Trump and Zelensky

~ Clarissa

Regarding Trump’s actions and their impact on Zelensky’s domestic support.

There are only three scenarios:

  1. Trump knew his way of engaging with Zelensky was going to make Zelensky massively popular at home and supported even by his biggest challenger in the next election (which is what happened.) But Trump likes Zelensky and wanted to do him a solid. We can all agree that this scenario is utterly unrealistic.
  2. Trump has no idea that his actions would have this effect because he’s completely stupid and has no clue what he’s doing. This is the explanation Democrats will like but it leaves open the question of why they keep losing to somebody they consider so dumb and what it says about them.
  3. Trump has absolutely no interest in what Zelensky’s ratings are and whether he’ll win the next election in Ukraine because Trump’s base wants him to do stuff domestically and not be very engaged internationally. Trump is withdrawing from international engagements to fulfill his electoral promises. I believe this is the likeliest scenario.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

31 thoughts on “Trump and Zelensky”

  2. It’s clearly #3, but the way Trump went about this is truly disgraceful, to the point where I’m starting to question whether Trump is just as bad as Biden on international matters.

    It’s also ridiculous but I can’t seem to recall Trump saying anything negative about Putin. It’s really starting to look like to me like Trump is a Russian bootlicker.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Trump is playing hard to his base. Which makes me wonder cynically, what is the large disappointment that the base will have to eat up very soon that demands such pandering?

      I really hope I’m mistaken.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I strongly believe that most, and probably all, gestures in international directions have domestic goals. Nobody organizes a show like we saw yesterday if there weren’t domestic goals behind it.

        I’m expecting a serious letdown.

        Like

        Reply

        2. “I’m expecting a serious letdown.”

          No Epstein list.

          Some kind of political career for the pedo-pimp-bros

          No mass deportations.

          Regarding that last, I’m pretty sure most people don’t want that. I don’t think anyone has the stomach for uprooting and deporting people who have jobs and no criminal record.

          Deporting criminals – yes.

          Deporting everyday Joes whose crime was crossing the border illegally but have since been clean – really? people want that?

          A massive part of the dysfunctional dishonesty of the migration debate in the US has been that you have to deport employed, law-abiding people and criminals – that you can’t distinguish between the two.

          I’m all for shoring up the border and deporting gang members, criminals and those who have once been deported and returned.

          But that’s too much like effort and people are turning into big babies who want daddy to beat up the other kids.

          When did US political discourse get so retarded?

          Like

          Reply

          1. There are millions who entered the country just last year and had no time to put down roots. One could start with asking these very recent transplants to leave. I’m not seeing any movement in that direction but ok, maybe it’s early, let’s wait.

            Like

            Reply

            1. “One could start with asking these very recent transplants to leave”

              That’s a very reasonable approach that won’t happen.

              I think deportations are going to be this administration’s border wall… If anything I would start counting down to a de facto opening of the border again…

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. Nobody is even promising the wall anymore, which isn’t a great sign either.

                I was very bothered when Trump said, as he sat next to Keir Starmer, that he had no idea who the Tate brothers were. If he really didn’t know and was made to look uninformed and lost by Starmer’s side, he’s now had time to find out and take measures against those who put him in this situation. If he did know but couldn’t say it openly, that means he’s weak and not in control. If there’s no action on this by the end of next week, we’ll know the answer.

                One really needs to try hard to look weak and confused next to Starmer but that goal was achieved.

                Like

              2. I have no way to verify this information, may as well be propaganda, but FT correspondent in Romania said Trump’s son is a fan of Tate.

                As far as Epstein’s list goes… Let’s just say that there is no correlation between being a pedophile or a completely unprincipled person (for those who did not indulge themselves, but said nothing) and belonging to any particular political party…

                Liked by 1 person

              3. I hope the son in question is not Barron because eewww. Don Jr is a right layabout, so I wouldn’t be surprised. But we already had a president in thrall to a shady son and don’t need a replay.

                As for the Epstein list, I understand it must have had all sorts of people but if they don’t want to release it because of that, they found the most stupid, suspicion raising method of doing it.

                Like

              4. –if they don’t want to release it because of that, they found the most stupid, suspicion raising method of doing it.

                This, and many other things, actually make me question one of your basic assumptions – that what Trump’s team is doing is all calculated… What if it is not? What if a lot of things are done impulsively?

                Another observation – lately Facebook has been offering me all kinds of stuff ranging from male rights activism to outright misogyny (meaning what qualified as such already when we were young, not some recent version). And my internet watching habits did not change in any way to warrant this. I suspect a lot of conservatives are… not as good people as conservative intellectuals like yourself imagine them to be. So the moment the bosses tell them that DEI should be out, they go much further, to where they actually want to go in their hearts…

                Like

              5. If the handling of Epstein files and the Tates is bumbling, impulsive, confused behavior, that’s bad. But it’s a lot better than the alternative which is the attitude of “I’ll humiliate and torture you on purpose and you’ll eat it up because you have nowhere else to go.”

                As to whether the Joe Rogans and the Matt Walshes and Co are good people or not. They should have complete freedom to believe whatever they want, even if it’s completely contrary to what I believe. But will they make me personally parrot their beliefs under threat of humiliation and persecution? I’m due for another struggle session of anti-racist brainwashing on Tuesday. The moment conservatives start imposing such struggle sessions to spread their beliefs, I’ll be just as opposed to that. But we are still light-years away from returning to the middle-of-the-road norm, let alone swinging too far to the right.

                Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s why I break into hives whenever education bureaucrats say we need to develop “critical thinking” in students. It’s slang for keeping them ignorant on purpose.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              1. Basically immunizes them against religion, family, community, stability, marriage, and even gainful employment, if the more recent grads I know are anything to go by.

                Liked by 1 person

        3. “expecting a serious letdown”

          Not too long ago you had a great insight on the ‘sportification’ of politics (you did not use that term).

          It’s all about short term victories “Yay! We won the election!” “Yay! Trump just owned the libs, big time!” “Yay a plane flew to Panama!” “Yay they fired national park employees!”

          That’s not how long term political change works. But as long as they get the adrenaline rush of “Our team just scored! GOOOOOOOOLLLLL!” they don’t care about homelessness, drug addiction, crime, inflation… real migration rates etc etc etc

          Like

          Reply

  4. My apologies to being late for this soirée, W0ordpress, G0ogle, and my internet source were evidently busy emjoying unnatural sexual relations ;-D

    First, the Tates do seem to be rather nasty pimps, but so far they have not been found guilty of anything whatsoever in Romania, the UK, or the USA.

    Secondly, given the supposed names of some participants in the Epstein events and the rot within the senior police forces in the USA , we should expect repeated considerable delays in getting to the truth.

    Thirdly, there is no bloody chance that working class and lower middle class citizens do not want every single illegal alien booted the hell out in not just your country but my own. They not only destroy social adhesion but undermine social welfare systems, and by working at cut rates starve citizenry of any hope of having successful families.

    Lastly, the mens’ right groups or the manosphere are not an organized hate group. Rather they are a rather diverse group of men and women that believe that second and particularly third wave feminism went too far and that their influence on the legal system is undermining society.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Why do we need these Tates here at all? Billions of people all over the world haven’t been found guilty of anything. We gonna drag them all in? We are having a shortage of pedo pimps?

      I don’t like political partisanship or personality cults. This was poorly done and Trump saying he’s not aware of it and then failing to find out is a bad sign. I’m not going to pretend this doesn’t stink out of a sense of relief that at least he’s not Kamala. I’m glad he’s not Kamala but that’s a very, very low bar to cross.

      Like

      Reply

        1. This doesn’t explain the burning need to have them here. God knows, we have no shortage of pedos running around. Why can’t Trump have Starmer take them instead? Is he weaker than Starmer?

          I’ll be waiting for the investigation into how this happened that Trump himself promised.

          Like

          Reply

          1. How would you stop them? They are citizens with legal passports, they have the identical rights as you to enter the country. And Starmer is a bum kissing wussy and we both know it ;-D

            Like

            Reply

            1. If that’s the case, let’s hear Trump say it. “What are you going to do, they stink, but we have to let them in.” Shouldn’t be that hard to say, should it?

              There’s been nothing so far but let’s wait for it. One might almost think Kamala became president with all this careful effort not to hurt some nasty layabouts’ feelings.

              Like

              Reply

              1. LOL, why would Trump bother saying anything whatsoever? Thankfully, angering feminists is not an offence ;-D

                Like

    1. But the moment Europeans started getting their shit together and figuring out how to do for themselves, the US right started whining about “how can they? Don’t they dare.”

      Like

      Reply

      2. “US right started whining about “how can they? Don’t they dare.””

        I dislike the… disingenuousness of the right. The US was fine with Europe freeloading off of US Defense for decades not least because it cemented US leadership status.

        And… can you imagine the stink if Germany wanted to rearm in the 1990s?

        And, as I understand it, the US doesn’t want Europe to spend more on defense in just any old way but by buying American arms (which are often not very reliable).

        Like

        Reply

Leave a reply to PaulS Cancel reply