I still think the ultimate outcome wouldn’t have changed but yeah, rewatching it he does seem a bit more provocative than in the rest of the interview. Maybe it did tick him off a bit too much and he decided to go for it in the heat of the moment.
I think it’s because he hoped there were actual guarantees, considering Trump is definitely interested in Ukraine’s mineral industry. But as the meeting went on it became increasingly clear that keeping Putin his BFF was even more important and he just wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
You’re still supporting genocide by proxy by living in the US and paying taxes, contributing to the GDP and whatnot, though. You should move and contribute to a different country if you really can’t stand to support genocide in any form.
I mean, he was asking a question that had to be asked at one point or another. If Vance had an answer to that, he wouldn’t have lost face. If he didn’t, that means any kind of deal they could’ve made would’ve been useless (if not harmful) to Ukraine.
What would’ve he gained by not making that question? The chance to make a deal with no warranties? I feel like he’s a very good strategic thinker, and that wasn’t a choice dictated by pride or by the heat of the moment. There was nothing significant to gain by not asking that question, they would’ve just discussed the deal behind closed doors and he’d still have to refuse because Trump’s only warranty would still be “well so far he hasn’t broken promises with me, though”.
It can be saved, through voting in primaries, grassroot movements, and trying to pressure whoever is in power to do the right thing.
But all of this is only possible if you keep voting for the lesser evil. By electing people like Trump, the US population is sending the message that they like those positions, and therefore the other party will keep shifting more and more to the right to try and capture those voters. And the only way a nation can be saved under those conditions is violent revolution. Are you ready for violent revolution? Because if you’re not I’d suggest you either start a plan to migrate to a better country, or get accustomed to voting “against” people, instead of “for” people.
Too bad that in the US there’s three sides, two that support genocide and a third one which supports whoever gets the most votes out of the other two.
You literally can’t avoid “supporting genocide” in a FPTP system, refusing to choose just means letting others choose for you. And you can’t tell me in good faith that both outcomes were the same.
So what should’ve been the answer to Vance’s proposal of “diplomacy”, in your opinion? Do you think he shouldn’t have questioned the validity of it, in spite of the precedents? Wouldn’t that just mean accepting the deal without any guarantee of protection like it happened before?
So in the end that means you can, and already did, cross that line. You just don’t want to do that when it specifically comes to voting.