Garibaldee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many years until it counts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you find so outrageous.

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

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

snark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snark

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

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

Give examples to this claim.

Why should anyone waste time with you?

Why did you waste your time writing this?

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

What a weird and uncomfortable thing to say to someone.