The Trump Presidency Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

i-node

Thomas M.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (142433)	11/5/2019 4:23:24 PM
From: Katelew	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) of 355028

Thanks Tom. I did several hours of reading this weekend on the last ten years of Ukrainian history myself. It was near impossible, for me anyway, to untangle the constant flow of shifting political alliances, special interest groups and ethnic/tribal animosities. I can see why Obama took the positions he did in spite of the ways things didn't work out. But I can also see why Trump has been critical of Ukraine in general, wary of who to trust and slow to entangle the US in any long term commitments. The Nation article you posted plus a few I came across have left me thinking that democracy in Ukraine may never be any different than democracy in Iraq. A country where people vote but don't embrace what our democracy does--entrenched civil liberties and individual freedoms. The testimony of three of the first four witnesses Schiff to trying to build his case on had this in common: Even before the phone conversation they each disliked Trump the Disruptor. They were entrenched State officials in a city that supposedly voted 96% Democrat and they were all Obama holdovers. Each complained in varying words that Trump was trying to subvert US policy regarding Ukraine. The word "subvert" itself was often used, if not a close variation was chosen. Their full testimonies make clear that none seemed to remember that foreign policy is set by each individual POTUS. But a change in policy is in reality simply a change in opinion. But these three characterized a change in opinion as subversive thus implying there must of course be only one way of dealing with Ukraine and of course that would be the way Democrats want to do it. Anything else is blasphemy and subversive. I've forgotten his name, but the first person who testified was the most explicit. He went into great detail about how he had long thought the best Ukrainian policy should be such and such and how he had slowly developed a 'sinking feeling' that Trump was going to derail his vision of the future. He worried Trump wouldn't come up with the foreign aid needed to foster democracy and enable Ukraine to meet the requirements for EU membership. Why would anyone think it wise our country should subsidize Ukraine so that it can become a full EU trading partner? He was arrogant about it and I kept wondering if he realized he was not in a position of authority and that to be so he needed to run and win office himself.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next