Show me a MAGA politician, and I’ll show you a person bought and sold by Russian interference.
And I will show you how the second and third world wars started by a dictator doing a land grab and fucktard leaders doing nothing when they had a chance. If Ukraine does not win, WW3 is the inevitable outcome in the next 10 years. These are the people that cause the deaths of millions.
Most of them won't be around in 10 years, so they don't care
Most of the loudest, craziest, dumbest ones definitely will be.
I agree.
If only you thought the same about Turkey&Azerbaijan.
No, whoever wins, it'll just show that brute force matters and everything else doesn't, be it for the Russian leadership or for that of any Western country.
WWIII is already inevitable, in one way or another. And fuck everyone talking about realpolitik, because realpolitik is what got us here.
Other than that, Ukraine is going to win or make the conflict frozen against Russia, with or without more support. Russia is not going to be a participant in that WWIII, not a major one anyway.
World War 3 is always the inevitable outcome in the next 10 years.
They can read the polls and can see that a plurality of voters seem to be against more aid.
Edit: -72 is breddy good, I'm quite impressed at how resistant you guys are. It really IS the reddit experience.
a plurality
Yeah, about ten guys who were bought and sold by Russia and a couple thousand other folks that fell for their con. By no means a majority and also by no means a reasonable stance.
No... page 10&11 clearly states that you're wrong. It's effectively a 50/50 split on Ukraine war with an actual majority 45/55 split saying no more funding.
These polls are as idiotic as the Brexit Referendum was.
People have no fucking clue what's going on and they answer by their "gut feeling". So it's all down to the way the question is formed.
And it's not a "yes" or "no" type of situation either.
So your argument is what exactly? That the poll is flawed... so there isn't a majority or plurality? You realize that both for and against could have been answering by their "gut feeling"... a 50/50 split kind of proves the point that it's not just a few thousand like was claimed.
Of course if you have a better source showing that Americans are happy with spending more money in Ukraine that's of higher quality I'm all ears.
A 50/50 split also kind of proves that the answers are as thought out as a coin toss...
So all 50/50 splits are coin toss decisions and not devisive topics? That's a hot take. Especially with n=1000+ polls.
Polls with a 50/50 split, are a poll structural fail. It means the questions are too ambiguous, and the poll didn't control for it. A split of 40/40 with 20% "undecided"? That would be a credible divisive poll. A 50/50? No way.
Look at the "trends" section on page 3, "not sure" between 7% and 14%, those are credible numbers. Now look at pages 10&11, 0% to 1% "no opinion"? That's BS.
So there's trends, meaning that these question (or types of questions) before weren't a problem... But magically... now it's a problem? And you have no other resources to corroborate your stance (since I asked for a better one and you've failed to provide).
But now, since it's a much more divisive topic... it's ALL over the media... talked about nearly every day from both sides... You think that the 7-14% wouldn't diminish at all? Hell giving you the 14% doesn't change the equation we're looking at here... It's still a Plurality, just not a straight majority. But even at 45/55 I wouldn't call it a straight majority.
It's funny because the pg 12 shows 2-5% "Don't know" responses. and page 9 shows up to 3%. But that's not the point... Even if we take the sampling error rate AWAY from the "anti-Ukrainian aid" side of this debate and give it to the "pro-Ukranian aid" outright... It's STILL a plurality at the very least and still a slim majority at that. 49% vs 51%... Even if we double or triple or quadruple that error rate to 39%... it's STILL a large amount of Americans (certainly qualifying for "Plurality") who feel that additional monetary aid isn't warranted. But the real litmus test is reading the questions yourself. Really don't see how
"15a. Do you think Congress should or should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine in the war with Russia? " is ambiguous.
My point all along is that Plurality is a correct term here, yet was downvoted to hell... And even being absurdly generous to your argument we still see that's accurate. If you can find BETTER data then I'm all ears. But up to this point you haven't... and quite frankly your arguments were weak as we can see that even skewing the data in your favor MANY times over, it's still accurate to say that a plurality of Americans do not want to spend more money over there.
And before you start claiming I have some bias. I'm a dual citizen and hold a Polish citizenship. I'm not a stranger to Russia bullshit. But even Poland, who took in MILLIONS (doing well more than any other country) of refugees is starting to wear down and refuse aid to Ukraine.
My argument is that linking a shitty poll that paint the issue in black or white does nothing to help to paint the picture of public opinion on the russia's attack on Ukraine and how people feel about it.
Can you show how the poll is misrepresenting it as a black/white issue?
Do you have ANY better statistical resource?
Can you show how the poll is misrepresenting it as a black/white issue?
I can, but you don't seem to be genuinely interested, so I'm not going to waste my time.
Do you have ANY better statistical resource?
No, but sometimes no resource is of more quality than a misleading poll.
I can, but you don’t seem to be genuinely interested, so I’m not going to waste my time.
Sounds like that's a no then...
No, but sometimes no resource is of more quality than a misleading poll.
If you can provide any evidence that it's misleading... I'll take it. But you've failed to do so and continue to whinge about it even though you've got nothing better to replace the poll as evidence.
I don't respond well to sealioning, my dear random keyboarder.
You don't respond well at all... When asked for anything to defend your stance, you got bumpkiss nothing.
The majority support Ukraine. Fuck off Russian bot.
"someone said something I don't understand, they must be pro-Russian"
Flawless logic, kiddo.
?
Fuck off.
You say something pro russian and then cry when people call you pro russian
Stating an obvious reason that democratically elected officials might have an opinion is pro-Russian.
I guess that elections are also undemocratic?
You're a loon and I thank you for helping me grow my Blocklist.
This Putin bootlicker is too stupid to realize he's helping America's long-term enemy. He thinks he's an American patriot, but he's actually just a Russian simp.
More likely to be bought by the International Democrat Union than by Russians.
To my knowledge IDU policies are in support of Ukraine.
They're more in support of right wing policy than they are of Ukraine, though.
That's true, but they have just invited (former Ukrainian pro-EU president) Poroshenko to their honorary advisory board. I do not think this is pro-Russia stand.
The IDU doesn't care about Ukraine except insofar as it is a pawn to push right-wing ideology abroad.
I agree that their focus is center-right ideology, not war in Ukraine. But they do not support Russia, and those rare statements that they do (and the actions like inviting Poroshenko) shows that in this question they are on Ukraine side. There is more "politicking" than just Russo-Ukranian war. Walmart also is not focused on Russo-Ukranian war, does it make it pro-Russia and converting MAGA politicians to pro-Russia stand?
Putin's investment in U.S. conservatives pays off once again.
Everyone looking at the price tag vs the results knows a proxy war with a well-trained army, the side of the US and Ukraine, against formerly your biggest adversary is the least costly way to cripple your foe while hardly lifting a finger.
~$125 billion TOTAL, including humanitarian, in a sea of $800B+/yr is play money in war, and throwing Russia back with dollars is the largest blow to a man who thinks he’s militarily strong.
It even makes China hesitate. I’d pay a lot more just for that.
Edit to add: This is a sad justification to be involved in ending human life, regardless of merit.
It's especially peanuts when you consider that the VA won't have to take care of the veterans either. In the long-term, that's where most of the funding actually goes after you put boots on the ground.
Edit to add:
The costs of caring for post-9/11 war vets will reach between $2.2 and $2.5 trillion by 2050 — most of which has not yet been paid.
That is roughly 1/3 of the total estimated past/future costs of the wars.
Damn good point.
It is Patton by proxy - "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard to die for his." Except instead of "the other bastard" being an enemy, it's your allies.
Don't worry, there's still going to be plenty of vets who "hurt their backs" during training excersize and get lifetime disability pay. I got a cousin who brags about his.
Yes your cousin is still allowed to have a comfortable life after being hurt on military duty... That's not "bragging". That's being recompensed.
I bet if you actually talk to your cousin about the stuff they miss out on in life due to their disability... You'll find that the trade still isn't worth it. Things like being able to play with their kids without worrying about debilitating pain. But you know... At least they don't have to actively work to live a normal life.
Even if they're 100% disabled. I don't know anyone who "brags" about $45k a year. I have military associated hearing loss. The time I waste every day just trying to parse things other people are saying isn't worth the ~$200 a month I'm given for it.
Ya, so he's not really disabled. If his back does actually hurt it's cuz he's fat. He's scamming the system and votes Trump because only he deserves a second free income.
If his back does actually hurt it’s cuz he’s fat.
That's a stupid amounts of ableist...
Has it occurred to you that they might be "fat" because they can't be as active as they once were in service... because they're now disabled?
Yes, you definitely know my cousin I see multiple times a year better than me. The multiple times he's admitted he's gaming the system to my face mean nothing. He's super disabled. You are right. I'm a bad person who has no idea what I am talking about.
The multiple times he’s admitted he’s gaming the system to my face mean nothing.
It could very well be his way of coping... A lot of people wit disabilities don't want to be treated as less than... and making you believe that he's "gaming" the system is a better outcome in their mind than you treating them as less of a human for being disabled.
"Gaming" the system in this case would require many doctors to sign off on his disability. And yes, I will believe trained doctors over you simply talking with him.
I’m a bad person who has no idea what I am talking about.
When you equate all veterans (or even just "plenty") to what you believe your cousin to be doing? Yes...
You've convinced me, trailerpark ultra welfare is good.
Wow... you must really be a bad person if that's what you took away from what I said.
It's not just that. It's about oil & gas too. Ukraine is gar friendlier to the US and the EU. They also has the ability to sever Europe's need for Russian energy.
And it provides your weapons industry with real life data from a large-scale conflict with equipment from multiple origins.
And it advertises a competitors products as inferior, and yours as superior.
I despise all these things, but from a purely economic viewpoint, this is interesting for business.
Meanwhile, people die.
You can blame those deaths on Putin.
Ukraine wouldn't need those equipment if Putin didn't invade a sovereign nation.
He can literally decide tomorrow to pull back and no deaths would follow anymore.
True, but unclear what that implies. Some people say weapons kill people so we should not produce / supply weapons, expecting less people would die. Others point at aggressors using (their home made) weapons to kill people, pointing at the need to supply their victims, expecting less people would die.
Comparing the track records of Russia (frequently invading and killing neighbors) and Ukraine (not so much) it's easy for me to take sides. But the tragedy exists, which is why I despise all these things.
proxy war: a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.
Please don't call it a proxy war, because it's not.
I don't think the definition of "proxy war" must include "instigated".
Amusingly, with North Korea providing munitions to Russia and Korea providing munitions to Ukraine, it's now a proxy Korean War, which never ended.
Technically... this war was "kind of instigated" by the EU out-bidding Russia in 2013 for the investment in a commercial agreement with Ukraine. Everybody at the time knew that Russia had to keep Ukraine under its boot or risk getting fucked long term in the Black Sea, so buying-out Ukraine's allegiance was sort of like poking a bear... and the bear reacted pretty much as expected, by instantly invading Crimea... which also worked as expected to fortify Ukraine's allegiance towards the West... which ultimately lead to Russia launching its "special military operation"... which everyone kind of expected to end in a couple days with the loss of Kyiv... but instead turned out to spectacularly show off Russia's hand and military weakness, allowing for a proxy war to begin.
The instigation was very tactful, playing the long game over 10 years, but it was there. Which is also expected when trying to start a proxy war against a nuclear power; even this low-key instigation, already got Russian crazies clamoring for nuclear retaliation, even when the war was obviously their own fail.
Wasn't Russia expecting Ukraine to capitulate (basically, like what Armenia did against Azerbaijan)?
They only sent, what, 80000 troops on the initial drive to Kyiv?
If Ukraine wanted to join Russia, they wouldn't need to send any troops.
It's failure after failure after failure after failure... and it keeps going, a full clown show. There are actually some more that aren't in the video.
Do you need me to look up sources for the remaining dominos? (I'm on mobile, so I'd rather not)
Bitch please, Russia and EU have a much longer history.
The real "first domino" is somewhere during the Roman empire or even before.
But the invasion domino is a much bigger threat than the dominoes before.
Putin could just have decided NOT to invade. He had that power. Yet he pushed the domino anyway.
Putin could just have decided NOT to invade. He had that power. Yet he pushed the domino anyway.
Putin could have tried to clean up shop in Russia around 2000-2008, he had that power back then. By instead trying to become a new Tsar, he set up himself to either invade over and over, or get killed.
It's no coincidence the same year 2012 he got "reelected", is when the EU started to sweet talk Ukraine; by then, the large dominoes were all set up, just needed that tiny first push.
By 2014, and 2022, any negative to invade would have him windowed.
I wouldn't call $125 billion "play money", even if the US yearly military budget is $900 billion.
The US military budget is egregious, and this just shows how much war is about funneling taxpayer money to the MIC.
Idk, nearly a trillion dollars a year is hardly easy to overlook so I find it hard to believe that this of all things is a red line.
Russia's military budget in 2019 was $65 billion. It's a waste of money that's only practical because the US is literally swimming in taxpayer money (mostly because the US doesn't invest in itself, but that's another issue).
At the federal level, taxes don't pay for anything. They literally used to be burned when we still collected actual dollars. These days a number in a digital ledger gets set to 0. Taxes are the primary anti-inflationary device that government has to maintain inflation.
Deficits don't cause inflation, if they did Japan would be in hyper-inflation because of the massive deficits they have been running for 30 years. Instead they are barely able to hold off deflation of the Yen.
(Accidentally deleted my previous post, sorry for the confusion!)
Interestingly China could still invade and expand their territory, without the rest of the world getting involved. Not Taiwan. Vladivostok. That peninsula was part of China till Russia took it, and a fairly large section of the population is ethnically Chinese. They would just be "looking out for the interests of 'their people .'"
This allows Xi to take advantage of the current situation, expand territory to look strong at home, and maintain the status quo everywhere else.
Sometimes when I'm bored, I'll do some google maps "tourism", and just cruise the globe. One of those spots I've visited, is right at that tri-border with Russia, N. Korea, and China.
I always thought it was weird that China doesn't have a direct shore/port on the Sea of Japan. It doesn't really look like the Tumen River would cut it to give sea faring ships access either. Annexing Vladivostok would fix that.
Oh thousands of people are dead but at least it wasn't me and all it cost was billions of dollars.
We didn't start the invasion. We're helping the defenders of the invasion fight off the invaders.
Everyone would be better off if Russia packed it in, but sometimes the barbarians are at the gates and you do in fact have to fight them off.
Yeah bro just roll over when you're getting taken over and if you ask for help you should think of the thousands you're going to kill.
How are conservatives not widely declared as traitors? A few decades ago even the slightest hint you might be working for the Russians was enough to derail your career. But now it seems they can openly squash the best chance to disarm Russia, at a ridiculously low price, without sending troops. Why is the bar for them so low with everything?
Trump's four years allowed the USA to be deeply compromised and they'll probably never tell us the extent of how much.
Traitor to whom?
They'd be traitors by their own standards. They would complain and run constant news cycles on Obama cozying up to the Russias and how weak he looks when he interacted with Putin.
Fascists don't have standards, only whatever will get them power in the moment.
OK but their standards aren't the law. I'm asking specficially what would make any of their actions traitorous in regards to blocking money going to Ukraine.
They are hypocrites that don't care about what is law.
I think what was meant was not them being declared traitors according to law but being declared traitors publicly to move the public opinion.
So not actually treason
Good effort, but being a tratior and being treasonous are not synonymous.
You can be a traitor without committing treason.
Is it not traitorous to support a traitor?
What kind of ciclical mind games are you people playing here?
To America? It's the definition of the word
I wonder if it would happen with NATO partners as well.
If the US elects another (or previous) moron, the partnership could end on a similar whim.
Idk, I feel like the US not a very stable or trustworthy partner. Maybe Macron was right, maybe the EU does need it's own army.
Honestly strategically, it's stupid not to. But I sit here on my high horse, where we are used to sacrificing an enormous amount of tax dollars on military prowess and have the military wealth of like all nations combined. But hey we go bankrupt if we go to the doctors... so there is that.
I guess my rambling point is it sounds good in theory, but it's a huge sacrifice.
The US would be able to spend more on the military with all the money saved on socialised medicine. Private medicine is about corporations taking a cut, not saving govt money.
Spending doesn't mean quality or even quantity.
Americans get swindled big time by weapon manufacturers colluding with government contract drafters, and pharmaceutical companies colluding with medical insurance appraisers and hospitals to raise fictional treatment costs through the roof. All that, while having a taxation pressure pretty much on par with the average in the EU.
So far, the EU has managed to avoid the medical racketeering, it isn't unthinkable that it could also avoid the weapons racketeering... unless it keeps buying overpriced shit from the US big bully in town, instead of investing in it's own manufacturing.
An EU military, with weapons produced in the EU, would be a huge loss for the US, not necessarily much of a sacrifice for the EU.
The problem for the EU is they don't exactly have a sovereign currency, at least not the way The US, UK, AU, CA, and China have. We can always pay more, because the government can just "print more money." I don't know if the EU can really do that with the Euro. They should be able to, but they don't seem to function the way our Federal Government does.
The ECB is more independent, but that doesn't really matter. The EU can borrow from it just like the US government does from the Federal Reserve, and the ECB's mandate is to stabilize inflation, no matter what the EU does.
If the EU decided to borrow massive amounts of Euros to spend on weapon manufacturing and creating its own military, that would have massive ripples on the whole economy and impact inflation, but the ECB would just have to follow.
The only real difference is in foreign monetary policy: the ECB doesn't have to listen to EU Parliament's wishes to change monetary policy in order to weaponize it, while central banks in the US, UK, AU, China, etc. do have to listen to their respective government's wishes to mess up the internal economy for whatever reason they see convenient.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm an American, so trying to keep our politics straight is a full time job. I haven't had much opportunity to really look at the alternatives.
America never was a trustworthy partner. They start wars and raise dictatorships all over the world. Trump just showed they werent trustworthy in economical treaties either.
It's not all one thing or the other. People ascribe these kind of blanket generalizations to US foreign policy frequently but it's as short-sighted as painting German foreign policy as imperial. Certain US presidents have started wars. Others the Marshall plan, WTO, IMF, the UN, NATO, etc.
Right now there's a crisis in the US driven by the same fear of change that drove them into containment during the cold war. That isolationist populism certainly benefits some narratives but it's no better than the worst elements of China-first economic coercion in the ACS that's alienated a lot of Philippine fishermen in recent years.
Fact is the biggest threat to the human race is the dissension these isolationists/populists are selling. No meaningful action on climate, migration, or the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine can occur in that worldview and anyone should be suspicious of politicians who promote them.
Most US policy has been quite good when non-isolationists have occupied the white house, just like most non-reich based German leadership has strengthened European unity. The Nazis and Trump's me-first exceptions prove the rule. Education, familiarity, and exposure should be the Rx for the US right now, along with all the countries dealing with the current wave of populist snake oil movements. In the words of a US propaganda film of the same name "don't be a sucker".
You're not wrong. We have a very short policy lifespan. It's the major downside of term restrictions - nobody wants to or is able to plan for anything more than 2 years ahead reliably. Except the military budget of course, because we live in hell.
The problem is that politics do not stop at the border. Support for Ukraine has become yet another culture war, us-vs-them battleground. It doesn't really matter what the issues are anymore, only that there has to be conflict over them to keep attention whores in the news cycle.
Macron was right, but being right is extremely expensive. Meanwhile, the EU's dependence on F-35s for defence isn't too great given the well-known issues with F-35 maintenance and the need for US private contractors in the maintenance loop.
Everybody needs their own army. Otherwise they are too dependent on those who have, and that's not just the USA, that includes also plenty of vermin.
If we disband alliances and rely on individual armies, you'll very quickly see that we're back to the middleages, where the smaller countries are eaten by bigger countries ad infinitum.
That's not what I said, first. Second, smaller countries are eaten when the alliances they rely on turn out to be all puff.
Its* own army.
This is a small stop gap, and we already know the Mega GOP are against supporting Ukraine. The US has a lot of support going to Ukraine, so this little gap isn't going to hurt them. The training for F-16 is already paid for so they is no stopping that, same with tanks.
The good thing is the non-Mega GOPs are starting to distance themselves so hopefully that makes them more willing to compromise with the Democrats so things can get done. You know how the government was set up to work.
A little gap or any delay at all probably will hurt them, at the cost of lives. It might not be statistically significant to the outside observer though.
Yeah, I'm kind of shocked how dissociated the comments this thread are from what they're talking about. People are dying, right now - people will die as a result of this, too.
We're talking about death, here. Needless, wasteful death. War is hell - not an economic stimulus package.
I mean, if the R's really want to stop sending care packages to Ukraine, maybe it's time to confront Russia directly.
Wooo WW3. 🎉
............I'm getting recalled to active duty, aren't I?
Does R stand for Republican or Russian?
Answer: Yes
Something something Russublicans.
I don't know if it's explicit support, but I DO remember a few years ago when both the DNC and RNC were compromised and the only kompromat released was against dems
Did you serve for 8+ years or has it been 8 years since your original enlistment date?
Yea inactive period is over, but I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere that lets Uncle Sam back into my rectum. Here's hoping there's not, though.
And, y'know, that we can avoid WW3 lol.
I feel you man, even though I'm left broken after my time in I bet they'd still find a way to fuck everyone and recruit them.
How's this? If we don't support Ukraine, we also don't support Israel?
Can we also add Turkey and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Please?
I am all for supporting Ukraine, its so hard to see Ukrainians shit talk america here equating the opinions of a few loud MAGA conservative assholes to the feelings of america as a whole. Most of our people are with you and want to support you but our political and economic situation is very hard right now. Im ashamed that we aren't doing better during this critical time.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional supporters of Ukraine say they won’t give up after a bill to keep the federal government open excluded President Joe Biden’s request to provide more security assistance to the war-torn nation.
Nearly half of House Republicans voted to strip $300 million from a defense spending bill to train Ukrainian soldiers and purchase weapons.
Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the stopgap measure, with members of both parties abandoning the increased aid for Ukraine in favor of avoiding a costly government shutdown.
The latest actions in Congress signal a gradual shift in the unwavering support that the United States has so far pledged Ukraine in its fight against Russia, and it is one of the clearest examples yet of the Republican Party’s movement toward a more isolationist stance.
In a letter to congressional leaders dated Friday, Michael McCord, under secretary of defense, wrote that the department has exhausted nearly all the available security assistance.
Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would like to send a clear message to the world about U.S. support for Ukraine by passing legislation, but believes the Pentagon has “enough draw-down money” to last through December.
The original article contains 1,211 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ukraine must quickly reactivate its weapons industry. It must not rely on foreign powers to fight against Russia. Maybe form manufacturing pacts with Turkey and surrounding nations threatened by Russia. At the same time, the counteroffensive must be accelerated regardless of casualties. I feel Ukraine is trying to minimize casualties for PR reasons but time is running out.
A country that is already fighting a war on its home turf is going to find it very hard to find the human and financial resources to build a large domestic arms industry. They probably will not prevail unless they receive foreign aid, both financial and military.
Show me a MAGA politician, and I’ll show you a person bought and sold by Russian interference.
And I will show you how the second and third world wars started by a dictator doing a land grab and fucktard leaders doing nothing when they had a chance. If Ukraine does not win, WW3 is the inevitable outcome in the next 10 years. These are the people that cause the deaths of millions.
Most of them won't be around in 10 years, so they don't care
Most of the loudest, craziest, dumbest ones definitely will be.
I agree.
If only you thought the same about Turkey&Azerbaijan.
No, whoever wins, it'll just show that brute force matters and everything else doesn't, be it for the Russian leadership or for that of any Western country.
WWIII is already inevitable, in one way or another. And fuck everyone talking about realpolitik, because realpolitik is what got us here.
Other than that, Ukraine is going to win or make the conflict frozen against Russia, with or without more support. Russia is not going to be a participant in that WWIII, not a major one anyway.
World War 3 is always the inevitable outcome in the next 10 years.
They can read the polls and can see that a plurality of voters seem to be against more aid.
Edit: -72 is breddy good, I'm quite impressed at how
resistant you guys are. It really IS the reddit experience.
Yeah, about ten guys who were bought and sold by Russia and a couple thousand other folks that fell for their con. By no means a majority and also by no means a reasonable stance.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/index.html
Which sources: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23897329-cnn-ukraine-poll
No... page 10&11 clearly states that you're wrong. It's effectively a 50/50 split on Ukraine war with an actual majority 45/55 split saying no more funding.
These polls are as idiotic as the Brexit Referendum was.
People have no fucking clue what's going on and they answer by their "gut feeling". So it's all down to the way the question is formed.
And it's not a "yes" or "no" type of situation either.
So your argument is what exactly? That the poll is flawed... so there isn't a majority or plurality? You realize that both for and against could have been answering by their "gut feeling"... a 50/50 split kind of proves the point that it's not just a few thousand like was claimed.
Of course if you have a better source showing that Americans are happy with spending more money in Ukraine that's of higher quality I'm all ears.
A 50/50 split also kind of proves that the answers are as thought out as a coin toss...
So all 50/50 splits are coin toss decisions and not devisive topics? That's a hot take. Especially with n=1000+ polls.
Polls with a 50/50 split, are a poll structural fail. It means the questions are too ambiguous, and the poll didn't control for it. A split of 40/40 with 20% "undecided"? That would be a credible divisive poll. A 50/50? No way.
From the source you cited: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23897329-cnn-ukraine-poll
Look at the "trends" section on page 3, "not sure" between 7% and 14%, those are credible numbers. Now look at pages 10&11, 0% to 1% "no opinion"? That's BS.
So there's trends, meaning that these question (or types of questions) before weren't a problem... But magically... now it's a problem? And you have no other resources to corroborate your stance (since I asked for a better one and you've failed to provide).
But now, since it's a much more divisive topic... it's ALL over the media... talked about nearly every day from both sides... You think that the 7-14% wouldn't diminish at all? Hell giving you the 14% doesn't change the equation we're looking at here... It's still a Plurality, just not a straight majority. But even at 45/55 I wouldn't call it a straight majority.
It's funny because the pg 12 shows 2-5% "Don't know" responses. and page 9 shows up to 3%. But that's not the point... Even if we take the sampling error rate AWAY from the "anti-Ukrainian aid" side of this debate and give it to the "pro-Ukranian aid" outright... It's STILL a plurality at the very least and still a slim majority at that. 49% vs 51%... Even if we double or triple or quadruple that error rate to 39%... it's STILL a large amount of Americans (certainly qualifying for "Plurality") who feel that additional monetary aid isn't warranted. But the real litmus test is reading the questions yourself. Really don't see how
"15a. Do you think Congress should or should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine in the war with Russia? " is ambiguous.
My point all along is that Plurality is a correct term here, yet was downvoted to hell... And even being absurdly generous to your argument we still see that's accurate. If you can find BETTER data then I'm all ears. But up to this point you haven't... and quite frankly your arguments were weak as we can see that even skewing the data in your favor MANY times over, it's still accurate to say that a plurality of Americans do not want to spend more money over there.
And before you start claiming I have some bias. I'm a dual citizen and hold a Polish citizenship. I'm not a stranger to Russia bullshit. But even Poland, who took in MILLIONS (doing well more than any other country) of refugees is starting to wear down and refuse aid to Ukraine.
My argument is that linking a shitty poll that paint the issue in black or white does nothing to help to paint the picture of public opinion on the russia's attack on Ukraine and how people feel about it.
Can you show how the poll is misrepresenting it as a black/white issue?
Do you have ANY better statistical resource?
Sounds like that's a no then...
If you can provide any evidence that it's misleading... I'll take it. But you've failed to do so and continue to whinge about it even though you've got nothing better to replace the poll as evidence.
I don't respond well to sealioning, my dear random keyboarder.
You don't respond well at all... When asked for anything to defend your stance, you got bumpkiss nothing.
The majority support Ukraine. Fuck off Russian bot.
"someone said something I don't understand, they must be pro-Russian"
Flawless logic, kiddo.
Fuck off. You say something pro russian and then cry when people call you pro russian
Stating an obvious reason that democratically elected officials might have an opinion is pro-Russian.
I guess that elections are also undemocratic?
You're a loon and I thank you for helping me grow my Blocklist.
This Putin bootlicker is too stupid to realize he's helping America's long-term enemy. He thinks he's an American patriot, but he's actually just a Russian simp.
More likely to be bought by the International Democrat Union than by Russians.
To my knowledge IDU policies are in support of Ukraine.
They're more in support of right wing policy than they are of Ukraine, though.
That's true, but they have just invited (former Ukrainian pro-EU president) Poroshenko to their honorary advisory board. I do not think this is pro-Russia stand.
The IDU doesn't care about Ukraine except insofar as it is a pawn to push right-wing ideology abroad.
I agree that their focus is center-right ideology, not war in Ukraine. But they do not support Russia, and those rare statements that they do (and the actions like inviting Poroshenko) shows that in this question they are on Ukraine side. There is more "politicking" than just Russo-Ukranian war. Walmart also is not focused on Russo-Ukranian war, does it make it pro-Russia and converting MAGA politicians to pro-Russia stand?
Putin's investment in U.S. conservatives pays off once again.
Everyone looking at the price tag vs the results knows a proxy war with a well-trained army, the side of the US and Ukraine, against formerly your biggest adversary is the least costly way to cripple your foe while hardly lifting a finger.
~$125 billion TOTAL, including humanitarian, in a sea of $800B+/yr is play money in war, and throwing Russia back with dollars is the largest blow to a man who thinks he’s militarily strong.
It even makes China hesitate. I’d pay a lot more just for that.
Edit to add: This is a sad justification to be involved in ending human life, regardless of merit.
It's especially peanuts when you consider that the VA won't have to take care of the veterans either. In the long-term, that's where most of the funding actually goes after you put boots on the ground.
Edit to add:
Source:
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic/budget/veterans
That is roughly 1/3 of the total estimated past/future costs of the wars.
Damn good point.
It is Patton by proxy - "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard to die for his." Except instead of "the other bastard" being an enemy, it's your allies.
Don't worry, there's still going to be plenty of vets who "hurt their backs" during training excersize and get lifetime disability pay. I got a cousin who brags about his.
Yes your cousin is still allowed to have a comfortable life after being hurt on military duty... That's not "bragging". That's being recompensed.
I bet if you actually talk to your cousin about the stuff they miss out on in life due to their disability... You'll find that the trade still isn't worth it. Things like being able to play with their kids without worrying about debilitating pain. But you know... At least they don't have to actively work to live a normal life.
Even if they're 100% disabled. I don't know anyone who "brags" about $45k a year. I have military associated hearing loss. The time I waste every day just trying to parse things other people are saying isn't worth the ~$200 a month I'm given for it.
Ya, so he's not really disabled. If his back does actually hurt it's cuz he's fat. He's scamming the system and votes Trump because only he deserves a second free income.
That's a stupid amounts of ableist...
Has it occurred to you that they might be "fat" because they can't be as active as they once were in service... because they're now disabled?
Yes, you definitely know my cousin I see multiple times a year better than me. The multiple times he's admitted he's gaming the system to my face mean nothing. He's super disabled. You are right. I'm a bad person who has no idea what I am talking about.
It could very well be his way of coping... A lot of people wit disabilities don't want to be treated as less than... and making you believe that he's "gaming" the system is a better outcome in their mind than you treating them as less of a human for being disabled.
"Gaming" the system in this case would require many doctors to sign off on his disability. And yes, I will believe trained doctors over you simply talking with him.
When you equate all veterans (or even just "plenty") to what you believe your cousin to be doing? Yes...
You've convinced me, trailerpark ultra welfare is good.
Wow... you must really be a bad person if that's what you took away from what I said.
It's not just that. It's about oil & gas too. Ukraine is gar friendlier to the US and the EU. They also has the ability to sever Europe's need for Russian energy.
Every dollar is worth it.
https://hexbear.net/post/736808
And it provides your weapons industry with real life data from a large-scale conflict with equipment from multiple origins.
And it advertises a competitors products as inferior, and yours as superior.
I despise all these things, but from a purely economic viewpoint, this is interesting for business.
Meanwhile, people die.
You can blame those deaths on Putin.
Ukraine wouldn't need those equipment if Putin didn't invade a sovereign nation.
He can literally decide tomorrow to pull back and no deaths would follow anymore.
True, but unclear what that implies. Some people say weapons kill people so we should not produce / supply weapons, expecting less people would die. Others point at aggressors using (their home made) weapons to kill people, pointing at the need to supply their victims, expecting less people would die.
Comparing the track records of Russia (frequently invading and killing neighbors) and Ukraine (not so much) it's easy for me to take sides. But the tragedy exists, which is why I despise all these things.
Please don't call it a proxy war, because it's not.
I don't think the definition of "proxy war" must include "instigated".
Amusingly, with North Korea providing munitions to Russia and Korea providing munitions to Ukraine, it's now a proxy Korean War, which never ended.
Technically... this war was "kind of instigated" by the EU out-bidding Russia in 2013 for the investment in a commercial agreement with Ukraine. Everybody at the time knew that Russia had to keep Ukraine under its boot or risk getting fucked long term in the Black Sea, so buying-out Ukraine's allegiance was sort of like poking a bear... and the bear reacted pretty much as expected, by instantly invading Crimea... which also worked as expected to fortify Ukraine's allegiance towards the West... which ultimately lead to Russia launching its "special military operation"... which everyone kind of expected to end in a couple days with the loss of Kyiv... but instead turned out to spectacularly show off Russia's hand and military weakness, allowing for a proxy war to begin.
The instigation was very tactful, playing the long game over 10 years, but it was there. Which is also expected when trying to start a proxy war against a nuclear power; even this low-key instigation, already got Russian crazies clamoring for nuclear retaliation, even when the war was obviously their own fail.
Wasn't Russia expecting Ukraine to capitulate (basically, like what Armenia did against Azerbaijan)?
They only sent, what, 80000 troops on the initial drive to Kyiv?
If Ukraine wanted to join Russia, they wouldn't need to send any troops.
So that is about 79999 troops too many.
There is that... then there is this:
It's failure after failure after failure after failure... and it keeps going, a full clown show. There are actually some more that aren't in the video.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://youtu.be/D_Jizt8AAa4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Bullshit. The country that did the invading was the instigator, full stop.
Not how wars work. They're like domino chains, if you know which one to push, you get the desired result.
In this case:
Do you need me to look up sources for the remaining dominos? (I'm on mobile, so I'd rather not)
Bitch please, Russia and EU have a much longer history.
The real "first domino" is somewhere during the Roman empire or even before.
But the invasion domino is a much bigger threat than the dominoes before.
Putin could just have decided NOT to invade. He had that power. Yet he pushed the domino anyway.
Putin could have tried to clean up shop in Russia around 2000-2008, he had that power back then. By instead trying to become a new Tsar, he set up himself to either invade over and over, or get killed.
It's no coincidence the same year 2012 he got "reelected", is when the EU started to sweet talk Ukraine; by then, the large dominoes were all set up, just needed that tiny first push.
By 2014, and 2022, any negative to invade would have him windowed.
That's not how full stops work.
I wouldn't call $125 billion "play money", even if the US yearly military budget is $900 billion.
The US military budget is egregious, and this just shows how much war is about funneling taxpayer money to the MIC.
Idk, nearly a trillion dollars a year is hardly easy to overlook so I find it hard to believe that this of all things is a red line.
Russia's military budget in 2019 was $65 billion. It's a waste of money that's only practical because the US is literally swimming in taxpayer money (mostly because the US doesn't invest in itself, but that's another issue).
At the federal level, taxes don't pay for anything. They literally used to be burned when we still collected actual dollars. These days a number in a digital ledger gets set to 0. Taxes are the primary anti-inflationary device that government has to maintain inflation.
Deficits don't cause inflation, if they did Japan would be in hyper-inflation because of the massive deficits they have been running for 30 years. Instead they are barely able to hold off deflation of the Yen.
(Accidentally deleted my previous post, sorry for the confusion!)
Interestingly China could still invade and expand their territory, without the rest of the world getting involved. Not Taiwan. Vladivostok. That peninsula was part of China till Russia took it, and a fairly large section of the population is ethnically Chinese. They would just be "looking out for the interests of 'their people .'"
This allows Xi to take advantage of the current situation, expand territory to look strong at home, and maintain the status quo everywhere else.
Sometimes when I'm bored, I'll do some google maps "tourism", and just cruise the globe. One of those spots I've visited, is right at that tri-border with Russia, N. Korea, and China.
I always thought it was weird that China doesn't have a direct shore/port on the Sea of Japan. It doesn't really look like the Tumen River would cut it to give sea faring ships access either. Annexing Vladivostok would fix that.
Oh thousands of people are dead but at least it wasn't me and all it cost was billions of dollars.
We didn't start the invasion. We're helping the defenders of the invasion fight off the invaders.
Everyone would be better off if Russia packed it in, but sometimes the barbarians are at the gates and you do in fact have to fight them off.
Yeah bro just roll over when you're getting taken over and if you ask for help you should think of the thousands you're going to kill.
Way to victim blame.
What
How are conservatives not widely declared as traitors? A few decades ago even the slightest hint you might be working for the Russians was enough to derail your career. But now it seems they can openly squash the best chance to disarm Russia, at a ridiculously low price, without sending troops. Why is the bar for them so low with everything?
Trump's four years allowed the USA to be deeply compromised and they'll probably never tell us the extent of how much.
Traitor to whom?
They'd be traitors by their own standards. They would complain and run constant news cycles on Obama cozying up to the Russias and how weak he looks when he interacted with Putin.
Fascists don't have standards, only whatever will get them power in the moment.
OK but their standards aren't the law. I'm asking specficially what would make any of their actions traitorous in regards to blocking money going to Ukraine.
They are hypocrites that don't care about what is law.
I think what was meant was not them being declared traitors according to law but being declared traitors publicly to move the public opinion.
So not actually treason
Good effort, but being a tratior and being treasonous are not synonymous.
You can be a traitor without committing treason.
Is it not traitorous to support a traitor?
What kind of ciclical mind games are you people playing here?
To America? It's the definition of the word
I wonder if it would happen with NATO partners as well. If the US elects another (or previous) moron, the partnership could end on a similar whim.
Idk, I feel like the US not a very stable or trustworthy partner. Maybe Macron was right, maybe the EU does need it's own army.
Honestly strategically, it's stupid not to. But I sit here on my high horse, where we are used to sacrificing an enormous amount of tax dollars on military prowess and have the military wealth of like all nations combined. But hey we go bankrupt if we go to the doctors... so there is that.
I guess my rambling point is it sounds good in theory, but it's a huge sacrifice.
The US would be able to spend more on the military with all the money saved on socialised medicine. Private medicine is about corporations taking a cut, not saving govt money.
Spending doesn't mean quality or even quantity.
Americans get swindled big time by weapon manufacturers colluding with government contract drafters, and pharmaceutical companies colluding with medical insurance appraisers and hospitals to raise fictional treatment costs through the roof. All that, while having a taxation pressure pretty much on par with the average in the EU.
So far, the EU has managed to avoid the medical racketeering, it isn't unthinkable that it could also avoid the weapons racketeering... unless it keeps buying overpriced shit from the US big bully in town, instead of investing in it's own manufacturing.
An EU military, with weapons produced in the EU, would be a huge loss for the US, not necessarily much of a sacrifice for the EU.
The problem for the EU is they don't exactly have a sovereign currency, at least not the way The US, UK, AU, CA, and China have. We can always pay more, because the government can just "print more money." I don't know if the EU can really do that with the Euro. They should be able to, but they don't seem to function the way our Federal Government does.
The ECB is more independent, but that doesn't really matter. The EU can borrow from it just like the US government does from the Federal Reserve, and the ECB's mandate is to stabilize inflation, no matter what the EU does.
If the EU decided to borrow massive amounts of Euros to spend on weapon manufacturing and creating its own military, that would have massive ripples on the whole economy and impact inflation, but the ECB would just have to follow.
The only real difference is in foreign monetary policy: the ECB doesn't have to listen to EU Parliament's wishes to change monetary policy in order to weaponize it, while central banks in the US, UK, AU, China, etc. do have to listen to their respective government's wishes to mess up the internal economy for whatever reason they see convenient.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm an American, so trying to keep our politics straight is a full time job. I haven't had much opportunity to really look at the alternatives.
America never was a trustworthy partner. They start wars and raise dictatorships all over the world. Trump just showed they werent trustworthy in economical treaties either.
It's not all one thing or the other. People ascribe these kind of blanket generalizations to US foreign policy frequently but it's as short-sighted as painting German foreign policy as imperial. Certain US presidents have started wars. Others the Marshall plan, WTO, IMF, the UN, NATO, etc.
Right now there's a crisis in the US driven by the same fear of change that drove them into containment during the cold war. That isolationist populism certainly benefits some narratives but it's no better than the worst elements of China-first economic coercion in the ACS that's alienated a lot of Philippine fishermen in recent years.
Fact is the biggest threat to the human race is the dissension these isolationists/populists are selling. No meaningful action on climate, migration, or the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine can occur in that worldview and anyone should be suspicious of politicians who promote them.
Most US policy has been quite good when non-isolationists have occupied the white house, just like most non-reich based German leadership has strengthened European unity. The Nazis and Trump's me-first exceptions prove the rule. Education, familiarity, and exposure should be the Rx for the US right now, along with all the countries dealing with the current wave of populist snake oil movements. In the words of a US propaganda film of the same name "don't be a sucker".
You're not wrong. We have a very short policy lifespan. It's the major downside of term restrictions - nobody wants to or is able to plan for anything more than 2 years ahead reliably. Except the military budget of course, because we live in hell.
The problem is that politics do not stop at the border. Support for Ukraine has become yet another culture war, us-vs-them battleground. It doesn't really matter what the issues are anymore, only that there has to be conflict over them to keep attention whores in the news cycle.
Macron was right, but being right is extremely expensive. Meanwhile, the EU's dependence on F-35s for defence isn't too great given the well-known issues with F-35 maintenance and the need for US private contractors in the maintenance loop.
Everybody needs their own army. Otherwise they are too dependent on those who have, and that's not just the USA, that includes also plenty of vermin.
If we disband alliances and rely on individual armies, you'll very quickly see that we're back to the middleages, where the smaller countries are eaten by bigger countries ad infinitum.
That's not what I said, first. Second, smaller countries are eaten when the alliances they rely on turn out to be all puff.
Its* own army.
This is a small stop gap, and we already know the Mega GOP are against supporting Ukraine. The US has a lot of support going to Ukraine, so this little gap isn't going to hurt them. The training for F-16 is already paid for so they is no stopping that, same with tanks. The good thing is the non-Mega GOPs are starting to distance themselves so hopefully that makes them more willing to compromise with the Democrats so things can get done. You know how the government was set up to work.
A little gap or any delay at all probably will hurt them, at the cost of lives. It might not be statistically significant to the outside observer though.
Yeah, I'm kind of shocked how dissociated the comments this thread are from what they're talking about. People are dying, right now - people will die as a result of this, too.
We're talking about death, here. Needless, wasteful death. War is hell - not an economic stimulus package.
I mean, if the R's really want to stop sending care packages to Ukraine, maybe it's time to confront Russia directly.
Wooo WW3. 🎉
............I'm getting recalled to active duty, aren't I?
Does R stand for Republican or Russian?
Answer: Yes
Something something Russublicans.
I don't know if it's explicit support, but I DO remember a few years ago when both the DNC and RNC were compromised and the only kompromat released was against dems
Did you serve for 8+ years or has it been 8 years since your original enlistment date?
Yea inactive period is over, but I'm sure there's some fine print somewhere that lets Uncle Sam back into my rectum. Here's hoping there's not, though.
And, y'know, that we can avoid WW3 lol.
I feel you man, even though I'm left broken after my time in I bet they'd still find a way to fuck everyone and recruit them.
How's this? If we don't support Ukraine, we also don't support Israel?
Can we also add Turkey and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Please?
I am all for supporting Ukraine, its so hard to see Ukrainians shit talk america here equating the opinions of a few loud MAGA conservative assholes to the feelings of america as a whole. Most of our people are with you and want to support you but our political and economic situation is very hard right now. Im ashamed that we aren't doing better during this critical time.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional supporters of Ukraine say they won’t give up after a bill to keep the federal government open excluded President Joe Biden’s request to provide more security assistance to the war-torn nation.
Nearly half of House Republicans voted to strip $300 million from a defense spending bill to train Ukrainian soldiers and purchase weapons.
Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the stopgap measure, with members of both parties abandoning the increased aid for Ukraine in favor of avoiding a costly government shutdown.
The latest actions in Congress signal a gradual shift in the unwavering support that the United States has so far pledged Ukraine in its fight against Russia, and it is one of the clearest examples yet of the Republican Party’s movement toward a more isolationist stance.
In a letter to congressional leaders dated Friday, Michael McCord, under secretary of defense, wrote that the department has exhausted nearly all the available security assistance.
Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would like to send a clear message to the world about U.S. support for Ukraine by passing legislation, but believes the Pentagon has “enough draw-down money” to last through December.
The original article contains 1,211 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ukraine must quickly reactivate its weapons industry. It must not rely on foreign powers to fight against Russia. Maybe form manufacturing pacts with Turkey and surrounding nations threatened by Russia. At the same time, the counteroffensive must be accelerated regardless of casualties. I feel Ukraine is trying to minimize casualties for PR reasons but time is running out.
A country that is already fighting a war on its home turf is going to find it very hard to find the human and financial resources to build a large domestic arms industry. They probably will not prevail unless they receive foreign aid, both financial and military.
Good
Fuck off