Amongst all the bullshit Trump said Friday, there are two things that standout. One is extremely revealing, where Trump showed his cards of what he is unshakable position really is. The other where he showed his weakness.
He showed his cards when he said that both AND Putin were victims of the “Russia Hoax”. He revealed that he thinks that he and Putin are together are brothers in arms. It exposed to all of us that Trump will never take sides against Putin, and that there will never be any US security guarantee nor US backstop for peacekeepers. No matter how much Zelenskyy would have bit his tongue and kissed Trump’s ass, it would have made no difference. Things could have gone well, and Zelenskyy could have come home with a signed minerals deal, but that would have made no impact on where Trump wants the “peace” deal to end up. Europe can rush to patch things up and get a back on track for a peace deal, but it would never be one that would be acceptable for Ukraine and Europe, and never should it be for Americans either.
The other revealing statement is Trump’s comments that Zelenskyy is gambling with WW3. If Trump believes that, then it means that Trump as well, is gambling with WW3. If the potential for WW3 is at stake, then Trump has only two choices to avoid it. One is to stand-up to Putin, tell him to stop the war and pull back to pre-2022 borders, if not pre-2014 borders. Tell Putin that he has no choice, that we will crush him and his economy if he doesn’t acquiesce. There are no two ways about it, WW3 only happens if Putin takes it there. The other choice, which Trump seems to be making, is to be weak and kowtow to Putin, giving him what he wants in a peace deal, in other words, surrender to the aggressor. Trump’s statements show us what matters to him. In Trump’s mind “I don’t care if your gamble loses and we have WW3, as long as I can blame you”. That is what the meeting was all about.
All parties can dance around for a while pursuing a peace deal, but it will never work. The question is, does Russia or Ukraine benefit most from a cease fire pause? If we think it is best for Russia, allowing them time to regroup, then we need to make this negotiation dance be a quick-step. If we decide that Ukraine can benefit most, then let’s play the game and go through a slow waltz. In either case, action needs to be taken starting now in order to get Ukraine and the EU ready for going it alone in the war.
What will ultimately need to happen is for the EU to confiscate Russia’s frozen $300M, and use some of it, $100B or $200B, to buy weapons from the US and EU factories. Trump has to agree to two things. One is to sell weapons to Ukraine and the EU, and the other is to not lift US sanctions on Russia. The reality is that Putin is in bad shape. Years of fighting and 100’s of thousands of casualties, with very little progress made. The Russian economy is in struggling with 10+% inflation and 20% interest rates. The only thing keeping full employment is the war economy (and workforce losses in war causalities). Things can’t go on like this for forever for Russia. Whether it’s 12 months or 24 months, at some point Putin’s hold on leadership is threatened. The result being that Ukraine (and Europe) win, and Putin loses. The balance of the $300B is used to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine can then be put on a fast track for NATO membership.
Seizing the $300B, and Trump maintaining sanctions while selling Ukraine/Europe arms, is vital for this scenario to work out. Yes, there is some risk of the precedence that seizing the money creates. I heard some express concerns that this may cause companies to be unwilling to invest assets in the west in the future, favoring China/Russia, instead. That is preposterous, are authoritarian nations really safer for investments than the west? I suppose if you’re planning to invade another country, then yeah, don’t invest in the west. For everyone else, there is nothing to worry about. Besides, Russia has a history of taking “temporary management” of foreign companies.
If it plays out this way, that looks bad for Trump. He doesn’t get his Nobel peace prize, and he is shown to have been wrong in abandoning Ukraine by pushing for a “peace” surrender deal. If Trump does not agree to these two things, then Putin wins, Trump still doesn’t get his Nobel Peace prize and will be blamed for Russia’s victory.
Trump may be holding a number of cards, but only one is a winner that gets him his coveted Nobel Peace Prize. He has sent us clear signals by what he revealed in the oval office mugging, he has already discarded the winning one. America first, means America alone, and ultimately America as the #2 world power.
"Honoring their trust from Providence or behaving as a rubber stamp for Donald Trump—which legacy is it to be?"
Bill, you keep asking the same question, over and over, and the trumpublicans keep giving you the same answer, over and over, time to move on bud... you're officially old man yelling at the sky....
One of the many bizarre moments in Friday's Oval Office meeting was when Vance said something like: "Biden was out their puffing out his chest, but talk doesn't do anything. Action is what matters. We need to have diplomacy!"
But diplomacy is, first of all. a lot of talk. And what particular "action" does JD propose to follow that talking, aside from seizing half of Ukraine's mineral wealth?
And what did he mean by Biden "puffing out his chest"? Was that a reference to some kind of tough talk before the invasion? Or does it refer to sending material assistance after the invasion?
The whole comment sounded like a mashup of two contradictory ways that MAGA apologists explain Russia's aggression: 1) It was caused by "Biden's weakness." 2) It was caused by NATO & U.S. "provocation," to which Russia responded defensively. Both of those storylines, oddly, seem to end up at the position that helping Ukraine defend itself is "warmongering," and anyone who wants "peace" needs to do "diplomacy" that's designed first of all to make Ukraine stop defending itself.
Another irony of Vance's "talk vs. action" comment is that Trump has claimed that he kept all the world's bad actors in line simply by stern warnings that they'd better not misbehave, and MAGAs generally echo the idea that tough talk from Trump is very powerful - whereas providing material aid to resist aggression is wrong.
I need help understanding something. I hear how much in dollars that the U.S. has given to Ukraine; but what I also hear is that we have provided munitions and planes and other equipment for them to defend themselves. Maybe we have also provided cash as well or training for pilots. How is the value of this old equipment, training, and old munitions determined?
Is it the value that we pay to U.S. companies to build new replacement equipment and munitions? The cost of bringing Ukraine pilots to the U.S. to learn how to fly out planes? Are old planes and tanks valued based on some depreciation schedule or is the value set at what it cost to build or make them when that took place 1,2,5,10 or some other years ago.
Do the European countries that have also contributed to the defense of Ukraine actually give money or give old equipment or munitions? How is their contribution determined?
Can anyone help me understand the above?
I just want to be sure that whatever we and the NATO countries are doing is clear and accurate.
"A crypto reserve will elevate this critical industry..."
Translation: "I am going to inflate a bubble in the named cryptocurrencies as part of a massive pump-and-dump scheme to enrich myself & my family, and a few select crypto-cronies, at the expense of the US taxpayer."
"...after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden administration..."
Translation: "We got caught with our hands in the cookie jar and my predecessor tried to stop us."
Geez, he's not even trying to hide the grift & corruption & self-dealing.
But he spent two years _not hiding_ except for that brief non-denial denial about Project 2025.
"The fact is that going forward a small group of Republicans in the Senate and the House, acting in concert among themselves and in cooperation with the Democrats, COULD make a fundamental difference. With their support, Congress COULD pass resolutions supporting Ukraine and NATO and condemning Putin. They COULD insist that aid for Ukraine be added to continuing resolutions and appropriations bills....They COULD do this if they remembered Edmund Burke’s admonition that a representative owes his constituents “his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience.”
There's quite a flaw here. Republicans "could" do any or all of those things. However, there's no indication that they WILL. In fact, I would argue that they most certainly will not.
The town hall episodes are indeed more or less like Trump 's ambush of Zelensky. Staged to look like there is grass roots anger in red districts. Often many of the agitators are from (far) outside of the community. Just like the protests staged in the 1960s these are not organic but opportunistic.
Most of the. Republican veterans in Red states that I know --- and I know many--- are at best concerned and at worst actually support the DOGE cuts (for now). Rural veterans have a different experience with the VA than do those in the urban and suburban areas because many of their services are provided by the VA's community based network of clinics and hospitals.
Veterans supported Trump and now they are the first to experience the consequences of their irrational choices and self deception. They have no right to complain.
Why do so many (at the Bulwark) still have. residual faith that there are any elected Republicans who have any principled commitments to anything than their personal political survival? The ones who ever were have been driven out or defeated at the ballot box. This is what half the country wanted and from what I can see they are happy to see it.
Strongly agree. If I see another town hall on Rachel Maddow, I will scream. Trump’s support has only slightly declined. Unless and until there is a steep drop, we might as well forget about any effective change happening, no matter how much some of us are intent on doing some nebulous “something”.
"But there are Republicans who understand what’s at stake. A few spoke out this weekend . . . . The fact is that going forward a small group of Republicans in the Senate and the House, acting in concert among themselves and in cooperation with the Democrats, could make a fundamental difference. With their support, Congress could pass resolutions supporting Ukraine and NATO and condemning Putin. They could insist that aid for Ukraine be added to continuing resolutions and appropriations bills."
Maybe, but left unsaid is Congressional Republicans are scared witless by Trump's modern-day "Brown Shirts" army that will reign intimidation and violence upon them and their families if they dare deviate from whatever position Trump happens to take at any given moment. This is widely understood but barely acknowledged in these discussions, if at all. (Why do you think Trump pardoned the J6 insurrectionists?)
Would it help Republicans understand the risk of a cryptocurrency reserve if we told them it that from a safety and soundness perspective it ranks slightly below a Cabbage Patch Kids reserve?
As a complete aside: Seems the appropriate, safe, non-security-threatening response to the "what'd ya do" query would be, "My job. If the recipient is unsure, they should see job description in data base, if not redacted or deleted."
I wonder if any Republicans in Congress will respond to the news that Hegseth has stopped all offensive cyber forays against Russia. That policy seems to me to be the clearest move so far to degrade the security of the US.
I hope Hegseth appears on some news show in the not too distant future and the moderator asks him if the Russians agreed to suspend their offensive cyber attacks against the US. If, as will most certainly be the case, he says they did not the moderator should ask him why it makes sense to unilaterally disarm in one of the most important sectors of modern warfare.
It should only take a couple of well thought out responses to the policy from Republican national representatives to get the ball rolling. At some Republicans will have to acknowledge degraded national security.
The Hegseth answer will be that Russia has never engaged in cyber attacks and that saying they did is part of the Democrat hoax perpetrated by haters of Trump and the media. Obviously now that we have agreed not to pursue a cyber offensive Russia can be trusted to respect our cyber security. Or something equally bizarre.
Since it's now forbidden to admit that Russia actually invaded Ukraine, of course it will be forbidden to say that Russia has launched any cyberattack on the U.S.
Reading the truly shit show that the Trump administration is and its horrific effects is like taking a huge dose of Ipecac leading to projectile vomiting. Graphic I know but pretty well on point.
The truth is that this whole American democratic experiment stands or falls on the separation of powers and this Republican legislature has willingly ceded their constitutional authority to the executive branch. Whether it's out of fear of Trump and the MAGA good squad set loose on them and their families, unwillingness to risk their seats, or blind hatred of Democrats doesn't matter. They know the votes they're taking and the support they're giving Trump, whether openly or through their silence, is deadly to our democracy, yet they do it anyway.
Our democracy cannot stand with a neutered legislative branch and a grossly uninformed/misinformed citizenry, especially when we have such a malign actor in the White House, so this really all hinges on whether enough Republicans can stiffen their spines and defend our Constitution. Nothing I've seen so far tells me that they can.
There are many of us who want to fight back. We are looking for actionable plans that we can all organize around & engage in. No one cares if these Senators and Congressman feel threatened by Trump and the goon squad. They didn’t seem to have any problem when the threats were directed at the Dems, Independents and decent GOP. If they can’t stand up for the Constitution, rule of law and decency, they should resign in mass or continue to Reign in Hell, instead of Serve in Heaven. Paradise Lost is now on becoming a reality.
Amongst all the bullshit Trump said Friday, there are two things that standout. One is extremely revealing, where Trump showed his cards of what he is unshakable position really is. The other where he showed his weakness.
He showed his cards when he said that both AND Putin were victims of the “Russia Hoax”. He revealed that he thinks that he and Putin are together are brothers in arms. It exposed to all of us that Trump will never take sides against Putin, and that there will never be any US security guarantee nor US backstop for peacekeepers. No matter how much Zelenskyy would have bit his tongue and kissed Trump’s ass, it would have made no difference. Things could have gone well, and Zelenskyy could have come home with a signed minerals deal, but that would have made no impact on where Trump wants the “peace” deal to end up. Europe can rush to patch things up and get a back on track for a peace deal, but it would never be one that would be acceptable for Ukraine and Europe, and never should it be for Americans either.
The other revealing statement is Trump’s comments that Zelenskyy is gambling with WW3. If Trump believes that, then it means that Trump as well, is gambling with WW3. If the potential for WW3 is at stake, then Trump has only two choices to avoid it. One is to stand-up to Putin, tell him to stop the war and pull back to pre-2022 borders, if not pre-2014 borders. Tell Putin that he has no choice, that we will crush him and his economy if he doesn’t acquiesce. There are no two ways about it, WW3 only happens if Putin takes it there. The other choice, which Trump seems to be making, is to be weak and kowtow to Putin, giving him what he wants in a peace deal, in other words, surrender to the aggressor. Trump’s statements show us what matters to him. In Trump’s mind “I don’t care if your gamble loses and we have WW3, as long as I can blame you”. That is what the meeting was all about.
All parties can dance around for a while pursuing a peace deal, but it will never work. The question is, does Russia or Ukraine benefit most from a cease fire pause? If we think it is best for Russia, allowing them time to regroup, then we need to make this negotiation dance be a quick-step. If we decide that Ukraine can benefit most, then let’s play the game and go through a slow waltz. In either case, action needs to be taken starting now in order to get Ukraine and the EU ready for going it alone in the war.
What will ultimately need to happen is for the EU to confiscate Russia’s frozen $300M, and use some of it, $100B or $200B, to buy weapons from the US and EU factories. Trump has to agree to two things. One is to sell weapons to Ukraine and the EU, and the other is to not lift US sanctions on Russia. The reality is that Putin is in bad shape. Years of fighting and 100’s of thousands of casualties, with very little progress made. The Russian economy is in struggling with 10+% inflation and 20% interest rates. The only thing keeping full employment is the war economy (and workforce losses in war causalities). Things can’t go on like this for forever for Russia. Whether it’s 12 months or 24 months, at some point Putin’s hold on leadership is threatened. The result being that Ukraine (and Europe) win, and Putin loses. The balance of the $300B is used to help rebuild Ukraine. Ukraine can then be put on a fast track for NATO membership.
Seizing the $300B, and Trump maintaining sanctions while selling Ukraine/Europe arms, is vital for this scenario to work out. Yes, there is some risk of the precedence that seizing the money creates. I heard some express concerns that this may cause companies to be unwilling to invest assets in the west in the future, favoring China/Russia, instead. That is preposterous, are authoritarian nations really safer for investments than the west? I suppose if you’re planning to invade another country, then yeah, don’t invest in the west. For everyone else, there is nothing to worry about. Besides, Russia has a history of taking “temporary management” of foreign companies.
If it plays out this way, that looks bad for Trump. He doesn’t get his Nobel peace prize, and he is shown to have been wrong in abandoning Ukraine by pushing for a “peace” surrender deal. If Trump does not agree to these two things, then Putin wins, Trump still doesn’t get his Nobel Peace prize and will be blamed for Russia’s victory.
Trump may be holding a number of cards, but only one is a winner that gets him his coveted Nobel Peace Prize. He has sent us clear signals by what he revealed in the oval office mugging, he has already discarded the winning one. America first, means America alone, and ultimately America as the #2 world power.
"Honoring their trust from Providence or behaving as a rubber stamp for Donald Trump—which legacy is it to be?"
Bill, you keep asking the same question, over and over, and the trumpublicans keep giving you the same answer, over and over, time to move on bud... you're officially old man yelling at the sky....
One of the many bizarre moments in Friday's Oval Office meeting was when Vance said something like: "Biden was out their puffing out his chest, but talk doesn't do anything. Action is what matters. We need to have diplomacy!"
But diplomacy is, first of all. a lot of talk. And what particular "action" does JD propose to follow that talking, aside from seizing half of Ukraine's mineral wealth?
And what did he mean by Biden "puffing out his chest"? Was that a reference to some kind of tough talk before the invasion? Or does it refer to sending material assistance after the invasion?
The whole comment sounded like a mashup of two contradictory ways that MAGA apologists explain Russia's aggression: 1) It was caused by "Biden's weakness." 2) It was caused by NATO & U.S. "provocation," to which Russia responded defensively. Both of those storylines, oddly, seem to end up at the position that helping Ukraine defend itself is "warmongering," and anyone who wants "peace" needs to do "diplomacy" that's designed first of all to make Ukraine stop defending itself.
Another irony of Vance's "talk vs. action" comment is that Trump has claimed that he kept all the world's bad actors in line simply by stern warnings that they'd better not misbehave, and MAGAs generally echo the idea that tough talk from Trump is very powerful - whereas providing material aid to resist aggression is wrong.
I need help understanding something. I hear how much in dollars that the U.S. has given to Ukraine; but what I also hear is that we have provided munitions and planes and other equipment for them to defend themselves. Maybe we have also provided cash as well or training for pilots. How is the value of this old equipment, training, and old munitions determined?
Is it the value that we pay to U.S. companies to build new replacement equipment and munitions? The cost of bringing Ukraine pilots to the U.S. to learn how to fly out planes? Are old planes and tanks valued based on some depreciation schedule or is the value set at what it cost to build or make them when that took place 1,2,5,10 or some other years ago.
Do the European countries that have also contributed to the defense of Ukraine actually give money or give old equipment or munitions? How is their contribution determined?
Can anyone help me understand the above?
I just want to be sure that whatever we and the NATO countries are doing is clear and accurate.
"A crypto reserve will elevate this critical industry..."
Translation: "I am going to inflate a bubble in the named cryptocurrencies as part of a massive pump-and-dump scheme to enrich myself & my family, and a few select crypto-cronies, at the expense of the US taxpayer."
"...after years of corrupt attacks by the Biden administration..."
Translation: "We got caught with our hands in the cookie jar and my predecessor tried to stop us."
Geez, he's not even trying to hide the grift & corruption & self-dealing.
But he spent two years _not hiding_ except for that brief non-denial denial about Project 2025.
"The fact is that going forward a small group of Republicans in the Senate and the House, acting in concert among themselves and in cooperation with the Democrats, COULD make a fundamental difference. With their support, Congress COULD pass resolutions supporting Ukraine and NATO and condemning Putin. They COULD insist that aid for Ukraine be added to continuing resolutions and appropriations bills....They COULD do this if they remembered Edmund Burke’s admonition that a representative owes his constituents “his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience.”
There's quite a flaw here. Republicans "could" do any or all of those things. However, there's no indication that they WILL. In fact, I would argue that they most certainly will not.
The town hall episodes are indeed more or less like Trump 's ambush of Zelensky. Staged to look like there is grass roots anger in red districts. Often many of the agitators are from (far) outside of the community. Just like the protests staged in the 1960s these are not organic but opportunistic.
Most of the. Republican veterans in Red states that I know --- and I know many--- are at best concerned and at worst actually support the DOGE cuts (for now). Rural veterans have a different experience with the VA than do those in the urban and suburban areas because many of their services are provided by the VA's community based network of clinics and hospitals.
Veterans supported Trump and now they are the first to experience the consequences of their irrational choices and self deception. They have no right to complain.
Why do so many (at the Bulwark) still have. residual faith that there are any elected Republicans who have any principled commitments to anything than their personal political survival? The ones who ever were have been driven out or defeated at the ballot box. This is what half the country wanted and from what I can see they are happy to see it.
Strongly agree. If I see another town hall on Rachel Maddow, I will scream. Trump’s support has only slightly declined. Unless and until there is a steep drop, we might as well forget about any effective change happening, no matter how much some of us are intent on doing some nebulous “something”.
And in a town the size of Oakley, Kansas, everyone knows everyone else. Who belongs and who is an interloper.
"But there are Republicans who understand what’s at stake. A few spoke out this weekend . . . . The fact is that going forward a small group of Republicans in the Senate and the House, acting in concert among themselves and in cooperation with the Democrats, could make a fundamental difference. With their support, Congress could pass resolutions supporting Ukraine and NATO and condemning Putin. They could insist that aid for Ukraine be added to continuing resolutions and appropriations bills."
Maybe, but left unsaid is Congressional Republicans are scared witless by Trump's modern-day "Brown Shirts" army that will reign intimidation and violence upon them and their families if they dare deviate from whatever position Trump happens to take at any given moment. This is widely understood but barely acknowledged in these discussions, if at all. (Why do you think Trump pardoned the J6 insurrectionists?)
Would it help Republicans understand the risk of a cryptocurrency reserve if we told them it that from a safety and soundness perspective it ranks slightly below a Cabbage Patch Kids reserve?
I will take each and every single WIN!!!
More and more heroes and patriots standing up one by one - truth by truth memo by memo - 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
As a complete aside: Seems the appropriate, safe, non-security-threatening response to the "what'd ya do" query would be, "My job. If the recipient is unsure, they should see job description in data base, if not redacted or deleted."
I wonder if any Republicans in Congress will respond to the news that Hegseth has stopped all offensive cyber forays against Russia. That policy seems to me to be the clearest move so far to degrade the security of the US.
I hope Hegseth appears on some news show in the not too distant future and the moderator asks him if the Russians agreed to suspend their offensive cyber attacks against the US. If, as will most certainly be the case, he says they did not the moderator should ask him why it makes sense to unilaterally disarm in one of the most important sectors of modern warfare.
It should only take a couple of well thought out responses to the policy from Republican national representatives to get the ball rolling. At some Republicans will have to acknowledge degraded national security.
The Hegseth answer will be that Russia has never engaged in cyber attacks and that saying they did is part of the Democrat hoax perpetrated by haters of Trump and the media. Obviously now that we have agreed not to pursue a cyber offensive Russia can be trusted to respect our cyber security. Or something equally bizarre.
Since it's now forbidden to admit that Russia actually invaded Ukraine, of course it will be forbidden to say that Russia has launched any cyberattack on the U.S.
Reading the truly shit show that the Trump administration is and its horrific effects is like taking a huge dose of Ipecac leading to projectile vomiting. Graphic I know but pretty well on point.
The truth is that this whole American democratic experiment stands or falls on the separation of powers and this Republican legislature has willingly ceded their constitutional authority to the executive branch. Whether it's out of fear of Trump and the MAGA good squad set loose on them and their families, unwillingness to risk their seats, or blind hatred of Democrats doesn't matter. They know the votes they're taking and the support they're giving Trump, whether openly or through their silence, is deadly to our democracy, yet they do it anyway.
Our democracy cannot stand with a neutered legislative branch and a grossly uninformed/misinformed citizenry, especially when we have such a malign actor in the White House, so this really all hinges on whether enough Republicans can stiffen their spines and defend our Constitution. Nothing I've seen so far tells me that they can.
There are many of us who want to fight back. We are looking for actionable plans that we can all organize around & engage in. No one cares if these Senators and Congressman feel threatened by Trump and the goon squad. They didn’t seem to have any problem when the threats were directed at the Dems, Independents and decent GOP. If they can’t stand up for the Constitution, rule of law and decency, they should resign in mass or continue to Reign in Hell, instead of Serve in Heaven. Paradise Lost is now on becoming a reality.