Respectfully, I don’t know how you could sit through his first four years, and definitely not the last six weeks, and dismiss anything he says out of hand at this point.
Threatening with WW3 implies Trump would unleash WW3, you know that’s not the case.
Trump is warning Zelenskyy that escalating the war further has the potential to trigger WW3 with Russia escalating too and European countries joining the war.
When you’re in a position of power and trying to coerce your long term ally into submission, while simultaneously colluding with your historical enemy (who is actively attacking your prior ally), and you are threatening to remove aid from them if they don’t submit?
Then say “Do you want WW3?” twice… this constitutes a threat. An indirect threat is still a threat.
You trying to dance around the semantics disingenuously, is really what warranted my prior response—there was seemingly no chance at any understanding coming from engaging.
Likely still not the case…but hey, let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s say I own a vehicle and I’m helping out a friend—letting them borrow it to commute to work. Without this vehicle they will 100% lose their job and livelihood, thus putting me in a position of control/power.
I request them to start paying for maintenance and bringing the car to a mechanic at specific times even though it will conflict with their job. Concerned about their livelihood, they decline and ask for more flexibility.
Knowing they 100% need this car to maintain a job, I give them an ultimatum of doing it at the specified time or I take the car away.
In my threat to take the car away, am I threatening that they will be fired?
Respectfully, I don’t know how you could sit through his first four years, and definitely not the last six weeks, and dismiss anything he says out of hand at this point.
You are being unreasonable.
I do not do that, but a reasonable person must acknowledge Trump is not threatening the world with WW3.
Do you want ww3?
He specifically asked while in a position of absolute power…
The setting and situation definitely would suggest a threat to anyone. Not sure what’s so hard to understand about this.
Threatening with WW3 implies Trump would unleash WW3, you know that’s not the case.
Trump is warning Zelenskyy that escalating the war further has the potential to trigger WW3 with Russia escalating too and European countries joining the war.
The US is not interested in participating.
Oh yeah? Interesting.
Can you explain further.
What else do you want explained?
Removed by mod
My bad, I thought you were interested in having a real conversation but instead you’re happy to resort to character attacks.
Context is important here.
When you’re in a position of power and trying to coerce your long term ally into submission, while simultaneously colluding with your historical enemy (who is actively attacking your prior ally), and you are threatening to remove aid from them if they don’t submit?
Then say “Do you want WW3?” twice… this constitutes a threat. An indirect threat is still a threat.
You trying to dance around the semantics disingenuously, is really what warranted my prior response—there was seemingly no chance at any understanding coming from engaging.
Likely still not the case…but hey, let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s say I own a vehicle and I’m helping out a friend—letting them borrow it to commute to work. Without this vehicle they will 100% lose their job and livelihood, thus putting me in a position of control/power.
I request them to start paying for maintenance and bringing the car to a mechanic at specific times even though it will conflict with their job. Concerned about their livelihood, they decline and ask for more flexibility.
Knowing they 100% need this car to maintain a job, I give them an ultimatum of doing it at the specified time or I take the car away.
In my threat to take the car away, am I threatening that they will be fired?