Trump has suggested a workable and novel way to help Ukraine. Let's consider it

No American principles are at stake in Ukraine, and even if they were, we still have to recognize the reality of limited resources. I've posted many times that if you guys want to virtue signal with Ukraine, a lend lease program makes more sense. Who knows, we might get our money back some day?

 

There are three options
1/ Don't even try to take over Ukraine (too late to do that one)
2/ Leave because we failed to take over Ukraine
3/ Compromise, try to keep Western and Central Ukraine, give up
on the rest.

 

This 'solution' to the problem shows that our problems have gotten
too big and serious now for just one person.

If we put together Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK jr, Rand Paul,
Andrew Yang and that bald guy, and got 4 votes out of 6 for things
we might have a winning team.

 

sounds like the..... this is a nice place you got here, be shame if something happened to it

 

so have a vote..... if the bill passes, it passes

 

Just have a vote on the House immigration bill. If it passes, it passes. Schumer refused to even vote on it.

 

one was bipartisan, written by a republican, everything republicans wanted, only Trump did not want to solve this issue and told republicans to not vote on their own bill - Sad!

 

LOL. Obviously, it was NOT bipartisan, which is why Republicans did not vote on it.

 

both Republicans and Democrats supported it, Dems got their Ukraine aide and Republicans got tons of the immigration changes they wanted, it was a win\win

Republicans will regret passing this one by... when will they get a chance like this again?

 

There is a problem with the title:
Trump has suggested a workable and novel way to help Ukraine. Let's consider it

The US started a war, or some claim responded to a war, but
by supplying weapons we have not helped.

Do you really think Ukrainian orphans will jump up and down on
their father's grave to celebrate their new found 'freedom'?

 

Why not? Russia stole those orphans and took them to Russia to be raised there. I'm sure they won't be taught of their Ukrainian heritage, but will be brainwashed by Russia to, as you put it, "jump up and down on their father's grave."

 

And Russia will have won.
Why do Christians want to vote for man who has commit almost all the sins condemned by their 'Saviour' Jesus. Isn't that rather hypocrisy.

 

Like 5 Republicans supported it and you call it bipartisan.

 

Won by what criteria?
Lost a number of soldiers,
gained land they didn't want?

I think this has the marks of another MIC - Military Industrial Congressional Complex,
war, a war of choice for the purpose of selling weapons, generating revenue for
the weapons makers - often called the 'defense contractors'.

If anyone thinks Russia started it then construct the timeline and see what it suggests.

But I don't listen to the news so I might be a heretic.

 

For your information Ukraine has just changed its policy on GMO for Wheat and corn. So you will likely be buying goods you could easily buy.
And if you buy many crops from Brazil, they are probably GMO crops.

 

If they didn't want it they would not have invaded and spent so much manpower in doing so. Putin has declared his wish to return to the Russia of the Soviet Union. Another Stalin.

 

It was Biden who on Feb 24 2022 said: The Russian military
has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without
provocation, without justification, without necessity.

I found a few faults in what he said: according to NATO, a
somewhat more reliable source of information or at least
a slightly different one, the war started in 2014.

The 'without necessity' was not accurate as 5 days earlier
the bombardment of Donetsk had become a heavy bombardment.

And 'brutal assault on the people of Ukraine' disagreed with
everything we know about it, as forces were moved in to
protect only Russian speaking areas in Eastern Ukraine,
some agricultural land between them, half of that subsequently
released, and a quick excursion down to Kyiv to show they
meant business until a peace agreement was reached.

It is worth looking back at statements because NATO and
the US ridiculed the Russian Federation claiming there
was nothing the could do or would do.

But you are entitled to your opinions. I would not challenge
them except where you are anonymous.

 

As for Trump's idea, it is also wrong.

Supplying weapons to Ukraine turned peaceful negotiations into
the war it currently is. From 1991 to 2014 the negotiations did
not include fighting, and not a a lot of fighting until the Biden
weapons arrived.

 

Thank you for letting me know about this.....
that is sad news.....
but for these past couple of decades Bill Gates has been given far, far, far, far, far too much obedience by political leaders in the USA and Canada and in all of the world. We can learn something from what India did....... the government of India had to pretty much kick Bill Gates and his companies out of India because no matter how many thousands of farm workers in India committed suicide as Bill Gates attempted to force India to implement what he wanted........ Bill pushed and pushed and pushed.. .until finally the government of India forced him out of their affairs.... [at least in terms of their agricultural policies at least].


The guy who was recently elected in Brazil is known to be pretty corrupt as well.....
so sooner or later Bill Gates and his companies will have to be forced out of Brazil's agricultural sector as well.

 

that is bipartisan, yes

 

Russia can barely feed itself. One major problem is people stealing parts off of farm equipment because Russian industry is too inept to have replacements available.
Which as Biden keeps corrupts the economy, will happen here.

 

LOL. Yeah, just like the Jan 6th hearings were fair and bipartisan because they were all anti-Trumpers with less than a handful of Republicans and no one from Trump's side to actually make the hearings fair. 5 Republicans do not represent all Republicans and Republicans never asked them to work on a "bipartisan" plan. Which is why it was shot down.

 

GM crops are able to survive diseases and conditions that nonGM crops cannot. Unlike the western world many millions of people are hungry. GM crops will provide food. Global warming will soon change minds in the western world when fields dry up and the only food available is GM food from countries less affected. Weather conditions are changing due to the warmup of the earth.
People cannot, or are unwilling to, get into their heads the difference between climate change and Global warming? The first being a natural phenomenom over centuries caused by the movement of the earth on its 'wobbly' axis round the sun, presenting a different part of the face of the earth to the sun. This causes a climate change from area to area. Global warming is caused by the Suns rays being able to penetrate through the atmosphere and warm up the earth. Under normal circumstances excess heat can disperse through the atmosphere and into 'space'. Greenhouse gases do not allow this.
The oceans are at their hottest known temperature. The USA is in for a torrid time in the future for warmer oceans will mean much worse hurricanes, typhoons hitting the southern states and moving farther inland and north. It will also mean more droughts in the central state growing areas.
We are, as in the US, already experiencing conditions beyond the normal.
Like it or not GM crops will be necessary for the future feeding of the world population - if man survives the mess he is in.
I eat nothing with gluten in it, and as wheat contains gluten I don't eat wheat. There are alternatives which I am able to eat.