American Politics

[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;3021669]Well, that is it in a nutshell. Radical leftie communists like Bob would prefer to see another couple of hundred thousand dead in the fighting as long as they can try to blame it on President Trump. They offer no alternative, viable solutions. Can you imagine Kamel face doing anything about the war except sending a couple hundred billion more to Ukraine to continue the blood bath. The problem with the Biden / Kamel face plan, if you even want to call it a plan, is that eventually the Russian army will break thru the Ukraine's front lines and take over the entire country. Putin, the war criminal, doesn't care how many lives are destroyed in the process of conquering the Ukraine. Meanwhile Trump's plan is the best plan, the only plan, unless you are willing to send American or Nato troops into the battle zone to fight the Russian Army.

The only remaining question is whether Putin go along with the plan or not. If he rejects the plan the onus is entirely on Putin. President Trump stands ready and willing to break the back of the Russian economy (the stick) if Putin does not agree to the deal which would also include Article "5" Nato type security guarantees with European troops stationed in the Ukraine to prevent any subsequent Russian attacks which is similar to the arrangement that has kept the peace on the Korean Peninsula since 1952. (Technically North and South Korea are still at war.).

Even Hillary agrees that if President Trump pulls this thing off, he will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. 555/ KKK.[/QUOTE]What happened to Trump ending the war on day 1 We are still waiting!

[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;3021669]The only remaining question is whether Putin go along with the plan or not.[/QUOTE]Trump is not POTUS. [B]He is puppet of the Russian Federation[/B]! Trump is taking his marching orders from Putin.

[B]Just watch![/B]

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3021814]Trump is not POTUS. [B]He is puppet of the Russian Federation[/B]! Trump is taking his marching orders from Putin.

[B]Just watch![/B][/QUOTE]If he isn't, he might as well be since the crap results he has been producing with his involvement is worse than anything Kamala would have produced even if she had done nothing more than continuing Biden's clear and steady support for Ukraine and democracy until Putin ran out of troops, breath and a pulse and for a relative pittance in America's budget.

But that is definitely not the way it has gone with Trump. Putin has escalated his attacks and war crimes under Trump. And some of it done apparently just to troll Trump for being such a gullible numbskull.

LOL. Trump actually thinks a phone call to one of the parties telling them they should "stop the killing", the same kind of call many nation leaders make, means he "stopped 6-7 wars" when every credible Factcheck reveals that idiotic claim to be Mostly False and would be Pants on Fire False if he hadn't been just one of many others making those same phonecalls. LOL.

Brazil exports more agricultural products to China than the Dis-United States of America due to tariffs. Is that good for my fellow citizens who feed the nation. Are MAGA health freaks that don't eat?

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3021814]Trump is not POTUS. [B]He is puppet of the Russian Federation[/B]! Trump is taking his marching orders from Putin.

[B]Just watch![/B][/QUOTE]Yeah, the whole world is watching. I know you hate Trump, but let's see what happens. I hope Trump is successful because it will save hundreds of thousands of lives, but everything is contingent on Putin who we all know is a murdering psychopath with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal. [B]Here is my criterion for success:[/B].

A) Putin does not accept a cease fire, but Trump retaliates by shipping more advanced offensive weaponry to Ukraine and by cutting off all western finance and banking to Russia in an effort to cripple the Russian economy and cause a palace coup. This is the big stick approach.

B) Putin agrees to a cease fire which is then followed up with a strong and resolute Article "5" Nato type security guarantee which includes European troops stationed on the ground near the frontlines in Ukraine to deter any future Russian attacks.

C) I will conclude that the whole thing was a huge fucking waste of time or worse, a "failure", if one of these two events a) or b) does not occur.

A lot is riding on this, but like I said, it all comes down to Putin, and nobody knows what this murdering lunatic will do including launching a strategic nuclear strike on Ukraine. He is capable of anything.

[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;3021971]Yeah, the whole world is watching. I know you hate Trump, but let's see what happens. I hope Trump is successful because it will save hundreds of thousands of lives, but everything is contingent on Putin who we all know is a murdering psychopath with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal. [B]Here is my criterion for success:[/B].

A) Putin does not accept a cease fire, but Trump retaliates by shipping more advanced offensive weaponry to Ukraine and by cutting off all western finance and banking to Russia in an effort to cripple the Russian economy and cause a palace coup. This is the big stick approach.

B) Putin agrees to a cease fire which is then followed up with a strong and resolute Article "5" Nato type security guarantee which includes European troops stationed on the ground near the frontlines in Ukraine to deter any future Russian attacks.

C) I will conclude that the whole thing was a huge fucking waste of time or worse, a "failure", if one of these two events a) or b) does not occur.

A lot is riding on this, but like I said, it all comes down to Putin, and nobody knows what this murdering lunatic will do including launching a strategic nuclear strike on Ukraine. He is capable of anything.[/QUOTE]I guess you are what they call a RINO the DNC is bleeding registered voters, so I'm sure they will welcome you over there.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3021719]I blame the people who could have but did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 for the 1 million American deaths, the millions of jobs wiped out, school and business closures, spike in inflation m, etc from Trump's Pandemic.

Trump was a known and obvious America-hating, Know Nothing conman back then as much as now. So he can't help producing crap results. It's the only thing he is capable of doing.

It was his voters who are really to blame for his Worst President in History Results.

Just as it will be those who could have but did not vote for Kamala Harris who will deserve the blame for every cancer death that could have been averted if not for Trump defunding the research and facilities necessary to avert them. And for the 23% increase in the cost of many products Americans buy. And the fact that the average price of a gallon of regular gas stopped declining dramatically and steadily as soon as Trump started promising his high tariffs if he got elected. And so on.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-disappearing-democratic-party-voter/[/URL]

My Favorite Jew at NYT wrote yesterday that Our Lord and Savior and MAGA are using Mustard Gas on the "Democrats".

We have destroyed the DNC, the GOP, the Deep State, the corrupt American Media, RIP MSNBC LMFAO, the EU and the CCP.

Anyone else want to step up, bring it on.

Alhamdulillah you evil America hating dirtbags!

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3021551]The only thing this reminds me of is how every time you Democratic are pinned down, you turn to the "what about?" game. So California's HSR is a fucking joke. California taxpayers paid $10 billion for it, and federal taxpayers chipped in $4 billion more and not one fucking mile of track has been built.

But what about Texas? The Texas rail project was set up by a private Japanese consortium and they not taxpayers lost $250 million on the deal before selling it off. Of course, that did not stop Biden from throwing more money away, and he poured $64 million down the drain with, and this cracks me up, a "feasibility study". Trump comes into office and wisely cancels it.

The end of your link asks the question, "Can private industry do high speed rail in Texas? And the answer is probably. If the answer is not yes, it should not be built.

Of course, being a lying Democratic douche, you leave out the other red state of Florida. Florida citizens pass a law demanding high speed rail. The feds want to pour in money and Republican governor Rick Scott says no. Democratic douches were going to take him to court and sue for him to take the money, but he refuses, and they back down. Private industry steps in and smartly builds cheap high speed rail and Florida has high speed rail from Miami to Orlando now.

You rant on and on about billionaires and how evil they are, and California pisses $14 billion down the drain, and it is crickets.

If you look at these three examples and conclude more taxpayer money needs to be spent on HSR, you are nuts, but everyone knows how crazy you are anyway.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/08/18/gavin-newsom-flip-flops-on-oil-wants-more-production-to-avoid-8-gal-prices/[/URL]

Because I don't look like him (the people he likes) and I am not rich.

Giving ANY land to the Russian Federation is a [B]F[/B] if I am grading. If Ukraine has to give up land, so does Israel. If the Ukraine wants to continue to fight, then the Dis-United States of America should have their back.

[B]Period! Full Stop![/B]

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3021738]I will stipulate to the above statement. Your original post said 20% powered by fossil fuels. So, by saying [B]mostly[/B] you continue to make my point. Renewables can be used to power a HUGE portion of a grid. But not all. FACTS!
...

[B]Learn how to take a win Spidy. You are arguing semantics. [/B] ...

[B]Case Closed![/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah...No! And I don't think it's semantics either!

What you want to call [b]"baseload",[/b] and apply it to fossil fuels that makeup a smaller percentage (ie. 5% - 30%) of the energy-mix, [u]in a renewables grid[/u], [b]is a misnomer.[/b]

You seem to conflate, [i]"a renewables grid"[/i] with that of a [i]"traditional fossil fuel grid",[/i] and treat them as "one grid", I do not. They are two differently powered and operated grids.

The term "baseload", is associated with traditional fossil fuel grids, that need "baseload" generated power, typically from either a nuclear, gas or coal powered plants, running 24/7. In a renewables grid, input energy sources, aren't required to run 24/7, to produce a so called "40% baseload" power, like traditional grids.

Once again, a renewables grid, is a flexible grid, primarily made up of clean-energy inputs, of intermittence power (ie. S+W+B) and can also include, smaller amounts of dispatchable fossil fuels inputs, for backup, filling-in the intermittent gaps, and essentially turned on, only when needed (ie. Peaker plants) when demand peaks.

[b]Note:[/b] No one said a renewables grid, has to be 100% renewables, for it be called a renewables grid.

So going back to your original comment about [i]"...the elephant in the room...",[/i] when it comes to a renewables electricity grid, as is the case with SA, there is NO "elephant in the room" or "lower baseload", except on the traditional fossil fuel grids, where term "baseload" does apply.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3021738] Take the fossil fuel inputs out of the loop and see what happens.

...I am stating reality. Remember I run my own personal electrical grid and I do the exact same thing. I have gasoline powered generator back up when Solar fails to charge my batteries to sufficient capacity for my use case.[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you what happens when you [i][b]take your rooftop solar out of the equation[/b][/i]...one big expensive "baseload" gasoline 24/7 running generator. Point being, the role of your fossil fuel generator is a backstop, not as a primary energy input, just like the fossil fuels in SA's renewables grid.

That said, if you buildout enough solar and added extra batteries, you'd definitely be able to ditch your fossil fuel gasoline generator.

[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;3021971]Yeah, the whole world is watching. I know you hate Trump, but let's see what happens. I hope Trump is successful because it will save hundreds of thousands of lives, but everything is contingent on Putin who we all know is a murdering psychopath with thousands of nuclear weapons at his disposal. [B]Here is my criterion for success:[/B].

A) Putin does not accept a cease fire, but Trump retaliates by shipping more advanced offensive weaponry to Ukraine and by cutting off all western finance and banking to Russia in an effort to cripple the Russian economy and cause a palace coup. This is the big stick approach.

B) Putin agrees to a cease fire which is then followed up with a strong and resolute Article "5" Nato type security guarantee which includes European troops stationed on the ground near the frontlines in Ukraine to deter any future Russian attacks.

C) I will conclude that the whole thing was a huge fucking waste of time or worse, a "failure", if one of these two events a) or b) does not occur.

A lot is riding on this, but like I said, it all comes down to Putin, and nobody knows what this murdering lunatic will do including launching a strategic nuclear strike on Ukraine. He is capable of anything.[/QUOTE]Your idiot senile Trump just wants Zelensky accept what Putin wants and Ukraine being again robbed by criminal Putin and then by USA, when Europe give money to Ukraine to pay USA and support Ukraine not to accept when your clown DT suck Putin on red carpet, MAGA USA sucking Russia which have weak army, not able to defeat poor Ukraine in 3 years and half, but only to kill women and children. As always, USA make business with this war.

Putin wants to occupy the entire Ukraine outright or control it as a satellite state of Russia with a Moscow certified puppet government in place. I think President Trump, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia will oppose this move with an economic / financial blockade of Russia. I could be wrong. We shall see.

But I have two questions for you: 1) where were you politically speaking when Putin attacked and conquered the Crimea under Barry's watch? 2) and where were you politically speaking when Putin attacked Ukraine the 2nd time IE the present war under Biden's watch?

Did you criticize Barry's foreign policy at the time? Obama did nothing. Did you criticize Biden's foreign policy at the time? Biden's ineptitude gave Putin the opening and confidence to launch the 2nd campaign.

In all fairness, Putin 1st invaded peaceful, tiny Georgia in August 2008 under Bush, the younger's, watch and Bush did nothing. I bet you criticized Bush at the time of the Georgian invasion. I see a pattern, but I could be wrong.

[QUOTE=Sirioja;3022085]Your idiot senile Trump just wants Zelensky accept what Putin wants and Ukraine being again robbed by criminal Putin and then by USA, when Europe give money to Ukraine to pay USA and support Ukraine not to accept when your clown DT suck Putin on red carpet, MAGA USA sucking Russia which have weak army, not able to defeat poor Ukraine in 3 years and half, but only to kill women and children. As always, USA make business with this war.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;3022039]I guess you are what they call a RINO the DNC is bleeding registered voters, so I'm sure they will welcome you over there.[/QUOTE]I don't see you point. Are you saying the US and Nato should do nothing and just let Putin take over the Ukraine? Yeah, I am opposed to that! The Ukrainians did not start this war. They are a brave people, and we should help them defend themselves as much as we can.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3022076]Giving ANY land to the Russian Federation is a [B]F[/B] if I am grading. <snip> If the Ukraine wants to continue to fight, then the Dis-United States of America should have their back. [B]Period! Full Stop![/B][/QUOTE]You and I are not that far apart. Trump is NOT pushing for a peace treaty which recognizes Putin's occupation of Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. I would oppose that 100%. He wants a cease fire and an end to the bloodbath. After which the Ukraine gets modernized and heals, and eventually Putin dies or is killed, and a real peace treaty which returns to the Ukraine ALL of its stolen land is agreed to.

The alternative, to keep fighting, means a couple of hundred thousand dead every year with the most likely end game scenario that Russia will eventually break thru the front lines and win the war outright.

[QUOTE=AxelHeyst;3022139]I don't see you point. Are you saying the US and Nato should do nothing and just let Putin take over the Ukraine? Yeah, I am opposed to that! The Ukrainians did not start this war. They are a brave people, and we should help them defend themselves as much as we can.

You and I are not that far apart. Trump is NOT pushing for a peace treaty which recognizes Putin's occupation of Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. I would oppose that 100%. He wants a cease fire and an end to the bloodbath. After which the Ukraine gets modernized and heals, and eventually Putin dies or is killed, and a real peace treaty which returns to the Ukraine ALL of its stolen land is agreed to.

The alternative, to keep fighting, means a couple of hundred thousand dead every year with the most likely end game scenario that Russia will eventually break thru the front lines and win the war outright.[/QUOTE]Personally, and I think what Trump and Nato have been doing all along, is to make sure we get paid for all the weapons and supplies sold to Ukraine whether they defeat Russia or Not. A cold way to look at it, but what a tremendous waste if we don't get paid and large swaths of Ukraine are lost. And it always takes two to tango. I think Russia is mostly to blame, but Ukraine knew from day one that if it ever tried to align itself with the west this was a possibility. Now, Ukraine has always been front line fodder for Russia's wars and a source of cheap labor for Russian infrastructure projects, so it's no surprise they would try to flee the influence and grasp of Russia the first chance they got with the fall of the Soviet Union. But you must also put blame on Ukraine's politicians running their government, because USA and NATO are the ones footing the bill and it's our gas prices rising from these sanctions. Ukraine and these other Republic's fight for Independence is what caused the Soviet downfall in the first place, of course Russia will seek some sort of retaliation a generation or two later if it benefits them economically. These leaders in Ukraine knew that and they pushed their agenda anyway. I am not saying they are justified, I am just saying if you slap a man in the face, don't be shocked when he slaps you back. So even though it's horrible this war is going on and I am happy our leaders are trying to end it, I am hope behind closed doors the orange giant is making deals with Russia on our behalf so America doesn't go broke because Ukraine played their cards horribly against Russia.

How many Ukrainians dead? Was it worth it? This is why Trump took that harsh stance against Zelensky, who BTW has such a shady background, please read how this guy got elected president in the first place. He was a fucking actor! Probably planted by CIA to win election to get Ukraine support for a stronger alliance with NATO. That is a stretch I know, but wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Everyone should also understand, Russia controls the largest treasure chest in the world with the amount of territory they can extract natural resources from. Their land / population ratio is very small compared to western nations / NATO and they know it. The west / NATO already brought down the Soviet Union once and weakened the east, in part for cheaper energy prices / access to that treasure chest. From the perspective of a Russian, when Ukraine violates these treaties to never join NATO, its an extreme provocation and they would rather die in battle than lose more land to the west. Again, I am not saying they are justified, I am just saying Zelensky and Ukraine knew this all along and do have some blame in this war that I am paying for it with my taxes. It could potentially cost a tax payer thousands of dollars after this is all said and done. Fuck no, I am not paying thousands of dollars of my money over some stupid politics in Ukraine. What has Ukraine ever done for USA besides ask hand outs?

This all sounds bad, but USA is not world police and that is not where I want my money to go. I want my tax dollars in my pocket. After we fund this war, what's the next war we have to pay for because everybody knows the good old USA will always do the right thing and fund a war against an evil tyrant? So I am for ending the war and I don't want to see anyone die, but if that means Ukraine has to lose territory, well that's what happens when you play your cards against Russia the way they did.

Trump's Agenda in order.

1. End the dying on both sides.

2. Get paid for weapons sold.

3. Eventually lift sanctions to lower costs for consumers.

4. Depend the freedom of sovereign Nations from aggressors. Last on the list, right where it should be.

No matter what political party you are in USA, this is the policy that benefits you the most. And of course this is just my opinion. I am not the expert, but from what I have seen this is my best guess on this topic.

I see a lot of revisionist history being tossed around by the usual suspects here lately:

"Obama did nothing" in response to Russia's invasion of Crimea?

[B]Donald Trump misleads on Russia, Crimea, Obama and the G-8[/B]

[URL]https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-misleads-russia-crimea-obama/[/URL]

[QUOTE]Trumps statement is "a very odd way of thinking about Crimea and the United States role in Ukraine," said Susanne Wengle, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame. "It is highly misleading and factually incorrect. The U.S. exercised a certain influence among certain Kiev and Ukrainian politicians how much and whom is disputed but the U.S. never had Crimea."[/QUOTE][B]AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts Obama-Biden aid to Ukraine[/B]

[URL]https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-donald-trump-ap-fact-check-barack-obama-981ef7feb11053c1340a9d028d6f357b[/URL]

[QUOTE]By March 2015, the Obama administration had provided more than $120 million in security aid for Ukraine and promised $75 million worth of equipment, including counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Defense Department. The U.S. also pledged 230 Humvee vehicles.

The U.S. aid offer came after Putin in 2014 annexed Crimea and provided support for separatists in eastern cities.

Ultimately between 2014 and 2016, the Obama administration committed more than $600 million in security aid to Ukraine.

In the last year of the Obama administration, the U.S. established the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provided U.S. military equipment and training to help defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million for this initiative.

The Trump administration in 2017 agreed to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, later committing to sell $47 million in Javelins.

[B]But two years later, Trump delayed the release of congressionally approved security assistance for Ukraine as part of an effort to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political rival, Joe Biden. The matter was part of Trumps 2020 impeachment trial.[/b][/QUOTE][B]Obama Announces Sanctions to Punish Russia For Crimea Invasion.
The sanctions are the most comprehensive placed on Russia since the Cold War.[/B]

[URL]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-announces-sanctions-punish-russia-crimea-invasion/story?id=22939730[/URL]

Guess who tried to secretly abandon those tough sanctions?

[B]Senate Democrats launch investigation into Trumps pause of Russia sanctions.[/B]

[URL]https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5384194-democrats-investigate-trump-russia-sanctions/[/URL]

The same orange potus who blew Putin many more times than that for invading Crimea:

[B]37 times Trump was soft on Russia.[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/17/politics/trump-soft-on-russia[/URL]

[QUOTE][b]Trump suggested Russia can keep Crimea[/b]
Trump said Putin did an amazing job of taking the mantle when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump broke with US policy and suggested he was OK if Russia kept the Ukrainian territory. He repeated a Kremlin talking point, saying, The people of Crimea, from what Ive heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.

[B]Trump aides softened GOP platform on Ukraine[/b]
Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. Mueller investigated this for potential collusion but determined the change was not made at the behest" of Russia. (The Trump administration ultimately gave lethal arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainian military.)
..........
[B]Trump transition undermined Russian sanctions[/b]
After the 2016 election, the Trump transition team asked Russia not to retaliate too strongly against new US sanctions imposed by then-President Barack Obama. The sanctions were intended to punish Russia for interfering in the election, but then-Trump aide Michael Flynn asked the Russian ambassador not to escalate the situation so they could have a good relationship once Trump took over.

[B]Trump was open to lifting Russian sanctions[/b]
Days before his inauguration, Trump told The Wall Street Journal that he was open to lifting sanctions on Russia. He said: If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebodys doing some really great things? Putin has tried for years to persuade the US and European countries to end crippling sanctions on Russias economy.[/QUOTE]Those are just some of the blowjobs Trump gave Putin with regards to the tough military aid and sanctions Obama imposed on Russia for invading Crimea. Check out that link for many more blowjobs Trump gave Putin on other issues.

Not only did Obama not "do nothing" in response to Russia invading Crimea, but the blowjobs Trump gave Putin FOR invading Crimea as well as for many other attacks on our and other democracies tells us everything we need to know for why Putin didn't have to bother shedding any Russian blood in order to get his Trump Puppet to serve up his Anti-American, Democracy-destroying agenda on a silver platter.

Talk about giving Putin "the opening and confidence to launch a 2nd campaign"! Except it wasn't a matter of "ineptitude" on Trump's part. It was clearly Trump's determination to fulfill that murderous dictator Putin's wishes due to them both sharing the same World view and ambitions.