Democrats [nobody in media appears to give names of who picked her, so guess] have put forward Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan to give their party's response.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer,
D-N.Y. called first-term senator Slotkin "nothing short of a rising
star in our party," in announcing her role for the address.
While not technically a State of the Union
address, as it is called later in the term, Trump's first joint
congressional address of this administration will lay out his vision for
the nation. Following his address, Slotkin will give the Democrats'
rebuttal.
Rising star? So says the Schumer of the United States. Who puts her, in his mind, in a class with Harris. In his mind. The fact is, she's in a class with Gottheimer. By choice. In with Gotthelmer both as a borderline supposed Democrat and as a Zionist. That letter, read it and reflect on how many Gazan civilians have been murdered.
She must have trouble, as a former Iraq war spook, knowing what a war criminal is.
Slotkin was elected to the Senate in 2024, defeating Republican nominee Mike Rogers in a close race.[2] She became the second female senator from Michigan after Debbie Stabenow. She is expected to become Michigan's senior senator when Gary Peters retires in 2027.[3]
After leaving the Defense Department in January 2017, Slotkin
moved back to her family's farm in Holly, where she owned and operated
Pinpoint Consulting.[8]
In November 2018, Slotkin defeated Bishop with 50.6% of the vote.[1][17] She is the first Democrat to represent Michigan's 8th district since 2001,[17] when Debbie Stabenow gave up the seat to run for the U. S. Senate.
She defeated Republican nominee Tom Barrett with 51.5% of the vote to Barrett's 46.5%.[21]The general election was the most expensive U.S. House race of 2022, with Slotkin raising $9.8 million.[22][23]
Slotkin criticized Barrett's stance on abortion, specifically his statement that he is "100% pro-life, no exceptions".[24] She also criticized his multiple votes against incentives for a new General Motors electric vehicle battery plant in Delta Township.[25]
She was endorsed by Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney.[26]
During the campaign, Slotkin signed a seven-month lease on a condominium in Lansing, Michigan. The owner of the condominium was a donor to Slotkin's campaign but the campaign said the lease was at a fair market rate.[27][28] After the election and before her February 2023 divorce, Slotkin moved back to her family farm in Holly, in Michigan's 9th congressional district.[29][30]
Slotkin attributed her victory to "losing better" in the district's Republican-leaning areas.[23]
Her win defied trends in other states that resulted in Democrats
narrowly losing control of the House of Representatives for the 118th Congress.[23]
On February 27, 2023, Slotkin announced her candidacy in the 2024 Michigan U.S. Senate election after Debbie Stabenow announced that she would vacate the seat.[34] She won the Democratic primary on August 6, 2024, with 76% of the vote and narrowly defeated Republican nominee Mike Rogers[35][36] in the general election, outperforming the top of the ticket.[2]
In 2022, Slotkin co-sponsored the Ban Corporate PACs Act, which, if enacted, would prevent corporations from operating a political action committee.[49]
Criminal justice
Following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 25, 2020, Slotkin co-sponsored and voted for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.[50][51][52] She voted in favor of the bill again in 2021.[53][54]Slotkin was the only House Democrat in Michigan who voted for a bill to overturn DC criminal code modernization.[55][56]
Slotkin opposes abolishing the death penalty.[57] She has said it should be used in rare cases.[57]
Flags
In 2023, Slotkin was one of two House Democrats who voted for a
Republican-backed amendment that prevented Department of Defense
facilities from displaying non-official flags, including the pride flag.
After facing criticism for the vote, Slotkin said that it was intended
to prevent the flying of "hateful flags [...] particularly the Confederate flag", adding that she would "rather support a no-flag policy than allow hateful imagery above U.S. military bases".[62][63][64]
Foreign policy
Slotkin is a self-described Zionist. She condemned Representative Rashida Tlaib
for controversial statements about Palestinians, including using the
phrase "from the river to the sea". Slotkin expressed support for the
Israeli government's actions amid international allegations of genocide in Gaza.[65] She also signed a letter criticizing South Africa's genocide case against Israel, calling it "grossly unfounded".[66]
Slotkin supports the Affordable Care Act.
During her 2020 campaign, she said the protection of health care
coverage for people with preexisting conditions was the most important
issue in her district. She supports allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for those it insures.[80]
In both the 116th and 117th Congresses, Slotkin received a 100% rating from Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) Congressional Scorecard, which measures "support for equality" among members of Congress based on their voting record.[85][86] HRC endorsed her in each of her campaigns for the House.[87][88]
Student debt
In 2020, during the Trump administration, Slotkin voted against an amendment, supported by 93% of the Democratic caucus, that would provide $10,000 debt relief for student loan borrowers.[89][90] [...]
Identity politics
After the 2024 presidential election, Slotkin said that identity politics "needs to go the way of the dodo",
adding that "people need to be looked at as independent Americans,
whatever group they're from, whatever party they may be from."[96]
Personal life
Slotkin married Dave Moore, a retired Army colonel and Apache helicopter pilot, in 2011.[97][98] They had met in Baghdad during Slotkin's third tour in Iraq and lived in Holly.[97][98] The two filed for divorce in 2023.[98] Slotkin had two stepdaughters while married to Moore.[99]
No wonder Schumer loves her. She's as big a loser as he is. And, yes, opinions can differ.
Slotkin's rebuttal speech is available online by transcript, or on YouTube, where demeanor as well as words are given. She brags about having been a spook and cites Ronald Reagan, who privatized us out of a good thing while being an ex-actor.
She characterizes the U.S. as "exceptional," more than once in her 10 minute speech:
I was recruited by the CIA and did three tours in Iraq, alongside the
military. In between, I worked at the White House under President Bush
and President Obama, two very different leaders who both believed that
America is exceptional.
[...] As a Cold War kid, I'm thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s. Trump would have lost us the Cold War.
Donald
Trump's actions suggest that, in his heart, he doesn't believe we are
an exceptional nation. He clearly doesn't think we should lead the
world.
Look, America's not perfect. But I stand with most
Americans who believe we are still exceptional. Unparalleled. And I
would rather have American leadership over Chinese or Russian leadership
any day of the week.
Calling bullshit, she dumps a load on the current President, than says a non sequitur. U.S., China, and Russia have big militaries, but it's how you used them and she was big time in the Iraq disaster, but proud of it. Who is this flag waver?
Continuing the bullshit - laying it on with a trowel -
Because for generations, America has offered something better.
Our security and our prosperity, yes. But our democracy, our very
system of government, has been the aspiration of the world. And right
now, it's at risk.
It's at risk when a president decides he can
pick and choose what rules he wants to follow, when he ignores court
orders or the Constitution itself, or when elected leaders stand idly by
and just let it happen.
But it's also at risk when the President
pits Americans against each other, when he demonizes those who are
different, and tells certain people they shouldn't be included.
Yes, she is doing exactly that, pitting Americans against each other, as Schumer expected in picking here to counter Trump - two Americans against each other. She is laying it on. More -
Because
America is not just a patch of land between two oceans. We are more
than that. Generations have fought and died to secure the fundamental
rights that define us. Those rights and the fight for them make us who
we are.
We are a nation of strivers. Risk-takers. Innovators. And we are never satisfied.
She's describing Elon Musk, risk-taker, innovator. More -
That is America's superpower.
And
look, I've lived and worked in many countries. I've seen democracies
flicker out. I've seen what life is like when a government is rigged.
You can't open a business without paying off a corrupt official. You
can't criticize the guys in charge without getting a knock at the door
in the middle of the night.
So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our
lives today, don't for one moment fool yourself that democracy isn't
precious and worth saving.
She melds "superpower" neo-con BS with "democracy ... worth saving." Huh? Trump was elected in an election she does not call rigged, and now Trump as our leader means "democracy" needs "saving?" Because Harris ran a shitty campaign and her losing her contest and both Houses of Congress threatens "democrach?"
WTF, that is inflamatory rhetoric, over the top, her girl lost, MY GOD!! That threatens "democracy!" More -
But how do we actually do that? I know a lot of you have been asking that question.
First,
don't tune out. It's easy to be exhausted, but America needs you now
more than ever. If previous generations had not fought for democracy,
where would we be today?
Where would we be, and that's where we are. With Trump as President, JD as VP, and Elon Musk being questionable.
Second, hold your elected officials,
including me, accountable. Watch how they're voting. Go to town halls
and demand they take action. That's as American as apple pie.
Those old enough and with a memory will recall Rap Brown saying, "Violence is as American as Cherry Pie." One pie or another retire that sorry cliche. More -
Three,
organize. Pick just one issue you're passionate about — and engage. And
doom scrolling doesn't count. Join a group that cares about your issue,
and act. And if you can't find one, start one.
My issue is Medicare for All, a winner if there was one, and you, Elissa, dump on the idea. You do. My issue. So give me advice from that perspective? Presumptous is the only word coming to mind. More -
Some of the most important movements in our history have come from the bottom up.
Bottom up. Why Bernie Sanders draws massive crowds, which Hillary failed to do.
More -
In
closing, we all know that our country is going through something right
now. We're not sure what the next day is going to hold, let alone the
next decade.
But this isn't the first time we've experienced significant and
tumultuous change as a country. I'm a student of history, and we've gone
through periods of political instability before. And ultimately, we've
chosen to keep changing this country for the better.
Jeffrey Sachs is a student of history, again giving this link,
and he, unlike others, is honest about policy since the Soviet Union fell, and the neocons beat their chests over the sole superpower while the picture Ms. Slotkin paints is not the same one Sachs describes.
His is more thoughtful, reasoned, adult, and true.
Slotkin's wrap-up -
But every single time, we've only gotten through those moments because of two things: Engaged citizens and principled leaders.
Engaged
citizens who do a little bit more than they're used to doing to fight
for the things they care about. And principled leaders who are ready to
receive the ball and do something about it.
So thank you tonight
for caring about your country. Just by watching, you qualify as engaged
citizens. And I promise that I, and my fellow Democrats, will do
everything in our power to be the principled leaders that you deserve.
We are not exceptional, except that we've a big military, and we were the materiel supplier at a profit during WW II when Europeans were at war with one another, and since then, we've had a big economic advantage slowly eroding. And we've pushed other people around, war after war - including spook Slotin's three spook tours in the Iraq incursion.
Today, rich folks pay minimal tax, while a humongous part of the federal budgets are debt service, and the dollar today has been cheapened from the dollar yesterday, and the can gets kicked down the road.
Debt financing is use because the rich do not want to pay fair taxes, and tomorrow it may be faced, but spending less on war, which however it shakes out Ukraine-wise, is a better idea than Vietnam, time after time, details varying but accepted by the general citizenry more without a draft, as was the great evil then.
So, no idea what Trump said, taking ten times what Slotkin needed to rebut, but the rebuttal, like the Harris campaigning, sucked. As Bernie has lectured, if you want to win, give people what they want, and billionaire Musk chopping heads so his taxes are lower and he's regulated less is one hell of a sick answer to anything.
Bet rank and file citizens seeing much if any of advantage, that's been killed by both parties of the two party stranglehold while we've been lied to as Slotkin does and Sachs describes. Biden did have four years, and did better than I'd expected, but my view is in line with Sachs, and has me a skeptic of Ms. Sen. Slotkin's flagwave and pecuniary scare.
...............................................
Of interest, two Jewish media outlets -- Forward and JTA -- tout Slotkin's Jewishness, and her Ball Park Franks family fortune from which she benefited, JTA going on :
Slotkin’s responsibility on Tuesday night will be to rebut Trump’s
State of the Union-like speech, which is likely to focus on the
president’s policy priorities.
On one of them, immigration, Slotkin has a riveting family story of her own.
Slotkin was born in New York City but grew up largely on her family’s
land in Holly, Michigan, where she lives today. Her grandfather bought
the land when he moved the headquarters of the family business, Hygrade,
from New York.
Founded in 1914 by Slotkin’s great-grandfather Samuel, a Jewish
immigrant from Minsk, Hygrade was a pioneer in processed and packaged
meats whose contributions included Ball Park Franks, still the most-sold hot dogs in the country.
Samuel Slotkin was the subject of a two-part New Yorker profile in 1956,
when the multimillionaire, then around 70, still lived in New York
City. According to the profile, he was one of nine children of a
Talmudic scholar in Koidanov, a town outside Minsk that was a center of Hasidic Judaism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Samuel, a hustler from birth, bristled at the family’s expectations
and sought to leave Russia to make his fortune in the United States. Too
young to get a passport, he decided to emigrate despite his parents’
wishes, swimming across a river to evade German and Russian border
police, and hitchhiked across Germany to Holland. The year was 1900, and
he was 14.
“When Slotkin, with a dollar eighty left in his pocket, sailed from
Holland to America, which at that time admitted immigrants without
passports, he had neither the intention nor the desire to become the
head of a meat-packing company and make millions,” the profile says.
Instead, he thought of himself as an artist but fell into business
through the influence of an older brother, then embarked on a series of
ventures that steadily expanded his reach in the meat industry.
Samuel Slotkin had come during a peak period in a wave of Jewish
immigration from Eastern Europe to the United States. At least seven of
his eight siblings arrived Stateside, according to genealogical records,
and his father was buried in New Jersey.
In 1924, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act, severely limiting immigration
and effectively closing U.S. doors to Jews from Eastern Europe on the
eve of mass persecution. Most Koidanov Hasids were murdered in the
Holocaust.
Slotkin had begun her career working at the CIA, where she served
multiple tours in Iraq. In 2018, a wave year for Democrats during
Trump’s first term, she won election to Congress, where she emphasized bipartisanship,
occasionally crossing party lines to vote with Republicans. A recipient
of support from PACs affiliated with the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, she
has voted since Oct. 7, 2023, for Israel-related measures that divided
her Democratic colleagues, such as to fund Israel’s military and to equate anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
Hygrade was founded and prospered at around the same time socialist Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle. Where that fits via Hygrade is a guess, but as to Samuel's Horatio Alger story as touted by JTA, the Slotkin transcript only mentions immigration once - I did a word search - saying this:
But securing the border without actually fixing our broken
immigration system is dealing with the symptom not the disease. America
is a nation of immigrants. We need a functional system, keyed to the
needs of our economy, that allows vetted people to come and work here
legally. So I look forward to the President's plan on that.
Because here's the thing: Today's world is deeply interconnected.
Migration, cyber threats, AI, environmental destruction, terrorism — one
nation cannot face these issues alone. We need friends in all corners —
and our safety depends on it.
"Vetted people?" That's not what Biden/Harris ran, and the heavy border traffic apparently was vetted by the Mexican cartels, who allowed Central Americans to cross their nation if paying the cartels' price, a situation which Trump trumpeted.
Friends: Luckily we have friends such as Israel. Not friends such as Russia? Did Sachs not mention that at one point Putin quizzed Clinton about Russia in NATO and Clinton got back to him that his people would not allow it? Listen again, if you missed that. Who does the vetting and what criteria are determinative? Musk likes super bright Indian graduates who come in on HB-1 vetting, but that would be of little help to today's Samuel Slotkin, or today's Elon Musk, who sneaked in.
Slotkin wholly ducks the issue. Harris lost, ducking that issue. Trump won beating his chest over it where the white young males viewed it as a rallying cry to their whiteness and wishes.
And Slotkin ducked. Courage? You decide. The JTA folks seemed to expect something other than Slotkin's noticeably brief immigration ruminations.
Why we might need a Second Cold War against Russia with the neocon warriors hot to trot is not necessarily a clear thing, while apparently clear to Slotkin. Because we are exceptional. We are high atop a citidel of righteousness.
But with an immigration argument from Sotkin? MIA.
Bernie took twice as long as Slotkin giving the speech she couldn't give, and did not care to give anyway because she a millionaire meat processing heiress.
And Schumer can kiss my ass if he doesn't like it to be said. Which he does not like at all. Schumer is not a part of any solution. Learn that or keep getting fucked.
This current thing, a Rare Earths contract, is highly speculative, smoke and mirrors and hope and what not, and the EU by getting there first and best, has tied up the non-speculative resources, and hence, can support Ukraine by buying U.S. arms for Ukraine, or can find another source, since the EU has no arms industry to speak of at present. Bottom line = share the spoils. Or buy U.S. weaponry. Which is not unfair, [to Ukraine perhaps unfair, but not to the EU] possibly pulling a fast one and being called on it. Which explains the staged "blow up" presser where Vance started the ball rolling and Trump saying he wanted the public to see it, which is not wholly honest with the public, since it was most likely pre-arranged. Zelinskyy playing his part.
And when Trump and Putin meet if the U.S. cuts whatever deal with Putin, then Russia can take and annex the whole of Ukraine - unless Europe has the means, and more importantly the collective will to stop it. Which is a "we shall see" thing, if things come to that.
The one search telling it all -
search = Ukraine natural resources actual and potential EU
That and an earlier like-minded search have interesting returns, i.e., provacative news. Start with the smoking gun -
1 In July 2021 the EU and Ukraine signed a Memorandum on Strategic Partnership in the Raw Materials 2 In November 2022, Ukraine was represented for the first time at the European Raw Materials Week, where it held an investment forum together with the European Commission, presenting mining business opportunities 3 The next investment forum was held in June 2023 during the second Ukrainian Recovery Conference in London
This, as Trump would himself point out, if asked, was during the Biden administration, the U.S. unmentioned in those points, nor in the entire item. Continuing -
Ukraine proposes a wide range of mining investment opportunities
100 projects of mainly ten critical raw materials* could be developed to bridge the current mining gap in Europe
Later in that item page by page - Titanium, Lithium, Graphite, Nickle & Cobalt, Rare Earths, Gold-Lead-Zinc deposits, -- hot dog -- that represents:
final page of the pdf item
So history has details, but a deal was cut with the U.S. not a player? Strange?
and more. Now, admitting reliance only on websearch, and items found; so it is possible I err in presuming the EU has already "harvested the low hanging fruit" leaving the U.S. in the cold. If so, there still is the question, what is the EU doing this very moment, and what does that mean for the U.S.? If in 2021 there were already licenses, as the final listed item states, then: between whom, and terms and conditions?
At any rate, the exploitation of Ukraine resources might be a part of why Russia invaded, and what existing mineral deals are affected, in what ways, in the resolution that Trump is proposing vs. what EU measures are being considered after the oval office blow up?
However things stand, looking at Ukraine natural resources, and greed of others toward same, is possibly the best vantage point to see how things stand and will develop. And in closing, that oval office presser blow up beyond any reasonable doubt was a staged event, the only question being was Zelinskyy lured into it, or a part of planning in advance?
Ukraine and the EU are developing cooperation in the field of critical raw materials
Hence, detail to flesh things out is needed. Final paragraph of that item:
According to the results of the meeting, the parties agreed on the next
steps of Ukraine-EU cooperation in the conditions of Russia’s armed
aggression, as well as the rapid recovery of Ukraine in the post-war
period. European colleagues assured of further financial and expert
support for reforms, in particular in the sector of the extractive
industry and critical minerals. After all, partnership with the EU in
the field of extraction and processing of critical minerals will not
only strengthen our economies, but also contribute to global stability
and security.
Again, Ukraine is a part of Europe, and the minerals there are in that sense European, but if NATO is considered, beyond the EU, where the understanding here is that Ukraine is a part of neither such organizations; U.S. funding of NATO activity seems to give a seat at the table regarding ALL of Ukraine's assets, comparable to what EU nations are being offered. Or am I wrong?
Which European nations are sufficiently wealthy, with liquidity of funds, to step in and be a partner to Ukraine re its resource, and which nations are in fact invested in such mineral deals, terms and conditions, are all things the AMERICAN PUBLIC deserves to know in order to judge the actions of our elected officials. A dog/pony show starting with asking Zelinskyy why he does not wear a suit, by one of the innumerable suits present there, is not, Not, NOT what the AMERICAN PUBLIC deserves from its government (Elon's black styling matches Zelinskyy's and Elon is not foregoing wearing a suit while his nation is at war, it is just his uncriticized choice).
As
a flurry of supportive messages for Ukraine were posted by European
leaders following the row - along with posts from the prime ministers of
Canada, Australia and New Zealand - Zelensky replied to each one:
"Thank you for your support."
French
President Emmanuel Macron posted: "There is an aggressor: Russia. There
is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia
three years ago - and to keep doing so."
Dutch
Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the Netherlands supports Ukraine "now
more than ever", adding: "We want a lasting peace and an end to the war
of aggression started by Russia. For Ukraine and its people, and for
Europe."
Germany's outgoing
Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote that "no one wants peace more than the
citizens of Ukraine", with his replacement-in-waiting Friedrich Merz
adding that "we stand with Ukraine" and "we must never confuse aggressor
and victim in this terrible war".
Spanish
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said: "Ukraine, Spain stands with you,"
while his Polish counterpart Donald Tusk wrote: "Dear [Zelensky], dear
Ukrainian friends, you are not alone."
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told Zelensky: "Your dignity honours the bravery of the Ukrainian people."
Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada "will continue to stand with
Ukraine and Ukrainians in achieving a just and lasting peace".
Australian
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese posted that his country had "proudly
supported the brave people of Ukraine in their struggle to defend their
sovereignty against the brutality of Russian aggression and in support
of international law".There
were also supportive messages for Ukraine from political leaders in
Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Sweden and Slovenia.
However,
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban voiced his support for Trump,
writing: "Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President
@realDonaldTrump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for
many to digest. Thank you, Mr President!"
Zelensky
left the White House early following his row with Trump - but
afterwards thanked the US president on social media for his support,
saying: "Ukraine needs just and lasting peace, and we are working
exactly for that."
What was clear from the exchange, Zelinsky does not trust a cease fire with Putin, and repeatedly made the point Putin repudiated earlier agreements, i.e., was as good as his signature which was not trustworthy. Trump/Vance made the point that current U.S. policy under Trump was to "get out of Dodge" and to cut a mineral deal on the way out. Zelinsky wanted more than a deal and and exit, saying "when Putin repudiates a cease fire, what then." Specific wording aside, that was the gist.
BBC further-
Writing on
messenger app Telegram on Saturday, Zelensky said it was "very important
for us that Ukraine is heard and that no one forgets about it, neither
during the war nor after".
"It is
important for people in Ukraine to know that they are not alone, that
their interests are represented in every country, in every corner of the
world," he added.
In an interview
with Fox News following his White House visit, Zelensky said his row
with Trump was "not good for both sides" but he thought the relationship
could be salvaged.
The pair
interrupted each other repeatedly in front of the media during what was
supposed to be a prelude to the two leaders signing an agreement that
would give the US access to Ukraine's deposits of rare earth minerals.
[...] Friday's
conversation soured after the US Vice-President JD Vance - who was
sitting alongside other politicians in the room - told Zelensky that the
war had to be ended through diplomacy.
Zelensky
responded by asking "what kind of diplomacy?", referencing a previous
2019 ceasefire deal that was agreed three years before Russia's
full-scale invasion when Moscow was supporting and arming separatist
fighters in Ukraine's east.
The vice-president then accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and "litigating" the situation in front of the media.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has called for a summit "without delay" between the US, Europe and allies on Ukraine.
Sir
Keir's crunch talks at Downing Street on Sunday will see European
leaders gear up efforts to police a future Ukraine peace deal.
The
UK prime minister believes a deal will have to involve US military
assets providing surveillance, intelligence and potentially warplanes
giving air cover to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin.
So the U.S. claims to be uninterested in any further involvement, Europe says some things are unique and needed, and Ukraine says Putin is not trustworthy to where his word cannot be trusted, so fight on. Trump wants to squeeze a mineral concession on the way out the door, saying cease fire, give us a mineral deal, and then see what happens (Russia having interim time to rearm).
Aside from how the press session was prestructured, the above is about where things stand. Trump/Orban with Putin, everyone else with Ukraine. Attaboy support is easy, but Europe either finds solidarity now, or later on Russia's next move.
At a guess, Trump would be happy if Europe unites, buys U.S. made arms, and fights on, (Ukraine being the surrogate for all the others putting money into U.S. arms sales). If Trump's closeness to Putin is greater than "We'll sell arms to either side that wants go give out death merchants money," than Trump IS choosing sides apart from where the remainder of NATO stands, and those saying NATO is dead may be correct.
UPDATE: Vance was counterproductive. Rubio was present, said nothing, but drew attention.
