theoriginalbambo

I wonder if other VPs had as much excitement as I do 😂

If you watch the full Trump-Zelensky press conference, it is very clear that Zelensky, not Trump or Vance, became the antagonist. Both POTUS and VP were very respectful and cordial until Zelensky very publicly ignited a firestorm. It all starts at 40:30 1) Zelensky essentially rejects how VP described the mandate of POTUS to conduct foreign affairs, and he insinuates that Trump term one did nothing to stop Putin. 2) He then basically tells Vance that his ideas are faulty and that the administration's diplomacy won't work. These two comments are *deliberately antagonistic.* Everything was all well and good, but Zelensky took two major shots in a public forum, and they had to respond. And respond they did. Recall, this is the guy who interfered in our electoral politics and called VP "too radical," and bashed Trump in an interview with New York Mag weeks before the election. Zelensky is ENTIRELY at fault here. 100%.

Adam Schiff is a criminal

This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say. For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today. And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base? Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history. President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts: Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance. Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing. Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict. Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it. Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States. Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict. That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come. And thank God for that.