[Cont.]
His attacks on free speech are also earning him a lot of criticism.
The story behind that was that the student protests were actually working and having a significant impact with a majority of people starting to support the Palestinians over Israels genocide.

The Europeans are using the war in Ukraine as a pretext to extract more money from EU citizens to rebuild their military in the wake of their failed military campaign against Russia, which is actually at the request of the Trump administration anyway.

If Trump 1.0 failed because of attacks against him by the deep state, which I may add 'has no reverse gear' then the current Trump 2.0 administration is failing because its stacked with Pro-Zionist 'children'.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

You ask :

« What exactly do you propose that Trump do about Ukraine »
.

I think the wise thing for him to do would be to seek the advice of the major political leaders in Congress on a bipartisan basis as well as his military chiefs and principal allies, UK, France Germany and Poland before taking any further initiatives.

I see that as the first positive step he should take.

And as Europe has a vested interest in the final outcome of this major Ukraine-Russia conflict, I think he should work closely with the European alliance every step of the way from thereon.

Trump's failure to settle the conflict, as he boasted he would, has dealt his ego a tremendous, humbling blow.

We'll see if he has the intelligence and force of character to recognise that he was wrong and that others know better than him.

.

Starmer, Macron, Merz and Duda;
- They all going to want to continue the war.
'coalition of the willing' continuing arms supply to Ukraine or peace negotiations with U.S. security guarantees that require U.S. boots on the ground resulting in WW3.

High ranking members of U.S congress, President of the Senate is V.P Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (wants to continue arming Ukraine) Senate president pro tempore Chuck Grassley (also wants to continue arming Ukraine) Hakeem Jeffries (also wants to keep arming Ukraine)...

None of these people want peace, they want to win but it can't be done.
Lets assume you want to keep arming Ukraine and for the war to continue.
What's is your plan to win it, and what will that require?

As I said earlier on another thread it's an 'escalatory spiral model'

'The escalatory spiral model, also known as the conflict spiral model, describes how conflicts can escalate into larger confrontations through a cycle of action and reaction, where each party's actions are perceived as threats and provoke further escalation'.

The only way out is diplomacy, but none of these people you mentioned want that.
This path has already resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and the further loss of Ukrainian territory.

But I invite you to please explain further what your recommendations would look like in practice.
I'm not trying to be tough, just realistic.
All of this could've been avoided if the earlier steps I mentioned were taken. America wants out, it's military stockpiles are dwindling, it wants to and the conflict over to the EU or make peace, so it can focus on China. (Still clinging to the unipolar world order, which is effectively dead)

Do you want EU citizens paying 5% of GDP and conscripting their own kids to go to the front?
The they're fools, they've already destroyed the source of their previous wealth success by cutting themselves off Russian gas.
I'm sure they were invested in overhrowing putin installing a puppet ruler carving the Russian Federation up and sharing the spoils amongst themselves.

Right on queue, mhaze!

As I had already predicted in my very last post, you're now attempting to reduce the debate to a technicality by fixating on the quote about “disobeying court orders” to make it look like I was making a false accusation.

Now THAT is "deliberately misconstruing."

I simply brought it up because you appear to be treating that as the only possible definition of “acting above the law,” which is far too narrow. My point was, and remains, that Trump’s behaviour - publicly attacking judges, demanding loyalty, framing legal checks as partisan warfare - is still a form of treating himself as beyond constraint, even if he hasn’t outright ignored a ruling.

I brought it up because you were drawing a razor-thin distinction, treating disobedience as the only meaningful definition of “acting above the law.” But that's far too narrow. Acting above the law doesn’t require physically ignoring rulings - it can also mean undermining the legitimacy of the legal system, demanding loyalty from legal officials, or framing legal limits as partisan sabotage. Trump has done all of that, openly and repeatedly.

Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique - it just shifts the goalposts. You’re trying to normalise Trump’s behaviour by appealing to tradition or precedent, as if scale, tone, and context don’t matter. They do. No recent president has waged such a consistent and public campaign against legal institutions, or treated checks and balances as hostile forces to be outmaneuvered.

And invoking the “deep state” doesn’t change that - it just moves the conversation into conspiratorial territory where any resistance to Trump becomes illegitimate by default. That’s not a defense. It’s insulation.

You’re not engaging with the substance of the argument. You’re reframing it, deflecting from it, and layering it in a narrative designed to shield Trump from scrutiny rather than evaluate his conduct on its own terms.

What makes you assume the west can dictate an outcome, they can't.
And why aren't you listening to what Russia says?

Lavrov’s WARNING to the West | Russia Ready to Use ‘ANY MEANS’ to Defend Itself
http://www.youtube.com/live/eC-k5gcpDwI

What outcome do you expect to achieve, or think is even possible?

I tried to tell you all in the beginning 3 years ago it wasn't going to go well, but still people think there is something to achieve other than death, destruction and everyone both paying for it and drawn into it.

What do you think will happen if Aussie troops are sent there.
Russia will see all western troops as enemy combatants for starters (so you can count them as dead already, andthe Brits especially will false flag and blame Russia to get and peace ended and the war going again.

Russia has no reason to trust the West, and is happy to dictate the outcome on the battlefield, and it won't be long before the collective west move to send troops, because it won't be long before the armed forces of Ukraine faces complete military collapse.

It would be better to make a deal now than any other eventual outcome, which will include the loss of more Ukrainian territory.

"Well if "publicly attacking judges", "demanding loyalty from legal officials", "treating judicial constraints as political obstacles" is acting above the law then every president since Washington has acted above the law."

"Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique - it just shifts the goalposts."

No its pointing out to you that that's the way the world works. Asserting that Trump is acting above the law when he's just doing what every president before and, presumably, after him has done isn't the slightest bit incisive. Its just TDS at its most fundamental. Verbally attacking activist judges is no more acting above the law than activist judges seeking to overturn lawfully made policies. Its just how the system works. I'm not surprised you can't see that.

This notion that we should just adjudicate on Trump's actions in isolation is just a way of saying that you want to say he's wrong irrespective of what goes on in the real world.