Summary
A European Parliament member claimed that the U.S. gave Europe three weeks to agree on Ukraine’s “surrender” terms or risk an American withdrawal from Europe.
Mika Aaltola made the claim on X, but provided no evidence. NBC News reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested a U.S. troop reduction in Europe.
Trump reportedly plans to cut 20,000 troops and demand greater NATO contributions. He has pushed for higher NATO defense spending.
Trump may meet with Putin soon, believing Russia holds the upper hand in negotiations.
Not really, but I expect you to be delusional enough to believe it.
It is true. By not opposing fascism, you’re tacitly supporting it.
They literally published a playbook of what they’d do if they won. The contents of it were known. The man straight up said he would be a dictator.
Knowing all of that, if you didn’t oppose him, you were complicit in him gaining power.
🥱
The delusion on these forums is palpable.
“If you don’t vote in an election, you automatically support one candidate over the other!”
Glad most of it is contained online, though.
You should look up the definition of tacitly.
All that’s required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. If you did nothing to prevent Trump, then you are fully on board with what he promised to do when he’s in power.
Both are evil, though.
Also, why does not voting show support for one side over the other?
Why do you always say “If you didn’t vote, you support TRUMP!”?
Why not “If you didn’t vote, you support Kamala!”?
What’s the determining factor, or are non-voters just people you can blame for whatever you want?
This kind of delusion is sad among this generation, but I seriously don’t expect more from you people at this point. I’d be foolish to do so.
you didn’t vote, so you where equally fine with both options. So in effect you voted for the winner, IE Trump
Ahh, so whoever didn’t vote automatically supports whoever won?
Interesting “logic”.
More like
“If you don’t vote in an election, you don’t prefer one candidate over the other / oppose one candidate!”
Now tell me Harris would’ve been equally bad…
Harris would’ve been better than trump, but that’s not the boon you may think it is.
The problem with biden and harris is they convince the left that a slow loss is winning. It’s not. The disparity in wealth continued to grow under biden, just not as fast as it would have under trump.
Until the left can grow some cajones and rescind its rampant consumerism, either politician that wins is a loss for the working class.
And yet it would’ve been far better to choose the slow loss over the immediate loss
It’s fine if you think that.