Mark Davis

I'm not telling him anything. I'm asking both Putin and Zelensky questions, questions about what they can live with to end this with the parameters being Ukraine as a sovereign nation. The alternative is an endless stalemate of endless dollars and lives lost. I don't think you want that but surely you don't think Russia is just going to suddenly turn around and go home. We have to find some way to incentivize them, whether that's acknowledging land in Crimea, the Donbas, whatever it may be. And yes, Zelensky and Ukraine will have a say in that. But ultimately I think Zelensky also knows, regardless of what he must say openly in public, concessions are going to have to be made.

Shockingly for all our bickering I agree with most of this.

We agree it's well spent, but it shouldn't be in perpetuity. We need to help, but we need to have a realistic objective. Just throwing money into a stalemate is not a long term plan.

That I'm not sure of. I think she won, the question is what does that mean. Romney won a debate, but it didn't help him. But this doesn't make me feel great for him.

I agree. I also agree Harris did well. I don't like her, but she helped herself tonight. Trump didn't start off that bad, but before the first segment got over he got defensive and spoke too harshly IMO. Just my opinion.

I don't like getting in the habit of promising to fund a hopeless endeavor in perpetuity. I much prefer to try and save both capital and lives. For the record, we need to be asking both Russia and Ukraine this. It's a briar patch for Putin as well. It's not a one way street, we need to work with both.

I'd love for that to have happened, if that someone is more stable. History has told us though that isn't a guarantee. What can we offer? I don't know that answer, it might help to ask them.

You say that, ok, what is your alternative? If the war goes on indefinitely I submit to you that Ukraine's resources and population will be ground down into the dirt. What other outcome is there? Surely you don't want American boots on the ground. They've fought a valiant fight, but they don't have the manpower to totally uproot and remove a military the size of Russia's. Maybe it goes on another decade, who knows. But the end is inevitable if this is a war of attrition, and that end is not good for Ukraine.

I agree. He started off kind of even but got off kilter in that first segment about halfway through and his tone has been off since. He's been trying to argue back against her statements rather than making his own.

No it isn't. Barring a total capitulation and taking over a country, all wars end in a negotiated settlement. What is your plan if not negotiating peace? How do you propose Ukraine defeat Russia militarily? Please back it up with troop numbers, population, and unfortunately nuclear weapons should it come to that. I support Ukraine. I support what we did to help them. This conflict is at a stalemate. We need to help negotiate a peace deal where they are a sovereign nation and we offer Putin some kind of way to save face and end this thing.

I heard that too!

That's not really an answer. Why would you not support a negotiated settlement whether Biden, Harris, or Trump tries to help? I have no issue with our aiding Ukraine. I think we needed to. But this isn't a winnable situation for them long term. At some point there has to be peace, and it makes sense for lives and dollars to do it sooner rather than later.

So if it's a stalemate, you support it continuing versus trying to bring it to an end? Why would you want to waste the lives and capital?

They didn't bother to ask that. But we should play a role in helping that because that's the only realistic end. If you want Ukraine to survive and be independent, you should want it to. They aren't going to win a war of attrition against the Russians. Look at the population size and read your history book. Tell me when that's happened before. Short of turning their landscape into a remote desert and hiring religious zealot terrorists to help them, that game plan doesn't work well against Russia.

His tone hasn't been good but her smiling like the joker and trying to model The Thinker with her hand on her chin wasn't a great look either. Now when it comes to tone and volume, I'll agree with you.

The right answer is the war isn't winnable for Ukraine. A negotiated settlement is all that there can be.

Pretty much this

This is how he won 8 years ago. That doesn't mean he will win this year. I think Harris has done pretty well tonight, with the exception of her facial expressions and poses. But the moderators only fact checking one side is obvious to anyone watching. You can believe it is because only he lies if you want, but to anyone who is truly moveable, it begs the question of why they are doing it. Whether or not Trump or others discuss it is irrelevant because it's how that small sliver of people see it. Things like that helped him in 2016 so these things do matter.

Most political folks believe that. The George Bush looking at his watch moment, etc. There aren't many who can be moved, you and me aren't the target market.

You know that answer.

Yeah, stalemate. Both sides are going to think they've won. I think she's probably been a little better on staying on point but her reactions visually have been bad. I don't think this is swaying anyone.

This is his weak issue. He doesn't need to dig in hard here, he can get in a setup in a hurry.

Yep he fumbled that

The Lee Strasberg school must be on the payroll

She's memorized some time killing answers. But she can't answer on the tariffs because there isn't on to explain why they are still there if she's against them.