this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
729 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7731 readers
3250 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you think it would have panned out differently under Harris, I have a bridge to sell you. She would have not have had the influence to get Ukraine into NATO even if she wanted to, what is she going to do? Kick out Hungary? The only thing Trump has done that Harris wouldn't have is this minerals for protection deal. The US was never an honest ally to Ukraine, they were only interested in offloading weapons onto them and bogging down Russia, they were never prepared to help in a way that would actually lead to Ukraine getting it's lost territory back. Ukraine should have never given up their nukes, promises are only words, they never should have trusted western countries promising them security to begin with, Ukraine having nukes might be the only scenario where an independent Ukraine doesn't end up losing territory to Russia.
So we went from "no, trump would never do that" to "Harris would have done it anyway"?
Did anyone around here actually say that?
Yes, I saw it frequently from people who supported trump and Ukraine before the election.
Do you have a link or a username?
Hold on, I'm looking through my paper work i keep every comment in now. Just a sec
So, no. You made it up.
... you can seriously be that dense?
It's a ml user.
I know, it's hilarious
There's nothing dense about recognizing when someone's lying about their political opponents' beliefs to make them look bad. What, do you expect people to just take your word on it? 🤣
I guess you're used to circlejerking and not getting called on lies so long as they're about the outgroup.
What exactly did I make up?
Look at Jake Broe channel before the election, as it also has many pro Ukraine trump supporters. He even mentioned multiple times about those claims.
Allow me to reiterate: Did anyone around here actually say that?
I have no doubt you can find people saying whatever on other platforms, but it's not really relevant if nobody here agrees with them.
I surely didn't. I don't know what they think Harris would have done. Ukraine was not making progress with the help Biden was giving them and Harris did not indicate that she would change anything in regards to her policy on Ukraine from Biden. So this deal was inevitable unless there was a dramatic increase of what Harris or other western countries were prepared to give them, which I see no evidence that they would have done this.
You're assuming Harris would be doung the same thing Trump is doing.
Dude... bravo, man, for making the effort, I guess. This is actually pretty impressive.
Absolutely correct.
All the blue is Ukraine's lost territory they got back with the West's help. There's also Kursk.
Probably true.
Did Western countries promise them security? That's the whole controversy about them joining NATO. For some reason, it is a globe-spanning crisis for Russia if NATO does offer them security, were they to be invaded, instead of just no-strings-attached weapons and a hearty pat on the back for good luck. Wonder why that's a big issue.
I feel like this phrasing is, maybe, an incredibly artful dodge, inserted into the middle of talking about the Budapest Memorandum to make it sound like any part whatsoever of the betrayal of that agreement came from any source other than Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe I'm reading too much in, though.
Probably true. They're working on it. Doesn't that kind of thing bother you? Wouldn't it be better to give them conventional assistance to the extent they actually need, and allow them to counterattack without all this nail-biting about how it would be ever so rude and we don't really care to that extent about dead Ukrainian soldiers and civilians? So they can win the fucking war and we can all go back to our lives?
I saved this one for last. I'm going to just sit and ponder at it, in silent contemplation.
Like I say, it's pretty impressive. You've combined true statements that are sort of in the neighborhood of what you're trying to prove, unrelated assertions, and absolute bald-faced earnest fabrications, into a pretty passable imitation of something that makes sense.
I have to applaud you. This is a work of art.
Yes 1991(?) Ukraine agreed to give Russia the nuclear weapons in Ukraine in exchange for protection from the US, it's very well known.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Fixed it for you! You already provided the citation, so I don't need to. There was no NATO-style protection in the memorandum, otherwise Russia would have no reason to freak out about them joining NATO now, and getting security guarantees.
You are so snarky it hurts, you managed to say almost nothing of value in all of these paragraphs. If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.
This is another pretty good one. You sound so confident when taking my detailed point-by-point response and categorizing it as "nothing of value" and airily dismissing it, that you can keep the conversation going without needing to make any kind of response. Someone who's not reading critically will simply see it as "a disagreement" between two people who are being pretty disagreeable with each other.
Then, you're recapturing a little psychological edge by telling me what to do. If I obey, and respond to your question, you've set a good precedent to be able to just do the same type of thing again: Announce that I have failed, and nothing I said had any value, and keep the conversation going, making some firmly insistent counterpoints and talking down to me. It's easy for someone who reads your response to read the signals and come to the conclusion that I am the one that's wrong. If I refuse, though, it makes me look like I don't have a good response.
Excerpting only the part of my message where I was kind of a dick, and responding more or less in kind, is a really effective technique. You're choosing what part of my message is the part that's going to be featured in the ensuing conversation. And, if I call back to all the stuff I said that you didn't respond to, I sort of sound like I'm whining about it and trying to control the conversation.
Like I say, pretty impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA
Damn, this really opened my eyes to the kind of rhetoric you see a lot in online discussions. Nice one
Innuendo Studios is gold. They have a new one up now, post-coup, that's pretty haunting.
You're not wrong. It's one among a couple of reasons I'm trying not to do so much sarcasm and meanness on Lemmy. It's a hard habit to break.
On the other hand, nothing about what I said was personal. I was pointing out the huge separation between what's real, and what they were basing their argument on. My experience is that replying to that kind of post at face value, and just doing a detailed factual rebuttal of it like you're doing a class presentation, is a mug's game, because they'll just come back at you with a bunch of firm insistence that everything you said is wrong. Bullshit asymmetry principle and all. I did so that a bunch of times early on. I've spent, honestly, days upon days in other internet forums doing it. So, in this comment, I gave the citations, explained myself in detail about why I thought the argument was dishonestly constructed, and also I was kind of a dick about it, also refusing to take part when they tried to seize the conversation and discard everything I said and ask a bunch of new questions, generally lay a new groundwork for our interaction in which they get to push me around and control what's judged right and wrong and what we're talking about, and I'm a big jerk somehow if I don't go along with it.
Was the way I did it productive? Honestly, I don't know. They did snap out of it and actually start responding in detail to what I was saying, though, after I did it for a few messages, so maybe there was something of value to it. Like I say, I don't think you are wrong that sometimes the way I do it is excessively mean.
You are deluded into Trump offering anything, he is not, he is taking it all away so Russia can go have their way with Ukraine in about 5 years... AGAIN.
What does Trump think the Ukrainians were fighting for anyway if its all given away like that?
This is all purely the USA LOSING, there is no deal here, Trump is kneeling before Putin.
And an ending note: Ukraine should be applauded, they DID make headway, reconquered lost territories, conquered parts of Russia itself, and most of all it stood firm agains a country far larger with greater resources to throw at them but they pushed back the invader and made Russia pay dearly every chance they got because Russia has no business in Ukraine.
And a small bonus on top: it showed the world how weak the Russian army really is, most of its technology now proven to be inferior and only its centuries old strategy of throwing cannon fodder 'till the other side runs out of ammo is what keeps Russia in the fight.
But again, Trump is the huge loser in this conflict, Ukraine can stand proud but abandoned, and Putin laughs 'till he falls asleep.
I would just like to say thank you, Garibaldee.
It's astonishing to see someone so willingly say "I voted for trump" in so many words.
Well done.
"I have a bridge to sell you."
Is it the one you yourself were conned into buying? You know, because you're clearly so fucking stupid.
If you want to educate me because "I'm so fucking stupid", please inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering.
You can't educate the unwilling, and you've stated your intent to remain unwilling plenty of times. Why should anyone waste time with you? I'd be your kids say similar things, but maybe behind your back.
Give examples to this claim.
Why did you waste your time writing this?
What a weird and uncomfortable thing to say to someone.
Harris's approach presumably would have been a continuation of Biden's, waging an economic war of attrition against Russia for as long as Ukraine was willing to hold their ground. The whole endgame here, under the Biden/Harris strategy, was going to come down to which side blinked first. Putin must have gambled that he'd win if Trump won, which is exactly what's playing out now. If Harris won, it'd be a continued stalemate, which of course benefits the western coalition - not Russia.