Why Won't I Vote for Trump?

[seed_time_harvest]

Ukraine is not our ally, they just drain our money.

Yes, Ukraine is a strategic partner and ally of the United States, though they do not have a formal mutual-defense treaty like a NATO alliance. [1, 2, 3]

Nature of the Relationship

• • Strategic Partnership: The U.S. and Ukraine established formal diplomatic relations in 1991 following Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. They are bound by the U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which covers defense, security, energy, and economic cooperation. [1, 2]
  • Not a Formal Treaty Ally: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, meaning the United States does not have a formal treaty obligation (such as Article 5 of NATO) to send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine. [1, 2]
  • Military and Financial Support: The U.S. has provided massive amounts of military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale 2022 invasion. [1, 2]
  • Current Diplomatic and Economic Tensions: The relationship has experienced shifts and friction under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, including temporary aid reviews, mineral resource agreements (such as the 2025 USURIF fund), and ongoing negotiations involving U.S. envoys regarding ceasefires and energy infrastructure. [1, 2, 3]

• 
  Cato Institute
  
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?”
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?” In a New York Times op-ed, William Taylor, who served as interim U.S. amba...
  
  
  
• 
  U.S. Department of State (.gov)
  
  Ukraine
  U.S. Relationship * U.S.-Ukraine Relations The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its ...
  
  
  
• 
  Wikipedia
  
  Ukraine–United States relations - Wikipedia
  Bilateral Relations: Started January 3, 1992; US recognized independence December 25, 1991. History & Aid: Post-2014 Crimea annexa...
  

Show all




















what source proves that ukraine is the ally of the united states?











The strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is officially documented through several binding bilateral agreements and formal statements issued by the U.S. government. Because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, its status as an ally is defined by these frameworks rather than a mutual-defense treaty:

1. The U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership
First signed in 2008 and comprehensively updated in November 2021 by the U.S. Department of State and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, this document serves as the foundational text of the alliance. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The charter explicitly states that the two nations are "friends and strategic partners" and affirms that their partnership is "critical for the security of Ukraine and Europe as a whole."
• Where to find it: The full text is hosted on the official U.S. Department of State Charter Archive and via the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. [1, 2]

2. The U.S.–Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement
Signed by President Joe Biden and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on June 13, 2024, this historic 10-year accord solidifies long-term cooperation. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The agreement lays out a formal, multi-article framework to advance Ukraine's defense, interoperability with NATO, and economic recovery. It establishes that the U.S. will work to ensure Ukraine has a "credible defense and deterrence capability for the long term." [1]
• Where to find it: The comprehensive structural breakdown is detailed in the legislative repository on Congress.gov, and the White House announcement is archived on the Presidency Document Archive. [1, 2]

3. Department of Defense and Library of Congress Tracking Reports
The tangible reality of the alliance is tracked through multi-billion dollar military allocations monitored by the U.S. Congress. [1]

• What it proves: Official tracking shows that the U.S. government has supplied massive tranches of defense articles and services to Ukraine (exceeding $68 billion). This status as an essential security partner is detailed quarterly by the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve. [1]
• Where to find it: Defense assistance data is regularly updated on the Congressional Research Service Product Page and the Department of Defense Publication Index. [1, 2]

 

[gb9]

ukraine is just a giant slush fund for corrupt politicians to launder money through.

 

[ZNP]

Yes, Ukraine is a strategic partner and ally of the United States, though they do not have a formal mutual-defense treaty like a NATO alliance. [1, 2, 3]

Nature of the Relationship

• • Strategic Partnership: The U.S. and Ukraine established formal diplomatic relations in 1991 following Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. They are bound by the U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which covers defense, security, energy, and economic cooperation. [1, 2]
  • Not a Formal Treaty Ally: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, meaning the United States does not have a formal treaty obligation (such as Article 5 of NATO) to send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine. [1, 2]
  • Military and Financial Support: The U.S. has provided massive amounts of military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale 2022 invasion. [1, 2]
  • Current Diplomatic and Economic Tensions: The relationship has experienced shifts and friction under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, including temporary aid reviews, mineral resource agreements (such as the 2025 USURIF fund), and ongoing negotiations involving U.S. envoys regarding ceasefires and energy infrastructure. [1, 2, 3]

• View attachment 297332
  Cato Institute
  
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?”
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?” In a New York Times op-ed, William Taylor, who served as interim U.S. amba...
  View attachment 297333
  
  
• View attachment 297334
  U.S. Department of State (.gov)
  
  Ukraine
  U.S. Relationship * U.S.-Ukraine Relations The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its ...
  View attachment 297335
  
  
• View attachment 297336
  Wikipedia
  
  Ukraine–United States relations - Wikipedia
  Bilateral Relations: Started January 3, 1992; US recognized independence December 25, 1991. History & Aid: Post-2014 Crimea annexa...
  View attachment 297337

Show all




















what source proves that ukraine is the ally of the united states?











The strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is officially documented through several binding bilateral agreements and formal statements issued by the U.S. government. Because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, its status as an ally is defined by these frameworks rather than a mutual-defense treaty:

1. The U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership
First signed in 2008 and comprehensively updated in November 2021 by the U.S. Department of State and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, this document serves as the foundational text of the alliance. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The charter explicitly states that the two nations are "friends and strategic partners" and affirms that their partnership is "critical for the security of Ukraine and Europe as a whole."
• Where to find it: The full text is hosted on the official U.S. Department of State Charter Archive and via the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. [1, 2]

2. The U.S.–Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement
Signed by President Joe Biden and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on June 13, 2024, this historic 10-year accord solidifies long-term cooperation. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The agreement lays out a formal, multi-article framework to advance Ukraine's defense, interoperability with NATO, and economic recovery. It establishes that the U.S. will work to ensure Ukraine has a "credible defense and deterrence capability for the long term." [1]
• Where to find it: The comprehensive structural breakdown is detailed in the legislative repository on Congress.gov, and the White House announcement is archived on the Presidency Document Archive. [1, 2]

3. Department of Defense and Library of Congress Tracking Reports
The tangible reality of the alliance is tracked through multi-billion dollar military allocations monitored by the U.S. Congress. [1]

• What it proves: Official tracking shows that the U.S. government has supplied massive tranches of defense articles and services to Ukraine (exceeding $68 billion). This status as an essential security partner is detailed quarterly by the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve. [1]
• Where to find it: Defense assistance data is regularly updated on the Congressional Research Service Product Page and the Department of Defense Publication Index. [1, 2]

This is not all! You are ignoring that Ukraine has been nothing but friendly to the President and his son. Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 a month for several years and this is how Trump repays them!? Hunter is a completely useless drug addict, did Ukraine complain, no! All you have to do is look at Hunter's laptop to know what Ukraine had to put up with for years.

 

[Churchgoer]

Zelinsky is funded by soros. Dictatorship, no election, took billions Americans money to himself. Typical thief, maybe not, American government hand it to him.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

That's just your opinion though.

Really? Show me where the Dems, not even the radicals, line up with the Bible in their platform and what they have done that shows they have any belief in God. Because they were wanting to get rid of God in their platform, remember that?? So you explain how you and the two Canucks justify your vote for Dems, then we'll move to the radical ones that have taken over the party.

 

[ResidentAlien]

So what do you do when your approval rating is in the tank? You revive an old case against Hillary Clinton of course. Thank you for making this so easy Don.

Trump takes suit against Hillary Clinton over 2016 election to Supreme Court

Oct 9 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump asked the US Supreme Court on Friday to revive his dismissed lawsuit against his 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton accusing her of conspiring along with fo...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Lightbeamrider]

Yes, Ukraine is a strategic partner and ally of the United States, though they do not have a formal mutual-defense treaty like a NATO alliance. [1, 2, 3]

Nature of the Relationship

• • Strategic Partnership: The U.S. and Ukraine established formal diplomatic relations in 1991 following Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union. They are bound by the U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, which covers defense, security, energy, and economic cooperation. [1, 2]
  • Not a Formal Treaty Ally: Ukraine is not a member of NATO, meaning the United States does not have a formal treaty obligation (such as Article 5 of NATO) to send U.S. troops to defend Ukraine. [1, 2]
  • Military and Financial Support: The U.S. has provided massive amounts of military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the full-scale 2022 invasion. [1, 2]
  • Current Diplomatic and Economic Tensions: The relationship has experienced shifts and friction under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, including temporary aid reviews, mineral resource agreements (such as the 2025 USURIF fund), and ongoing negotiations involving U.S. envoys regarding ceasefires and energy infrastructure. [1, 2, 3]

• View attachment 297332
  Cato Institute
  
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?”
  Since When Did Ukraine Become an Important U.S. “Ally?” In a New York Times op-ed, William Taylor, who served as interim U.S. amba...
  View attachment 297333
  
  
• View attachment 297334
  U.S. Department of State (.gov)
  
  Ukraine
  U.S. Relationship * U.S.-Ukraine Relations The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its ...
  View attachment 297335
  
  
• View attachment 297336
  Wikipedia
  
  Ukraine–United States relations - Wikipedia
  Bilateral Relations: Started January 3, 1992; US recognized independence December 25, 1991. History & Aid: Post-2014 Crimea annexa...
  View attachment 297337

Show all




















what source proves that ukraine is the ally of the united states?











The strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is officially documented through several binding bilateral agreements and formal statements issued by the U.S. government. Because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, its status as an ally is defined by these frameworks rather than a mutual-defense treaty:

1. The U.S.–Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership
First signed in 2008 and comprehensively updated in November 2021 by the U.S. Department of State and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, this document serves as the foundational text of the alliance. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The charter explicitly states that the two nations are "friends and strategic partners" and affirms that their partnership is "critical for the security of Ukraine and Europe as a whole."
• Where to find it: The full text is hosted on the official U.S. Department of State Charter Archive and via the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. [1, 2]

2. The U.S.–Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement
Signed by President Joe Biden and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on June 13, 2024, this historic 10-year accord solidifies long-term cooperation. [1, 2]

• What it proves: The agreement lays out a formal, multi-article framework to advance Ukraine's defense, interoperability with NATO, and economic recovery. It establishes that the U.S. will work to ensure Ukraine has a "credible defense and deterrence capability for the long term." [1]
• Where to find it: The comprehensive structural breakdown is detailed in the legislative repository on Congress.gov, and the White House announcement is archived on the Presidency Document Archive. [1, 2]

3. Department of Defense and Library of Congress Tracking Reports
The tangible reality of the alliance is tracked through multi-billion dollar military allocations monitored by the U.S. Congress. [1]

• What it proves: Official tracking shows that the U.S. government has supplied massive tranches of defense articles and services to Ukraine (exceeding $68 billion). This status as an essential security partner is detailed quarterly by the Special Inspector General for Operation Atlantic Resolve. [1]
• Where to find it: Defense assistance data is regularly updated on the Congressional Research Service Product Page and the Department of Defense Publication Index. [1, 2]

Trump blames Zelensky for the rise in diesel prices.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2109332400790536271

Zelensky could have ended this war many times already, many, many times. And he chooses not to. … We said, you can do whatever you want with Russia, just don’t attack the refineries, because that causes a global problem. And he wants to create problems for the world.

He wants to create problems for our farmers, our ranchers with diesel fuel, because Russia supplies a large part of the world’s diesel fuel. …And what does he do? He attacks the diesel fuel. He can do whatever he wants, but he can’t do that. …So what does he do? He attacks refineries. …I suggest they get themselves a new leader who can make a deal, because he could have made many deals, which he never does for some reason. …You’ve lost 30 percent of your land and killed over two million people between both sides.That’s a war that never should have started.And I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.”

 

[Churchgoer]

So what do you do when your approval rating is in the tank? You revive an old case against Hillary Clinton of course. Thank you for making this so easy Don.

Trump takes suit against Hillary Clinton over 2016 election to Supreme Court

Oct 9 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump asked the US Supreme Court on Friday to revive his dismissed lawsuit against his 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton accusing her of conspiring along with fo...

www.yahoo.com

Why not revive epstein case? Clinton is related to that too. One stone hit 2 birds, come on Don?

 

[ZNP]

On October 9, 2026, Donald Trump filed an appeal asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a dismissed civil lawsuit regarding the 2016 presidential election. The lawsuit names Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former FBI Director James Comey, and others as defendants. [1, 2, 3]
Rather than alleging direct physical voting fraud, Trump's lawsuit claims the defendants conspired to "rig" the 2016 election by creating and spreading a false narrative that his campaign colluded with Russia. [1, 2]
The primary reasons Trump is taking this case to the Supreme Court include:

1. Challenging the Dismissal Over Filing Deadlines
Trump's original 2022 lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in part because the civil racketeering claims were filed too late, missing the legal statute of limitations. Trump’s legal team is asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether a sitting president's public responsibilities warrant pausing (tolling) certain legal deadlines for filing private lawsuits until after they leave office. Trump argues that pursuing the lawsuit during his first term would have consumed too much time and energy away from his presidential duties. [1, 2, 3]

2. Fighting $1 Million in Legal Sanctions
When the lower court dismissed the suit, the judge deemed it "frivolous" and a "political manifesto" rather than a valid legal claim. As punishment, the court ordered Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld that penalty. Trump is appealing to reverse these fines, arguing that courts are improperly using disciplinary threats to punish legitimate legal advocacy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

3. "Protecting the Presidency"
According to the filings, Trump’s lawyers maintain that Supreme Court intervention is necessary to protect the institution of the presidency. They argue that forcing a president to choose between managing their official public duties and missing deadlines to file personal legal claims sets a damaging precedent for future executives. [1, 2, 3]
The Supreme Court has placed the case on its docket and will decide at a later date whether it will agree to hear the case. [1, 2]

 

[ZNP]

On October 9, 2026, Donald Trump filed an appeal asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a dismissed civil lawsuit regarding the 2016 presidential election. The lawsuit names Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former FBI Director James Comey, and others as defendants. [1, 2, 3]
Rather than alleging direct physical voting fraud, Trump's lawsuit claims the defendants conspired to "rig" the 2016 election by creating and spreading a false narrative that his campaign colluded with Russia. [1, 2]
The primary reasons Trump is taking this case to the Supreme Court include:

1. Challenging the Dismissal Over Filing Deadlines
Trump's original 2022 lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in part because the civil racketeering claims were filed too late, missing the legal statute of limitations. Trump’s legal team is asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether a sitting president's public responsibilities warrant pausing (tolling) certain legal deadlines for filing private lawsuits until after they leave office. Trump argues that pursuing the lawsuit during his first term would have consumed too much time and energy away from his presidential duties. [1, 2, 3]

2. Fighting $1 Million in Legal Sanctions
When the lower court dismissed the suit, the judge deemed it "frivolous" and a "political manifesto" rather than a valid legal claim. As punishment, the court ordered Trump and his attorney, Alina Habba, to pay nearly $1 million in sanctions. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld that penalty. Trump is appealing to reverse these fines, arguing that courts are improperly using disciplinary threats to punish legitimate legal advocacy. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

3. "Protecting the Presidency"
According to the filings, Trump’s lawyers maintain that Supreme Court intervention is necessary to protect the institution of the presidency. They argue that forcing a president to choose between managing their official public duties and missing deadlines to file personal legal claims sets a damaging precedent for future executives. [1, 2, 3]
The Supreme Court has placed the case on its docket and will decide at a later date whether it will agree to hear the case. [1, 2]

Legal experts generally view the odds of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s appeal as extremely low, given that lower federal courts unanimously dismissed the suit as meritless and frivolous, and the Supreme Court accepts only a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives each year. [1, 2]
While mainstream legal analysts have not assigned a specific numerical percentage to the outcome, mainstream consensus points to several major structural hurdles facing the petition:

The High Threshold for Supreme Court Review (Certiorari)

• Statistical Odds: The [U.S. Supreme Court] receives thousands of petitions for a writ of certiorari each year but typically agrees to hear only about 70 to 80 cases.
• Standard for Intervention: Legal scholars note that the high court rarely steps in to review factual determinations or routine applications of a statute of limitations by lower appeals courts unless there is a clear split among different circuit courts or a profound constitutional crisis.

The Unanimous Lower Court Rulings

• The 11th Circuit Decision: A unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which included a judge appointed by Trump himself—upheld both the dismissal of the lawsuit and the nearly $1 million in sanctions. The panel characterized many of the core arguments as "frivolous". [1]
• The "Frivolous" Label: According to reports by Reuters, legal practitioners suggest that when both a district judge and a unanimous circuit panel penalize a filing as an abuse of the judicial process, the Supreme Court is disinclined to spend its limited docket space revisiting the merits. [1]

The Statute of Limitations and "Tolling" Argument

• Novel Legal Theory: Trump’s legal team is asking the high court to establish a new legal precedent—that a sitting president's public obligations should automatically pause (toll) the deadlines for filing private civil lawsuits.
• Expert Skepticism: Appellate lawyers note that creating an executive tolling exemption out of whole cloth for private civil grievances is a radical step that the conservative-leaning or liberal justices alike may find difficult to justify under existing statutory frameworks

 

[Squigglylines]

And a very successful tactic it is to go from one platform to the next and lead the discussions away from the most important subjects. Lest at anytime the masses discuss things like agricultural monoculture and the dangers it poses to the planet and many other topics. The influencers in the modern day are in full control of the algorithms and only a handful can see what's coming. Hence the only productive, safe places left on the WWW are in private group chats the influencers are not included in.

 

[ZNP]

And a very successful tactic it is to go from one platform to the next and lead the discussions away from the most important subjects. Lest at anytime the masses discuss things like agricultural monoculture and the dangers it poses to the planet and many other topics. The influencers in the modern day are in full control of the algorithms and only a handful can see what's coming. Hence the only productive, safe places left on the WWW are in private group chats the influencers are not included in.

I doubt that is "safe" as they can certainly monitor those. I would suggest if you are concerned about "productive and safe" places that you focus on small group meetings with people and without any internet access. But even so if people are bringing their phones to that meeting they can monitor it as well.

 

[ThomasMatthew]

Who do you think will do better?

I couldn't care less about who the next globalist puppet in the White House is.

It's all theater.

 

[Squigglylines]

I doubt that is "safe" as they can certainly monitor those. I would suggest if you are concerned about "productive and safe" places that you focus on small group meetings with people and without any internet access. But even so if people are bringing their phones to that meeting they can monitor it as well.

There's no place on the internet they cannot monitor, not in clear-net,dark net or the depths of deep-net. And yes there's many who understood there's certain topics that should never be discussed on open forms so they only surf the forums to see who else may be close to understanding certain topics. Lest at anytime one of them blab things out loud and stand it all on it's head.

 

[true_believer]

The November project to repair America...

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I couldn't care less about who the next globalist puppet in the White House is.

It's all theater.

Ok, that's your POV you're entitled to it.

 

[true_believer]

Dozy Don should not have access to nuclear codes for humanity's sake.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Dozy Don should not have access to nuclear codes for humanity's sake.

You can't deny he's been exhibiting very poor judgment. He's never had the greatest judgment, but now it's in free fall.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Really? Show me where the Dems, not even the radicals, line up with the Bible in their platform and what they have done that shows they have any belief in God. Because they were wanting to get rid of God in their platform, remember that?? So you explain how you and the two Canucks justify your vote for Dems, then we'll move to the radical ones that have taken over the party.

I'M an independent BUT You can't believe that being against abortion makes you alright with God then be ok with all the other things that God does not agree with.

The claim that a person "cannot be a true Christian and vote Democratic" is a perspective held primarily within conservative Christian circles, but millions of Christians in the United States actively vote for and align with the Democratic Party.


The divide stems from different Christian traditions, demographics, and theological emphases prioritizing different aspects of biblical teaching.

1. Focus on Social Justice and Caring for the Poor​

Many Democratic Christians base their political choices heavily on the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, particularly passages emphasizing care for the vulnerable, poor, sick, and marginalized (such as the Beatitudes and Matthew 25). They view Democratic policies—such as expanding healthcare access, strengthening social safety nets, raising the minimum wage, and providing public assistance—as practical applications of Jesus' command to love one's neighbor.

2. Racial Justice and Civil Rights​

The Democratic Party has long received strong support from Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics, two of the most religiously active groups in America. For many minority Christians, voting Democratic is rooted in the church's historical role in civil rights, combatting racial discrimination, protecting voting rights, and seeking systemic reform within the justice system.

3. Creation Care (Environmentalism)​

Many Christians view environmental protection as a direct biblical duty known as "creation care" or stewardship of God's earth (Genesis 2:15). Democratic policies addressing climate change, renewable energy, and environmental conservation align closely with this theological belief.

4. Immigration and Refugees​

The Bible frequently commands believers to welcome the foreigner and care for the stranger (e.g., Leviticus 19:34, Matthew 25:35). Democratic Christians often favor paths to citizenship, humane treatment at borders, and supportive refugee policies as alignment with these scriptural mandates.

5. Pluralism and Religious Freedom​

Many Democratic Christians believe in maintaining a clear separation of church and state to protect both religious minorities and Christianity itself. They favor a pluralistic society where public policy is not driven by a single religious interpretation, believing that forcing religious morality through government policy can undermine authentic faith.

​

 

[pinebeach]

It’s pretty clear that #45/#47 is a Russian asset.

'

That's just your opinion though.

My opinion is that there seems to be a large section of the dem voters with very bad memory.

It's not about loving Trump. It's about avoiding an even worse mess that the 4 yrs under the Biden conglomerate and the next two
about not spending millions on an impeachment platform that will not cross the finish line.

Folks do not realize the spiritual realities you are messing with.