Trump's Russian Collusion

[old salt]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

[old salt]

I think we're dealing with a live frog slowly boiling in a pot of ever-hotter water.....where Republicans haven't noticed that they were a party of strength....of leading by example, and a can-do attitude with the concept of noblesse oblige as the light the showed America the paths to take.

Now? The Republican party is the party of petty, selfish, scared old white men who are terrified of the world, and want desperately to go back to life in the 1950's. It's sad to watch, and the more I travel (I'm in Canada how) the more i hear pity from other countries. Pity, and a sense that other believe , correctly, that America has lost its way.

Here's a clip of what actual conservatives used to sound like. Do you get ANYTHING that sounds like this now? F no. You get fear, pettiness, and a "I got mine, everyone else can F off" attitude that would be regarded with derision by Reagan and Bush Sr.

It's sad to watch, and as the R voters tell us they want more of the meanness and selfishness that is Donald Trump....and reject the kindness of Bush you see in this clip, and the wisdom of Reagan who sees the imbalance in power between Mexico and the US...and wants to fix the larger problem, rather than building a stupid wall.

Who's living in the past ? Did you vote for Reagan, GHW Bush, Dole, W, McCain, or Romney ?

The Forever Wars & decades of playing GloboCop (which you railed against) took a toll. Now you feign nostalgia.

Trump & the current GOP are a product of our times, as are the Dem Squad led pro-Hamas demonstrators in our streets. That's the choice.

obtw -- our neighbors to the N have always thought we're crazy. They're just too polite to say it out loud.

[MDlaxfan76]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

But hey, don't like Trump's characterization of the sacrifices of those whose memorial services you invoked? Simply answer whether the sacrifices of those who died doing so were in vain, or did they enable our freedom and prosperity these past 70 years? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War...keep going...when did it become that those sacrifices aren't valued? And how are those sacrifices different than the ones the current Ukrainians are willing to make on behalf of their own freedom and prosperity?

[MDlaxfan76]

I think we're dealing with a live frog slowly boiling in a pot of ever-hotter water.....where Republicans haven't noticed that they were a party of strength....of leading by example, and a can-do attitude with the concept of noblesse oblige as the light the showed America the paths to take.

Now? The Republican party is the party of petty, selfish, scared old white men who are terrified of the world, and want desperately to go back to life in the 1950's. It's sad to watch, and the more I travel (I'm in Canada how) the more i hear pity from other countries. Pity, and a sense that other believe , correctly, that America has lost its way.

Here's a clip of what actual conservatives used to sound like. Do you get ANYTHING that sounds like this now? F no. You get fear, pettiness, and a "I got mine, everyone else can F off" attitude that would be regarded with derision by Reagan and Bush Sr.

It's sad to watch, and as the R voters tell us they want more of the meanness and selfishness that is Donald Trump....and reject the kindness of Bush you see in this clip, and the wisdom of Reagan who sees the imbalance in power between Mexico and the US...and wants to fix the larger problem, rather than building a stupid wall.

Who's living in the past ? Did you vote for Reagan, GHW Bush, Dole, W, McCain, or Romney ?

The Forever Wars & decades of playing GloboCop (which you railed against) took a toll. Now you feign nostalgia.

Trump & the current GOP are a product of our times, as are the Dem Squad led pro-Hamas demonstrators in our streets. That's the choice.

obtw -- our neighbors to the N have always thought we're crazy. They're just too polite to say it out loud.

I think we understand that you align with MAGA extremism, Salty, not the "Dem Squad led by pro-Hamas demonstrators".
You keep making that clear.

Quick question...did you mean "the Squad", the 4 or 5 Congress people in the House with that nickname, or did you mean Biden and his Admin are that "Dem Squad led by..." ??

You do realize that the "choice" is between Biden and his moderate Dem Admin and Trump and the MAGA Admin ?

[old salt]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

[MDlaxfan76]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

I understand the logic of your last paragraph, though I don't agree with it. But I'm not dismissing it.

That said, I disagree that we wouldn't ask our men and women here in America defend our homeland from an aggressor, just as we've done multiple times over many generations. We're supporting the Ukrainians in their doing so against a much larger and more powerful aggressor, an imbalance that we've not faced since the British in the early 1800's and late in the century prior. And we'd have not been successful in doing so without foreign support. And yes, we've done the "meat grinder" ask of our own young people multiple times, whether against internal insurrection or in WWI in Europe or in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. And we'd darn sure do so if the fight was on our own land, say for California or Texas or New England...

Now, am I "stupid" to ask whether such sacrifices were worth making for our freedom and prosperity? By corollary, are they not worth it for Ukrainians to achieve their own freedom and prosperity?

As to our interest in supporting them, beyond the moral aspects, and beyond our overall benefit in maintaining an international rule based system in which we profit so handsomely in peacetime, I've argued that this "proxy" fight may prevent the necessity for direct confrontation of our men and women with Russia or China or other emboldened aggressor. Just as the French had an interest in America defeating the British on our own soil...

Last, if you actually don't know who Trump has called "stupid" and "losers", the fallen, the injured, the captured, Americans who have served their country and its fight against various forms of authoritarianism, I suggest you do some homework.

[old salt]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

I understand the logic of your last paragraph, though I don't agree with it. But I'm not dismissing it.

That said, I disagree that we wouldn't ask our men and women here in America defend our homeland from an aggressor, just as we've done multiple times over many generations. We're supporting the Ukrainians in their doing so against a much larger and more powerful aggressor, an imbalance that we've not faced since the British in the early 1800's and late in the century prior. And we'd have not been successful in doing so without foreign support. And yes, we've done the "meat grinder" ask of our own young people multiple times, whether against internal insurrection or in WWI in Europe or in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. And we'd darn sure do so if the fight was on our own land, say for California or Texas or New England...

Now, am I "stupid" to ask whether such sacrifices were worth making for our freedom and prosperity? By corollary, are they not worth it for Ukrainians to achieve their own freedom and prosperity?

As to our interest in supporting them, beyond the moral aspects, and beyond our overall benefit in maintaining an international rule based system in which we profit so handsomely in peacetime, I've argued that this "proxy" fight may prevent the necessity for direct confrontation of our men and women with Russia or China or other emboldened aggressor. Just as the French had an interest in America defeating the British on our own soil...

Last, if you actually don't know who Trump has called "stupid" and "losers", the fallen, the injured, the captured, I suggest you do some homework.

I don't obsess over Trump's hyperbole. Does that mean that Trump didn't refer to the Ukrainians as stupid losers & you're just throwing that against the wall ?

We're more careful now about how we send our troops into harms way & our wounded do not have to bribe ambulance drivers to medevac them.

Prolonging this proxy war with Russia increases the chances of our troops getting sucked in.
We need the critical weapons & munitions for Taiwan to deter China.

[MDlaxfan76]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

I understand the logic of your last paragraph, though I don't agree with it. But I'm not dismissing it.

That said, I disagree that we wouldn't ask our men and women here in America defend our homeland from an aggressor, just as we've done multiple times over many generations. We're supporting the Ukrainians in their doing so against a much larger and more powerful aggressor, an imbalance that we've not faced since the British in the early 1800's and late in the century prior. And we'd have not been successful in doing so without foreign support. And yes, we've done the "meat grinder" ask of our own young people multiple times, whether against internal insurrection or in WWI in Europe or in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. And we'd darn sure do so if the fight was on our own land, say for California or Texas or New England...

Now, am I "stupid" to ask whether such sacrifices were worth making for our freedom and prosperity? By corollary, are they not worth it for Ukrainians to achieve their own freedom and prosperity?

As to our interest in supporting them, beyond the moral aspects, and beyond our overall benefit in maintaining an international rule based system in which we profit so handsomely in peacetime, I've argued that this "proxy" fight may prevent the necessity for direct confrontation of our men and women with Russia or China or other emboldened aggressor. Just as the French had an interest in America defeating the British on our own soil...

Last, if you actually don't know who Trump has called "stupid" and "losers", the fallen, the injured, the captured, I suggest you do some homework.

I don't obsess over Trump's hyperbole. Does that mean that Trump didn't refer to the Ukrainians as stupid losers & you're just throwing that against the wall ?

We're more careful now about how we send our troops into harms way & our wounded do not have to bribe ambulance drivers to medevac them.

Prolonging this proxy war with Russia increases the chances of our troops getting sucked in.
We need the critical weapons & munitions for Taiwan to deter China.

come on Salty, that strains credulity.
You're neither stupid nor ignorant nor have you not been paying attention whether to the press or these threads.

Try googling: Trump military stupid losers suckers McCain, Kelly, Mattis

We've discussed it on these threads numerous times that Trump has called American military members who were killed, wounded, captured to be losers, suckers, stupid...those military members were defending America's freedom and prosperity...just as Ukrainians are doing now for their own.

I don't think either those Americans or Ukrainians should be described that way. Why is it so hard for you to agree? Why is it so hard for you to say that Trump is entirely disqualified to be commander-in chief? You may disagree with Biden's decisions, prefer others, but come on, can you imagine Biden having so little regard for the memorials of the soldiers you invoked to try and put down Geneva?

[old salt]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

I understand the logic of your last paragraph, though I don't agree with it. But I'm not dismissing it.

That said, I disagree that we wouldn't ask our men and women here in America defend our homeland from an aggressor, just as we've done multiple times over many generations. We're supporting the Ukrainians in their doing so against a much larger and more powerful aggressor, an imbalance that we've not faced since the British in the early 1800's and late in the century prior. And we'd have not been successful in doing so without foreign support. And yes, we've done the "meat grinder" ask of our own young people multiple times, whether against internal insurrection or in WWI in Europe or in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. And we'd darn sure do so if the fight was on our own land, say for California or Texas or New England...

Now, am I "stupid" to ask whether such sacrifices were worth making for our freedom and prosperity? By corollary, are they not worth it for Ukrainians to achieve their own freedom and prosperity?

As to our interest in supporting them, beyond the moral aspects, and beyond our overall benefit in maintaining an international rule based system in which we profit so handsomely in peacetime, I've argued that this "proxy" fight may prevent the necessity for direct confrontation of our men and women with Russia or China or other emboldened aggressor. Just as the French had an interest in America defeating the British on our own soil...

Last, if you actually don't know who Trump has called "stupid" and "losers", the fallen, the injured, the captured, I suggest you do some homework.

I don't obsess over Trump's hyperbole. Does that mean that Trump didn't refer to the Ukrainians as stupid losers & you're just throwing that against the wall ?

We're more careful now about how we send our troops into harms way & our wounded do not have to bribe ambulance drivers to medevac them.

Prolonging this proxy war with Russia increases the chances of our troops getting sucked in.
We need the critical weapons & munitions for Taiwan to deter China.

come on Salty, that strains credulity.
You're neither stupid nor ignorant nor have you not been paying attention whether to the press or these threads.

Try googling: Trump military stupid losers suckers McCain, Kelly, Mattis

We've discussed it on these threads numerous times that Trump has called American military members who were killed, wounded, captured to be losers, suckers, stupid...those military members were defending America's freedom and prosperity...just as Ukrainians are doing now for their own.

I don't think either those Americans or Ukrainians should be described that way. Why is it so hard for you to agree? Why is it so hard for you to say that Trump is entirely disqualified to be commander-in chief? You may disagree with Biden's decisions, prefer others, but come on, can you imagine Biden having so little regard for the memorials of the soldiers you invoked to try and put down Geneva?

I repeat. I do not obsess over Trump's hyperbole & bluster. You are beating a dead horse.
I'm done discussing Ukraine in this hijacked thread.

[MDlaxfan76]

You said you'd have preferred that Ukraine went the way of Belarus and had joined the Union State. Would have avoided Ukrainian lives lost and our treasure.

I responded: "So, your preferred answer to the disposition of Ukraine's people and their aspirations for democracy and prosperity would have been and remains that they be another authoritarian state under the control of Putin's Russian hegemonic ambitions?"

I continue to understand you to be saying, 'yes, that's what I'd have preferred'. If there's something about the way I've expressed that outcome with which you disagree, you've avoided addressing it.

At least a generation of Ukrainian human cannon fodder would still be alive & inhabiting their homeland, which would still be habitable.
They had 30 years to build a liberal democracy, with ample western help.
They failed 3 times & chose corrupt oligarchy instead.

Re. the rest of your post, trying to put Trump's words in my mouth -- TLDR, unfounded & irrelevant.

So, you think that those who fight, go to war, against authoritarians who want to dominate their country are what, if not "losers" and "stupid"?

I think you're stupid for saying that. Did Trump say that re. the Ukrainians ?

I've said before that the Ukrainians have bravely defended their homeland & it was right for us to help them repel the invasion, which they did.

I differ with the decision to mount a costly counter-offensive in hopes of recovering ALL lost territory & taking huge losses & expending scarce munitions & armor to hold small areas not worth the cost of defending. Prolonging this war has caused a global shortage of artillery shells & air defense munitions which the west is unable to sustain. It will take a generation for Ukraine to regenerate the human cannon fodder expended in this pursuit of this strategy. They are our proxies. We would not be feeding US troops into such a meat grinder.

I understand the logic of your last paragraph, though I don't agree with it. But I'm not dismissing it.

That said, I disagree that we wouldn't ask our men and women here in America defend our homeland from an aggressor, just as we've done multiple times over many generations. We're supporting the Ukrainians in their doing so against a much larger and more powerful aggressor, an imbalance that we've not faced since the British in the early 1800's and late in the century prior. And we'd have not been successful in doing so without foreign support. And yes, we've done the "meat grinder" ask of our own young people multiple times, whether against internal insurrection or in WWI in Europe or in WWII in Europe and the Pacific. And we'd darn sure do so if the fight was on our own land, say for California or Texas or New England...

Now, am I "stupid" to ask whether such sacrifices were worth making for our freedom and prosperity? By corollary, are they not worth it for Ukrainians to achieve their own freedom and prosperity?

As to our interest in supporting them, beyond the moral aspects, and beyond our overall benefit in maintaining an international rule based system in which we profit so handsomely in peacetime, I've argued that this "proxy" fight may prevent the necessity for direct confrontation of our men and women with Russia or China or other emboldened aggressor. Just as the French had an interest in America defeating the British on our own soil...

Last, if you actually don't know who Trump has called "stupid" and "losers", the fallen, the injured, the captured, I suggest you do some homework.

I don't obsess over Trump's hyperbole. Does that mean that Trump didn't refer to the Ukrainians as stupid losers & you're just throwing that against the wall ?

We're more careful now about how we send our troops into harms way & our wounded do not have to bribe ambulance drivers to medevac them.

Prolonging this proxy war with Russia increases the chances of our troops getting sucked in.
We need the critical weapons & munitions for Taiwan to deter China.

come on Salty, that strains credulity.
You're neither stupid nor ignorant nor have you not been paying attention whether to the press or these threads.

Try googling: Trump military stupid losers suckers McCain, Kelly, Mattis

We've discussed it on these threads numerous times that Trump has called American military members who were killed, wounded, captured to be losers, suckers, stupid...those military members were defending America's freedom and prosperity...just as Ukrainians are doing now for their own.

I don't think either those Americans or Ukrainians should be described that way. Why is it so hard for you to agree? Why is it so hard for you to say that Trump is entirely disqualified to be commander-in chief? You may disagree with Biden's decisions, prefer others, but come on, can you imagine Biden having so little regard for the memorials of the soldiers you invoked to try and put down Geneva?

I repeat. I do not obsess over Trump's hyperbole & bluster. You are beating a dead horse.
I'm done discussing Ukraine in this hijacked thread.

You do know what the title of the thread is, right?

Why are you running away? Try my google suggestion and then respond.
It could be as simple as "yes, you're right, like the Americans whose memorial services I mentioned, the Ukrainians who die in this "meat grinder" aren't losers, suckers, stupid, they're patriots for their country's future."

[old salt]

It could be as simple as "yes, you're right, like the Americans whose memorial services I mentioned, the Ukrainians who die in this "meat grinder" aren't losers, suckers, stupid, they're patriots for their country's future."

Give it up. I've never said anything negative about the brave Ukrainian soldiers being fed into the meat grinder to fight our proxy war against Russia. Victoria Nuland & George Soros are getting their wish.

[Farfromgeneva]

MD he's pobably goading you here by dropping Soros again FWIW

[old salt]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... democrats/

...then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland received repeated calls, emails and meeting requests from Soros, according to the memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the conservative group Citizens United.

On May 25, 2016, for example, Chris Canavan of the Soros Fund Management firm provided Nuland a written briefing under the heading “Russia sovereign bond issue.” At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime posed a threat to Soros’s vision for Ukraine.

“Toria, here is my take on Russia’s foray into the bond markets this week, based on the market chatter I’ve been able to pick up,” Canavan wrote in an email, released with heavy redactions hiding most of his advice to Nuland.

Canavan worked on the for-profit side of the Soros empire, and his cozy nickname relationship with the top State official responsible for Russia and Ukraine policy speaks volumes about the access Soros was afforded.

Six days later, the nonprofit side of the Soros empire rang the same doorbell. Soros and his top foundation official in Ukraine scored a hastily arranged call with Nuland to discuss European migration policy.

“Many thanks for sorting today’s call on such short notice — much appreciated,” a Soros official wrote Nuland’s aide. “During the call, Mr. Soros promised A/S Nuland he would send her his draft article on migration policy for the New York Review of Books.”

Few people in the world could command the attention of one of America’s busiest, most influential diplomats for a pre-publication read of a column. Soros apparently was one of those few.

A little over a week later, Soros’s team reached out again to Nuland, this time seeking to discuss “EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia” after meeting in Brussels with a top European Union official. According to the emails to State, Soros’s team wanted the U.S. to intervene to get the EU to ease visa rules to help Ukraine, as that country pursued reforms advocated by Soros.

Nuland wrote back, alerting Soros’s top policy adviser on Eurasia, Jeff Goldstein, to a key piece of intelligence: One EU country “has changed its mind” and she was “happy to discuss this further.”

“We are working it. Not sure whether intervention by GS would help,” Nuland answered in response to Soros’s pressure.

Soros is arguably one of the largest, most influential donors of his generation, giving away as much as $1 billion a year to nonprofit and political causes and leaving an indelible imprint on policy positions of liberals worldwide. His reach and influence range from two dozen prosecutors he helped to elect in the United States, to fellows he helped train at the State Department, to global media institutions that he supports to the tune of $26 million annually.

...And when Soros sought to build U.S. pressure on Ukraine policy in 2016, he turned to Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, as a prelude to Nuland.
“Both the migration crisis and Ukraine are part of his view of Europe as falling apart, and the U.S. as ultimately not doing enough to prevent the political disintegration of its most important ally,” Vachon wrote Podesta in a March 2016 email that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. That email sought a meeting with the Clinton campaign chairman.

Politics and policy intertwined.
Likewise, Soros set out a bold vision in an internal 2014 memo for his Open Society Foundation to help root out corruption in Ukraine and build a “civil society” after the Maidan Revolution ousted the country’s Russia-friendly president. It worked with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to leverage the so-called Kleptocracy Initiative to fight corruption. The initiative enabled DOJ to prosecute or seek asset forfeitures from foreigners suspected of corruption, even if the crimes didn’t technically occur on U.S. soil.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... democrats/

...then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland received repeated calls, emails and meeting requests from Soros, according to the memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the conservative group Citizens United.

On May 25, 2016, for example, Chris Canavan of the Soros Fund Management firm provided Nuland a written briefing under the heading “Russia sovereign bond issue.” At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime posed a threat to Soros’s vision for Ukraine.

“Toria, here is my take on Russia’s foray into the bond markets this week, based on the market chatter I’ve been able to pick up,” Canavan wrote in an email, released with heavy redactions hiding most of his advice to Nuland.

Canavan worked on the for-profit side of the Soros empire, and his cozy nickname relationship with the top State official responsible for Russia and Ukraine policy speaks volumes about the access Soros was afforded.

Six days later, the nonprofit side of the Soros empire rang the same doorbell. Soros and his top foundation official in Ukraine scored a hastily arranged call with Nuland to discuss European migration policy.

“Many thanks for sorting today’s call on such short notice — much appreciated,” a Soros official wrote Nuland’s aide. “During the call, Mr. Soros promised A/S Nuland he would send her his draft article on migration policy for the New York Review of Books.”

Few people in the world could command the attention of one of America’s busiest, most influential diplomats for a pre-publication read of a column. Soros apparently was one of those few.

A little over a week later, Soros’s team reached out again to Nuland, this time seeking to discuss “EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia” after meeting in Brussels with a top European Union official. According to the emails to State, Soros’s team wanted the U.S. to intervene to get the EU to ease visa rules to help Ukraine, as that country pursued reforms advocated by Soros.

Nuland wrote back, alerting Soros’s top policy adviser on Eurasia, Jeff Goldstein, to a key piece of intelligence: One EU country “has changed its mind” and she was “happy to discuss this further.”

“We are working it. Not sure whether intervention by GS would help,” Nuland answered in response to Soros’s pressure.

Soros is arguably one of the largest, most influential donors of his generation, giving away as much as $1 billion a year to nonprofit and political causes and leaving an indelible imprint on policy positions of liberals worldwide. His reach and influence range from two dozen prosecutors he helped to elect in the United States, to fellows he helped train at the State Department, to global media institutions that he supports to the tune of $26 million annually.

...And when Soros sought to build U.S. pressure on Ukraine policy in 2016, he turned to Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, as a prelude to Nuland.
“Both the migration crisis and Ukraine are part of his view of Europe as falling apart, and the U.S. as ultimately not doing enough to prevent the political disintegration of its most important ally,” Vachon wrote Podesta in a March 2016 email that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. That email sought a meeting with the Clinton campaign chairman.

Politics and policy intertwined.
Likewise, Soros set out a bold vision in an internal 2014 memo for his Open Society Foundation to help root out corruption in Ukraine and build a “civil society” after the Maidan Revolution ousted the country’s Russia-friendly president. It worked with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to leverage the so-called Kleptocracy Initiative to fight corruption. The initiative enabled DOJ to prosecute or seek asset forfeitures from foreigners suspected of corruption, even if the crimes didn’t technically occur on U.S. soil.

So what. It’s not illegal.

[old salt]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... democrats/

...then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland received repeated calls, emails and meeting requests from Soros, according to the memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the conservative group Citizens United.

On May 25, 2016, for example, Chris Canavan of the Soros Fund Management firm provided Nuland a written briefing under the heading “Russia sovereign bond issue.” At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime posed a threat to Soros’s vision for Ukraine.

“Toria, here is my take on Russia’s foray into the bond markets this week, based on the market chatter I’ve been able to pick up,” Canavan wrote in an email, released with heavy redactions hiding most of his advice to Nuland.

Canavan worked on the for-profit side of the Soros empire, and his cozy nickname relationship with the top State official responsible for Russia and Ukraine policy speaks volumes about the access Soros was afforded.

Six days later, the nonprofit side of the Soros empire rang the same doorbell. Soros and his top foundation official in Ukraine scored a hastily arranged call with Nuland to discuss European migration policy.

“Many thanks for sorting today’s call on such short notice — much appreciated,” a Soros official wrote Nuland’s aide. “During the call, Mr. Soros promised A/S Nuland he would send her his draft article on migration policy for the New York Review of Books.”

Few people in the world could command the attention of one of America’s busiest, most influential diplomats for a pre-publication read of a column. Soros apparently was one of those few.

A little over a week later, Soros’s team reached out again to Nuland, this time seeking to discuss “EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia” after meeting in Brussels with a top European Union official. According to the emails to State, Soros’s team wanted the U.S. to intervene to get the EU to ease visa rules to help Ukraine, as that country pursued reforms advocated by Soros.

Nuland wrote back, alerting Soros’s top policy adviser on Eurasia, Jeff Goldstein, to a key piece of intelligence: One EU country “has changed its mind” and she was “happy to discuss this further.”

“We are working it. Not sure whether intervention by GS would help,” Nuland answered in response to Soros’s pressure.

Soros is arguably one of the largest, most influential donors of his generation, giving away as much as $1 billion a year to nonprofit and political causes and leaving an indelible imprint on policy positions of liberals worldwide. His reach and influence range from two dozen prosecutors he helped to elect in the United States, to fellows he helped train at the State Department, to global media institutions that he supports to the tune of $26 million annually.

...And when Soros sought to build U.S. pressure on Ukraine policy in 2016, he turned to Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, as a prelude to Nuland.
“Both the migration crisis and Ukraine are part of his view of Europe as falling apart, and the U.S. as ultimately not doing enough to prevent the political disintegration of its most important ally,” Vachon wrote Podesta in a March 2016 email that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. That email sought a meeting with the Clinton campaign chairman.

Politics and policy intertwined.
Likewise, Soros set out a bold vision in an internal 2014 memo for his Open Society Foundation to help root out corruption in Ukraine and build a “civil society” after the Maidan Revolution ousted the country’s Russia-friendly president. It worked with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to leverage the so-called Kleptocracy Initiative to fight corruption. The initiative enabled DOJ to prosecute or seek asset forfeitures from foreigners suspected of corruption, even if the crimes didn’t technically occur on U.S. soil.

So what. It’s not illegal.

It's not. Just don't deny Soros' influence & connection to Nuland. He's helping drive our Ukraine policy, through her.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... democrats/

...then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland received repeated calls, emails and meeting requests from Soros, according to the memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the conservative group Citizens United.

On May 25, 2016, for example, Chris Canavan of the Soros Fund Management firm provided Nuland a written briefing under the heading “Russia sovereign bond issue.” At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime posed a threat to Soros’s vision for Ukraine.

“Toria, here is my take on Russia’s foray into the bond markets this week, based on the market chatter I’ve been able to pick up,” Canavan wrote in an email, released with heavy redactions hiding most of his advice to Nuland.

Canavan worked on the for-profit side of the Soros empire, and his cozy nickname relationship with the top State official responsible for Russia and Ukraine policy speaks volumes about the access Soros was afforded.

Six days later, the nonprofit side of the Soros empire rang the same doorbell. Soros and his top foundation official in Ukraine scored a hastily arranged call with Nuland to discuss European migration policy.

“Many thanks for sorting today’s call on such short notice — much appreciated,” a Soros official wrote Nuland’s aide. “During the call, Mr. Soros promised A/S Nuland he would send her his draft article on migration policy for the New York Review of Books.”

Few people in the world could command the attention of one of America’s busiest, most influential diplomats for a pre-publication read of a column. Soros apparently was one of those few.

A little over a week later, Soros’s team reached out again to Nuland, this time seeking to discuss “EU visa liberalization for Ukraine and Georgia” after meeting in Brussels with a top European Union official. According to the emails to State, Soros’s team wanted the U.S. to intervene to get the EU to ease visa rules to help Ukraine, as that country pursued reforms advocated by Soros.

Nuland wrote back, alerting Soros’s top policy adviser on Eurasia, Jeff Goldstein, to a key piece of intelligence: One EU country “has changed its mind” and she was “happy to discuss this further.”

“We are working it. Not sure whether intervention by GS would help,” Nuland answered in response to Soros’s pressure.

Soros is arguably one of the largest, most influential donors of his generation, giving away as much as $1 billion a year to nonprofit and political causes and leaving an indelible imprint on policy positions of liberals worldwide. His reach and influence range from two dozen prosecutors he helped to elect in the United States, to fellows he helped train at the State Department, to global media institutions that he supports to the tune of $26 million annually.

...And when Soros sought to build U.S. pressure on Ukraine policy in 2016, he turned to Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, as a prelude to Nuland.
“Both the migration crisis and Ukraine are part of his view of Europe as falling apart, and the U.S. as ultimately not doing enough to prevent the political disintegration of its most important ally,” Vachon wrote Podesta in a March 2016 email that U.S. officials say was hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. That email sought a meeting with the Clinton campaign chairman.

Politics and policy intertwined.
Likewise, Soros set out a bold vision in an internal 2014 memo for his Open Society Foundation to help root out corruption in Ukraine and build a “civil society” after the Maidan Revolution ousted the country’s Russia-friendly president. It worked with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials to leverage the so-called Kleptocracy Initiative to fight corruption. The initiative enabled DOJ to prosecute or seek asset forfeitures from foreigners suspected of corruption, even if the crimes didn’t technically occur on U.S. soil.

So what. It’s not illegal.

It's not. Just don't deny Soros' influence & connection to Nuland. He's helping drive our Ukraine policy, through her.

Who cares. It ain’t illegal. You Ukrainian or Russian?

[MDlaxfan76]

MD he's pobably goading you here by dropping Soros again FWIW

yup, two Jews who believe in freedom and democracy for the peoples of former Soviet states.

Salty thinks they should have just remained under authoritarian rule...no surprise really.

[old salt]

MD he's pobably goading you here by dropping Soros again FWIW

yup, two Jews who believe in freedom and democracy for the peoples of former Soviet states.

Salty thinks they should have just remained under authoritarian rule...no surprise really.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/chikli-do ... tisemitic/

[cradleandshoot]

I asked a direct, serious question which you have avoided answering again and again and again. Is the question making you uncomfortable? Needing to confront the implications of your views as expressed?

Your question was anything but direct. More like out of left field.
I still don't know what you're trying to get me to say, so you can mangle it to fit your agenda. I seek peace & stability.
Given the cost in blood & treasure, & the uncertain future, I would have been satisfied had Ukraine gone the route of Belarus.
We have no idea how this mess in Ukraine is going to play out. It's going to be a flash point for a wider war for the foreseeable future.

It doesn't matter what you say or how you answer the questions. MD will only twist it around and misrepresent what you have to say. When certain folks on this forum whine about not answering their questions.. not doing so is a prudent decision. They are not interested in your opinion, they are only interested in some sort of gotcha moment they can dream up.

When you stop lying then there can be a conversation. Your eloquence and good grammar is a thin disguise for asinine opinions. Why don't you go for a bike ride to clear your head? Who knows, maybe someday you'll say something that a lifelong conservative republican might say.

Did I lie about something? Please be specific.

BTW, I take no issue with you disagreeing with any of my opinions and favoring your own. I merely ask you to explain and defend your own.

Otherwise, I'd prefer you to stop with the sniveling boot licking and personal insults.

Duuuuuh, hello.... Your biggest on going lie is claiming to be a lifelong conservative republican. Could you redefine what you mean by that? My good friend who is an actual bona fide lifelong conservative republican has an expression for your special breed of faux Republican. Not wanting to upset your sensitive nature I won't mention it. When it comes to boot licking your the hands down champion on this forum. There isn't a FLP liberal butt on this forum that you haven't put a liplock on . BTW... has the RNC offered you the featured speaker at next year's convention?? They should be blowing up your phone by now. FTR there sluggo I don't give a chit about what you prefer I do. If you have a problem with my posts then report it or shut the eff up. I'm done with your arrogance and faux Republican elitism.

Just f-off, cradle.

I'm sure 99% of your party wishes the same sentiment to you.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD he's pobably goading you here by dropping Soros again FWIW

yup, two Jews who believe in freedom and democracy for the peoples of former Soviet states.

Salty thinks they should have just remained under authoritarian rule...no surprise really.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/chikli-do ... tisemitic/

It ain’t illegal.