The elephant in the room which is the number one threat to this country was not dealt with by either the candidates or the press interviewing them.. And that is the unbridled medical tyranny we all have been subjected to in the last three years. The idea that allopathic medicine practitioners and public health officials have been granted a monopoly to proclaim only their theories are correct is an affront to the Constitution. Did any of the candidates speak up about the millions who have either been injured or killed by the deadly mRNA injection? Or all those fired for refusing to be jabbed? Did anyone call for an investigation into the fraud committed by the CDC in regard to the statistical manipulation that made people believe there was an actual pandemic? And what about social media colluding with the Biden administration to censor anyone who disagrees with their Covid narrative?Clearly these people need to be held accountable.
He won't be commenting for a while. I encourage open and honest debate, but the one rule I do have is that people need to be civil. He needs to take a bit of time out to reflect on that.
Thank you for participating. The more people share their views and opinions, the better off we all are. It's not about being "right", it's about gaining new insights and a wider appreciation of the world around us.
I make a point not to be trigger-happy with bans. People are going to get a little agitated and even abrasive when their passions are engaged, but there are limits to how much of that can be tolerated.
I don’t mind being wrong but it felt like he was putting me down instead of just the statement. Sensitive...and he doesn’t know my habits or likes or anything. Plus, voting does tend to be about popularity anyway...it is who you like, want.
I really get tired hearing (saint) Pence’s outrageous boilerplate lies about Putin and Ukraine. In fact they’re all - except maybe Vivek - vicious liars about what’s going on in that beleaguered meat grinder of corruption.
I highly doubt anyone has a really good understanding of "what's going on" in Ukraine. There are certain realities that arise from the sanctions regime regarding the economic impact of the war on Russia, and the recurring drone strikes inside Russia proper indicate some significant weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the Russian defense apparatus, but the narratives that have either Russia or Ukraine on the brink of collapse have been bandied about since shortly after the start of the war last year, and yet the fighting continues.
The reality of the NATO strategy in Ukraine (and there were even roundabout admissions of this last night) is to grind down and presumably eviscerate the Russian military using Ukrainian troops as the cannon fodder. That way even if Putin "wins" in Ukraine, Russia won't have the military capacity to threaten Poland (which if you take Medvdev's comments about redrawing Poland's borders seriously, would be the next country in line for invasion).
It's a staggeringly cynical and even psychotic strategy on NATO's part--and it may very well end up succeeding.
As is generally the case in war, there are no good guys in white hats in Ukraine. The pretense that there are is pure propaganda.
MacGregor bases part of his assessment on Russia's air defenses being solid.
There's a bunch of recently destroyed military aircraft, including a Tu-22M3 long range strategic bomber that shreds MacGregor's logic. Ukrainian drones are flying all the way to Moscow repeatedly with little in the way of interdiction by Russian air defense systems.
MacGregor presents the outcome as inevitable. It's not. Outcomes in war are hardly ever inevitable. It wasn't inevitable that Hitler would fail to conquer Russia. It wasn't inevitable that the US would beat Japan in the Pacific. It wasn't inevitable that the Germans would surrender to the Allies at Compeigne in 1918. It wasn't even inevitable that Lee would surrender the Confederacy at Appomatox, or that Cornwallis would surrender at Yorktown.
MacGregor also presents the Russians has needing to invade for their own security. While Russian security doctrine since the mid-18th century has involved occupying Ukraine to limit the potential invasion routes in the south to the Polish border and the Bessarabian gap, acceding to Russian security doctrines means allowing them to conquuer tens of millions of people who don't want to live in a reborn Muscovite empire. That's an appalling logic, and not a very good one--there has never been a moral justification for a "pre-emptive" invasion.
Which is the problem with the reporting on both sides--it's ALL propaganda. And most of it is pure BS.
Is the war a tragedy? No kidding--when is war NOT a tragedy? When is it ever not proper to end war for humanitarian reasons and stop the bloodshed?
Of course the war is a tragedy. But whatever sins were committed by NATO and Ukraine, one fact is incontestable: Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin fired the first shot. Putin launched forces against Kyiv, Zelensky didn't march on Moscow. Putin ordered missile strikes against civilian targets in violation of the Geneva Conventions to which Russia acceded.
Arguments that whitewash Putin's role in this war are just as revolting as arguments which pretend defending Ukraine is about preserving democracy.
> I highly doubt anyone has a really good understanding of "what's going on" in Ukraine.
Judging by the rest of your comments apparently neither do you.
> The reality of the NATO strategy in Ukraine (and there were even roundabout admissions of this last night) is to grind down and presumably eviscerate the Russian military using Ukrainian troops as the cannon fodder.
So you're claim is that helping the Ukrainians defend their country is inherently a cynical ploy.
When it involves sabotaging potential peace negotiations, you're damn right I do.
What will benefit Ukrainians and Russians alike is peace. Peace means everybody stops shooting, killing, and dying. Not killing and not dying are generally considered positives.
Did NATO immediately ship M1 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and the longer range HIMARS munitions to Ukraine? No. Those have all come incrementally. Now they're sending F16s--and with training time it will be next spring at the earliest before they can be used to effect (F16's are multipurpose fighters with ground support as one of their mission profiles). 2 years AFTER the invasion Ukraine may finally get an air force again.
That's like offering your neighbor a watering can to help him put out a house fire.
On the other hand, the incrementalist flow of munitions and materiel to Ukraine is exactly what you would do to perpetuate the stalemate that has existed along the front line since the end of the Kharkiv counteroffensive now nearly a year ago. And stalemates are an excellent means for attriting forces.
On the other hand, if NATO had said to Putin in March 2022, "we're training X number of squadrons of Ukrainian pilots on the F16, and over the next six months we'll be rotating the old Soviet era weapons systems from the former Warsaw Pact countries into Ukraine. Pack up, go home, sue for peace", THAT would be a staunch defense of Ukraine. And that's not what happened.
No one is virtuous in this war. Not Putin. Not Zelensky. Not Belarus. Not NATO. Not the EU.
You want to believe the propaganda that Ukraine is about fighting for democracy, go ahead. Me, I never acquired a taste for Kool-Aid.
> What will benefit Ukrainians and Russians alike is peace. Peace means everybody stops shooting, killing, and dying. Not killing and not dying are generally considered positives.
You appear to be trying to get away with using "peace" as a euphemism for surrender. To quote Marc Antony from Rome.
"And if it did a lot of people in the West, possibly including yourself, would have screamed bloody warmongerer."
This is not a good argument for you. If the alternative to the cynical strategy is political cowardice you're not putting NATO in any sort of positive light.
Chilling too even contemplate what NATO “success” in Ukraine might look like.
Too bad the vast majority of US citizens haven’t a clue about the 2014 Maidan revolution and US involvement there in. What Nazis?!
And the world watched as Russia slowly marshaled troops and armaments on the Ukrainian doorstep. Where was the urgent diplomacy from the USA to avert what was obviously coming? There was none to my recollection. Makes me wonder how desired this conflict was.
Seems to serve many globalist intentions such as destruction of western economies, weakening of US military stores / readiness, depopulation, famine, increasing poverty and immigration chaos.
And F-16s might be added to the hostilities? God help us!
Putin's massing of forces on the Ukrainian border was called out by the US/NATO as early as December of 2021. At the time I was of the opinion that it was a dangerous anti-Russian narrative because invading Ukraine made zero strategic sense. Then he invaded and gave the narrative legs.
Thanks so much for the summary, relating the candidates’ performances to political issues that really matter. You saved me from the nails-on-chalkboard experience of watching video recaps of politicians blithering!
Thank You so very much! A fair and unbiased review is so rare and therefore refreshing. I will try and share this with friends and family, all who are far left politically.
Thanks for watching it for us, I did not watch the Trump - Tucker show either.
This type of show accomplishes nothing. You do not vote for a personality, but a leader who has to make tough choices. Twitter (X) and the rest of social media has brought us against that realization, but only one candidate has been faithfully honest, Donald J. Trump, the rest are either proven liars, or we don't know. This is not the time to find out.
However, the reality of the legal cases arrayed against him is they may prevent him from appearing on the ballot. That would not be a just outcome, but neither is it an improbable outcome.
If we do not at least consider alternatives to Donald Trump, we are likely to find ourselves saddled with four more years of Dementia Joe. I'm hoping for a better outcome than that.
Well, people have figured it out, 4 years of Ron DeSantis might not be a lot better than Dementia Joe, well, better for the rich people, but not the rest of us.
We would benefit from all individually. What you said is condescending. I actually do look and care and research what goes on in the governments.
I don’t know why I’m defending myself to you.
The elephant in the room which is the number one threat to this country was not dealt with by either the candidates or the press interviewing them.. And that is the unbridled medical tyranny we all have been subjected to in the last three years. The idea that allopathic medicine practitioners and public health officials have been granted a monopoly to proclaim only their theories are correct is an affront to the Constitution. Did any of the candidates speak up about the millions who have either been injured or killed by the deadly mRNA injection? Or all those fired for refusing to be jabbed? Did anyone call for an investigation into the fraud committed by the CDC in regard to the statistical manipulation that made people believe there was an actual pandemic? And what about social media colluding with the Biden administration to censor anyone who disagrees with their Covid narrative?Clearly these people need to be held accountable.
Listen to Turfseer’s hit song THE SCAM. Penny Lane meets medical tyranny. https://turfseer.substack.com/p/the-scam
Sometimes, I wish there could be three presidents. Equally. Rfk, vr, and trump.
That's probably a sign that you're treating this as a popularity contest, and not thinking about what's likely to happen with him in the white house.
You don’t know me and so you would know that is false!
I was saying that because if you had more than one, a mix, then we would get good from all of them.
He won't be commenting for a while. I encourage open and honest debate, but the one rule I do have is that people need to be civil. He needs to take a bit of time out to reflect on that.
Thank you for being kind.
Thank you for participating. The more people share their views and opinions, the better off we all are. It's not about being "right", it's about gaining new insights and a wider appreciation of the world around us.
I make a point not to be trigger-happy with bans. People are going to get a little agitated and even abrasive when their passions are engaged, but there are limits to how much of that can be tolerated.
I don’t mind being wrong but it felt like he was putting me down instead of just the statement. Sensitive...and he doesn’t know my habits or likes or anything. Plus, voting does tend to be about popularity anyway...it is who you like, want.
Good analysis.
I really get tired hearing (saint) Pence’s outrageous boilerplate lies about Putin and Ukraine. In fact they’re all - except maybe Vivek - vicious liars about what’s going on in that beleaguered meat grinder of corruption.
I highly doubt anyone has a really good understanding of "what's going on" in Ukraine. There are certain realities that arise from the sanctions regime regarding the economic impact of the war on Russia, and the recurring drone strikes inside Russia proper indicate some significant weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the Russian defense apparatus, but the narratives that have either Russia or Ukraine on the brink of collapse have been bandied about since shortly after the start of the war last year, and yet the fighting continues.
The reality of the NATO strategy in Ukraine (and there were even roundabout admissions of this last night) is to grind down and presumably eviscerate the Russian military using Ukrainian troops as the cannon fodder. That way even if Putin "wins" in Ukraine, Russia won't have the military capacity to threaten Poland (which if you take Medvdev's comments about redrawing Poland's borders seriously, would be the next country in line for invasion).
It's a staggeringly cynical and even psychotic strategy on NATO's part--and it may very well end up succeeding.
As is generally the case in war, there are no good guys in white hats in Ukraine. The pretense that there are is pure propaganda.
Here's a good start. I could be wrong, but I believe Doug Macgregor. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1693761723230990509
MacGregor bases part of his assessment on Russia's air defenses being solid.
There's a bunch of recently destroyed military aircraft, including a Tu-22M3 long range strategic bomber that shreds MacGregor's logic. Ukrainian drones are flying all the way to Moscow repeatedly with little in the way of interdiction by Russian air defense systems.
MacGregor presents the outcome as inevitable. It's not. Outcomes in war are hardly ever inevitable. It wasn't inevitable that Hitler would fail to conquer Russia. It wasn't inevitable that the US would beat Japan in the Pacific. It wasn't inevitable that the Germans would surrender to the Allies at Compeigne in 1918. It wasn't even inevitable that Lee would surrender the Confederacy at Appomatox, or that Cornwallis would surrender at Yorktown.
MacGregor also presents the Russians has needing to invade for their own security. While Russian security doctrine since the mid-18th century has involved occupying Ukraine to limit the potential invasion routes in the south to the Polish border and the Bessarabian gap, acceding to Russian security doctrines means allowing them to conquuer tens of millions of people who don't want to live in a reborn Muscovite empire. That's an appalling logic, and not a very good one--there has never been a moral justification for a "pre-emptive" invasion.
Which is the problem with the reporting on both sides--it's ALL propaganda. And most of it is pure BS.
Is the war a tragedy? No kidding--when is war NOT a tragedy? When is it ever not proper to end war for humanitarian reasons and stop the bloodshed?
Of course the war is a tragedy. But whatever sins were committed by NATO and Ukraine, one fact is incontestable: Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin fired the first shot. Putin launched forces against Kyiv, Zelensky didn't march on Moscow. Putin ordered missile strikes against civilian targets in violation of the Geneva Conventions to which Russia acceded.
Arguments that whitewash Putin's role in this war are just as revolting as arguments which pretend defending Ukraine is about preserving democracy.
> I highly doubt anyone has a really good understanding of "what's going on" in Ukraine.
Judging by the rest of your comments apparently neither do you.
> The reality of the NATO strategy in Ukraine (and there were even roundabout admissions of this last night) is to grind down and presumably eviscerate the Russian military using Ukrainian troops as the cannon fodder.
So you're claim is that helping the Ukrainians defend their country is inherently a cynical ploy.
When it involves sabotaging potential peace negotiations, you're damn right I do.
What will benefit Ukrainians and Russians alike is peace. Peace means everybody stops shooting, killing, and dying. Not killing and not dying are generally considered positives.
Did NATO immediately ship M1 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and the longer range HIMARS munitions to Ukraine? No. Those have all come incrementally. Now they're sending F16s--and with training time it will be next spring at the earliest before they can be used to effect (F16's are multipurpose fighters with ground support as one of their mission profiles). 2 years AFTER the invasion Ukraine may finally get an air force again.
That's like offering your neighbor a watering can to help him put out a house fire.
On the other hand, the incrementalist flow of munitions and materiel to Ukraine is exactly what you would do to perpetuate the stalemate that has existed along the front line since the end of the Kharkiv counteroffensive now nearly a year ago. And stalemates are an excellent means for attriting forces.
On the other hand, if NATO had said to Putin in March 2022, "we're training X number of squadrons of Ukrainian pilots on the F16, and over the next six months we'll be rotating the old Soviet era weapons systems from the former Warsaw Pact countries into Ukraine. Pack up, go home, sue for peace", THAT would be a staunch defense of Ukraine. And that's not what happened.
No one is virtuous in this war. Not Putin. Not Zelensky. Not Belarus. Not NATO. Not the EU.
You want to believe the propaganda that Ukraine is about fighting for democracy, go ahead. Me, I never acquired a taste for Kool-Aid.
> What will benefit Ukrainians and Russians alike is peace. Peace means everybody stops shooting, killing, and dying. Not killing and not dying are generally considered positives.
You appear to be trying to get away with using "peace" as a euphemism for surrender. To quote Marc Antony from Rome.
THAT’S SLAVE THINKING!
https://substack.com/@anarchonomicon/note/c-39007746
> Did NATO immediately ship M1 tanks, Leopard 2 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and the longer range HIMARS munitions to Ukraine? No.
And if it did a lot of people in the West, possibly including yourself, would have screamed bloody warmongerer.
> Not Zelensky.
Why not? All I've seen him doing so far is doing his best to defend his country. So far he's exceeded all expectations.
Reminder: the pre-war conventional wisdom was that in the event of an invasion Ukraine would collapse in a matter of days or weeks.
"And if it did a lot of people in the West, possibly including yourself, would have screamed bloody warmongerer."
This is not a good argument for you. If the alternative to the cynical strategy is political cowardice you're not putting NATO in any sort of positive light.
Chilling too even contemplate what NATO “success” in Ukraine might look like.
Too bad the vast majority of US citizens haven’t a clue about the 2014 Maidan revolution and US involvement there in. What Nazis?!
And the world watched as Russia slowly marshaled troops and armaments on the Ukrainian doorstep. Where was the urgent diplomacy from the USA to avert what was obviously coming? There was none to my recollection. Makes me wonder how desired this conflict was.
Seems to serve many globalist intentions such as destruction of western economies, weakening of US military stores / readiness, depopulation, famine, increasing poverty and immigration chaos.
And F-16s might be added to the hostilities? God help us!
Putin's massing of forces on the Ukrainian border was called out by the US/NATO as early as December of 2021. At the time I was of the opinion that it was a dangerous anti-Russian narrative because invading Ukraine made zero strategic sense. Then he invaded and gave the narrative legs.
I think Larry Elder would’ve been an interesting addition to the debate. Unfortunately, he was ostracized by the RNC.
Larry Elder is quite the charismatic speaker. It would have been interesting to watch him and VR go at it.
And not a victim.
I like elders stance on his life/race living here and other issues. He’s very smart and not condescending
Thanks so much for the summary, relating the candidates’ performances to political issues that really matter. You saved me from the nails-on-chalkboard experience of watching video recaps of politicians blithering!
Thank You so very much! A fair and unbiased review is so rare and therefore refreshing. I will try and share this with friends and family, all who are far left politically.
Thanks for watching it for us, I did not watch the Trump - Tucker show either.
This type of show accomplishes nothing. You do not vote for a personality, but a leader who has to make tough choices. Twitter (X) and the rest of social media has brought us against that realization, but only one candidate has been faithfully honest, Donald J. Trump, the rest are either proven liars, or we don't know. This is not the time to find out.
Trump is far and away the GOP favorite.
However, the reality of the legal cases arrayed against him is they may prevent him from appearing on the ballot. That would not be a just outcome, but neither is it an improbable outcome.
If we do not at least consider alternatives to Donald Trump, we are likely to find ourselves saddled with four more years of Dementia Joe. I'm hoping for a better outcome than that.
Or rfk jt
Well, people have figured it out, 4 years of Ron DeSantis might not be a lot better than Dementia Joe, well, better for the rich people, but not the rest of us.
Either way, excellent analysis.