Let’s have a war!

[Shirley]

I wished Obama would authorize the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, but as far as going all in, once republicans took control of both houses of congress in 2014, I don't know that he could have easily ramped up our involvement there. And although, to my huge surprise, Trump did approve the sale of lethal weapons in 2017, it comes as no surprise that he wasn't more forward with American support in light of his desire to continue laundering Russian Oligarch money, once he left office.

[Shirley]

Look who agrees with you, Trad:

[Shirley]

NITED24
10 hours ago
France to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles

France will join Britain in supplying Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles, which can travel 250 km (155 miles), a move that allows Ukrainian forces to hit Russian troops and supplies deep behind front lines, French officials said on Tuesday.

Emmanuel Macron said he had decided to boost military aid to Ukraine to help its counteroffensive as the French President arrived at a summit of the 31-member NATO alliance in Lithuania.

A French diplomatic source said they were talking about 50 SCALP missiles produced by European manufacturer MBDA

[Sparko]

I do not support the US sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. Period. I don't care what Russia is doing, that is stuff that should not be used on the battlefield in my opinion. It is just too dangerous to the civilian population.

It isn't being used on the civilian population except by Russia. The dud rate of American cluster munitions is less than two-percent, and these munitions will be used in areas that are not densely populated by the nation who owns the areas in which they will be used. Meanwhile, Russia has laid millions of mines and is shooting artillery shells of such bad quality the dud rate may well be 50-50. They are using WW II stockpiles. Ukraine needs something that will effectively reach beyond the carpet of mines. With Russia targeting civilians with long range terror missiles, your argument, such as it is, is a weak one. Russia can leave any time. The cluster munitions are much easier to find and eradicate on the surface of the ground. Imagine the thousands of buried mines washed into playgrounds by the Russian destruction of the dam.

The fact that it is less crappy than what the Russians do isn't good enough for me. It's either right or wrong and I personally feel that it is wrong. There are too many people desperate for the funds from scrap metal and too many kids that are too curious about the things they find for your answers to make me feel OK with it. This is one that I am just not OK with.

The Russians using them for terror means they are already a UXO danger. The UXOs from American artillery will be the least worrisome thing on a battlefield strewn with millions of types of more dangerous buried ordnance--AT mines, AP Mines, booby Traps, 152MM shells galore from the Russians--50% dud rate. The CM will end the war sooner and save lives. The Ukrainians have millions of tons of Soviet era terrible cluster munitions they were disarming before the Russian invasion--but now were going to have to use due to ammo shortages against an enemy that has that one advantage left. Ukraine would much rather use the MUCH safer American alternative--to protect their own country. Artillery ammo is the thing that they need most.

[Shirley]

Joe being Joe:

[Mjl]

That's a pretty low bar for proving mental acuity

[DCHawk1]

Especially on a day when he called Zelensky "Vladimir," and needed a cheat sheet to say hello.

[TDub]

That's a pretty low bar for proving mental acuity

yea but Trump!

[twocoach]

It isn't being used on the civilian population except by Russia. The dud rate of American cluster munitions is less than two-percent, and these munitions will be used in areas that are not densely populated by the nation who owns the areas in which they will be used. Meanwhile, Russia has laid millions of mines and is shooting artillery shells of such bad quality the dud rate may well be 50-50. They are using WW II stockpiles. Ukraine needs something that will effectively reach beyond the carpet of mines. With Russia targeting civilians with long range terror missiles, your argument, such as it is, is a weak one. Russia can leave any time. The cluster munitions are much easier to find and eradicate on the surface of the ground. Imagine the thousands of buried mines washed into playgrounds by the Russian destruction of the dam.

The fact that it is less crappy than what the Russians do isn't good enough for me. It's either right or wrong and I personally feel that it is wrong. There are too many people desperate for the funds from scrap metal and too many kids that are too curious about the things they find for your answers to make me feel OK with it. This is one that I am just not OK with.

The Russians using them for terror means they are already a UXO danger. The UXOs from American artillery will be the least worrisome thing on a battlefield strewn with millions of types of more dangerous buried ordnance--AT mines, AP Mines, booby Traps, 152MM shells galore from the Russians--50% dud rate. The CM will end the war sooner and save lives. The Ukrainians have millions of tons of Soviet era terrible cluster munitions they were disarming before the Russian invasion--but now were going to have to use due to ammo shortages against an enemy that has that one advantage left. Ukraine would much rather use the MUCH safer American alternative--to protect their own country. Artillery ammo is the thing that they need most.

All of that is "this isn't as crappy as what the really crappy people are doing." It's not OK to be kinda crappy.

"The CM will end the war sooner and save lives." That is pure speculation mixed with wishful thinking. You cannot actually know that as a fact.

I get that they need more ammo and that this is basically being done as a "we need to give them whatever we can get our hands on or we fear they will lose". I just don't like it and feel that other alternatives could have been pursued.

[Shirley]

That's a pretty low bar for proving mental acuity

While I agree with you, if you've seen how he's portrayed in the MAGA cult media all day every day, you'd think he was a Rhodes Scholar based on that quip.

Also, I'm a kidder. There is almost never a time that I am without a comeback or comment in situations like that, and after keeping it under wraps for decades to appear "professional", I'm free, Jerry!

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Especially on a day when he called Zelensky "Vladimir," and needed a cheat sheet to say hello.

Gee, his name is Volodymyr and not Vladimir so maybe that is a HUGE gaffe - for someone who has a speech impediment - or is just brain dead?
Either way, I'm surprised you beat randy to it. Then again, my guess is you don't get all your news from people on Instgram that you have never heard of.

[JKLivin]

Especially on a day when he called Zelensky "Vladimir," and needed a cheat sheet to say hello.

Gee, his name is Volodymyr and not Vladimir so maybe that is a HUGE gaffe - for someone who has a speech impediment - or is just brain dead?
Either way, I'm surprised you beat randy to it. Then again, my guess is you don't get all your news from people on Instgram that you have never heard of.

It is unwise to utter the name of he who must not be named, Jim.

[Mjl]

Especially on a day when he called Zelensky "Vladimir," and needed a cheat sheet to say hello.

Gee, his name is Volodymyr and not Vladimir so maybe that is a HUGE gaffe - for someone who has a speech impediment - or is just brain dead?
Either way, I'm surprised you beat randy to it. Then again, my guess is you don't get all your news from people on Instgram that you have never heard of.

That's pretty misleading to refer to it as a speech impediment as opposed to the specific speech impediment - because his specific speech impediment wouldn't result in him mispronouncing the name. He's an 80-year-old doing things 80-year-olds do.

That's not good when you're POTUS

[KUTradition]

i don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the stutter might be exacerbated by his age

[jfish26]

While a binary lens isn't always the healthiest way to look at things...and while it's possible that there may be a change...at the moment the only two realistic choices will be Biden and Trump.

Both have a voluminous history of verbal gaffes.

One has a voluminous history of competent decisionmaking in an elected role. The other is Trump.

[KUTradition]

…a voluminous history of competent decisionmaking in an elected role.

almost posted something similar

gimme a deaf mute to be the leader of the free world, or the worlds worse case of aspberger’s…what matters are the actions, the actual decisions

Biden has undoubtedly made mistakes, but has been a successful legislator and compromiser more often than not

i’ll be the first to call him out on the environmental hypocrisy and wavering of campaign promises (Willow project), but i still think he’s done better than most give him credit for

[jfish26]

…a voluminous history of competent decisionmaking in an elected role.

almost posted something similar

gimme a deaf mute to be the leader of the free world, or the worlds worse case of aspberger’s…what matters are the actions, the actual decisions

Biden has undoubtedly made mistakes, but has been a successful legislator and compromiser more often than not

i’ll be the first to call him out on the environmental hypocrisy and wavering of campaign promises (Willow project), but i still think he’s done better than most give him credit for

It's an annoying topic, because no one (on either side I guess) wants to see or engage in nuance.

Would it be BETTER if our leader is charismatic, polished on his feet, all of that? Sure, in a vacuum, absolutely.

So is that side of things a ding to Biden? Sure.

But it's a ding to Trump, also.

And on actual, demonstrated, substantive competence, in my opinion the comparison is favorable to Biden (and, in my opinion, it's not remotely close).

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Especially on a day when he called Zelensky "Vladimir," and needed a cheat sheet to say hello.

Gee, his name is Volodymyr and not Vladimir so maybe that is a HUGE gaffe - for someone who has a speech impediment - or is just brain dead?
Either way, I'm surprised you beat randy to it. Then again, my guess is you don't get all your news from people on Instgram that you have never heard of.

That's pretty misleading to refer to it as a speech impediment as opposed to the specific speech impediment - because his specific speech impediment wouldn't result in him mispronouncing the name. He's an 80-year-old doing things 80-year-olds do.

That's not good when you're POTUS

I'll take your word for it that his specific speech impediment wouldn't/couldn't result in him mispronouncing the name but admit I am wondering how you know that to be true.
I wasn't sure, so that's why I did question it by using the word "maybe" and adding a "?" at the end of my sentence.

I agree being 80 and doing some things 80 year olds do is probably not good for the POTUS but making mistakes and/or mispronouncing names is something people of all ages do.
Granted, I do think many of the mistakes and mispronunciations Biden makes are indeed age related.
On a side note. I work with a 40 something year old who feels the need to say/ask "What do you call it" about once in every 15-20 sentences when she speaks. For example - "What do you call it - I went to the zoo last week" or "What do you call it - I'm going to lunch now". Is she senile or is it just a way she speaks? I honestly don't know and can't figure it out.
On the flip side, on a weekly basis I speak with people who are in their 90s that are more cognizant than some/many of people I know that are half their age.

Anyways.....

A lot of interesting opinions on this thread. This morning someone sent me a video of Rosanne Barr saying she feels Zelensky is a bad Jew. Ok, she very well may be right but she cares because.....?????

[KUTradition]

…because she feels irrelevant

[jhawks99]

Is it dementia when I call one of my kids by the wrong name? Cuz if so, I've had it for 30 years.