• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 days ago

    I wasn’t trying to add something of value to the discussion; Bucket did that already. I was just remarking on an interesting… phenomenon??? in the wild; don’t mind me. However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.

    • Garibaldee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.

      Harris was most likely going to continue what Biden was doing. If you think what Biden was doing was a positive I can’t understand why? I don’t think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive. If she offered to do much more than Biden was doing I could follow your logic.

      • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Keeping things at a standstill is nowhere near good, but it is still infinitely better than rewarding the aggressor by just handing them everything they would have ever wanted, especially when they are in no position to actually take it themselves in the foreseeable future if things continue like they have been.