The Pentagon has halted shipments of critical US Patriot air defence systems and other precision weapons to Ukraine after concern that US stockpiles are running too low, prompting alarm in Kyiv.
At the end of last week’s Nato summit, Donald Trump hinted that supplies of Patriot missile interceptors were running down because some had been supplied to Israel, though he suggested he would like to help Kyiv.
After a meeting with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the US president acknowledged that Ukraine did “want to have the anti-missile systems, as they call the Patriots, and we’re going to see if we can make some available”.
But Trump added: “They’re very hard to get. We need them. We were supplying them to Israel,” implying that supporting Israel in its war with Iran – a priority for the Republican administration – had set back its willingness to help Kyiv.
? She said she supported Israel. That's telling the truth.
Muslims didn't agree with Harris so voted for Trump who said he supported Palestine. It's not theoretical. More Muslims voted for Trump. That's why there's an NPR article about their leopards eating faces moment.
No, I mean she could have been truthful, and she could have run a leftward campaign.
As for Muslim voters, a small portion voted for Trump, but another portion voted for Jill Stein. If Harris wanted to get votes from Muslim voters, her and Biden could have not supported genocide.
You mean she could have been an entirely different person? She supported Israel. To say otherwise would have been a lie.
Trump said he supported Palestinians and got Muslim votes in key states.
She could have run an entirely different campaign, one appealing to workers, but she didn't. Trump also said he supported Israel. Your point is veering on "muslims are too stupid to realize Trump is a Zionist too," which is horrible. Reconsider the options and see how Mamdani is doing very well, the US wants candidates to the left of the DNC, and the DNC won't do it because they'd rather lose.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she didn't lie. You wanted her to be someone else. That's valid. But she didn't lie about her position on Israel.
Trump lied about Palestinians. I provided proof that it was believed and his lies influenced the election.
No, you provided evidence of a minor swing and a testemonial from one person. This wasn't 4D chess.
I provided proof of one lie having an influence. It wasn't one person's testimonial.
"This year, President-elect Donald Trump received the most support out of any presidential candidate, with 42% of the vote in Dearborn. "
Muslims don't only live in Dearborn.
How is lying to win an election 4d chess?
Deerborn isn't entirely Muslim, either, many sat out of the election, and people still voted for Trump last election cycle in Deerborn.
Do you believe if Harris promised to support Palestine and immediately bring peace, she would have won the election?
That would have helped, sure, but it would have had to be genuine. The real reason Harris lost is because she ran a right-wing campaign when the working class has been increasingly radicalized.
Why does it matter that Harris had to be genuine but it's ok for Trump to lie to get those votes?
Because Trump never campaigned on being good for Palestine, you linked a liberal news site trying to shift the blame of a horribly run campaign from the DNC to muslim voters.
National Public Radio reporting election statistics is liberal news. Nice to know who I'm arguing with.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-earns-endorsement-highly-respected-muslim-leaders-battleground-state
NPR is liberal, as is Fox News. Liberalism is the ideological superstructure of capitalism. Fox News are conservative liberals.
So election statistics and the fact that Trump was endorsed by Muslim leaders are irrelevant because of who reported it? If Jacobin doesn't cover a news story it didn't happen?
More muslim leaders supported Jill Stein and Claudia De La Crúz, or called for a general boycott of the election. You're magnifying an ultimately small part of the election with the purpose of shifting the blame for Harris' loss to muslims, and not on the genocidal liberal DNC.
I already quoted the npr article that said Trump got more Muslim votes than any other candidate.
I started this because of everyone defending Trump.
Nobody is defending Trump, and your article did not mention how many people sat out that would have voted, nor the people that voted for Stein and De La Crúz. You're dishonest, and running defense for a genocidal liberal.
This entire argument is that it was inevitable rather than a direct result of Trump's actions.
That's defending Trump. Trump tore up the Iran non proliferation deal.
What's next? "It was inevitable that illegal ICE raids would happen. Biden would have been the same as Trump. Biden would have ended DEI."
Are you saying directly committing genocide is an inevitablity? Where's the accountability for the DNC?
The OP did! He claimed that this wasn't Trump's fault. Did you not know you're defending Trump?
I'm a woman and
that's not what I fucking said. Don't put fucking words in my mouth.
Trump could, hypothetically, choose to supply Ukraine with weapons if and only if he stopped supplying Israel with weapons. That obviously isn't going to happen because Israel gets priority over Ukraine, because they're the unsinkable aircraft carrier. I said this was inevitable because Israel was always going to get the priority no matter who the president is and no matter which party controls Congress. Trump chooses to support Israel over Ukraine because that's what every US politician would always do.
Which ignores that Trump caused the problem that made Israel bomb Iran!!!! There was no problem supplying Israel and Ukraine until Trump.
I'm not ignoring that! What I said was that this was inevitable after Israel started sucking up military aid. Once that process began they would suck the US dry to bomb all their neighbors, and no one in the US government would even try to stop them because they all support this course of events. I don't mean to imply that Israel is unstoppable, but rather, that everyone in the US government loves helping Israel do genocide so much that the few voices against it would always be drowned out.
But you really want to wind this back to Trump's first term, so let's do that.
If you actually think about why Operation Al-Aqsa Flood happened, I'm not entirely sure the nuclear deal actually would have prevented it. The attack was launched because of normalization with the rest of the Gulf states, because normalization with Israel is a death sentence for Palestinians and a direct path to ethnic cleansing of both Gaza and the West Bank, and normalization was always the goal. Iran isn't the puppet master behind Hamas. Hamas has its own agenda and leadership, Iran is just an ally.
If anything, in a situation where Iran has a nuclear deal and normalization with the Gulf states is progressing, Hamas would be under even more pressure to launch an attack before it was too late to fight back at all!
I also take issue with "There was no problem supplying Israel" - it was a big fucking problem because they're fucking colonizers. They were colonizers before Oct 7th and now they've ripped the mask off, but they've always been settlers and colonizers and genocidiers.
Israel has been sucking up military aid for over 70 years. Yet only right now, after Trump bombed Iran, it became a problem to supply Ukraine.
Trump claiming there aren't weapons for Ukraine is because of Iran missile strikes. It has nothing to do with Gaza. Iran missile strikes happened because of Iran's uranium refinement program that started because of Trump (This is Iran's statement.).
That's an extraordinarily gross misreading of my statement. The US was able to supply Ukraine and Israel until Israel bombed Iran because of their nuclear weapons program.
No, you're putting all of the US's horrible history of evil on Trump and trying to absolve the DNC of its willing participation and acceleration.