He didn't offer any funding that "deal" was essentially "Europe can give weapons to Ukraine and purchase replacements from the US" and looks like there's even no guarantee on the replacements.

Seems like a lot of people got fooled.

Putin IS the news cycle online here. He has massive bots armies thru BRICS made of slaves (bots are slaves). The Epstein thing bubbling up (based on old info like the Michael Wolff Epstein interviews which I posted months ago and couldn't get anyone to watch) is because Putin is mad at him and wants him to do something shitty. That's why he keeps saying weird pleading stuff at Putin - he is literally protecting us right now (well, not "us," but himself). That's why he asked Ukraine to assassinate Putin.

He likely ran his own child trafficking orgs and participated in some very illegal shit. He sold nuclear secrets for this. And now he is resisting because Putin probably wants him to do something truly unhinged like bomb Los Angeles, so BRICS has an excuse to invade.

Not even that, the entire legal and justice system is completely paralyzed to that Trump could violate a girl on the rose garden lawn in front of the press and nothing would happen aside from much screaming and posturing.

putin comepletely controls trumps base, through propaganda mediums, like fox, REDDIt, yes they control r/conservatives, and talking headss like tim poole, laura loomer, ben shapiro.

why do you think the talk of epstein suddenly disappeared on that subreddit, they made a "megathread" to force all the epstein discussion there apparently deleted it.

Months? Try a fucking decade... Jesus how is any of this new to anyone

"spy"

At this point, I don't even think that video counts as blackmail material anymore since Trump's base will just claim "Woke AI Fake News" while watching their glorious leader use a five year old as a fleshlight.

its telling hes behind it, when all the right wing talking heads that putin has employed were quiet about epstein for months.

The article calls Epstein a "disgraced financier", but it fails to call Trump a "disgraced president" or "disgraced businessman."

I also mention this because it's somewhat ironic that these two disgraces were after somebody who was actually graceful.

Ugh these people are disgusting.

Probably Prince Andrew's idea

gross, also because diania looks like his then wife, and kinda like ivanka.

Pretty weak

...and then when he was no longer president and was prosecuted, it took so long that he was president-elect by then so was given absolutely no consequences.

I posted previously about how Russia has has Alaskan patches on their uniforms for months now: https://www.reddit.com/r/alaska/comments/1lmc9h0/the_chevron_on_a_russian_soldiers_uniform_reads/

Very nice. I Prefer my 8x on a 6.5 creedmoor but you have my respect

Its high for as terrible of a job as he’s doing and compared to his first term his points are much much better. Like its still a net negative approval but i would think the number of approval would be around 33%. Nate Silver has it at almost 44% at the time of this response, granted 54% disapprove. But to me considering his performance, how tumultuous the news cycles have been, and compared to his first term. To me 44% is very high( a relative term by the way).

It’s nowhere near as low as it should be. And NO, not historically low, it’s much higher than this point in his first term.

Tbh the whole "good people vs bad people" is a bit of an oversimplification when political stuff gets involved I think. It makes some sense when it comes to immediate-scale things; if someone is a jerk that abuses or exploits the people around them, it's probably not a good idea to associate with them or trust them, and it's easier to communicate this with "this person is bad" than listing it all out. Similarly, if someone is friendly, helps out etc, it's easier to just tell people "yeah, they're a good person" when asked and it gets the point across.

But ideological and political positions, while they certainly have consequences that help and hurt people, those consequences are sometimes harder to see and require getting information from other people. What if you have someone that comes across as kind, would help out a neighbor or befriend a new person at work, etc, but they believe some ideological position that if implemented would hurt many people, or support some politician that promotes the same? What if they do so not really even seeing the contradiction, because the people they for whatever reason trust tell him that this person or position actually helps people, that the reports that it's harmful are lies, and that the people with other ideas are abhorrent and untrustworthy?

What about the reverse, where someone's positions would lead to fairly desirable outcomes, but in person the guy is an utter asshole? Obviously not everyone's personality and views are misaligned like this, but it happens.

At the end of the day, if you're talking about someone you will never personally interact with, asking if someone is "a good person" or not isn't super relevant. If you determine that they are, that doesn't make any harm from their missteps go away, and if they're not, your condemnation doesn't do so either. What matters more is if the consequences of the actions they take are desirable, and if not, if you can do anything to mitigate them or influence their future behavior.

I’m not sure we understand each-other. I am saying that close enough to half of the population voted for Donald Trump. A lot of those people, probably most, are good people. Even if we don’t politically align. They are just under the spell of a would be authoritarian. Its very troublesome to have someone as problematic as Trump elevated to one of the highest positions of Power in our country.

I don’t know how to answer your where do i draw the line question. But I hope this helps improve the understanding in the conversation.