all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 53 points 1 year ago (1 child)

He had all the cards and gave them all away. Probably on purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Putin needs a way out. He can’t beat Ukraine, so it’s easier to have Trump get him what he wants, with the only cost being to let Trump brag about “winning”

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    The deal was made long ago.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The Russians (also) have Kompromat on Trump

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Putin showed Trump the blackmail material he has on him. Trump has no power globally when he has these things going against him

  • source
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (14 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    He’s Putins bitch in case you missed the last ten years

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The US government can and should occupy Russia. We’d win easily.

    I laughed so hard I think I pooped my pants a little.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    It's funny because you still seem to be hung up on "my toys are more expensive than yours, therefore I win" mentality.

    That logic didn't work for the US in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. And it didn't work for Russia in Ukraine.

    You're talking about a country full of drunks.

    Underestimating your enemy is my best guess as to where the US goes so wrong when invading "weaker" countries, but I'm no expert.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    If the Russians can barely win against the Ukrainians, I think the US would pretty capably put Russia down.

    The US couldn't hold Iraq or Afghanistan. Russia is much larger than either of those.

    You also have the other problem of the right wing of the USA being very pro Russia and pro Putin - including the president and many members of congress. MAGA type have been seen wearing shirts that say "better Russian than a Democrat".

    It's going to be hard to get all those MAGA army boys who want to taste Putin cock to invade any part of Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    You are putting a lot of faith in two megalomaniac narcissistic assholes with an ego bigger than their country not using their big nukey toys if they ever entered a direct conflict.

    Nuclear powers don't do direct conflict for a good reason.

    Calm down.

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

    That would require Trump not to be a Russian stooge.

    And if we're talking about ways to bring Russia to heel, expropriating all EU and US assets held by Russian oligarchs would be a great start. And after that, send in spies to pick off those oligarchs one by one, in obvious but deniable ways. Putin only keeps his job as long as they know he can protect them and keep them rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, Europe and USA could just give Ukraine tons of long range missiles and tell them to do as they please. Giving Moscow a taste of its own medicine could change things real quick. However, the problem is that both USA and Europe are dependent on Russian exports for energy. Europe gets something like 30% of its energy from Russian naturual gas and USA gets most of its fissile uranium from Russia. Until Europe and USA completely shut off Russian energy sources, it's all a dog and pony show

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment