you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 81 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Read the article, her point is that if Trump could use his infamous deal making power to get Russia out of Ukraine without ceding any Ukrainian territory, then that would be a large enough achievement that she, personally, would nominate him.

    But she says it because she strongly suspects it would never happen. Trump will never stand up to Putin, and will have no problem selling our Ukraine in any peace settlement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    It would never happen, because so far everything he did his first term and this 7 months benefited the Russia.

    But if he would do it, why not? That would actually finally be something worth of a nomination.

    Somewhat related, but this is a great roast related to his desire of having a Nobel peace prize by India:

    https://youtu.be/gO_OE5G-R_E

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    if Trump could use his infamous deal making power to get Russia out of Ukraine without ceding any Ukrainian territory

    Then he'd need to offer something of equal or greater value. So... Alaska? Idfk.

    Trump's deals have enriched himself, consistently. This isn't any different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don’t care about anything said by the woman who had such hubris to think she was guaranteed to win, thus running an unpopular campaign that resulted in his first term. Go away, lady.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    She should have been guaranteed a win against Trump.

    This is more about the American voter and less about her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments