• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Joe Biden Travel To Ukraine and Meet Zelensky?

Should Joe go to Kyiv and meet Zelensky to show US support?


  • Total voters
    35
Fair point.
I just feel US politics could use some fresh perspective and that the top at the moment is filled with the over 60s and that both sides could use fresh views.
For sure. Having younger leaders brings in a different generational view on how to move forward; a different pool of aspirational ideas.
 
What is the cost/benefit from that trip that you think a symbolic gesture is worth risking the life of the president? From a benefit comparison the weapons shipments are far more useful to the Ukrainians than a presidential visit for some photo ops. I have no problem with symbolic visits, but ensuring the safety of a nation's president should be primary. I don't think this has anything to do with age, but with risk.
I do not know how you put a cost benefit on having the courage to stand up to an aggressive regime. I do believe that if Biden was in the Ukraine days before the invasion there would have been no invasion. That delay could have acted as a cooling down period and brought all parties to the able. What's the cost benefit to no war vs. war?

As for the age question I am 67. I am in great shape. But myself at 57 was a lot more nimble and stronger and could get by on a lot less sleep.. Father time never loses a battle. When I see Biden I see an old frail individual that is really living the definition of day to day. The thought of Harris assuming the Presidency scares me. She has shown no leadership ability and her record on international events is next to nothing. How she would act as a commander in chief is a big unknown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
I do not know how you put a cost benefit on having the courage to stand up to an aggressive regime.
Except there has been action taken against Russia economically and support of the Ukrainians through weapons shipments. What there seems to be little appetite for is direct involvement against the Russians. One can argue that this has emboldened Putin over the years, since his actions have not faced direct military intervention; something that's been true across multiple US administrations. The economic sanctions taken thus far have been the most significant action taken against a Russian invasion of a former Soviet republic.

I do believe that if Biden was in the Ukraine days before the invasion there would have been no invasion.
Why do you believe that? Biden making a symbolic trip with no pledge to defend Ukraine wouldn't have amounted to much of anything since from a Russian perspective it still means the US and NATO are not getting involved directly.

That delay could have acted as a cooling down period and brought all parties to the able. What's the cost benefit to no war vs. war?
The parties had already been at the table, but the problem was (and continues to be) one of Putin having a very specific reason for invading Ukraine that is embedded with ideals of a Russian empire that seems to be out of reach at the moment. Had the Russians been focused on more realistic goals of NATO expansion in Ukraine, I think talks would have been more productive. Looking back on this, it's hard to argue that Putin's intention was anything but to overrun the current government regardless of what could have been achieved through negotiations.

As for the age question I am 67. I am in great shape. But myself at 57 was a lot more nimble and stronger and could get by on a lot less sleep.. Father time never loses a battle. When I see Biden I see an old frail individual that is really living the definition of day to day. The thought of Harris assuming the Presidency scares me. She has shown no leadership ability and her record on international events is next to nothing. How she would act as a commander in chief is a big unknown.
I don't disagree entirely because the role of POTUS is a very taxing one, but I still don't think there should be an age cap since where people are in the aging process can vary, and it's not as if they're doing everything by themselves. We have a succession plan built into out system, so it's not as if there would be chaos in the event the president becomes incapacitated.
 
I do not know how you put a cost benefit on having the courage to stand up to an aggressive regime. I do believe that if Biden was in the Ukraine days before the invasion there would have been no invasion. That delay could have acted as a cooling down period and brought all parties to the able. What's the cost benefit to no war vs. war?

As for the age question I am 67. I am in great shape. But myself at 57 was a lot more nimble and stronger and could get by on a lot less sleep.. Father time never loses a battle. When I see Biden I see an old frail individual that is really living the definition of day to day. The thought of Harris assuming the Presidency scares me. She has shown no leadership ability and her record on international events is next to nothing. How she would act as a commander in chief is a big unknown.

Too old isn't a number. We know it when we see it. As we look across both Houses of Congress we can easily see people who should not be in office, some probably due to age.

It would probably be illegal to require quantitative psychological measurement of people running for President and Vice President. In some ways it would be helpful. No matter, it will never happen.

Kamala. She is bright. She is capable. We have no idea how she would fare as President of the U.S. We really don't.

Few, if any, knew whether Volodmyr Zelensky would prove to be the successful leader of a nation at war facing incredible odds.
 
Yes, he should have been there weeks ago. That's what I expect from a leader. Instead, he hides in the WH and issues proclamation after proclamation while the Ukraine gets destroyed. Lip service and $4 gets you a cup of coffee but not much else. I am to the point where I think we should not allow anyone over 65 to be President. It's obvious the job is too hard for seniors.
Predictable.
 
Except there has been action taken against Russia economically and support of the Ukrainians through weapons shipments. What there seems to be little appetite for is direct involvement against the Russians. One can argue that this has emboldened Putin over the years, since his actions have not faced direct military intervention; something that's been true across multiple US administrations. The economic sanctions taken thus far have been the most significant action taken against a Russian invasion of a former Soviet republic.


Why do you believe that? Biden making a symbolic trip with no pledge to defend Ukraine wouldn't have amounted to much of anything since from a Russian perspective it still means the US and NATO are not getting involved directly.


The parties had already been at the table, but the problem was (and continues to be) one of Putin having a very specific reason for invading Ukraine that is embedded with ideals of a Russian empire that seems to be out of reach at the moment. Had the Russians been focused on more realistic goals of NATO expansion in Ukraine, I think talks would have been more productive. Looking back on this, it's hard to argue that Putin's intention was anything but to overrun the current government regardless of what could have been achieved through negotiations.


I don't disagree entirely because the role of POTUS is a very taxing one, but I still don't think there should be an age cap since where people are in the aging process can vary, and it's not as if they're doing everything by themselves. We have a succession plan built into out system, so it's not as if there would be chaos in the event the president becomes incapacitated.

Good post.
 
Except there has been action taken against Russia economically and support of the Ukrainians through weapons shipments. What there seems to be little appetite for is direct involvement against the Russians. One can argue that this has emboldened Putin over the years, since his actions have not faced direct military intervention; something that's been true across multiple US administrations. The economic sanctions taken thus far have been the most significant action taken against a Russian invasion of a former Soviet republic.


Why do you believe that? Biden making a symbolic trip with no pledge to defend Ukraine wouldn't have amounted to much of anything since from a Russian perspective it still means the US and NATO are not getting involved directly.


The parties had already been at the table, but the problem was (and continues to be) one of Putin having a very specific reason for invading Ukraine that is embedded with ideals of a Russian empire that seems to be out of reach at the moment. Had the Russians been focused on more realistic goals of NATO expansion in Ukraine, I think talks would have been more productive. Looking back on this, it's hard to argue that Putin's intention was anything but to overrun the current government regardless of what could have been achieved through negotiations.


I don't disagree entirely because the role of POTUS is a very taxing one, but I still don't think there should be an age cap since where people are in the aging process can vary, and it's not as if they're doing everything by themselves. We have a succession plan built into out system, so it's not as if there would be chaos in the event the president becomes incapacitated.
Which begs the question should 65 be the defacto retirement age? I am fine with that unless you own your own business. It would also lead to a greater turn over in Congress which again I am fine with. Do the same people that don't think 80+ is too old to be President object to the age requirement to become President? I would.
 
Hell no. Its bad enough the percepition that he is a stumbling, weak, impotent, incompetent piece of shit is bad enough...for him to go out in public and prove it...I dont think thats something we can risk.
 
Let Kamala go. With the hell she's taking here she may want to go. It would be like a vacation for her.
Oh ****. That would be a sight. Maybe she could read some incomprehensible slam poetry and then laugh maniacally at a press conference for them.
 
Hell no. Its bad enough the percepition that he is a stumbling, weak, impotent, incompetent piece of shit is bad enough...for him to go out in public and prove it...I dont think thats something we can risk.
Tell us how you really feel because I think you are holding back. ;)
 
Hell no. Its bad enough the percepition that he is a stumbling, weak, impotent, incompetent piece of shit is bad enough...for him to go out in public and prove it...I dont think thats something we can risk.
Are you sure you're not upset at maybe being older and than Biden, and he's more healthy and able and capable to have become and is "The President of The United States".
 
Which begs the question should 65 be the defacto retirement age? I am fine with that unless you own your own business.
Given that a growing percentage of people over 65 need to supplement their retirement income, 65 has become a rather meaningless number. It does come down to how productive you can be in any given job.

It would also lead to a greater turn over in Congress which again I am fine with. Do the same people that don't think 80+ is too old to be President object to the age requirement to become President? I would.
Maybe it's something that should be considered, but we're not there yet.
 
of course. there are no technologies that allow world leaders to communicate.
 
What is the cost/benefit from that trip that you think a symbolic gesture is worth risking the life of the president? From a benefit comparison the weapons shipments are far more useful to the Ukrainians than a presidential visit for some photo ops. I have no problem with symbolic visits, but ensuring the safety of a nation's president should be primary. I don't think this has anything to do with age, but with risk.
He's just hoping Joe will get blown up, probably.
 
Hell no. The US government isn't the world's police; they're one of the world's biggest criminals.
 
Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?
I do not know…

Johnson went, Austrias Nehammer went and many others (maybe more important for them)

It is a nice show of solidarity…

And as Major Klitschko said, media is more important than bombs (as he Said: more than 70 Percent of russians belive this insanity to be justified, which speeks to the Power of propaganda from the arsehole Putin and his regime of terrror)

It might send a nice signal but OF COURSE it is up to US assesments…

So I can not say…

Biden and his admin decides
 
I don’t know how Ukraine was able to guarantee their security to begin with. Before I could answer this question, I’d want to know how that kind of guarantee was possible.

If the Biden Admin thinks it’s necessary and safe then they’ll do it. I for one have no expectation that a US President go to a war zone purely for symbolic reasons, especially when it’s a war zone in which the host country doesn’t control the skies.

I also think it’s an unnecessary gesture. We’re giving Ukraine extraordinary amounts of assistance (along with many other NATO members).
Well if Boris can go in, why not Biden?
No. US presidents and VPs shouldn't go to war zones.
Really? :LOL:





No of course not. Its a symbolic gesture. There is nothing achieved in person that can't be done by electronic transmission.
It's all about showing the Ukrainians that we are on their side. Right now the Ukrainians love Boris Johnson because he went there. It's a huge gesture, and affects morale greatly.
 
Well if Boris can go in, why not Biden?
I’ve already detailed many of the tangible, concrete ways the United States has been helping Ukraine. If you’re not happy with those measures, then there’s obviously no way you’d be happy with Biden visiting Ukraine.

Really? :LOL:






It's all about showing the Ukrainians that we are on their side. Right now the Ukrainians love Boris Johnson because he went there. It's a huge gesture, and affects morale greatly.

None of these are remotely relevant comparisons, but you knew that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, he should have been there weeks ago. That's what I expect from a leader. Instead, he hides in the WH and issues proclamation after proclamation while the Ukraine gets destroyed. Lip service and $4 gets you a cup of coffee but not much else. I am to the point where I think we should not allow anyone over 65 to be President. It's obvious the job is too hard for seniors.
There it is! The phony right wing bravado.
 
Precisely, cruise missiles and bombs are still flying all over the place.

For the President of the United States, it is not a tenable security situation purely because unlike situations like Iraq or Afghanistan where a US security blanket could be established and those covert trips were done, simply not possible in this case.

But watch, Traitor Trumpists will turn this into a matter of machismo as they always do.


While they actually have the mentally weakest President of all time who would piss his pants in an actual fight with someone.
Well you know, Donald would have ran into a mass shooter situation unarmed. Because he said so and ya know, that's just the kind of man he is. But Biden can't go into a war zone where the Russians are lobbing a few bombs and missiles? Weak. He eats the green M&Ms, clearly.

/sarcasm
 
Which begs the question should 65 be the defacto retirement age? I am fine with that unless you own your own business. It would also lead to a greater turn over in Congress which again I am fine with. Do the same people that don't think 80+ is too old to be President object to the age requirement to become President? I would.
I think it should be lower. No elected positions above the age of 60.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Boris went because he desperately needs a boost in the polls.
 
Back
Top Bottom