GOP Hostage takers

Interestingly the GOP has decided to make ukrainians hostage for any future funding. Hostages for Border funding, without actually telling anyone what funding they want.

It's literally as if this cockamani plan was hatched in the back office of Mike Johnson's Bible study class. You would think that there would have been some legislation they'd been working on for border concerns, or even immigration reform, but no.

Nope..the GOP has decided to make the lives of ukrainians into a political football - that's the only thing they know how to do.

The people that brought you repeal and replace, Drill baby drill, and Not one idea on infrastructure plans despite owning the three areas of government,...those same morons have asked for Joe and company to literally save themselves.

And surprisingly I think it's probably a good idea that Joe throw them a bone so that he can tout that is yet another accomplishment in addition to these incredible employment numbers, and decreasing inflation numbers ahead of the election. And the more he has his hand on the actual crafting of the legislation the better. Oddly it seems as though the GOP cannot figure their way out of a paper bag, as demonstrated by a guy named Tommy tuberville who held up the Army similarly as a hostage for his biblical view points.

Amazingly I don't think this will happen very quickly, and in the grand scheme of things perhaps it's the Republicans falling back for a hail Mary pass to stop funding to Ukraine.

Joes gonna call that bluff.

I think we have sent enough money to Ukraine.

Russia is not leaving. The Ukrainian Government is still a cess pool of corruption. Their big offensive flopped.

Let the people who live next door to them foot the bill.

The only good thing about this fiasco is our American Arms Dealers are making a lot of money.

In the mean time. 5000+ a day are being ushered into our Southern Border. And that’s not counting the “got always”, the ones we don’t even know about.

Hear that? The entire World is laughing.

Makes you wonder why we didn't go down the America First path in the 1930s-40s?

Guess it was okay to give Hitler the Sudetenland, Poland, etc.

Interestingly the GOP has decided to make ukrainians hostage for any future funding. Hostages for Border funding, without actually telling anyone what funding they want.

It's literally as if this cockamani plan was hatched in the back office of Mike Johnson's Bible study class. You would think that there would have been some legislation they'd been working on for border concerns, or even immigration reform, but no.

Nope..the GOP has decided to make the lives of ukrainians into a political football - that's the only thing they know how to do.

The people that brought you repeal and replace, Drill baby drill, and Not one idea on infrastructure plans despite owning the three areas of government,...those same morons have asked for Joe and company to literally save themselves.

And surprisingly I think it's probably a good idea that Joe throw them a bone so that he can tout that is yet another accomplishment in addition to these incredible employment numbers, and decreasing inflation numbers ahead of the election. And the more he has his hand on the actual crafting of the legislation the better. Oddly it seems as though the GOP cannot figure their way out of a paper bag, as demonstrated by a guy named Tommy tuberville who held up the Army similarly as a hostage for his biblical view points.

Amazingly I don't think this will happen very quickly, and in the grand scheme of things perhaps it's the Republicans falling back for a hail Mary pass to stop funding to Ukraine.

Joes gonna call that bluff. Originally Posted by eyecu2

This is an interactive map of areas held by Russia and the Ukraine:

https://www.nzz.ch/english/ukraine-w...ine-ld.1688087

Open the web page in two browser windows. Leave one at the current date, 6-11 December, 2023. In the second window, take the date back to 17 November, 2022.

You'll see the two sides have been stalemated for over a year. Any change in the area occupied by Russia is imperceptible.

And how many combatants and civilians have been killed or injured during that period? Hundreds of thousands?

This will go on indefinitely, as long as the two sides have the will, the arms and the young men to continue. The West needs to put pressure on both countries to end the war. Ukraine should give up the idea it can return to pre-2014 borders. It won't happen, and in any event based on polling data the majority in the occupied areas (Crimea and Russian occupied Donbas) preferred to be affiliated with Russia instead of Ukraine before the recent hostilities broke out. Russia should accept the territorial integrity and independence of the rest of the Ukraine, and stop meddling in Ukrainian politics.

I'm not saying the West should pull the plug on aid to Ukraine. It should however push Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russia has been willing to talk for a while, although admittedly who knows if the Kremlin is sincere.

Something like what exists in Korea, a permanent cease fire along the current lines of control, would be much, much preferable to the current situation.

Now, as to the politics, you've got about 50 Republican representatives and 10 Republican Senators that don't want to give money to Ukraine. And then an additional 15 Democratic representatives, including the Squad and my honeys AOC and Ilhan Omar are against it too. The majority in each of the parties however wants to provide substantial additional aid to Ukraine.

There's a wide variation in beliefs among Republican politicians, from Lindsey Graham who wants to fight the war to the last Ukrainian, to Rand Paul who didn't want to give a dime to Ukraine. However, on the whole, compared to Democrats, Republicans want more oversight of our money that goes to Ukraine, and are more inclined to push Zelensky to settle this madness. Speaker Mike Johnson has said as much. Democrats are more inclined to give Zelensky and the Ukrainians a blank check, and IMHO allow this conflict to drag on and on. As such the Republicans are more in line with my views than the Democrats.

As far as tying money to Ukraine to money for the border, I agree with you. It's better to debate the issues on their own. Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in, with over $25 trillion in federal debt held by the public, is because of big spending bills which tackle many issues and devote money to every Congressman's and Senator's pet causes. I think they'd spend less money with individual bills for Ukraine, Israel and the border and I'm all for that.

And why are we giving money to Israel and tying it to Ukraine and the border anyway? It's a developed country, with higher nominal GDP/capita than Germany, the UK or France. The $10 billion to $14 billion we're planning on forking over to them is only 2% or 3% of their GDP, so it's not going to have any effect on their ability to wage war. That's just nuts, theft from U.S. taxpayers' pockets.

I am appalled that nobody’s successfully topped Putins government. At the rate we’re going, thousands more will die before there’s peace in that part of the world. Putin should be exiled and then mysteriously disappear.

You’d think that our very own GOP, who toppled their own majority with little effort, outlawed women’s health and nearly brought down the United States of America would have no problem making Vladimir Putin disappear.

Think about it.

So why haven’t they?

lately, my memory is getting about as short as my frequently flaccid dick, but . . .

My recollection is that rhe House Republicans had originally wanted to vote on appropriations for Israel, Ukraine and border security as separate bills; three bills, three debates and three votes.

I further recall that the Biden administration wanted to bundle them together as one giant aid package. . . .and got their way.

Now, with the aid for Israel and Ukraine bundled together with security at the Southern border, the Democrats don't like it when the Republicans won't go-along-to-get -along, and insist on true border security.

Gov Abbot of Texas is trying to physically re-enforce the barriers already in place unilaterally, despite the best efforts of the federal executive branch and the progressive--left nationally.

A few months ago, the Democrats could have had those separate discussions, but they insisted on doing it this way.

I missed the part where Ukrainian sovereignty was the responsibility of US Taxpayers.

I am appalled that nobody’s successfully topped Putins government. At the rate we’re going, thousands more will die before there’s peace in that part of the world. Putin should be exiled and then mysteriously disappear.

You’d think that our very own GOP, who toppled their own majority with little effort, outlawed women’s health and nearly brought down the United States of America would have no problem making Vladimir Putin disappear.

Think about it.

So why haven’t they? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Assassinating the leader of the premier or #2 nuclear power in the world probably isn't a good idea.

At one time Putin talked about joining NATO. The eastward expansion of NATO under Clinton and Bush, Hillary Clinton's meddling in the 2012 Russian election, and changes in the attitude of U.S. leaders towards Russia changed things.

Remember what George W. Bush said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy." Obama started out his two terms similarly, but by the end was belittling Russia's place in the world and bashing Putin.

You're going to disagree with me big time, but I believe Trump's "strategy" in dealing with Putin was a good one. Kiss his ass, but be firm with your actions. It was a bit like Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick Policy." Trump got NATO countries to spend more on defense, and prevented the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from going on stream.

Now, in a second term would he remove the USA from NATO and allow Russia to absorb the Baltic States and wage war on its neighbors? Yeah, that's a risk, but I don't think it would happen. I think it's more likely Putin's paranoia would subside somewhat and Russia would be less likely to take military actions against its neighbors.

If the US leaves NATO, what would be the limiting concern of invading other nations by these aggressive dictators who are seeking to enlarge their own land? It is literally the only thing that keeps these conquerors in check, is the perceived risk of entering into a world war. Not having NATO would not guarantee a world war, but all things the same it would certainly be a fast track towards one.

This whole perception of tread lightly but carry a big stick, or lead by strength, is literally having the ability to back up those weaker states and countries.

Without that in place, why wouldn't these aggressive dictators invade other countries??

Speaking of hostage taking, does this type of hastage taking bother you?

Senate Democrats and their Republican conferees have agreed to hold our military hostage to an extension of a domestic spying law that has allowed the FBI to stomp Americans’ rights through warrantless surveillance.

No money for that precious military that is needed to defend Europe and your greatest love, UKR, unless the govt. gets to continue warrantless surveillance on Americans. This ones probably okay with you though because it's only infringing on Americans and nobody on the left gives a shit about them.

Speaking of hostage taking, does this type of hastage taking bother you?

Senate Democrats and their Republican conferees have agreed to hold our military hostage to an extension of a domestic spying law that has allowed the FBI to stomp Americans’ rights through warrantless surveillance.

No money for that precious military that is needed to defend Europe and your greatest love, UKR, unless the govt. gets to continue warrantless surveillance on Americans. This ones probably okay with you though because it's only infringing on Americans and nobody on the left gives a shit about them. Originally Posted by texassapper

Nice attempt to derail the thread, but this isn't about FISA warrants, or NDAA. And I don't believe I ever stated that I like paying for wars. I just find it hypocritical to start funding, and help a country of interest in protecting them from a oppressor. We do it so that it keeps authoritative dictators in check, when they would run amok given the opportunity, and no guardrails. I'm interested in not having a world war 3.

You should start your own thread on FISA

This whole perception of tread lightly but carry a big stick, or lead by strength, is literally having the ability to back up those weaker states and countries.

Without that in place, why wouldn't these aggressive dictators invade other countries?? Originally Posted by eyecu2

There's an interesting article in this week's Economist, about wars between sovereign states. There have been very few since before 1980 that resulted in territorial gains by the aggressor. In fact, Russia's takeover of Crimea and parts of the Donbas are the only ones by major powers. There just isn't much to be gained by dictatorial conquest in this day and age, as Russia is seeing right now. Its economy is suffering mightily and it's a pariah. If Russia invaded Poland or even Estonia, it should know there will be hell to pay.

Could Trump leave NATO without the approval of the Senate? I don't know the answer. I don't believe he'd do that regardless, although yeah, he might reduce our commitment to the alliance. If Russia invaded a NATO state, you'd still have strong military resistance from European states, and economic sanctions would be severe.

Presumably Russia's learned its lesson. Putin's not stupid.

What Russia has learned is not quite clear. I know this war has taken a huge economic bite out of the coffers. It also may show that all gains were way more expensive than he thought. But while we have the Ukrainians small munitions and field devices and defensive missiles, we should have landed 100 f16s on the land there.

You'd see a totally different outcome from what's happening now. Imagine how the Russians with all their offensive powers have gained seemingly very little and it's because the Ukrainians have their "offensive hand" tied behind their backs.

I would say stop sending less effective weapons and give them a few hammers like F16s or A10s. You'd see some totally different shit.

What held up the passing of F16 from european nations stockpiles?

What held up the passing of F16 from european nations stockpiles? Originally Posted by Precious_b

Not sure, but it might have had something to do with Russia's 6,000 nuclear warheads.