heybruce

Did her followers storm the Supreme Court? No? Perhaps her followers are smarter than Trump's.

I assume that's sarcasm. Right? You must be aware that Trump watched his supporters rampage through the Capitol for over three hours, ignoring all pleas to do something, then called them patriots, repeated the stolen election lie, and then asked them to go home. You do know that, right?

A post that could only come from a troll or someone who has actively sought to remain ignorant, and succeeded.

MAD still exists, but will it apply to Europe and east Asia if Trump becomes President? What would Trump do if his buddy Putin decided to take the Baltic States and capture a land corridor to Kalingrad, taking a generous amount of Poland in the process? I seriously doubt that he'd use nuclear weapons. I also doubt that he would commit much in the way of US conventional forces to the fight. European leaders, along with those of South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and other countries also have their doubts. If Trump is elected I assume a lot of US allies will start looking into acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course in Asia this might trigger a preemptive strike from China and/or North Korea, which Trump will not respond to militarily. Trump will make the world a far more dangerous place.

I was going to respond "That is dumb even by your standards.", then I thought....well... maybe not.

Yes or no to what? You posted "Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?" I explained why Russia doesn't need to make a big move; the salami slice approach is working. Can you not see that my response makes your question irrelevant? But if you must have an answer, I don't know and neither do you. The assumption that China and Iran would not be involved is questionable, and Putin has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment, possibly the result of poor information. Trump has thrown nuclear deterrence into doubt by running his mouth without a filter. You know, the quality Trump supporters stupidly think is a good thing. "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, “Well, sir, if we don't pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” I said, “You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?” He said, “Yes, let’s say that happened.” “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.”" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/ "In December 2019, then-U.S. President Donald Trump was asked whether he thought it was worth it to have “all those” U.S. troops stationed in South Korea. “It could be debated. I could go either way,” Trump answered." l https://www.voanews.com/a/as-trump-looms-south-koreans-mull-their-own-nukes/6848246.html If you don't understand why having US troops on the ground in South Korea and Europe is America's most important symbol of commitment to defending those countries then you need to go back to school. I don't see the nation blundering into crisis under Biden, but I see Republicans trying to make that happen. By shooting down the Border bill endorsed by the Border Patrol Union Republicans are making the border situation and fentanyl crisis worse. "Yet only about 20% of lorries and less than 5% of cars are x-rayed as they enter America. The administration wants to increase that and send more agents to the border to curb both drug-trafficking and illegal immigration. (The two problems are quite distinct, Mr Mayorkas points out: the vast majority of drugs are intercepted at regular border crossings, not carried into America by undocumented migrants.) But last month Republicans in Congress killed a bipartisan bill that would have beefed up policing of the border, at the behest of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president." https://www.economist.com/briefing/2024/02/29/americas-ten-year-old-fentanyl-epidemic-is-still-getting-worse Biden's plan to end the war in Ukraine is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself. I agree with that plan and want him to do more of it with fewer restrictions. Trump's plan is to deny Ukraine these weapons, giving Putin another salami slice so he can then proceed to the next one. You yourself posted "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue." Trump seems to want to give Putin that success. Are there any other questions? Be specific, don't troll and claim I didn't answer some unstated question.

Still denying facts.

It was an attack on the US Capitol while Congress was in session attempting to certify the Presidential election results! An attack Trump watched for three hours before making a feeble attempt to reign it in! You can bury your head in the sand as deep as you like, but responsible patriotic voters won't ignore it. BTW: The fact that the Trump defenders have no better response than "BLM! BLM! BLM!" shows how little you have and how desperate you are to divert attention from what happened.

Ok, allow me to explain, one point at a time, in greater detail; starting with your insistence that I answer your question " But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you? " I thought I'd made my answer clear, but apparently not. As I explained before, Russia's salami slice approach to expanding its empire is working. Why would Russia stop doing what's working? With that in mind, it doesn't matter if Russia currently has the resources for a big move against NATO. It doesn't need to do so. If that part finally clear, I'd like to move on to the issue of America assuring its allies that it's nuclear deterrence umbrella covers them as well. An assurance vital to preventing nuclear proliferation with its corresponding increase of nuclear war. An assurance Trump has thrown in doubt. Can we discuss that, or are you still unclear as to why Russia doesn't need to make a big move against NATO? I realize that I am trying to bring the discussion to a level that Trump supporters desperately try to avoid, but is really important that all US voters consider these disturbing scenarios. Otherwise the country and the world can blunder into disaster.

One took place in the US Capitol with the intent of preventing the legal certification of the election results and the rest did not.

No rebuttal so I assume you understand and agree.

G_Money studiously avoids facts that conflict with what the Fox talking heads tell him to believe.

"January 6th was not an insurrection. It was a disturbance, protest and at times violent, even riot. But no insurrection! It was conducted by a bunch of idiots Trump, the sitting President at the time of the alleged insurrection did not plan and execute the disturbance. He encouraged and told them to stop and go home peacefully. Plenty of footage of him saying this. You and most here have heard or watched the footage, most likely." Trump watched the mob he had summoned to Washington rampage through the Capitol for three hours before he did anything. Numerous people urged him to act and he just sat and watched the rampage on television. Only when it was clear that the mob would not succeed in preventing the election certification did he send out a text calling the "bunch of idiots" patriots, repeating the stolen election lie, and asked them to go home. POTUS watched his supporters rampage in the Capitol and did nothing. The man isn't fit for any government job.

Wow! So much deflection. "What I said was: Russia is absolutely a threat a big threat. But does he have resources (without China and Iran) for a big move against NATO? I don't think so, do you?" What I posted was that Russia would continue its salami slice approach to expanding its empire. Do I really have to explain what that means? Must I point out that Russia has no incentive to make a big move when the salami slice approach is working? "I do not see him doing anything until he's done in Ukraine, but if he gets out of there, with some level of success, he will continue." Isn't that a good reason to not let him succeed in Ukraine? "Why do you equate "America First" with "America alone in the world"? What country do you think the President consider first with come first with respect to foreign policy?" Because I can't believe any of our current allies would ever trust us if we engage in the betrayals proposed by Trump, and that going it alone in the modern world is not an option. North Korea is stubbornly trying that, what do you think of their results? "I support Trump's "America First" policy, and as I understand it, it means "peace through strength, no better friend, no worse enemy." " "Peace from strength" is not good enough in a world in which the US has a small fraction of wealth, resources, military power, etc. "I think the Russia-China-Iran alliance ship has sailed, and I think that is largely the fault of the Biden Administration. What is this "America alone in the world" based on, some CNN pundit?" What part of the "Russia-China-Iran alliance" do you think Trump would have prevented? No, America alone is based on a military career largely focused on preventing the final war, or winning it (if such a thing were possible) if war can't be prevented. It's a depressing thought, but I believe that the "end of the world war" has been prevented by deterrence since the 1950's by me and many other people considering these things and how to prevent them. Why do you ask? Do you think you have a better formed projection of where Trump would lead us? I won't address the Iran deflection and sound-bite nonsense you ended with.

It certainly seems like you're stating that you will only accept information from Trump approved sources.

Why a big move? Why not continue the salami slice approach to building a bigger empire that it is using now? What do you think the long term consequences of Trump's "America First", meaning America alone in the world, policy? I think a likely outcome would be a Chinese-Russian alliance dominating the Eurasian continent and world trade, with America isolated and alone. A wild card would be the prosperous, technically advanced democratic countries of East Asia. After Trump officially or unofficially withdraws the guarantee of protection offered by America's nuclear umbrella, would they acquiesce to Chinese dominance, or acquire nuclear weapons on their own. Would they use them? I see both America and the world being much poorer and more dangerous with a Trump Presidency than it is now. A true America first policy would be to have America as part of strong alliances with other democratic nations, sharing defense capabilities and the benefits of global trade.

Russia is spending 7% of its GDP on defense, with no signs of letting up. Europe's rearmament is still in the talking and planning stages, it will be years before it results in trained, equipped, adequately supplied combat brigades ready for deployment. Russian Security Counsel Deputy Medvedev has made it clear that he thinks Ukraine and parts of Europe should be in Russia. https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-putin-aide-unveils-fantasy-173317006.html A statement like that would not be released unless the Russian government wants it released. The Russian government has demonstrated that it doesn't care how many Russian's die as it seeks to expand its empire. And still there are some here who insist Russia is in no way a threat. Are they professional Russian trolls or just useful idiots?

A Trump supporter actually posted "Why do they need intelligence?" Priceless! Yes, I do understand the context: In a dangerous world with Russia seeking to expand it's empire, why does the west need intelligence? In context it is even more ridiculous.

So the only information you believe is that endorsed by Trump? Have you read "1984"? Are you shilling for a 21st century Big Brother?

Ok, uh, um.... Did you just state that you don't believe any information regardless of source, you only believe what the talking heads on TV, the ones you believe, tell you?

What guidelines were these?

Do you mean that even the pretty graph was beyond your comprehension? Wow!

To make sure the peace deal would be easy to negotiate, Trump did not include the Afghanistan government in his negotiation of the Afghanistan "peace" deal. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-taliban-peace-deal-agreement-afghanistan-war Can Trump supporters understand why that was a bad idea?

Poor deflection. We are talking federal deficits. Not future expenses, not down in the dirt details. Annual federal deficit history, which shows that both parties are bad, but Republicans are the ones who increase deficits and Democrats the ones who decrease deficits at the end of their time in office. When Democrats are enter office after Republicans turned the US economy into an economic basket case, as Obama did when he took over from Bush, some initial deficit increases are warranted, but then they come down dramatically. Here's a picture for you if you want proof: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD

There's biological sex, there is the sex that people identify with, and there are people who have weird views on the subject.