Summary
A dramatic Oval Office confrontation between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy underscored Trump’s hostility toward Ukraine and preference for negotiating with Russia.
Unlike past presidents who handled tense exchanges with allies privately, Trump and JD Vance berated Zelenskyy on camera, siding with Russia over a democratic ally.
This marked a break from decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized supporting democracies for stability and economic benefits.
Republicans largely praised Trump’s stance, while Democrats and European leaders firmly backed Ukraine. The meeting ended with Zelenskyy being asked to leave after warning that Putin would eventually attack NATO countries.
Could you be more specific? Because the only safeguard I’m aware of is impeachment and removal, which requires both chambers of Congress to act against Trump and I just don’t believe that’s going to happen while Republicans control both chambers and impeachment certainly isn’t going to “kick in” as if it’s some automatic process.
So I’m genuinely curious about what’s got you so optimistic
I believe you’re incorrect, I believe Congress at some point will act, and that’s what I was speaking of. Even a Republican lead one.
You’re seeing some split by Republicans, objecting to how Zelensky was treated yesterday at the White House, and up to now you hadn’t seen any division whatsoever.
At some point they’ll act, if it got to that point.
Oh I’m definately not optimistic, it’s going to be a long three years and tenish months, that’s for sure.
I’m just not hyperbolic about it.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0-
Some Republicans also spoke out against J6 before they all decided it was a regular tourist visit and the violent mob were all political prisoners.
Let’s see how they feel about this debacle in a week.
Well if the pressure is left off they’re go back into ‘Golum’ mode, clutching their precious ring (job/money/power).
But if Trump accidentally or otherwise tries to take their ring away from them, things will change.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The last safe guard is the second amendment. I hope enough liberals will realise that in time.
That’s something to discuss when we’re way closer to 100%, authoritanism, and not 0%.
You realize there are liberals that own guns, right?
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
You will never get to a breaking point. It’s cooking frogs from here all the way to a holocaust.
The boiling toad in the pot scenario is a real danger, but I think things would come to a head before that.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The last few times this happened, it didn’t.
I think we’re marking “would come to a head” at different places on the scale.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
I mean if it comes to a head like the last time, we end up with a Chinese flag on the White House and a generation of lives lost.
There liberal comment was literally because they have guns also that they hope they will act on the 2nd to save us. For someone correcting everyone you sure are misinterpreting a lot.
Also we are not close to 0%. I’d say at least >30% by made up metrics. Congress will not act, too many maga. Scotus just proved with their stay of USAID that they will back Trump. Vance openly said no one can enforce the Judicial as the US Marshals are under the executive. It’s bleak.
Well the stereotype is that liberals dont’ have guns. /shrug
So, we’re not allot to disagree with others here on Lemmy? Just read, and move on?
Otherwise, one persons correction is another persons disagreement and discussion.
Not that I agree with the made-up 30% number, but I don’t think its time to call for everyone to know where their guns are at at 30%.
Congress will not act YET.
If you can say anything about Congress, they REALLY care about themselves and their money and their jobs. The second Trump risks any of those, things will be afoot at the Circle K, regardless of MAGA.
That’s not how SCOTUS works, with it comes with temporary stays. There’s been times when they’ve stayed something, then did the exact opposive when hearing the case formally.
I’ll definately give you this one. No VP of either party should ever say something like that. And the non-supreme courts will pimp-slap him back in line.
Having said that, that bluster without action is < 30%. They’re doing allot of ‘rope-a-dope’ as well as actions. Judge on the actions, not on the words.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0