David Sacks

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Btw, 25% is the intelligence community’s number. https://t.co/GXOhTJLqNm — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

If one of my companies told me that it had a 25% chance of going out of business, we would drop everything and focus on that. Intelligence analysts say there’s a 25% chance of nuclear war and Biden is in Oregon. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

At the beginning of the war, Biden said we wouldn’t get directly involved, even to save Americans. Now nuclear bombers are running drills. https://t.co/TLfv7GYDlN — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@Coloradosnowma2 https://t.co/CoWF5jCbp0 — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@christianlanng QED — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Ukraine has smeared peace advocates, outlawed peace talks, urged preemptive strikes by the West, and insists on retaking Crimea at risk of nuclear war. It does not deserve unqualified, unconditional, and unlimited US support. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@apmassaro3 @elonmusk Until the next time you mention peace. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

If you want to understand the origins of the Ukraine crisis, you need to read Mearsheimer’s piece from 2014. We chose the wrong path and war is the result. https://t.co/dmP3fhGkhQ https://t.co/EZWt54Eqft — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@Milhas79 @insipidwanker It was not a treaty. Treaties are ratified by the US Senate. This was not. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@elonmusk No good deed goes unpunished. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@mathiaseklof Yes it was started in 2014 but you need to go back a few weeks earlier. Russia took Crimea in response to the US-backed coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected and pro-Russian president. https://t.co/dmP3fhGkhQ — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@yyr770 The Budapest Memorandum does not require the US to defend Ukraine militarily. It’s not a defense treaty. It was not ratified by the US Senate. This was explained to Ukraine at the time. One of the American negotiators wrote about this in 2014: https://t.co/zkwbOQvtRc — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@LouisJMarinelli @GavinWax The Budapest Memorandum does not require the US to defend Ukraine militarily. It’s not a defense treaty. It was not ratified by the US Senate. This was explained to Ukraine at the time. One of the American negotiators wrote about this in 2014: https://t.co/jaF3IZXYZj — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@insipidwanker That was not a treaty obligation. Treaties must be ratified by the US Senate. https://t.co/HsL8Socyl5 — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

The idea that the American government, the American taxpayer, or any American company is obligated to provide support is pure entitlement. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Reminder: Ukraine is not a member of NATO. It is not a treaty ally of the U.S. We have no obligation to defend them. Everything we’re doing there is optional. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Why are Lockheed and Raytheon charging for Javelins and Himars? If they truly supported democracy, they would be doing it for free. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

The risk of nuclear war has always put limits on American assistance. It prevented Eisenhower from assisting Hungary in 1956, LBJ from assisting Prague Spring in 1968, and Reagan from assisting Solidarity in 1981. Call that “nuclear blackmail” if you want. I call it being smart. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Now is the time for a responsible opposition to be asking questions about where this proxy war is headed, not cheerleading for a blank check. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

RT @theallinpod: we made it episode 100 -- reflecting on the first 100 shows -- answering fan questions -- nuclear threat -- markets -- $… — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

During the Cold War, WWIII was avoided through a healthy respect for Mutually Assured Destruction. Now that doctrine is being described as “cowardice” by hotheads who would plunge the world into untold risks. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

The latest pro-Ukrainian position is that if you don’t want WWIII — like @EmmanuelMacron or @elonmusk — then you are “pro-Russian.” It’s time to say no to these fanatics. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@JeffBezos can you explain how this works? — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Huh? https://t.co/2eDY3ysgNz — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@rjkennedy27 @jamesfynnhere https://t.co/8Goc3YnXBz — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Meanwhile our economic base crumbles at home: https://t.co/jFhj0BvkBL — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

Even @tomfriedman is starting to get worried that “We Are Suddenly Taking On China and Russia at the Same Time”: https://t.co/TJpngDzOdf — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

We’re at Stage 2. We finally acknowledge the risk of nuclear use is real, but we’re unwilling to do anything about it. — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

@mathiaseklof From “Putin is bluffing” to “we can deter him” to “they’re just tac nukes”. Instead of rationalizing each step towards Armageddon, why don’t we take a time-out and reevaluate? — PolitiTweet.org

David Sacks @DavidSacks

You didn’t get the memo: after Biden’s Armageddon comments, it became acceptable to acknowledge the risk of nuclear use (Putin is no longer definitely bluffing), but the new party line is to pretend that we can definitely deter it. — PolitiTweet.org