Trump-Zelenskyy clash marks a defining turn away from U.S. defense of democracies
Trump-Zelenskyy clash marks a defining turn away from U.S. defense of democracies
Analysis: The confrontation revealed Trump’s deep impatience with Ukraine and its democratically elected president, and his persistent defense of Russia’s autocratic ruler.
Summary
A dramatic Oval Office confrontation between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy underscored Trump’s hostility toward Ukraine and preference for negotiating with Russia.
Unlike past presidents who handled tense exchanges with allies privately, Trump and JD Vance berated Zelenskyy on camera, siding with Russia over a democratic ally.
This marked a break from decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized supporting democracies for stability and economic benefits.
Republicans largely praised Trump's stance, while Democrats and European leaders firmly backed Ukraine. The meeting ended with Zelenskyy being asked to leave after warning that Putin would eventually attack NATO countries.
You're viewing part of a thread.
-
The last safe guard is the second amendment.
That's something to discuss when we're way closer to 100%, authoritanism, and not 0%.
I hope enough liberals will realise that in time.
You realize there are liberals that own guns, right?
-
You will never get to a breaking point. It's cooking frogs from here all the way to a holocaust.
-
The boiling toad in the pot scenario is a real danger, but I think things would come to a head before that.
-
The last few times this happened, it didn't.
-
The boiling toad in the pot scenario is a real danger, but I think things would come to a head before that.
The last few times this happened, it didn’t.
I think we're marking "would come to a head" at different places on the scale.
-
I mean if it comes to a head like the last time, we end up with a Chinese flag on the White House and a generation of lives lost.
-
-
-
-
-
There liberal comment was literally because they have guns also that they hope they will act on the 2nd to save us. For someone correcting everyone you sure are misinterpreting a lot.
Also we are not close to 0%. I'd say at least >30% by made up metrics. Congress will not act, too many maga. Scotus just proved with their stay of USAID that they will back Trump. Vance openly said no one can enforce the Judicial as the US Marshals are under the executive. It's bleak.
-
There liberal comment was literally because they have guns also that they hope they will act on the 2nd to save us.
Well the stereotype is that liberals dont' have guns. /shrug
For someone correcting everyone you sure are misinterpreting a lot.
So, we're not allot to disagree with others here on Lemmy? Just read, and move on?
Otherwise, one persons correction is another persons disagreement and discussion.
Also we are not close to 0%. I’d say at least >30% by made up metrics.
Not that I agree with the made-up 30% number, but I don't think its time to call for everyone to know where their guns are at at 30%.
Congress will not act, too many maga.
Congress will not act YET.
If you can say anything about Congress, they REALLY care about themselves and their money and their jobs. The second Trump risks any of those, things will be afoot at the Circle K, regardless of MAGA.
Scotus just proved with their stay of USAID that they will back Trump.
That's not how SCOTUS works, with it comes with temporary stays. There's been times when they've stayed something, then did the exact opposive when hearing the case formally.
Vance openly said no one can enforce the Judicial as the US Marshals are under the executive. It’s bleak.
I'll definately give you this one. No VP of either party should ever say something like that. And the non-supreme courts will pimp-slap him back in line.
Having said that, that bluster without action is < 30%. They're doing allot of 'rope-a-dope' as well as actions. Judge on the actions, not on the words.
-
-