> I just read your citation and it doesn’t sound particularly provocative. Certainly nothing compared to the dressing-down that followed.
Doesn't matter, my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed. It was yet more misinformation from the media.
> In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted
Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky. Zelensky needs stuff from Trump. They can react however they want because they're not asking for protection from a nuclear power.
> Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
Not a lynchpin, it's yet another example of how Zelensky totally dropped the ball because of his desperation.
The simple fact is that it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing.
> my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed
WSJ did not claim that he “started the argument.” They claimed he initiated the “nosedive.” These are not the same thing. From what I can tell, most people agree with that. At any rate, I don’t think I’m going to persuade you.
> Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky.
What has that got to do with whether they overreacted? Do you, in your personal life, berate people from whom you don’t need anything who ask you for a favor? Would you teach your children to do it? Do you manage people this way? A good leader lowers the temperature in the room; he doesn’t escalate it.
> it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing
That’s not America. Or at least it’s not how we have been for the past 200+ years. We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support. And I don’t see why we should start now.
This entire comment is just an appeal to emotion. There's no rationality behind it. It reminds me of Iraq/Afghanistan warmongering.
We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and the potential for nuclear holocaust and you're worried that "We have never asked a fellow democratic leader to humiliate themselves to get our support"
About a guy that's 6 years into a 5 year term.
Also politicians do the fake thing all the time, in America or otherwise. Zelensky included. It's not humiliation, it's part of the job description.
I could go on and on (ie he's not just asking for a "favor", but billions of dollars, weapons, and human lives), but I'm not sure this will get any more productive. You asked me for a citation as to why your WSJ article sucks, I gave you 2.
This brouhaha is not really about the subject of the request. That’s just context. And people can have good-faith disagreements about whether we should fulfillt Ukraine’s requests. Rather, this debate is ultimately about is how we treat people.
Respectfully, I don’t think you understand that treating people with courtesy is important, even if you perceive them as starting an argument, and even if they irritate you. It’s not just an appeal to emotion; it pays dividends in the end. If you don’t agree with that basic tenet, I don’t know what to tell you.
Doesn't matter, my point was that Vance did not start the argument, as WSJ claimed. It was yet more misinformation from the media.
> In the discussion I’ve had in HN challenging Trump supporters in the past 24 hours, not a single one has conceded that maybe he and Vance overreacted
Because Trump and Vance don't need anything from Zelensky. Zelensky needs stuff from Trump. They can react however they want because they're not asking for protection from a nuclear power.
> Regardless, to make it a lynchpin of the argument tilts the scales against justice.
Not a lynchpin, it's yet another example of how Zelensky totally dropped the ball because of his desperation.
The simple fact is that it would be better for his country if Zelensky simply kissed the ring and did the fake politician thing.