Trump’s 24-Hour Ukraine/Russia Peace Plan Just Expired - 82 Days Ago

Let's see.

​As of today, Sunday, April 13, 2025, it has been approximately 2 years, 1 month, and 19 days since Donald Trump first claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He made this assertion during his presidential campaign in May 2023 .​

Call to Activism

​As of today, April 13, 2025, it has been 82 days since President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025. During his campaign, Trump claimed he could end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. However, the conflict continues unabated, with recent events such as a Russian missile strike in Sumy resulting in significant casualties. This underscores the unfulfilled nature of Trump's initial promise regarding the swift resolution of the Ukraine conflict.

What Trump did by later calling his ability to "end the Ukraine war in a day "claim“ as a little bit sarcastic” doesn't at all fit the definition of sarcasm. ​

Sarcasm involves saying the opposite of what you mean, often with irony or mockery.

Yet again, his speech is inaccurate, to the point of none. His original claim wasn’t ironic—it was confident and declarative.

What he actually did could be described in a few ways, depending on how charitable or critical one wishes to be, when charity here is utterly unnecessary:

• Backpedaling: Retreating from an earlier bold claim once questioned.
• Retconning (short for “retroactive continuity”): Changing the meaning of a previous statement after the fact.
• Walking it back: A common political term for softening or reversing a strong previous position.
• Reframing: Trying to shift the perception of the original comment to make it seem less literal or problematic.
• Gaslighting (most accurate): If he insists he never meant what people clearly heard him say (as he's done in claiming his backpaddling on tariffs was originally in the plan to begin with)—trying to make others doubt their perception.

🔹 DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender)
A coined acronym particularly useful in abuse and assault cases:

• Deny the behavior
• Attack the accuser
• Reverse Victim and Offender by portraying oneself as the real victim

Example: An abuser claiming, "She’s ruining my life with these lies."

When they are merely accurate observations.

Getting back down to "brass tacks" how has his method to end the war failed already?

​President Donald Trump has proposed a plan to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine by negotiating directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, aiming to achieve a resolution within 24 hours. However, this proposal has faced criticism from various quarters.​

Criticism from Ukrainian Leadership:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed skepticism about Trump's plan, cautioning that a hasty agreement could be detrimental to Ukraine's sovereignty. He emphasized that while ending the war is a priority, it should not come at the expense of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. ​

Rejection by Russian Officials:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has dismissed aspects of Trump's peace proposal, particularly the suggestions to delay Ukraine's NATO membership and the deployment of European peacekeepers in Ukraine. Lavrov stated that these elements are unsatisfactory and do not address Russia's core security concerns. ​

Continued Hostilities Despite Diplomatic Efforts:

Recent events have raised questions about the effectiveness of Trump's peace initiatives. On April 13, 2025, a Russian missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Sumy resulted in at least 31 civilian deaths, occurring shortly after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff met with Putin to discuss a cease-fire. This attack has led to further skepticism regarding the viability of Trump's proposed peace plan.

These developments suggest that Trump's strategy to swiftly end the Ukraine conflict through direct negotiations with Putin faces significant challenges, including resistance from both Ukrainian leadership and Russian officials, as well as ongoing military actions undermining diplomatic efforts.

Trump’s claim that he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours by negotiating directly with Putin was a bold promise that has proven to be false. His repeated assertions about resolving complex international conflicts in such a short time frame only served to mislead the public. As the war continues, it’s clear that his promises were less about practical diplomacy and more about self-serving rhetoric. 

This pattern of gaslighting—where he twists reality to avoid accountability—has been a hallmark of his leadership style. His attempt to rewrite his own statements, coupled with unfulfilled claims and shifting narratives, further exposes a tendency to manipulate facts for personal gain, even at the expense of national and global stability. The failure of his "peace plan" reflects not just a diplomatic shortcoming but a deeper issue of trust and integrity in his approach to foreign policy and leadership.

Additionally, Trump’s tariff system, initially framed as a way to protect American interests, has devolved into a mechanism of corruption. He was notably soft on Russia, with tariffs that often seemed to favor Russian interests or those of entities tied to Russian investments, while imposing harsher tariffs on U.S. allies and partners. 

This selective approach not only undermined America’s global relationships but also raised questions about his personal and business connections with Russian oligarchs. Meanwhile, his policies toward Ukraine were less about diplomacy and more about using Ukraine as a tool to maintain a hardline stance, despite the lack of meaningful peace progress. By manipulating tariffs for political leverage and economic gain, he blurred the lines between public service and personal profit, revealing how his actions served both his political ambitions and financial interests, often at the expense of U.S. global influence and credibility.

​Ultimately, if Trump continues to hold power, his pattern of corruption, dishonesty, and self-serving policies will only deepen the fractures within the nation and the world, and we will suffer even greater losses—both diplomatically and morally. It’s time for a change, or the consequences will be far-reaching and irreversible.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Impeachment vs. the 25th Amendment: What’s More Likely to Remove Trump?

On convicted felon POTUS47 Donald Trump's impeachment.

No, that's useless. 

25th Amendment actually might eventually gain traction with Republicans as We're now just waiting around until it is finally invoked, unsurprisingly likely (necessarily) from Republicans, AFTER it's too late to save our economy while not much caring about our democracy.

Might the 25th Amendment eventually gain traction among Republicans? Only after Trump has already inflicted significant damage—especially to the economy—while they remain largely indifferent to democratic concerns. That reflects a deep cynicism about their motivations, implying they’ll act only when their own interests are at stake, rather than out of principle.

It’s an interesting perspective, especially given how reluctant Republicans have been to challenge Trump in the past. If they do invoke the 25th, it would signal an internal fracture, but as you suggest, likely too little, too late. Do you see any particular triggers that might push them to that point?

If the 25th Amendment were to gain traction among Republicans, it would likely take something undeniable—either a catastrophic economic collapse, an extreme foreign policy blunder, or a public display of cognitive or emotional instability that even his staunchest defenders can’t spin away.

The challenge is that the GOP has built itself around Trump’s brand, and many fear political exile if they turn on him. But if Wall Street panics, major donors start pulling support, or a crisis puts them in direct jeopardy, self-preservation might override loyalty.

It wouldn’t be unprecedented—Nixon’s party stuck with him until the moment it became politically untenable. If something similar happens, they’d frame it as "regretful but necessary" rather than an admission of prior failure.

We already have undeniable and Republicans are in denial.

If everything that’s already happened hasn’t been enough, then what would be? It seems like the threshold keeps shifting—what was once unthinkable just becomes the new normal.

At this point, it feels like the only thing that could push them would be a direct, immediate threat to their own power or financial interests. Even then, they'd probably try to salvage Trump until it’s absolutely unsustainable.

So yeah, "waiting around until it’s finally invoked" seems depressingly accurate—if it ever happens at all.

The 25th Amendment, specifically Sections 1 and 2, which clarify presidential succession and how to fill a VP vacancy.

The real controversy around invoking the 25th Amendment on Trump would come from Section 4, which allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or another body Congress designates) to declare the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." That would temporarily transfer power to the VP, but if the president disputes it, Congress would have to decide—requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to permanently remove him.

That’s the part that’s never been used and would likely spark a political firestorm. But as you pointed out earlier, Republicans would probably wait until after the damage is done before even considering it—if they ever do.

The 25th Amendment and impeachment are both ways to remove a president, but they work very differently:

Impeachment (Article I, Section 2 & 3; Article II, Section 4)

• A political process, not a medical or functional one.
• Requires the House of Representatives to bring charges ("articles of impeachment").
• The Senate then holds a trial and needs a two-thirds vote to convict and remove the president.
• A president can still run again if impeached but not convicted.
• Example: Trump was impeached twice but not removed because the Senate acquitted him both times.

25th Amendment (Section 4)

• A medical or functional incapacity process, not about crimes.
• Allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet (or Congress) to declare the president unable to serve due to illness, incapacity, or some other reason.
• The VP becomes acting president immediately.
• If the president disputes it, Congress must decide—with a two-thirds vote in both chambers needed to remove him permanently.
• Has never been used to remove a president but was briefly used for temporary transfers of power (e.g., when presidents underwent surgery).

The 25th Amendment is meant for cases where a president physically or mentally cannot function, while impeachment is about accountability for wrongdoing.

Right now, Republicans are unlikely to pursue either, but if they ever turn on Trump, the 25th might be their excuse if they want to avoid direct political responsibility for impeachment.

Impeachment is more likely than the 25th Amendment—but neither is very likely at this point.

Why Impeachment Is More Likely:

1. Precedent – Trump has already been impeached twice, showing that Congress is willing to go that route.
2. Lower Initial Threshold – The House only needs a simple majority to impeach, whereas the 25th requires the VP and a majority of the Cabinet to act first.
3. Political Maneuvering – If Trump’s actions become too damaging (e.g., economic collapse, extreme instability), Congress could use impeachment to distance themselves from him while still claiming to uphold democracy.
4. Pressure from Investigations – If ongoing investigations reveal serious misconduct (financial crimes, obstruction, etc.), impeachment could gain momentum.

Why the 25th Amendment Is Less Likely:

1. VP Loyalty – J.D. Vance (if VP) or whoever Trump picks would likely be a die-hard loyalist, making it highly unlikely they’d trigger the 25th.
2. Cabinet Control – Trump will likely fill his Cabinet with yes-men, meaning they wouldn’t support removal.
3. Political Suicide for Republicans – Any GOP official who invokes the 25th would instantly become a party outcast.
4. Historical Inertia – The 25th has never been used for removal, and doing so would trigger a constitutional crisis.

If Either Happens, When?

• Impeachment: If economic collapse, scandals, or a catastrophic blunder force Congress’s hand.
• 25th Amendment: Only if Trump mentally or physically deteriorates in a way that is undeniable even to his inner circle.

Right now, though, Republicans seem more likely to let things burn than take action—until it’s too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Authoritarianism, and the Inevitable Rise of Eugenics

OK so... her family falls under TEP, Trump Eugenics Policy, as yet undisclosed: "Eliminate all health drains on resources to Make America Great." It seems reminiscent of Germany before WWII, somehow. What do you THINK is going on there? Here is the video to catch up.

From 🌒September🌕Rayne🌘 @Lippyaddiction

Next up...

Welcome to Trump's United States of FAFO - "Fuck Around and Find Out":

FYI - FAFO has two common meanings, depending on context:

1. "Fck Around and Find Out"** – A warning or statement implying that reckless actions will lead to consequences. Often used in a confrontational or humorous way.

2. "Fire And Forget Operations" – A military term referring to weapons (like certain missiles) that do not require further guidance after launch.

Now...

Drawing from Timothy Snyder’s work, particularly On Tyranny and Bloodlands, eugenics typically emerges once authoritarian rule is consolidating but before full-scale repression escalates into mass violence. In the timeline of fascist takeovers, it tends to appear at the "consolidation of ideology and state control" stage, after initial democratic erosion but before widespread purges or extermination campaigns.

Stages Where Eugenics Fits In:

1. Subversion of Democracy – Discrediting elections, demonizing opposition, and weakening institutions.
2. Defining the “Pure” vs. the “Other” – Establishing a narrative of national rebirth that requires "cleansing" undesirable elements.
3. State-Sanctioned Discrimination – Legal restrictions, sterilization programs, or exclusionary policies targeting those deemed unworthy.
4. Biopolitical Control & Elimination – Expanding eugenic policies into forced removals, incarceration, or even extermination.

Snyder emphasizes that the shift to eugenics happens before outright genocide, often justified as economic necessity, national security, or public health. This was the case in Nazi Germany, where eugenics began as forced sterilization programs years before the Holocaust.

If we apply Snyder’s framework to modern political rhetoric, we can see early warning signs of eugenic thinking creeping into policy discussions—often disguised as economic pragmatism or "national greatness."

Key Modern Parallels:

1. Defining "Burdens on the Nation" – When leaders start framing certain groups (the disabled, chronically ill, or elderly) as economic drains rather than citizens with rights, this mirrors early fascist rhetoric.

   • Example: Calls to reduce healthcare support for those with pre-existing conditions, Social Security cuts, or suggesting that some people are simply "not productive" enough for assistance.

2. Dehumanization Through Policy – When policies are proposed that subtly (or overtly) make life harder for vulnerable groups, leading to exclusion, suffering, or premature death.

   • Example: Medicaid work requirements, gutting disability benefits, or defunding mental health care, effectively sidelining those deemed “unfit.”

3. “Making the Nation Stronger” by Removing the Weak – The idea that a country can be restored to greatness by eliminating social or economic "burdens" is directly linked to historical eugenics movements.

   • Example: Trump-era policies that deprioritized COVID care for the elderly, rhetoric about certain populations being “useless eaters” (a phrase used in Nazi Germany), or suggestions that only the strong deserve survival.

Where Are We Now?

In Snyder’s terms, we’re in a precarious middle stage—where eugenic ideology is not yet official policy but is being tested through rhetoric and selective policies. If history is a guide, the next steps could involve further institutionalizing discrimination, removing safety nets, and ultimately, escalating the logic of exclusion to more dangerous ends.

President Trump's recent actions have significantly increased the costs of life-saving medications, adversely affecting many Americans.

Reversal of Drug Pricing Initiatives: On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order reversing policies aimed at reducing prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This action has led to higher medication expenses for seniors and low-income individuals.

AJMC

Project 2025 Impact: The administration's "Project 2025" has further escalated prescription drug prices for seniors by rescinding previous efforts to cap insulin prices and limit out-of-pocket costs. This rollback undermines financial protections for those reliant on essential medications.

Democrats Budget

Medicaid Funding Cuts: Proposed Medicaid cuts to finance other policy initiatives threaten access to affordable healthcare for approximately 72 million Americans. Such reductions could lead to increased out-of-pocket expenses for medications and medical services.

The Wall Street Journal

Disruption of Medical Research Funding: The administration has halted medical research funding, delaying critical studies and potentially hindering the development of new, cost-effective treatments. This disruption may lead to long-term increases in drug prices due to slowed innovation.

The Guardian

These policy decisions collectively contribute to the rising costs of life-saving drugs, placing a heavier financial burden on vulnerable populations.

Trump’s policies raising the cost of life-saving drugs and cutting healthcare access align with a soft form of eugenics, where economic barriers function as a tool of exclusion—determining who lives or dies based on their financial means. Timothy Snyder warns that authoritarian regimes often implement biopolitical control in stages, beginning with economic strangulation of vulnerable populations before advancing to more direct forms of exclusion and harm.

How This Links to Eugenics & Authoritarianism:

1. Economic-Based Survival (“The Fit vs. The Weak”)

   • By making essential medications unaffordable, the government filters out those who can’t "contribute" economically—a hallmark of eugenic thinking.
   • Cutting Medicaid and reversing drug price caps disproportionately harms the disabled, elderly, and chronically ill, echoing early 20th-century policies that framed them as burdens rather than citizens.

2. "Let the Market Decide Who Survives"

   • Shifting healthcare away from public support and into a fully privatized model turns life-or-death access into a profit-driven equation—mirroring historical eugenics policies that used cost-saving justifications to deny care.
   • Example: Nazi Germany’s early T4 program began as cost-saving euthanasia for the “incurably ill.”

3. Destroying Public Healthcare as a Form of Democratic Erosion

   • Universal healthcare and medicine price controls are fundamental to democratic, egalitarian societies. Weakening these protections enforces a hierarchy of worthiness—where the rich thrive and the poor struggle to survive.
   • Historically, dismantling social safety nets has been a precursor to authoritarian consolidation, as it creates a weakened, desperate population less able to resist state control.

Where This Leads If Left Unchecked:

• Further removal of legal protections for the disabled, elderly, and marginalized.
• Worsening economic disparity leading to shorter lifespans for those deemed “unworthy.”
• Expansion of state control over reproductive and medical decisions (who gets care, who doesn’t).

Snyder warns that authoritarians rarely start with mass violence—they begin by shifting who deserves to live well and who doesn’t. If Trump’s policies continue in this direction, it’s not just about cost-cutting—it’s about reshaping the nation based on an ideology of survival-of-the-fittest.

Will America retain enough of its democratic foundations in the near future to counter these actions—to remove those Trump has installed through his own and Elon Musk’s purges—and to preserve the democracy and principles upon which the nation was originally founded?

Or are we already lost?

Explaining the image above...

The image visually represents the themes of authoritarian control and societal division that tie into your blog's focus on how eugenics can emerge under authoritarian rule. Here’s how it connects:

• The Tattered American Flag → Symbolizes democracy under threat, reflecting concerns about whether America will remain true to its founding principles.
• The Shadowy Figure in Power → Represents authoritarian leadership, akin to Trump’s consolidation of control and political purges.
• The Divided Crowd (Some in Light, Others in Darkness) → Illustrates social stratification, a hallmark of eugenic policies where some are deemed more “worthy” than others.
• Industrial, Ominous Setting → Evokes historical parallels to regimes that have used economic and political means to enact exclusionary policies.

Why "MaGA" not "MAGA"?

The term "MaGA" is a play on the well-known "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) slogan associated with convicted felong POTUS47 Donald Trump and his supporters. However, "MaGA" is used as a critique or rebranding of the movement, suggesting that it has lost its original intent of promoting American greatness. Instead, "MaGA" implies that this group has veered into actions and ideologies that are seen as antithetical to the principles of democracy, liberty, and the Constitution.

Here’s a breakdown of the concept:

1. Disrespecting America: The obvious observation is that MaGA supporters, by embracing rhetoric that attacks the integrity of the U.S. government, the media, and institutions, have undermined the country's foundational values. This includes actions like promoting conspiracy theories, undermining elections, or attacking the legitimacy of democratic processes.

2. Attacking a Liberal Democratic Constitutional Republic: The term "liberal democracy" refers to a system where the rule of law, civil rights, free elections, and separation of powers are key. Critical observations of MaGA show that certain elements within this movement have embraced authoritarian tactics, such as supporting leaders who subvert democratic norms or ignore checks and balances, which goes against the core principles of the liberal democratic constitutional republic Ameria is and was meant to be.

3. Supporting Fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that emphasizes dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society. "MaGA" has been observed worldwide, as a critique of the movement's embrace of extreme nationalism, intolerance toward dissent, and support for leaders or policies, that mirror fascist tendencies, such as authoritarian rule, state control, and the erosion of civil liberties.

So, the use of "MaGA" as opposed to "MAGA" reflects a critical stance against the movement, suggesting that it has strayed from the values that typically define a democratic society, instead endorsing actions and ideologies associated with authoritarianism and fascism. It’s a way of emphasizing that the movement may be hurting the nation rather than uplifting it.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT