More than a dozen who served under Republican president quote his call for a ‘Time for Choosing’

More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.

    • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 months ago

      I’m not saying he’s a dove or anything, but he doesn’t really give a shit about NATO therefore isn’t terribly invested in protecting the Zelensky regime, and he has been consistent about saying the war should be ended so Ukrainians survive, [which, to be clear, I doubt he personally cares about, but it’s his platform] and even said this when he was pressed with the insanely unprofessional and ridiculous bait question “Do you want Ukraine to win?” at the debate.

      Anyway, it’s no guarantee, he’s a very unstable and erratic guy, but I think he sees the war as a waste of money and would prefer friendlier relations with Russia.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        01·
        2 months ago

        Sorry my reply was unrelated. I’m also discussing Israel in another thread on this post.

        I think the only way Trump would negotiate peace for Ukraine/Russia would include relinquishing Ukrainian land to Russia, and would very likely not include the safe return of the tens of thousands of abducted Ukrainians.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
          3·
          2 months ago

          No worries about the Israel part

          I would say that yes, it would certainly involve reliquishing land, that’s the reality of the situation. I don’t think there’s any credence to the “abducted Ukrainian” story. On the off chance you mean POWs, they would surely be returned. If you mean the children who Russia evacuated from the war zones that it controlled, most likely the children with a surviving guardian will be reunited with them as has already happened, and the children who can’t be reunited with a guardian (for any number of reasons) will wind up in the local foster system in Donbass. The Ukrainian government loves crying wolf about being the victim of a supposed genocide by Russians, but here as ever there simply isn’t adequate reason to believe it’s true.

          To be clear, I’m not saying Trump would take any action an anglosphere liberal would approve of (though I think his stance on Ukraine is the one thing he supports that is surprisingly reasonable if it’s true), I’m just trying to explain as best as I understand it the things Putin would take into consideration. This is of course all in the “pro” column for him, but it’s also extremely unreliable (Trump could easily be lying about his position, though I believe he isn’t) and doesn’t make up for the much worse possibility of Trump dramatically increasing US involvement. As things stand, Russia is surely going to win the war, so it would be poor strategy to rock the boat with the wildcard Trump currently represents with respect to this specific issue.

            • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
              2·
              2 months ago

              They were children abandoned in a war zone. Russia needs to do something about keeping them fed, housed, and clothed. If it didn’t, then it would still be getting accused of genocide, though in that case with more reason! Furthermore, Russia clearly and demonstrably is cooperating with humanitarian organizations to reunite families, and many have been reunited already. The accusation is alarmist nonsense from the perpetual self-proclaimed ethnic victims to justify their fascist cult to literal perpetrators of the Holocaust.