u/Syrc

*An anonymous author said that Matthew said that Jesus said…

Not to mention the translation inbetween.

And people firmly believe whatever is written in that telephone game mess.

No but you see, this one actually predicted a lot of stuff that actually happened!

…I mean, she *said* that she predicted them *after* they happened, but I’m *sure* she wouldn’t lie about that, would she?

“This whole system needs to be smashed and recreated, it’s fine if the country burns itself down”

“Btw you’re the one with blood on your hands, I definitely think basic human rights aren’t negotiable”

>Well, it does look like he shows her his badge as he’s walking up to her.

…not at all…? He has his hands in his pockets until he stops walking in front of her, then he takes out his open hand to tell her to stop, then he takes out the other to stop her from walking away. When do you think he showed her a badge?

Ohh, so you’re an accelerationist! Now your comments make sense. Well, except the one claiming you’re anti-genocide, but the rest make sense. Kinda.

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.

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”.

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?