-Putin-WOULDNT-invaded-Ukraine-Trump-president-poll-claims.html
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jupiter said:




You are one of the more reasonable non-conservatives on this board, but your attempt to pin the blame on the Trump admin for this one is one of the dumber takes on this board.

And that is saying something.

Let me remind you for a second that Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama admin, who likewise did nothing to stop it. I've seen no logical take from Trump's treatment of Ukraine to the current war. That's because there is none.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

jupiter said:




You are one of the more reasonable non-conservatives on this board, but your attempt to pin the blame on the Trump admin for this one is one of the dumber takes on this board.

And that is saying something.

Let me remind you for a second that Russia invaded Ukraine during the Obama admin, who likewise did nothing to stop it. I've seen no logical take from Trump's treatment of Ukraine to the current war. That's because there is none.


People actually believe the Russian Hoax ... and that the world is flat..
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lefties working overtime to deflect biden's role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and his previous role in Russia/Crimea. They must be burning a lot of calories feverishly tapping away on their keyboards trying to redirect focus to a guy who used to be president, who used to live in the white house who used to call the shots. It's odd they would pick a past prez, that under his watch, Russia didn't invade anyone. The libbies would be better served trying to redirect attention to, let's say, George W.

Their lame attempts to throw cover for biden by making ridiculous claims or weird arguments shows their sheer desperation.
J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Four Pinocchios for Trump over what he said about his dealings in Ukraine. This is the leader duped conservative evangelicals think is God's choice to lead our country?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/25/trumps-pinocchio-laden-claims-about-joe-biden-ukraine-polls/

"We're putting up the bulk of the money. … Europe has to put up money for Ukraine also."
President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the United Nations, Sept. 24, 2019

Before giving his annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump paused to speak to reporters about the growing controversy over his dealings with Ukraine. In doing so, he provided a string of false and misleading statements designed to obscure his actions and confuse Americans.

Before we tour through Trump's comments, here's a quick refresher. On July 25, Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Just days earlier, Trump unexpectedly ordered the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid to the country, which is battling a separatist conflict backed by Russia on its Eastern border. What was said on the call is not precisely known though Trump has said he will release the transcript but Trump has acknowledged he raised former vice president Joe Biden, currently leading in the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Trump originally said he halted the aid because of worries about corruption suggesting also that "corruption" by Biden was a concern but at the United Nations, he changed his story. Now he says it was because the Europeans were not contributing enough to Ukraine.

But neither of those concerns was communicated over the summer to anxious lawmakers who did not understand why the money was being withheld. "Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an 'interagency process' but to give them no additional information a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11," The Washington Post reported.

With that context in mind, let's look at Trump's comments, in the order in which he made them.

"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid, they were fully paid. But my complaint has always been and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine. Because they're not doing it; it's the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money. … Europe has to put up money for Ukraine also. Why is it only the United States putting up the money? … Germany, France, other countries should put up money, and that's been my complaint from the beginning."

In the space of 24 hours, Trump changed the rationale for withholding the funds, from corruption to the claim that the United States was carrying the burden of funding Ukraine "the bulk of the money," as Trump put it.
But that's not correct. Europe has been a major funder to Ukraine since Russia annexed its Crimean Peninsula in 2014, often providing more aid than the United States. The European Union has provided more than 15 billion euros ($16.5 billion) in grants and loans to Ukraine, according to an E.U. fact sheet on relations with Ukraine. Meanwhile, NATO has its own military cooperation program with Ukraine, establishing six trust funds to assist the country in improving its military readiness. The United States provided $1.3 billion to Ukraine since late 2013, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report.

According to the [url=https://public.tableau.com/views/OECDDACAidataglancebyrecipient_new/Recipients?:embed=y&isplay_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:toolbar=no?&:showVizHome=no]Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), [/url]the top 10 donors in gross overseas development assistance for Ukraine in 2016-2017 are: European Institutions ($425.2 million), United States ($204.4 million), Germany ($189.8 million), Japan ($180.8 million), Global Fund to fight diseases ($44.8 million), Canada ($44.5 million), Poland ($42.5 million), Sweden ($34.6 million), Britain ($31.6 million) and Switzerland ($29.6 million).

Trump would be on more solid ground if he had kept his complaint strictly to military aid. "The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine," said John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine now at the Atlantic Council. He said there was "skittishness" among many European countries that "don't want to provoke Russia," with mainly Britain, Poland, Baltic nations and Canada joining the United States in contributing military aid. But this is how the aid burden is usually divided between the United States and the Europeans, with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the "soft power" to stabilize troubled nations.

"This is Trump's third rationale" for delaying the aid, Herbst noted. "If it's Tuesday, it must be because of the Europeans."

At the very least, Trump's constantly changing explanations for why he delayed the aid suggest he's not being forthright about the real reason.

"I'm leading in the polls; they have no idea how they stop me."
Just about every poll has Trump trailing many of his Democratic rivals, in particular Biden. Biden led Trump by 15 percentage points in a Fox News poll, 8 points in a SurveyUSA poll, and 15 points in a Post-ABC News poll. (Caveat: Polls at this point in the election cycle are not especially informative.)

"The only way they can try is through impeachment. This has never happened to a president before."
One president, Bill Clinton, was impeached by the House during Trump's lifetime; he was acquitted by the Senate. Another, Richard Nixon, resigned in 1974 after articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee. A third president, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868; he was also acquitted by the Senate.

"That call was perfect. It couldn't have been nicer. And even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call."

Trump appears to be referring to an interview by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko with Hromadske, a Ukrainian Internet television station. In the interview, he struck a careful balance, trying not to take sides between the administration and Congress.

"American investigators have the full right to turn to the U.S. and to get this information," Prystaiko said. "If they think that our president has been pressured, they can establish this. I know what they spoke about, and I don't think there was any coercion. There was a talk, talks can be on different topics, leaders have the right to talk about any problems they wish. This conversation was long, it was friendly, and it touched on a lot of questions, some of which required rather serious answers."

Prystaiko obviously is trying to be diplomatic. He did not describe the call as "perfect."

Zelensky appears to have had a different impression. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said the Ukrainian president "directly" expressed concerns at their meeting that "the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence" of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens, The Post reported.

The official Ukrainian readout of the call, issued July 25, had this interesting line: "Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA."

"There was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that's something they should be looking at."

Here, Trump continues his misleading effort to suggest that Biden somehow was involved in corruption. But we fact-checked these allegations in May and found they did not add up. In fact, Biden's case has gotten stronger with time.

Trump repeatedly has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine's largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden's son, Hunter, to its board.

But it turns out that the investigation had already been shelved when Biden acted and may have even involved a side company, not Burisma. Hunter Biden, who served on the board for five years, was not accused of any wrongdoing in the investigation. The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a failure, and "Joe Biden's efforts to oust Shokin were universally praised," said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in Eastern European market reforms.

"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post in July. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."

Shokin was ousted three months after Biden's visit. "Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption," the New York Times reported at the time. "The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite."

Moreover, Yuri Lutsenko, a former Ukrainian prosecutor general who succeeded the fired prosecutor, told Bloomberg News that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.
By continuing to claim that Biden "did" something for his son, Trump persists in spreading a false narrative about a diplomatic maneuver hailed at the time as a step toward reducing corruption in Ukraine.

The Pinocchio Test
In the space of minutes, President Trump told falsehoods about aid to Ukraine, his standing in the polls, the history of impeachment, impressions of his phone call and of course the role that Biden played in trying to root out corruption in Ukraine.

It adds up to Four Pinocchios.


J.B.Katz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Much too little and far too late, but Barr now acknowledges Trump lost the election and tells Republicans they should move on to a less petty and eratic leader.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-attorney-general-william-barr-urges-gop-to-move-on-from-trump-11645959600?mod=e2twp
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.B.Katz said:

Four Pinocchios for Trump over what he said about his dealings in Ukraine. This is the leader duped conservative evangelicals think is God's choice to lead our country?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/25/trumps-pinocchio-laden-claims-about-joe-biden-ukraine-polls/

"We're putting up the bulk of the money. … Europe has to put up money for Ukraine also."
President Trump, in remarks to reporters at the United Nations, Sept. 24, 2019

Before giving his annual speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Trump paused to speak to reporters about the growing controversy over his dealings with Ukraine. In doing so, he provided a string of false and misleading statements designed to obscure his actions and confuse Americans.

Before we tour through Trump's comments, here's a quick refresher. On July 25, Trump spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Just days earlier, Trump unexpectedly ordered the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid to the country, which is battling a separatist conflict backed by Russia on its Eastern border. What was said on the call is not precisely known though Trump has said he will release the transcript but Trump has acknowledged he raised former vice president Joe Biden, currently leading in the polls for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Trump originally said he halted the aid because of worries about corruption suggesting also that "corruption" by Biden was a concern but at the United Nations, he changed his story. Now he says it was because the Europeans were not contributing enough to Ukraine.

But neither of those concerns was communicated over the summer to anxious lawmakers who did not understand why the money was being withheld. "Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an 'interagency process' but to give them no additional information a pattern that continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of Sept. 11," The Washington Post reported.

With that context in mind, let's look at Trump's comments, in the order in which he made them.

"As far as withholding funds, those funds were paid, they were fully paid. But my complaint has always been and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine. Because they're not doing it; it's the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money. … Europe has to put up money for Ukraine also. Why is it only the United States putting up the money? … Germany, France, other countries should put up money, and that's been my complaint from the beginning."

In the space of 24 hours, Trump changed the rationale for withholding the funds, from corruption to the claim that the United States was carrying the burden of funding Ukraine "the bulk of the money," as Trump put it.
But that's not correct. Europe has been a major funder to Ukraine since Russia annexed its Crimean Peninsula in 2014, often providing more aid than the United States. The European Union has provided more than 15 billion euros ($16.5 billion) in grants and loans to Ukraine, according to an E.U. fact sheet on relations with Ukraine. Meanwhile, NATO has its own military cooperation program with Ukraine, establishing six trust funds to assist the country in improving its military readiness. The United States provided $1.3 billion to Ukraine since late 2013, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report.

According to the [url=https://public.tableau.com/views/OECDDACAidataglancebyrecipient_new/Recipients?:embed=y&isplay_count=yes&:showTabs=y&:toolbar=no?&:showVizHome=no]Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), [/url]the top 10 donors in gross overseas development assistance for Ukraine in 2016-2017 are: European Institutions ($425.2 million), United States ($204.4 million), Germany ($189.8 million), Japan ($180.8 million), Global Fund to fight diseases ($44.8 million), Canada ($44.5 million), Poland ($42.5 million), Sweden ($34.6 million), Britain ($31.6 million) and Switzerland ($29.6 million).

Trump would be on more solid ground if he had kept his complaint strictly to military aid. "The United States is the largest provider of military aid to Ukraine," said John Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine now at the Atlantic Council. He said there was "skittishness" among many European countries that "don't want to provoke Russia," with mainly Britain, Poland, Baltic nations and Canada joining the United States in contributing military aid. But this is how the aid burden is usually divided between the United States and the Europeans, with the United States providing the muscle and Europe providing the "soft power" to stabilize troubled nations.

"This is Trump's third rationale" for delaying the aid, Herbst noted. "If it's Tuesday, it must be because of the Europeans."

At the very least, Trump's constantly changing explanations for why he delayed the aid suggest he's not being forthright about the real reason.

"I'm leading in the polls; they have no idea how they stop me."
Just about every poll has Trump trailing many of his Democratic rivals, in particular Biden. Biden led Trump by 15 percentage points in a Fox News poll, 8 points in a SurveyUSA poll, and 15 points in a Post-ABC News poll. (Caveat: Polls at this point in the election cycle are not especially informative.)

"The only way they can try is through impeachment. This has never happened to a president before."
One president, Bill Clinton, was impeached by the House during Trump's lifetime; he was acquitted by the Senate. Another, Richard Nixon, resigned in 1974 after articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee. A third president, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868; he was also acquitted by the Senate.

"That call was perfect. It couldn't have been nicer. And even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call."

Trump appears to be referring to an interview by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko with Hromadske, a Ukrainian Internet television station. In the interview, he struck a careful balance, trying not to take sides between the administration and Congress.

"American investigators have the full right to turn to the U.S. and to get this information," Prystaiko said. "If they think that our president has been pressured, they can establish this. I know what they spoke about, and I don't think there was any coercion. There was a talk, talks can be on different topics, leaders have the right to talk about any problems they wish. This conversation was long, it was friendly, and it touched on a lot of questions, some of which required rather serious answers."

Prystaiko obviously is trying to be diplomatic. He did not describe the call as "perfect."

Zelensky appears to have had a different impression. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who spoke with Zelensky during an early September visit to Ukraine, said the Ukrainian president "directly" expressed concerns at their meeting that "the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence" of his unwillingness to launch an investigation into the Bidens, The Post reported.

The official Ukrainian readout of the call, issued July 25, had this interesting line: "Donald Trump is convinced that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve image of Ukraine, complete investigation of corruption cases, which inhibited the interaction between Ukraine and the USA."

"There was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that's something they should be looking at."

Here, Trump continues his misleading effort to suggest that Biden somehow was involved in corruption. But we fact-checked these allegations in May and found they did not add up. In fact, Biden's case has gotten stronger with time.

Trump repeatedly has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine's largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden's son, Hunter, to its board.

But it turns out that the investigation had already been shelved when Biden acted and may have even involved a side company, not Burisma. Hunter Biden, who served on the board for five years, was not accused of any wrongdoing in the investigation. The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a failure, and "Joe Biden's efforts to oust Shokin were universally praised," said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in Eastern European market reforms.

"Shokin was not investigating. He didn't want to investigate Burisma," Daria Kaleniuk of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center told The Washington Post in July. "And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation."

Shokin was ousted three months after Biden's visit. "Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption," the New York Times reported at the time. "The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite."

Moreover, Yuri Lutsenko, a former Ukrainian prosecutor general who succeeded the fired prosecutor, told Bloomberg News that there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.
By continuing to claim that Biden "did" something for his son, Trump persists in spreading a false narrative about a diplomatic maneuver hailed at the time as a step toward reducing corruption in Ukraine.

The Pinocchio Test
In the space of minutes, President Trump told falsehoods about aid to Ukraine, his standing in the polls, the history of impeachment, impressions of his phone call and of course the role that Biden played in trying to root out corruption in Ukraine.

It adds up to Four Pinocchios.



Cool story from 2 1/2 years ago, but the topic is how today, the majority of Americans believe that Russian wouldn't have invaded Ukraine is Trump was in office and how the majority of Americans believe Russian did invade Ukraine because Biden is weak.

This doesn't bode well for dementia joe or his/your party. But hey, I get how you wacko lefties want to redirect focus of what's happening right now in Ukraine.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.

How in the world can you say it isn't about Trump or dementia Joe?? Do you seriously think oil would be at or above $100 a barrel right now if Trump was still POTUS?? Just as a reminder it wasn't Trump that for all intents and purposes declared war on domestic oil and gas production starting day one of his presidency out of fear of the squad and crazed environmental extremists. I would think an all knowing "oil tycoon" would understand basic, fundamental facts like this.

You really need to seek treatment for your irrational TDS.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
Cobretti
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
JR makes far more money when Dem pipeline/drilling restrictions and Russian invasions raise the price of oil.

The impact this has on his presidential perspective......only JR knows .

Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The idea that the right attacks Biden for not being strong enough on Ukraine after it became crystal clear that Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being is speck/log at its finest.

As a reminder--Trump is the one who was withholding military aid to Ukraine; aid that had been approved by Congress. That is an empirical and objective fact.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

The idea that the right attacks Biden for not being strong enough on Ukraine after it became crystal clear that Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being is speck/log at its finest.

As a reminder--Trump is the one who was withholding military aid to Ukraine; aid that had been approved by Congress. That is an empirical and objective fact.


Explain how Trump weakened the Ukraine military. You bring up a very short political negotiating delay, designed to help root out political corruption among US officials and their families, that did nothing to weaken Ukraine. Now that we know that's not a valid accusation, explain your position.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

The idea that the right attacks Biden for not being strong enough on Ukraine after it became crystal clear that Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being is speck/log at its finest.

As a reminder--Trump is the one who was withholding military aid to Ukraine; aid that had been approved by Congress. That is an empirical and objective fact.
Holy effin' crap, are you kidding me with that BS? Dude, it's time for you to remove your liberal tinted glasses.

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country.

The Obama-Biden administration didn't care. Obama refused to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine. Why?

Team B.O. thought that lethal aid would provoke Moscow. Hell, even the left's favorite anti-Trump senator, McCain, said "The Ukrainians are being slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals".

It was Trump that approved arms and lethal aid to Ukraine. Arms that Obama-Biden refused to let Ukraine purchase. I don't give 2 craps that Trump approved then delayed it. The fact of that matter is that Ukraine has arms they are fighting with right now that was provided by the Trump administration.

As a reminder - Obama/Biden refused to arm Ukraine with lethal aid. Trump approved lethal aid. Trump sent the lethal aid. The Ukrainians, are using that very aid to fight for their country, right now. That is an empirical and objective fact.


Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Booray said:

The idea that the right attacks Biden for not being strong enough on Ukraine after it became crystal clear that Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being is speck/log at its finest.

As a reminder--Trump is the one who was withholding military aid to Ukraine; aid that had been approved by Congress. That is an empirical and objective fact.


Explain how Trump weakened the Ukraine military. You bring up a very short political negotiating delay, designed to help root out political corruption among US officials and their families, that did nothing to weaken Ukraine. Now that we know that's not a valid accusation, explain your position.
There is no explanation. Booray is one of the more reasonable non-conservative posters on this board, and he knows he voted for a walking disaster, even if he's not willing to admit it.

The "Trump weakened NATO" b.s. is merely him satisfying that basic human desire to justify even our most inexplicable decisions. It's sometimes hard to admit when you have totally f'ed up.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
There have always been rumors that the Iran/Contra affair sprang out of a deal between Reagan and the Iranians. It can never be confirmed obviously because Reagan investigated himself and documents were "lost", but we do know their official explanation that it was to free hostages in Lebanon was BS (arms started flowing right after Reagan got in, years before those hostages were ever taken). Carter slapped an embargo on Iran, so the theory goes Reagan came in and quietly promised them the arms (really spare parts for them mostly) if they released the hostages under his admin.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
There have always been rumors that the Iran/Contra affair sprang out of a deal between Reagan and the Iranians. It can never be confirmed obviously because Reagan investigated himself and documents were "lost", but we do know their official explanation that it was to free hostages in Lebanon was BS (arms started flowing right after Reagan got in, years before those hostages were ever taken). Carter slapped an embargo on Iran, so the theory goes Reagan came in and quietly promised them the arms (really spare parts for them mostly) if they released the hostages under his admin.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Man you guys are hypersensitive about Trump. Re-read my post-I did not say that Trump weakened Ukraine's military or that the delay in funding has had any impact on this conflict.

I said that criticism from Trump supporters of Biden for not being strong enough about Ukraine is hypocritical, given that Trump made clear that a strong Ukrainian military was not a priority, that his general policy was to not commit forces in support of allies and he had no love for NATO. What about all that would deter Putin if Trump were still in office?

I don't know what it is you expect from Biden on this one. We all agree and Putin knows we are not going to commit forces. That would have been true if Trump was in office. So sanctions and deterrence from further aggression are the important points. Sanctions appear to be having an impact (see the value of the ruble) and we have appropriately signalled that NATO territory will be defended. Ukrainians are being resupplied and fighitng for their country, God bless them.

Yes, Macron and now Scholz have had leadership roles. They should-it is their continent at stake.

So if the idea is that long term we want a free Ukraine, a weakened Russia and no loss of American blood, what about last week tells you our goals are not achievable?



HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not saying it's for sure true, but it makes more sense than the lie they went with for their offical story.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
There have always been rumors that the Iran/Contra affair sprang out of a deal between Reagan and the Iranians. It can never be confirmed obviously because Reagan investigated himself and documents were "lost", but we do know their official explanation that it was to free hostages in Lebanon was BS (arms started flowing right after Reagan got in, years before those hostages were ever taken). Carter slapped an embargo on Iran, so the theory goes Reagan came in and quietly promised them the arms (really spare parts for them mostly) if they released the hostages under his admin.
No surprise you favor conspiracy theories over facts. It's what you do.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

I'm not saying it's for sure true, but it makes more sense than the lie they went with for their offical story.
"Makes more sense" or "fits my chosen narrative better"?
ABC BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only 62% of respondents think that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were still POTUS? That number will surely go up after Biden's performance at tomorrows State Of The Union address.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
There have always been rumors that the Iran/Contra affair sprang out of a deal between Reagan and the Iranians. It can never be confirmed obviously because Reagan investigated himself and documents were "lost", but we do know their official explanation that it was to free hostages in Lebanon was BS (arms started flowing right after Reagan got in, years before those hostages were ever taken). Carter slapped an embargo on Iran, so the theory goes Reagan came in and quietly promised them the arms (really spare parts for them mostly) if they released the hostages under his admin.
No surprise you favor conspiracy theories over facts. It's what you do.

Sure. Now back to your regularly scheduled Soros bashing.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

J.R. said:

This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. It has to do with 2 things. 1) Putin want to get the band back together 2) secondly and more important is the price of oil. If you look the 3 times that Putin invaded Georgia and Crimea, the pice of oil was $100/ barrel or more. Guess where oil is today? $100 per barrel. Oil was some where from $20-$50 during Trump. The money the Kremlin makes at $100 oil is just obscene as Oil and Gas are 35%-40% of Russia's GDP. That is why he invaded now, not that he was fearful of Trump and Biden is a pushover.


So the price of oil has nothing to do with the polices of the current president?

Wow. Two of the dumbest takes on this board in the same thread.

Let me also remind you that when our enemies think the administration is feckless, it emboldens them and causes them to do certain things that they otherwise wouldn't. See the Jimmy Carter administration. Do you think it's a coincidence that I ran released our hostages when Reagan won the presidency?
There have always been rumors that the Iran/Contra affair sprang out of a deal between Reagan and the Iranians. It can never be confirmed obviously because Reagan investigated himself and documents were "lost", but we do know their official explanation that it was to free hostages in Lebanon was BS (arms started flowing right after Reagan got in, years before those hostages were ever taken). Carter slapped an embargo on Iran, so the theory goes Reagan came in and quietly promised them the arms (really spare parts for them mostly) if they released the hostages under his admin.
No surprise you favor conspiracy theories over facts. It's what you do.

Sure. Now back to your regularly scheduled Soros bashing.
I don't recall ever mentioning Soros on these boards, my tin-foil hat little friend.

I do recall a number of Trump-Russia conspiracies you've touted, even when they've been proven b.s. Undoubtedly, you're susceptible to disinformation.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

HuMcK said:

I'm not saying it's for sure true, but it makes more sense than the lie they went with for their offical story.
"Makes more sense" or "fits my chosen narrative better"?
The latter of course.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What makes this extra ironic is Trump was literally asked on camera what he would have done differently than Biden just two days ago, and he dodged the question completely. Still even now I don't think he has explicitly criticized the invasion or Putin. We already know what was different about Trump's Ukraine policy: Ukraine's needs took a backseat to his desire for campaign help.

The real answer is Biden should have flooded Ukraine with advanced AA systems a year ago (bigger than the shoulder mounted stuff they already have), but other than that he has handled this as well as any POTUS could be expected to, and the level of coalition building has been a pleasant surprise (another difference from Trump's policies).
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Since you are pointing out "coincidences", what a coincidence it was that the Iranians released the hostages (which Reagan was using as a campaign issue in his favor) right after the election was over, and Reagan started the arms flow back up right after getting in office. Very coincidental, but hey, you're the one who apparently doesn't believe in coincidences...
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Since you are pointing out "coincidences", what a coincidence it was that the Iranians released the hostages (which Reagan was using as a campaign issue in his favor) right after the election was over, and Reagan started the arms flow back up right after getting in office. Very coincidental, but hey, you're the one who apparently doesn't believe in coincidences...
Iran-Contra didn't happen on Reagan's first day in office. But sure, you know the truth, Mulder.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

The real answer is Biden should have flooded Ukraine with advanced AA systems a year ago (bigger than the shoulder mounted stuff they already have), but other than that he has handled this as well as any POTUS could be expected to, and the level of coalition building has been a pleasant surprise (another difference from Trump's policies).
You're a hoot. You and your spin. A despot invading another country has a way of rallying people against him. The idea that Biden built this supposed coalition is humorous. Putin did more for the coalition than anyone.

And BTW, the coalition still can't reach unanimity on what sanctions are appropriate, or what arms should be provided to Ukraine. Biden taking telegraphing our every move hasn't helped either.

But yes, Biden has handled this as well as anyone.
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

Since you are pointing out "coincidences", what a coincidence it was that the Iranians released the hostages (which Reagan was using as a campaign issue in his favor) right after the election was over, and Reagan started the arms flow back up right after getting in office. Very coincidental, but hey, you're the one who apparently doesn't believe in coincidences...
Iran-Contra didn't happen on Reagan's first day in office. But sure, you know the truth, Mulder.

Reagan was elected November 1980. Hostages released January 1981. First arms sale to Iran (through Isreal) was spring 1981. Not the first day, but they didn't waste time either.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

Mothra said:

HuMcK said:

Since you are pointing out "coincidences", what a coincidence it was that the Iranians released the hostages (which Reagan was using as a campaign issue in his favor) right after the election was over, and Reagan started the arms flow back up right after getting in office. Very coincidental, but hey, you're the one who apparently doesn't believe in coincidences...
Iran-Contra didn't happen on Reagan's first day in office. But sure, you know the truth, Mulder.

Reagan was elected November 1980. Hostages released January 1981. First arms sale to Iran (through Isreal) was spring 1981.
Like I said...

Iran-Contra didn't happen on Reagan's first day in office. But sure, your conspiracy theory is what really happened.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Man you guys are hypersensitive about Trump. Re-read my post-I did not say that Trump weakened Ukraine's military or that the delay in funding has had any impact on this conflict.




Except that you said "Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being"

That sounds an awful lot like Trump weakened Ukraine's military
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Booray said:

Man you guys are hypersensitive about Trump. Re-read my post-I did not say that Trump weakened Ukraine's military or that the delay in funding has had any impact on this conflict.




Except that you said "Trump was weakening Ukraine's military based on his own political well-being"

That sounds an awful lot like Trump weakened Ukraine's military


You are right- it sounds like that. But "was weakening" is not "weakened." He was weakening Ukraine militarily. A bipartisan congress put a stop to it. In the end, no harm.

Just an example of how DJT's conduct put personal interests above national interests. So if people are going to make Ukraine a comparison of Trump and Biden, that part of the story can't be ignored.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.