Trump is in talks with Russia to end the war

[Oldcarpy2]

Do tell what you are on about the Moon?

[Maxmars]

If I might interject into this exchange, 

The "moon" inclusion (and similar references) can (and might) risk a derailment of topic.

Going into means expounding on the overall sense of unreliability of all the information "given us" by the principle reporters... mostly the 'government" and "media" spokespersons...

Historically, what we can expect to understand is limited by what facts we actually have been provided.

Is it not amazing that we can be lied to from day one? 
And then, based upon those lies, we build immense dialogues... never knowing that what we have been "told" was never true in the first place?

[putnam6]

AI's opinion is just a conglomeration of all the facts put into one neat little place.

The actions of Trump are nonsensical and what kind of peace do Americans want again?

Taking the nuclear war machine into space?

Just so I can get this straight, you are worried Putin will take over Europe unless Uncle Sam gives Zelensky 100 billion dollars in aid a year.

Here is what Grok says

Will Putin invade Europe or nearby countries if he "wins" in Ukraine

 
In Summary:

• While there's no definitive answer, the possibility of Russian aggression against other European countries post-Ukraine conflict depends on numerous factors including:
  • The outcome of the Ukraine conflict (total victory, stalemate, or negotiated settlement).
    
  • The perceived strength and unity of NATO and the European Union's response.
    
  • Russia's own strategic calculus, military capabilities, and the domestic political situation within Russia.
    
• If Russia perceives that it can act with impunity or if it feels significantly threatened by NATO's proximity, the risk of further aggression might increase. However, the political, economic, and military costs of such actions, especially against NATO countries, would likely be substantial, potentially deterring Russia.
  

This analysis is based on the information available, and the situation could evolve with changes in leadership, international relations, or other geopolitical developments.

Additionally, you are worried Trump will put nuclear arms in space and take over the world? Does he want sharks with fricken lasers on thier heads too?



here's what Grok says

Can President Trump put nuclear weapons in space


No, President Trump cannot unilaterally decide to put nuclear weapons in space. Here's why:

1. International Law: The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to which the United States is a signatory, explicitly prohibits placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around Earth, on celestial bodies, or stationing them in outer space in any other manner. The U.S. has committed to this treaty, meaning any action to place nuclear weapons in space would be a breach of international law.
   
2. Domestic Law and Policy: Within the U.S., the deployment of nuclear weapons involves multiple layers of government, including Congress, which has oversight over defense policy and funding. Even if a president wanted to pursue such a policy, they would need Congressional approval for the funding and legal authority to do so.
   
3. Strategic Considerations: There are also strategic and diplomatic implications. Placing nuclear weapons in space would likely provoke international outrage, increase global tensions, potentially lead to an arms race in space, and damage U.S. relations with other countries, including allies.
   
4. Technical Challenges: The technical feasibility of deploying nuclear weapons in space while ensuring they are secure, stable, and operable in the harsh environment of space poses significant challenges.
   
5. Existing Policies: Current U.S. space policy, under administrations of various political leanings, has generally emphasized the peaceful use of outer space, focusing on exploration, science, and commercial opportunities rather than weaponization.
   

Therefore, while theoretically, a president could propose or attempt such an action, in practice, there are numerous legal, political, and strategic barriers that would make it highly improbable.

[Darkorange]

So, Putin will invade Europe after Ukraine is done...right? You, guys, are gullible like 11 year old kids, naive and seem lost.
Globalist media wants you to believe that since it is you whom provide support to said globalists.

I will explain it to you. No need for Putin to invade Europe. Because Europe will get rid of current Soros puppets themselves.
True patriots of their own countries like in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Germany and then the rest will take stage. Globalist agenda puppets will be gone. Done. No need to invade. That moment is closing up... Do you get it, dummies?

[UltraBudgie]

So, Putin will invade Europe after Ukraine is done...right? You, guys, are gullible like 11 year old kids, naive and seem lost.
Globalist media wants you to believe that since it is you whom provide support to said globalists.

Well I do think that will be the narrative. I'm imagining a scenario where Russia gets to keep the eastern territories, finishes clawing back the territories that were captured last year, and enters into a "negotiated settlement" -- essentially a surrender for Ukraine. Then, as the West withdraws its financial and military support just enough, the already-weakened and discredited Zelenski regime collapses and the country spirals into a messy little civil war -- horrible for the remaining populace, but juicy pickings for foreign vultures capturing assets; the last bits of restraint lifted in 6-12 months of absolute chaos which can hide all kinds of shenanigans. At some point, the civil war will spill out a little to the west, perhaps into Poland, and Europe and maybe NATO will be forced to react. The civil war, and the expanding chaos, will be blamed on Putin "breaking the treaty", fomenting internal conflict in Ukraine to nefariously pursue his territorial aggressions. In this way, "Putin will invade Europe".

I hope I'm being too cynical but I suspect I'm not. Remember, as Kissinger said: "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

[quintessentone]

Just so I can get this straight, you are worried Putin will take over Europe unless Uncle Sam gives Zelensky 100 billion dollars in aid a year.

Here is what Grok says

Will Putin invade Europe or nearby countries if he "wins" in Ukraine

Additionally, you are worried Trump will put nuclear arms in space and take over the world? Does he want sharks with fricken lasers on thier heads too?

here's what Grok says

Grok can only spew out a mish mash of opinion not facts from the opinions not facts fed into Grok about hypotheticals, but Grok shows us how naive we really are in regards to dictators? What isn't being taken into account is the KGB way of doing things, then sprinkle in violent psychopathic tendencies to keep power and money at all costs with no regard for the peoples' lives of his regime, then we end up with different informational offerings.

But with historical facts and statistics, Grok offers it up nicely IMO.

Nobody knows what 'Above Top Secret' weapons are in space, because that's classified above top secret and we all know where that will take us...down the rabbit hole.

Don't the American people want Trump and U.S. military boots on the ground in Europe and elsewhere to walk away and stop the bleeding of money for war efforts not on their soil, but are quite happy to keep selling weapons to others? That's not peace in the true sense.

It's all about power and money for the elite few and the rest of us can take a hike into the battlefield, like I keep repeating.

[quintessentone]

I'm still not convinced that both "nuclear weapons" and "space" aren't psy-ops, so don't tempt me with talk of the "nonsensical".

Also let's keep in mind that foreign policy utterances derivable from public data are essentially indistinguishable from misinformation. At least, if the State Department is doing its job. So, in negotiation, the perception of "nonsense" outside any particular state agency's viewpoint is actually a powerful position, as it prevents allied oppositional consensus with kimono-lifting which, for example, China and Russia may be reluctant to do. (And they shouldn't; no one wants to see Putin or Xi's legs. Eech.)

Trump's job is to get the prices down for the Americans, stop the bleeding of money for wars not on homeland soil, and become isolationists, isn't the first step to stay home and fix the problems at home? Trump just needs to stop paying for war efforts not at home. Problem solved?

Or are we all seeing the reality of something else?

[quintessentone]

If I might interject into this exchange, 

The "moon" inclusion (and similar references) can (and might) risk a derailment of topic.

Going into means expounding on the overall sense of unreliability of all the information "given us" by the principle reporters... mostly the 'government" and "media" spokespersons...

Historically, what we can expect to understand is limited by what facts we actually have been provided.

Is it not amazing that we can be lied to from day one? 
And then, based upon those lies, we build immense dialogues... never knowing that what we have been "told" was never true in the first place?

It is said that KGB propaganda aims to manipulate a divided people (the U.S.) so as to manipulate them both into giving them the illusion that Russians are on their ideological side (both sides simultaneously), so they put out absurd wild stories so the mind is confused, so much so, that the actual reality/facts are then also questioned. It's quite a brilliant psychological and informational warfare tactic.

I believe they succeeded in that tactic with Tucker Carlson, now for Trump.

[UltraBudgie]

Trump's job is to get the prices down for the Americans, stop the bleeding of money for wars not on homeland soil, and become isolationists, isn't the first step to stay home and fix the problems at home? Trump just needs to stop paying for war efforts not at home. Problem solved?

Or are we all seeing the reality of something else?

One can always live in a reality that spins narrative to retroactively explain what has been experienced, as you mention it's really a quite brilliant technique the propagandists employ, if brilliance can be said to exist within a closed sphere of unquestioned assumptions. A useful test of a reality-model, for those who are not content to express themselves within such a paradigm, would be to test the ability of the model to predict future events, and refine and evolve one's thinking based upon that. For example, which I may not be entirely correct, I am willing to predict:

• No return to previous prices for consumer goods
  
• No draw-down of overall US military presence in the world
  
• No significant reduction of government military spending
  

I think Trump's job isn't to actually try and do those things, but rather to generate useful perception to continue to sell the American narrative. He's a figurehead, a scapegoat, a conman, and a distraction, simple as that. The likelihood of those things coming to pass I would put on the same level as seeing viable free-energy, or humans "returning" to the moon.

[quintessentone]

One can always live in a reality that spins narrative to retroactively explain what has been experienced, as you mention it's really a quite brilliant technique the propagandists employ, if brilliance can be said to exist within a closed sphere of unquestioned assumptions. A useful test of a reality-model, for those who are not content to express themselves within such a paradigm, would be to test the ability of the model to predict future events, and refine and evolve one's thinking based upon that. For example, which I may not be entirely correct, I am willing to predict:

• No return to previous prices for consumer goods
  
• No draw-down of overall US military presence in the world
  
• No significant reduction of government military spending
  

I think Trump's job isn't to actually try and do those things, but rather to generate useful perception to continue to sell the American narrative. He's a figurehead, a scapegoat, a conman, and a distraction, simple as that. The likelihood of those things coming to pass I would put on the same level as seeing viable free-energy, or humans "returning" to the moon.

I disagree only because Trump and his billionaire bros want to keep power and make more money (why?) so they really don't want to piss off the people to the point of revolt.

So they have to give and take in measure.