Comments by "PNH 6000" (@PNH-sf4jz) on "Russia Announces Putin's Election Campaign Has Begun" video.

  1. If any front-line Russian soldier or even many among the Russian population would have access to Jake's videos. And those that would are likely to be supportive anyway to the majority of ideas that Jake offers. Your comment Supported.
    2
  2. If there is already division and someone is attempting to address the devisiveness, I believe that is worthwhile. It appears that you #billblake6578 , would prefer to concede, capitulate and give in to the political and military blackmail that is being pressed on the US, Ukraine and other European and some Eastern countries.
    1
  3. You could be a little more expansive about your perceptions. Your comment is ambiguous. There are probably a number of entities to which your comment could apply.
    1
  4. Unfortuanately, they probably know no different and base their exuberance and celebration on fear and the possibility of an even lower state of life that could be worse than what they now experiece. All the while, oblivious to the possibility of a better quality of life.
    1
  5. Your comment does not correlate with what Jake has been saying during the WAR, waged by Russia against Ukraine. It is not Jake who needs to "wake up", but the people in the US government who, despite assurances and commitments made by the US, are preventing the US from honouring those assurances and fullfilling their commitments. As a consequence, the sovereignty and freedom of Ukraine is at risk of being lost. In addition to those possible outcomes, there is increased threat to the sovereignty and freedom of other European countries and, by extention, the interests of the US. "Wake up" is an expression that should adjured to specific members of the US political establishment. These people are, by attempting to gain a nominal political advantage in one issue, are going to create a much higher cost for the people of the US in general, and also for other countries with which the US claim to be both friends and allies.
    1
  6. Your comment makes very little, if any sense at all.
    1
  7. Absolutely agreed and supported.
    1
  8. While I recognise the foundational sentiment, I believe that there is more to the outcomes of those conflicts than can be condensed into 3 - 7 word sentences. However, the US needs to be aware of and responsive to the ways that they are and may be perceived by other peoples and countries in the world. That includes friends and allies, and also those countries with which the US may have less friendly, or even antagonistic relationships.
    1
  9. Absolutely agreed and supported.
    1
  10. Do you really believe that the issues you have described will change with some additional security against "border porosity". Unfortunately, I believe that there are some in the Republican party who, rather than using negotiation and compromise to achieve their goals, simply want to blackmail the incumbent government and the people of the US. Consider that this is the same tactic that is being used by the Russians in Ukraine and against other countries in Europe. The effects and consequences for European countries and, to no lesser extent, the US, could be disastrous. The outcomes could make "border porosity", on the Southern border of the US, almost diminish to insignificance by comparrison. And it is wise to remember, that once concessions are given to a blackmailer, whether Republican or Russian, will just be the beginning and lead to a never ending cycle.
    1
  11. Absolutely agreed and supported.
    1
  12. Your observation may be valid and appropriate if the intention of the those particular Republicans is, indeed, the so called "security of the Southern border" and not another issue. While I acknowledge that negotiation and compromise is an integral part of the democratic parliamentary system, those same negotiations and compromise can quickly be changed, by people lacking integrity, to straight-up blackmail. The issue is that Ukraine's problem is not just one of "border security", but of full-scale WAR and consequent threat of loss of territory. The two two issues of "border security" and border porosity" are nowhere near equal in consequence and, I believe, are in no way equivalent. If Russia considers they need a buffer zone, and Ukraine becomes that zone, then Russia is closer to many other countries. The WAR, waged by russia against Ukraine, is not only seriously and adversely affecting Ukraine, but is, and will also seriously and adversely affect many other countries, and their interests, including those of the US. That is if it was simply the "border security" of another country at stake; but it is not. No other country is challenging the sovereignty and location of the borders of the US. "Border security and sovereignty" and "border porosity" are two entirely different issues, and are dealt with in different ways. It seems the Republicans, having previously had the political advantage and strength, had the opportunity to address border security porosity, in their own country of the US, at various times during the last forty years, and have failed to do so. That makes their claims of border security porosity of the US tied to the immediate, definite and real issue of BORDER SECURITY and SOVEREIGNTY of Ukraine, spurious and fallacious on the part of the Republicans. Would the people of the US consider the imminent threat of loss of all, or part of Texas or all, or part of Alaska, as a border "security" issue or a border "porosity" issue. The loss of all, or part of my country is, most definitely, a border securiy issue and an absolute threat to freedom and sovereignty of my country. Such an existential existence of invasion, WAR, as waged by the Russians against Ukraine, definitely does NOT come under the classification of "border porosity". My perspective is that certain Republicans are changing negotiation and compromise into blackmail on behalf of the Russians. 🇺🇦🇺🇦 With Best wishes to All, PNH 🇺🇦🇺🇦
    1
  13. Good. We don't have to put up with your whinging and whining any longer.
    1