Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

The situation in Ukraine is not an isolated situation, it is tied to Syria, and Georgia, the EU, ISIS, Nato... Etc etc

Explain.

Well why do you think Russia got involved in the first place? Because it is a strategic position (crimes); its no coincidence that they shortly after (in relative terms) jumped into the Syrian conflict.

The idea that the US is going to sort ISIS out, would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the horrors that are now happening out there.

As long as any country, including my own, insists Tha bombs are the only way to deal with ISIS, there will be no solution to the problem.

Well I probably shouldn't have asked you that question, because I read your comment within the context of Trump making nice with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. If you subscribe to that being important somehow, then the comment is relevant though. And my point is really that it's a place far away and it's questionable to what extent the US again should meddle in a far away region. There are some arguments for Russia's actions in that region, and they usually don't get much "play" in western media.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well I probably shouldn't have asked you that question, because I read your comment within the context of Trump making nice with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. If you subscribe to that being important somehow, then the comment is relevant though. And my point is really that it's a place far away and it's questionable to what extent the US again should meddle in a far away region. There are some arguments for Russia's actions in that region, and they usually don't get much "play" in western media.

The US and Western Europe have a history of supporting former soviet satellites in their (our) universal desire for democracy and self governance. Of course Putin sees his self interest differently, longing to return to earlier Soviet power and control.  It's all rational but not thoughtfully discussed in popular western media if it doesn't compact neatly into short sound bites.

JR

 

[miszt]

Agreed... ISIS needs to be killed the old fashioned way,,, boots on the ground. 

imo that is not actually the solution at all, unfortunetly the solution will involve more death and destruction I am sure, but infact the real problem, the one that no western government seems to want to consider, is not going to be resolved with weapons or soldiers of any kind.

...i'm trying to avoid going on an anti-capitalist rant here lol but in truth , that is the real problem; the love of money has created massive inequality around the world, it has allowed communities and societies to fester under poverty and corruption; while at the same time, world leaders are so addicted to money that they are prepared to sell billions of £$€ worth of arms to countries which are currently supporting ISIS and have despicable human rights records, and continue to import oil from those same countries.

as disgusting and abhorrent as the actions of ISIS are, unfortunately the west is largely hypocritical in its position, as long as we cannot live upto the same values we claim to be protecting, well, we are not in any position to actually speak with authority and have people listen with respect; at the moment they are just hollow empty words, backed up by the fear of death and destruction, rather than actions which say we live the way we tell others to


if the west put half the money it spends on warfare in the middle east and Asia, into education & health care for those same communities, I believe ISIS would not stand a chance; as the old saying goes "don't bite the hand that feeds you", imo the only reason that ISIS was able to spread as quickly as it did, was because of the poverty and destruction left behind by the west, ISIS moved in and offered things like subsidized bread for the population, and wages far beyond what was available before; imo we took the wrong road (again), and will probably continue to take the wrong road over and over again, until eventually there are no humans left

 

[miszt]

The situation in Ukraine is not an isolated situation, it is tied to Syria, and Georgia, the EU, ISIS, Nato... Etc etc

Explain.

Well why do you think Russia got involved in the first place? Because it is a strategic position (crimes); its no coincidence that they shortly after (in relative terms) jumped into the Syrian conflict.

The idea that the US is going to sort ISIS out, would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the horrors that are now happening out there.

As long as any country, including my own, insists Tha bombs are the only way to deal with ISIS, there will be no solution to the problem.

Well I probably shouldn't have asked you that question, because I read your comment within the context of Trump making nice with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. If you subscribe to that being important somehow, then the comment is relevant though. And my point is really that it's a place far away and it's questionable to what extent the US again should meddle in a far away region. There are some arguments for Russia's actions in that region, and they usually don't get much "play" in western media.

what are those arguments?

from what I can work out, Russia was simply not happy about the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU, and the upcoming "missle defence network" around Europe; also Putin has on numerous occasions suggested that he wants to bring back ex-Soviet countries under the control of Russia

 

[lassoharp]

At this point Hillary seems the only sane, moderate, reasonable person on the ballot.  Talking general personality and character here relative to the others and ignoring the issues which are always a moving target in any election.

And to the general public, regardless of how informed they may actually be, I think she represents the person with the most experience.


No way to tell how much that will account for come November.


Public may be so fed up with status quo they won't care.  Trump would indeed be the guy for that more so than Sanders I think.

I will go out on a limb and make a "prediction" - not on the election results, but on Trump . . . . .

Whatever happens with him between now and November will be something that will qualify as surprising or even shocking, and it will be something you will not see coming.  So I say l expect the unexpected from him in a way you won't see from the others.

 

[DaveP]

Miszt,

While I can agree that unregulated capitalism is a cause of poverty as well as wealth for some.  I think that religious fundamentalism is at the heart of the problem in the IS case.  The message was sent out on the internet via culpable preachers and all the world's crazies came out of the woodwork to flock to the cause; the local price of bread was not the magnet.

Your approach  implies that  countries are not responsible for their own corruption.  Would you not have thought that Muslim countries with their strict religious code would have been a shining light in terms of freedom from corruption?  I think that the reason that they are not is because family and tribal pressures are greater than religious pressures.  It's the same reason that democracy does not work for their culture either.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I've discussed this before but about capitalism and poverty

According to the most recent estimates, in 2012, 12.7 percent of the world’s population lived at or below $1.90 a day. That’s down from 37 percent in 1990 and 44 percent in 1981.

This means that, in 2012, 896 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, compared with 1.95 billion in 1990, and 1.99 billion in 1981.

Progress has been slower at higher poverty lines. Over 2.1 billion people in the developing world lived on less than US $ 3.10 a day in 2012, compared with 2.9 billion in 1990- so even though the share of the population living under that threshold nearly halved, from 66 percent in 1990 to 35 percent in 2012, far too many people are living with far too little.

Moreover, while poverty rates have declined in all regions, progress has been uneven:

East Asia saw the most dramatic reduction in extreme poverty, from 80 percent in 1981 to 7.2 percent in 2012. In South Asia, the share of the population living in extreme poverty is now the lowest since 1981, dropping from 58 percent in 1981 to 18.7 percent in 2012. Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa stood at42.6 percent in 2012.

China alone accounted for most of the decline in extreme poverty over the past three decades. Between 1981 and 2011, 753 million people moved above the $1.90-a-day threshold. During the same time, the developing world as a whole saw a reduction in poverty of 1.1 billion.

In 2012, just over 77.8 percent of the extremely poor lived in South Asia (309 million) and Sub-Saharan Africa (388.7 million). In addition, 147 million lived in East Asia and Pacific.

Fewer than 44 million of the extremely poor lived in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe and Central Asia combined.

heres the link where I got those FACTS... http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview  don't be distracted by the class warfare screed, in wealthy nations. it's mainly about marshaling public sentiment for political power. Rich people have less votes so they are easy to target to curry favor with everybody else to gain political power. I don't think many here can even imagine true poverty. 

Regarding the islamic terrorists just needing a hot meal and a job ISIL and other extreme factions are just artifacts of the Shia-Sunni conflict that has been going on since that religion split into two factions (centuries ago?) that don't think the other half (or us) deserves to live. They are also busy destroying christian artifacts in the region. They desperately need to mature and reform like most other major religions already have. We can't fix that for them, and while strong dictatorships may be able to hold them in check using force, that is far from a permanent solution .

The recent policy shift by Obama seems to be changing horses during the race (or trying to ride both). We have aligned with Saudi Arabia (sunni) and against Iran  (shia) in recent history. Releasing $100B of sanction to Iran should buy some good will, while the over $1B paid coincident with the recent hostage release, just demonstrates that taking hostages pays off.

Of course it's far more complicated than that but without some adult supervision the opposing powers may end up nuking each other. Not sure I trust Putin to be the only adult in the room but he has his own problems with extreme factions at home so doesn't (shouldn't) encourage such behavior.

No easy answer but the most extreme of the extreme pretty much need to be killed, but not by us. There are enough resources in moderate regimes in the regions to clean this up themselves, but it isn't easy while they have to balance appeasing factions in their home countries.

While the Saudis are trying to squeeze out marginal US oil producers by pumping full out and keeping prices low, they need the oil revenue from more expensive oil to afford to mollify their populations at home that they pay to sit around and do nothing. Not surprising that some of these well fed "idle hands" turn to terrorism.  : So much for poverty causing terrorism (several of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi).  OBL came from a wealthy family.

Good luck to us all... we need it. Beware too simple answers for complex problems. To bring this back on topic, Trump is the master of too simple answers for complex issues. So many are ill-informed and eat that stuff up, but that is what all politics comes down to, all the world's complex problems boiled down to much too simple solutions. "Trust me if elected I'll fix everything". It seems we hear that same promise every election cycle.


JR

PS: Some of the recent stock market volatility may be caused by major oil producing nations selling off holdings from their sovereign wealth funds, to raise cash to keep the lights on during the current much reduced oil revenue.

 

[miszt]

Poverty is not the only direct cause of terrorism, violence and war, but it is a significant part of the puzzle; the way that corporations are allowed to behave, ie unethically with no regard for peoples lives or our environment, is simply unacceptable, and while it is no excuse to cut peoples heads off, it certainly doesn't give us the "moral high ground" when judging others

Miszt,

While I can agree that unregulated capitalism is a cause of poverty as well as wealth for some.  I think that religious fundamentalism is at the heart of the problem in the IS case.  The message was sent out on the internet via culpable preachers and all the world's crazies came out of the woodwork to flock to the cause; the local price of bread was not the magnet.

Your approach  implies that  countries are not responsible for their own corruption.  Would you not have thought that Muslim countries with their strict religious code would have been a shining light in terms of freedom from corruption?  I think that the reason that they are not is because family and tribal pressures are greater than religious pressures.  It's the same reason that democracy does not work for their culture either.

DaveP

I agree regarding fundamental religious issues, but I consider capitalism to be a religion; in the sense that people believe in it, regardless of the evidence that shows it is self defeating, and basically a nonsensical approach to the survival and betterment of humanity.

Humanities greatest achievements have been based in socialist principals, ie publicly funded, everything from antibiotics and vaccines, to landing on the moon and the internet dispute the huge leaps in technological advances over the last century, Imo advances in medicine, science and tech are slowing down, and will continue to do so as long as competition increases and profit becomes more important than the science itself

(sorry for typos, my phone doesn't let me move the cursor to edit, piece of ****!)

 

[mattiasNYC]

The situation in Ukraine is not an isolated situation, it is tied to Syria, and Georgia, the EU, ISIS, Nato... Etc etc

Explain.

Well why do you think Russia got involved in the first place? Because it is a strategic position (crimes); its no coincidence that they shortly after (in relative terms) jumped into the Syrian conflict.

The idea that the US is going to sort ISIS out, would be hilarious, if it wasn't for the horrors that are now happening out there.

As long as any country, including my own, insists Tha bombs are the only way to deal with ISIS, there will be no solution to the problem.

Well I probably shouldn't have asked you that question, because I read your comment within the context of Trump making nice with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. If you subscribe to that being important somehow, then the comment is relevant though. And my point is really that it's a place far away and it's questionable to what extent the US again should meddle in a far away region. There are some arguments for Russia's actions in that region, and they usually don't get much "play" in western media.

what are those arguments?

Well, the most basic argument in my opinion is that Crimea suffered civil unrest, and completely regardless of what caused that unrest, with the assumed exception of Russian involvement (for the sake of the argument), Russia had exactly the same right to protect "its own people" as any other nation would surely claim. That's to say that with an ethnic Russian majority Russia saw it as a concern to protect their perceived right to secede from the Ukraine.

I say it's a "basic" argument because it involves the principles of self-determination and the right of a people to secede to create its own state, as well as the right of other states to intervene in the business of others. I have absolutely zero doubt that if a nation near the US had a region with 60% Americans, there was civil unrest in the area, and the Americans wanted to secede or join the USA, that the US would relatively quickly declare support.

From that standpoint arguments exist in favor of Russia. To what degree they're reasonable is debatable.

from what I can work out, Russia was simply not happy about the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU, and the upcoming "missle defence network" around Europe

Right. But so my original point stands in that this a matter that should be of importance proportional to the degree which a nation-state's people is actually affected domestically. In other words this issue should concern Americans in America to the degree they're affected, which is to say not that much. The notion that the US has to make a deal with Putin about something that happens so far away is just a sign of a western-centric world view really. This is nothing new however, and it's been like this for a long time. Remember the noise when the USSR shipped arms to Cuba or central America? For some reason it seems like the US perspective is that the legitimate sphere of US influence isn't limited to the US and its borders, or the continent, or even the hemisphere; it extends as far as possible. Therefore it's entirely unacceptable that arms flow(ed) to Cuba / central America - obviously because of the vicinity - but vicinity suddenly becomes "no problem" when the west wants to expand right up to the borders of the USSR / Russia. Then{/i] it becomes a discussion about "rights" and the need to strike deals.

So the problem is much much more basic: What rights do we want nations and peoples to have really? And do we want them to be truly universal, or should we apply different standards as we see fit?

 

[mattiasNYC]

Well I probably shouldn't have asked you that question, because I read your comment within the context of Trump making nice with Russia for the sake of the Ukraine. If you subscribe to that being important somehow, then the comment is relevant though. And my point is really that it's a place far away and it's questionable to what extent the US again should meddle in a far away region. There are some arguments for Russia's actions in that region, and they usually don't get much "play" in western media.

The US and Western Europe have a history of supporting former soviet satellites in their (our) universal desire for democracy and self governance.

I don't agree with that. While some nations may have been fairly just and consistent in what you imply above I don't think that can be said for the US. If you want self-governance then you have to allow that for all nations and peoples. We aren't seeing that at all. Not even close. Just look at the Israel-Palestine issue for a very long standing case of actively blocking self-determination for a whole people, for over half a century to boot.

The US, like many many other states are interested in what's good for it primarily, and what's right for others is secondary.

Of course Putin sees his self interest differently, longing to return to earlier Soviet power and control.  It's all rational but not thoughtfully discussed in popular western media if it doesn't compact neatly into short sound bites.

JR

Nothing is thoughtfully discussed in US media it seems. In European media I don't think there's a lack of criticism of Putin or a of accusations such as the one you gave above.

 

[DaveP]

You have probably hit on the major flaw with Democracy.

To get elected, the governing party has to act in the interests of the country that elected them, acting in the interests of humanity always comes a poor second.

The same thing happens with companies/corporations, people get fired because its in the interest of the shareholders.

When there are disputes over resources, the strong win and the weak lose, Darwin in action.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

At this point Hillary seems the only sane, moderate, reasonable person on the ballot.  Talking general personality and character here relative to the others and ignoring the issues which are always a moving target in any election.

Opinions vary... for voters who think government is doing a good job and don't want too much change, Hillary and Jeb Bush are the establishment candidates in both flavors. Even I cringe at the though of a Bush/Clinton contest, but Jeb is unlikely to make it past the circular firing squad, that most republican primaries turn into.  The democrats seem genuinely annoyed at Bernie for doing so well..  They're looking for a possible (electable) replacement should Hillary go down for her security violations or less then arms length dealings with her foundation while at state, but the odds of Obama's Attorney general prosecuting her are pretty slender (IMO).

And to the general public, regardless of how informed they may actually be, I think she represents the person with the most experience.

Actually there are a few governors in the race which is actually more pertinent experience regarding executive management of budgets and dealing with the people's representatives to pass legislation. 

No way to tell how much that will account for come November.

A long time still and lots can change between now and then.

Public may be so fed up with status quo they won't care.  Trump would indeed be the guy for that more so than Sanders I think.

yup... While every politician will claim it will be different this time if they get elected. Trump's complete lack of experience with the process is both good and bad... Good because he won't know what he can't do so might try some grand experiments. But since he won't know how to do stuff he has little chance of success unless he stumbles upon a good staff which IMO is a matter of chance.

He's been so lucky so far I would buy lottery tickets if i was him.

I will go out on a limb and make a "prediction" - not on the election results, but on Trump . . . . .

Whatever happens with him between now and November will be something that will qualify as surprising or even shocking, and it will be something you will not see coming.  So I say l expect the unexpected from him in a way you won't see from the others.

It's hard to be shocked by American politics, and they even engineer in "October surprises" on purpose... I suspect both parties are working on their own versions of October surprise for this time. 

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

1.    People are sick of being told what to think and who to vote for by the main parties.

Those people don't vote.

2.    Political Correctness has run it's course and the backlash against it is growing everywhere, that mitigates against the Democratic party.

Political correctness is in the eye of the beholder. That is, when someone doesn't like the actions of another because of perceptions of bias, that someone will claim "political correctness." Those who make the claim can be ignored.

3.    Parties are rarely re-elected after two terms in office, they are judged as stale and bereft of ideas and out of touch with the public.

Judged so by whom?

4.    Trump has a character that people can identify with, (not saying its a good character or not) Hillary is judged as part of the ruling elite.

Trump has a character, all right, and the majority of people who will actually vote in November think he's a dangerous charlatan. His polling is the majority of a minority.

5.    Populism is on the rise everywhere not just in the US, it supports points1 & 2.

Define "populism." It applies to both the left and the right, and many will argue that Bernie Sanders is a populist.

6.      Neither Hillary or Sanders are particularly endearing, they are not in the same league as JFK in terms of charisma.

And we all know where JFK's charisma got him. And if you claim that Trump has charisma, it's because he's a loudmouth, not because he has any charm.

7.      Trump is viewed as someone who can make deals and compromises to get business done, in short he is successful.

He's viewed as such by people who have not bothered to actually understand his career, and base their "views" on his reality-TV persona. In reality, he doesn't compromise, and his deals these days are all about licensing his name and image.

8.      Trump and Putin like and understand each other and that will help get the partnership job done instead of a return to the cold war which no-one wants,  Trump will get a deal on the Ukraine.

Show proof that Trump and Putin like and understand each other. I agree that they won't go back to the cold war, but rather I am concerned that Trump will go in guns blazing. Literally.

9.      GOP establishment and Palin are starting to get behind Trump because a tipping point has been passed.

Bullshit. Palin does not represent the GOP establishment, and in fact the GOP establishment hates him (and her) and is trying to figure out how to handle him. Sure, she's the teabagger queen, and she is an idiot, and that's attractive to people who find her idiocy attractive. But those people are NOT the GOP establishment.

10.    He has voiced the fears of many over unfettered migration and appears to have the balls to act.

He may have the "Balls" and shows them by appealing to the "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!" idiocracy that is his base. But (G-d forbid) if he's elected, he'll soon realize that he cannot rule by decree, since there is a Congress with which he has to work to pass his agenda. And while some of the House majority support his agenda, he'll find out that the leadership (the establishment) and certainly the Democrats in the Senate (hello, filibuster) do not.

I live in France so it's none of my business,  but the distance does help one to see the wood despite the trees.

It is your business if the US President goes off the rails.

 

[Andy Peters]

Some political positions & politicians are labeled "racist" not out of some sort of misguided political correctness, but because they are, in fact, racist...

Exactly.

 

[DaveP]

It is your business if the US President goes off the rails.

Yes Andy,  that's why I'm posting.  I repeat, Trump would never be my choice, I was looking at trends, that maybe none of us like very much.

I know Palin is not GOP, but she has brought the newish TP establishment with her.  The main GOP have a loose cannon on their hands and their choice is now is far from easy.  Their only choice might be to back him now.

Populism is when the population want something the politicians won't give them.  For example, in the UK the population would like the death penalty for child killers, but parliament won't vote for it, because it might make the UK look backward.  Populism over immigration is causing a referendum that the government doesn't want either.

It is not racist to want to live in your own culture.  If you like other cultures you can take a vacation to experience them, what should not happen is that large sections of your own country are in effect lost to another.  Small numbers can be assimilated over time and enhance the richness of life.  Large numbers swamp the indigenous population and destroy social cohesion, it does not make you a racist to state the obvious.  Look what happened in Cologne to hundreds of women when another culture arrived en masse.

Dole: Cruz is ‘extremist’, Trump a deal-maker.

DaveP

 

[miszt]

I have absolutely zero doubt that if a nation near the US had a region with 60% Americans, there was civil unrest in the area, and the Americans wanted to secede or join the USA, that the US would relatively quickly declare support.

I suspect that the US would only declare support, let alone intervene, if that nation was of strategic value to US interests (oil, resources, militarly strategic position, etc), i do not believe it would do so simply for the sake of the US citizens, or US supporters who lived there.


I also believe that the situation in Crimea was engineered by Russia, the only reason they now have a majority support in the country was because Ukrainians and protestors where deported and arrested.

I do not believe Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own citizens, but simply because Crimea is a very strategically important point in the region.


...in the same way that the UK wants to keep control of Falklands.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is your business if the US President goes off the rails.

Yes Andy,  that's why I'm posting.  I repeat, Trump would never be my choice, I was looking at trends, that maybe none of us like very much.

I know Palin is not GOP, but she has brought the newish TP establishment with her.  The main GOP have a loose cannon on their hands and their choice is now is far from easy.  Their only choice might be to back him now.

Populism is when the population want something the politicians won't give them.  For example, in the UK the population would like the death penalty for child killers, but parliament won't vote for it, because it might make the UK look backward.  Populism over immigration is causing a referendum that the government doesn't want either.

It is not racist to want to live in your own culture.  If you like other cultures you can take a vacation to experience them, what should not happen is that large sections of your own country are in effect lost to another.  Small numbers can be assimilated over time and enhance the richness of life.  Large numbers swamp the indigenous population and destroy social cohesion, it does not make you a racist to state the obvious.  Look what happened in Cologne to hundreds of women when another culture arrived en masse.

Dole: Cruz is ‘extremist’, Trump a deal-maker.

DaveP

The Cologne new year's sexual attacks made international news but is not exactly new. If we look back there was a female reporter  (CBS)  in Egypt during the arab spring (2011) mass protests in Tahir square, who was similarly sexually molested. This is one obvious example of a huge cultural divide. Women begin being held in low regard, and infidel women, even lower.  Several years ago there was a big stink about young girls being sexually abused in Birmingham, England. Again this was ignored for some time due to political correctness, but finally enough people found out and the government had to act.

There have been similar attacks in several other western (european) nations, but often downplayed by media to not appear bigoted.

This is a serious problem that the EU needs to figure out. We'll see if putting up posters inside German swimming pools saying it's not OK to grab-ass women just because they are wearing bathing suits in public areas, helps. To change, these people need to want to change, and their religious leaders tell them to hold onto their old traditions.

Interesting times. 

JR

 

[rob_gould]

There are a lot of (very negative) generalisations being made about Muslim refugees here.

I'm not disputing the fact that cultural differences (sometimes clashes) will occur, but making very sweeping remarks about a large number of individuals really isn't accurate or fair.

I absolutely don't suggest that anyone's mind will be changed with a story about one individual, but here's something for balance.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/my-syrian-refugee-lodger-helen-pidd

Strikes me that this chap finds many aspects of life lived outside his Muslim home country awkward, embarrassing and downright bizarre, but he deals with it.  He certainly doesn't sound like he's brimming with dogma and hate for UK culture or values.

There are a lot of stories like this in the UK media.  They're given a lot less headline space than 'a would-be-terrorist groped my bum' but they're there.

 

[DaveP]

Nice story Rob.   I have said many times that small scale integration is a culturally enriching business, it's the large scale that causes the trouble IMO.

The strange thing is, that they seem to want to go to infidel countries, not other Muslim countries.

The President of Iran said it was a source of shame that this was happening.  I don't know the answer to that one, maybe we will know one day.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I have absolutely zero doubt that if a nation near the US had a region with 60% Americans, there was civil unrest in the area, and the Americans wanted to secede or join the USA, that the US would relatively quickly declare support.

I suspect that the US would only declare support, let alone intervene, if that nation was of strategic value to US interests (oil, resources, militarly strategic position, etc), i do not believe it would do so simply for the sake of the US citizens, or US supporters who lived there.


I also believe that the situation in Crimea was engineered by Russia, the only reason they now have a majority support in the country was because Ukrainians and protestors where deported and arrested.

I do not believe Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own citizens, but simply because Crimea is a very strategically important point in the region.


...in the same way that the UK wants to keep control of Falklands.

Right. And so arguments, be they actually factually true in any given individual case or not, exist. The problem we have, in my opinion, is that it's hard to criticize other nations for doing what we do.

And so to me it seems bizarre to imply that it's somehow anymore the responsibility of the US to deal with Russia vs Ukraine than it is just those two nations or any other third party.

In my opinion nations should mind their own business, and "their own business" is limited to the extent to which they are affected domestically (and 'no', that doesn't include higher prices on imports etc).