mhaze,

Trump didn’t just ask about past loyalties - Comey testified that Trump said directly, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.” That wasn’t a request for lawful compliance or professional integrity - it was a personal demand, and one that fits a broader pattern of behaviour. Trump has repeatedly expected - and punished the absence of - personal loyalty from day one of his first chaotic presidency.

So, even if you waved that example away entirely, the concern doesn’t disappear. Although, I'm sure you feel that if you can wave it away, then everything else Banjo and I have said will appear to have been build on sand.

He forced out AG Jeff Sessions for refusing to “protect” him from investigation. He fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper for not using the military against protesters. He removed Chris Krebs for saying the 2020 election was secure. He dismissed Alexander Vindman for testifying under oath. These weren’t about policy or performance - they were purges of perceived disloyalty.

Even now, in his second term, this continues. Trump’s allies are pushing Project 2025, a plan to purge the federal bureaucracy and replace career public servants with ideological loyalists. He’s reviving Schedule F, allowing mass firings of civil servants not based on job performance but political alignment.

And Trump’s demand for loyalty hasn’t been subtle. He told a rally audience in 2019: “You’re not supposed to say that... but I want loyalty.” He asked senior staff “Who’s in charge of hiring? Because I want people who are loyal.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he prefers to hire people based on whether they’ve been “good to Trump.”

This isn’t standard presidential behaviour. Loyalty to the office, yes. But loyalty to the man, enforced through firings and loyalty tests? That’s something else entirely. Repeatedly asserting that “this kind of conflict has always existed” doesn’t make the current version normal. It’s not the existence of conflict that matters - it’s how that conflict is handled. That’s what you keep sidestepping.

" then everything else Banjo and I have said will appear to have been build on sand."

No.

Basically what you've been saying is that he thinks he's above the law because he speaks to judges in a way that you find distasteful.

And he reminds those who work for the president that they need to loyal to the president.

So no, your views don't APPEAR to have built on sand.

Come on, mhaze.

You're summarising my argument in a way that even you have to know is dishonest. It seems someone is in full-blown 'damage control' mode.

I didn’t say Trump thinks he’s above the law because he speaks harshly. I’ve pointed to a pattern of behaviour: demanding personal loyalty, firing or humiliating those who refuse, trying to reshape federal agencies to serve him personally, and undermining the legitimacy of legal institutions that don’t fall in line. That’s not just “distasteful.” It’s a sustained attempt to bend democratic structures around the will of one man.

You haven’t addressed Project 2025. You haven’t addressed Schedule F. You haven’t addressed the firings of Krebs, Esper, Sessions, Vindman, or the loyalty language Trump used repeatedly - on record. You’ve just ignored all of it and boiled the argument down to “he talks a bit rough.”

I understand why you’re doing that - it’s easier to mock a caricature than engage with the substance. But it doesn’t make the pattern go away. And your silence on the details says more than any of your dismissals.

Trumps willing to make a deal with Russia over Ukraine because of their support and partnership of Iran. All roads lead to greater Israel, and Trump needs Russia out of the picture per Iran because Netanyahus 7 wars to remake the M/E is incomplete.

Trump usually makes big threats to make a deal, and then threatens to back away from a deal if he can't have his way after the fact.
Many of the things mhaze says hold merit (on this topic), but in my honest opinion John and Banjo aren't entirely wrong about their criticisms either.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

I wrote :

« If I saw a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I would jump into the fray – not try to negotiate »

And you replied :

« I think it's important to note who started the conflict »
.

Though I am not a pacifist, I have never started a fight or an armed attack in my life, and I can’t imagine that I ever would. The only time I might be considered as having technically done so could be when I happened to be the first to throw a punch in the ring during the boxing matches I participated in when I was young. The only armed attacks I ever made were against rabbits, birds, goannas and kangaroos, in the bush, with an old 303 rifle I bought in an army surplus store when I was a kid.

I can vouch for my friends on that score as well. They are not the sort of people who are likely to start a fight, either — even though some of them are ex-rugby union players.

But as I indicated in my previous post, I would not hesitate to defend myself or my friends if anybody were to attack me or them.

If I did see a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I doubt that they would take time off to explain to me who started the conflict. From my experience, bullies are not so polite and considerate as to respond favourably to a request of that nature. Even if they did, there would be no guarantee that their version of events corresponded to reality.

I’m afraid I would have to jump into the fray without knowing who started it and carry out an investigation as best I could later.

And any negotiation could only take place after the fighting had stopped.

In my view, that same schema is applicable to the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

.

Hi Banjo Patterson,
Yes I get what you're saying, If you walked around the corner and your mate and another bloke were fighting, and your mate was getting a bit of touch-up, you wouldn't hesitate to jump in and have a crack to defend your mate regardless of who started it.

I watched a video last night where they were discussing a speech Putin made yesterday. It was from a Russian Arctic forum where a new Russian nuclear powered submarine (named Perm) that is fitted with Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles was launched.

Putin signaled how he saw the war ending, with total military collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Here's one of the videos, there's more apparently where he states that Russia will 'Finish them off'

Putin Discusses Special Military Operation During Arkhangelsk Nuclear Submarine Visit | RU-EN
http://youtu.be/bmV8PwOlf20

Putin calls to remove Zelensky, 'finish off' Ukrainian troops
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/putin-calls-to-remove-zelensky-finish-off-ukrainian-troops/news-story/a7f44ce7d1d211b3c910911fee6d48af

"Russian President Vladimir Putin called Friday for a "transitional administration" to be put in place in Ukraine and vowed his army would 'finish off' Ukrainian troops, in hardline remarks as US President Donald Trump pushes for a ceasefire."

Trump wants a ceasefire but Starmer, Macron and Zelensky want to fight on, and don't keep to the terms of Trumps ceasefires. I'm not sure if they are playing good cop / bad cop or what, but it seems the Russians don't have a lot of trust in the West, and don't see the Ukrainians and their backers as being ready to accept Russian terms as yet.

But there's nothing here that I haven't outlined previously.
Ceasefire talks aren't likely to succeed and the conflict will be decided on the battlefield, which will result in more loss of life and further loss of Ukrainian territory.