This is sending a giant red flag to America's allies: we will not support you in times of war, do not rely on us since we will drop you whenever it is politically convenient to do so.
Sadly, this shouldn't be the case and it's indicating an abdication of responsibility in being the Arsenal of Democracy for the free world.
Except if our religious conservatives vouch for you. Then you get the platinum package and a blind eye.
Europe better start their own version of NATO.
They kinda do, EU has a mutual defence policy as well
The primary difference is defense industrial policy and production capacity.
That is nothing new, look at Afghanistan.
I feel Turkey going with the Chinese moonbase instead of the US “moonbase” will come up as a turning point in future history books. Trump hollowed out a great deal of the remaining good will to the US. Biden can’t turn the corner with the potential of trump returning. The US should get ready to be a regional power in 50 years, after people in europe and asia get tired of hosting their bases for no protection.
Not really.
Look at Israel.
America is Israel's bitch, different situation.
I really hope Europe can step up to fill America's gap, because it's clear that America will not get its shit together in time to help at this point, if it ever will again.
This has been so frustrating to watch. We have half of our country bootlicking the Russian leader that their cult leader is strangely endeared towards. This was our opportunity to really do the right thing and support a people defending themselves and their democracy. Something we as Americans could have been proud of for generations. But no. Republicans couldn’t have us do the right thing. Not even once.
Don't say half the country - most of the country doesn't vote. Trump got 74m votes and the US has a population of 330m.
You're right. Not voting is a vote for Trump, so much more than half.
Snooze
Not voting doesn't mean you're a Putin bootlicker. Way to move the goalpost
I guess everyone with a marijuana conviction loves Putin, huh?
Fair point. Choosing not to vote then.
But you're still kinda right. Not voting is a vote for trump, and conservatives know this. Disenfranchisement via drug convictions is a key weapon in their arsenal.
He's not right to say that half the country voted for Trump. I am tired of the narrative that half the country is magats
Sounds like a good portion of the country is not represented and we need to do away with first past the post voting.
More people voting means more democratic votes, so what's the holdup blue states?
What if Republicans want to not vote for Trump, but are tied to him because if they don't vote for him the democrats win?
Not just FPTP voting...the electoral college has to go, tok. Many people think "my vote doesn't matter, my state is voting X anyway" and, in a way, they're right. The electoral college makes our votes matter less.
There's also too many people who are barred from voting. For example, one of the most politically-active people I know can't vote because he got a felony for possessing a half ounce of weed 15 years ago in college.
So what, you assume that everyone not literally voting for Trump doesn't support him? That's ridiculous. The real number surely is closer to half than it is to the quarter that the votes add up to.
Not all all considering
Young people generally lean left. Especially now with their access to information
People with non-violent convictions like marijuana felonies also generally lean left. Disenfranchisement is a tool used mostly by one side of the aisle
Yes, 330 million souls. But how many are voters? Or in US children vote in kindergarten 😉
America is occupied with sending aid to Israel. There's only so much money Biden can draw down for foreign military aid with Congress being in the state its in and the budget being in the state its in. It's been the Biden administration's policy that Israel's military needs are important as well and many bills have tied aid for Ukraine to aid for Israel.
This isn't about the amount of money available, it's the GOP intentionally doing what Putin wants.
Only France is willing to fight. The rest of Europe are terrified of Putin. They will give Putin whatever he wants.
Why would France want to fight? They’re the biggest customer.
JFC. Well. I guess Putin can have Europe if he wants it then. The U.S. is being held down by conservatives, so we all get to watch Putin murder our allies.
There is no such thing as a "good conservative" alive today. Conservatism is a cancer. It is killing us all.
Which was Trump's plan all along (recalling him demanding that Europe pull their weight in NATO). Man's playing 4D chess.
As conservatives cheer. Conservatives did this. Your conservative neighbors, co-workers, family members and acquaintances... They all did this.
That pov only has value inside of america. This is a two sided sword, conservatives acted against it, democrats didnt do enough, and from outside, america choosed to let ukraine rot.
Thinking retrospectively, It's a good thing that they stoped their counteroffensive last year and ended up distributing forces in the multiple fronts.
Then these conservatives should be the first to go fight ww3 with Russia.
Their kids will probably be honored to die for their country.
A smart soldier focuses on letting the other side die for theirs.
No they didn't.
Not only did they do this, they continue to do so. Because many Republicans in Congress are funded by dirty Russian money. Traitors all that should be tried for treason. And the ring leader in the clown car is the worst of all.
Fuck Mike Johnson
Mike Johnson is pushing to get Ukraine aid. It’s part of why mtg is trying to get him removed. So while there are other issues with him, this isn’t one of them
I don’t get the impression he is trying very hard
We can use this argument? I don't get the impression Biden is trying very hard on all sorts of things.
For example, Biden went around congress to get weapons to Israel. So why isn't he doing that for Ukraine?
Alternatively, Mike Johnson could simply call a vote. Congress is useless
So we've established neither Mike Johnson nor Joe Biden are trying very hard to help Ukraine.
It’s not easy for the executive to fund things without congress. The March aid was from DoD cost savings. The Israel weapons were added to a pre-approved weapons sale. They have to find creative loopholes every time where the actual solution is for congress to do their jobs
Trying to get it pushed when your party says they’ll remove you is more than the bare minimum.
Would you prefer he did nothing and Ukraine doesn’t get aid at all?
I'd prefer if he'd allow the Senate-passed bill, in front of him for months now, to come to a simple up-or-down vote by the people's Representatives instead of obstructing it with his Speaker powers.
But it seems he'd rather waste more time trying to write a different one, than allow any voting on the existing one.
He's not trying very hard. That's the point. If he were trying hard he would be going on a punditry tour saying that Republicans are not playing ball on Ukraine and they had better start and why and that he is staking his position on it. That would be trying hard.
And no, I am glad he is doing the bare minimum. I just wish he would do more than the bare minimum.
I think he’s trying very hard. He has taken a position on it and spoke out against other republicans. Weird he’s done what you want him to do and you are still upset.
It’s part of why mtg is trying to remove him.
With your attitude, he should fall back to party lines and block the funding. If he can’t get support from the democrats then he needs to fall back in line.
He hasn't done what I want him to do. He's made some milquetoast attempts.
Look, Mike Johnson is an innocent hard working man who saw a large group of morally corrupt assholes who won't do anything unless it makes the life of a woman, child or minority worse in some way and said "Hey, I'd like to be the head asshole of this group." I think he deserves some respect.
/s
And it's not like he always could just lie about things, or want even more once he got them...
He's playing both sides. He will never do anything that will result in Ukraine getting aid. He works for the Putin party.
He’s playing both sides.
So is Biden. So is every pro-corporate trash politician in this country.
Agreed. Neoliberals are conservatives.
It comes after Johnson has delayed for months on advancing aid that would provide desperately needed ammunition and weaponry for Kyiv, trying to find the right time to advance a package that will be a painful political lift.
Yes he has to protect his job as well. It’s why we call it politics. Had he just pushed it forward, it would have failed.
I’m not so sure some of the more centrist republicans wouldn’t have voted for the aid in the same way they did on the stopgap funding bill that got McCarthy booted. Its not my job to worry about Johnson remaining speaker and I won’t give him credit for accepting house rules that leave him hamstrung by the space laser caucus.
Mtg needs to go. She’s a waste of space in my opinion. I’ll let time decide how I feel towards Johnson but I see him trying to get things done.
All Mike Johnson has to do is schedule an up or down vote on the Ukraine Aid bill that the Senate approved months ago. That's it. He has failed to do even that.
If he does, it’ll be downvoted and fail. That’s what you want?
Given both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Ukraine aid bill in the Senate, it will sail past an easy majority vote in the House. All Mike Johnson has to do is schedule a vote, a thing he has been stalling for months while Ukrainians die, Russians make advances, and America's allies are forced to confront the reality of an unreliable American partnership.
If he does, it’ll be downvoted and fail. That’s what you want?
I wanted him to do his job and put it up for a vote, where it just passed today with a supermajority in the House. Would have been so much simpler if he would have done this months ago.
I think a lot of people forget how before the war, but after the 2014 annexure, Ukraine begged to be able to buy western weapons, such as the javelin, because one random guy can take out a whole tank (great force multipliers against the russian bear). Great deterrent. But they were not approved because they fought giving arms for Ukraine would provoke and not deter, and that dialog and greater economic integration with Russia would be the solution.
So the west miscalculated, luckily Russia as well and Kiev did not fall, but now Ukraine is in a war, and unlike previously where they could have put resources into acquiring western weapons, they now have to input their resources into fighting and defending their country.
The EU and America have stepped up initially, like 90% of the pledges went straight back into the American economy, since the give Ukraine their old stock and manufacture replacement stock for themselves. EU is close to matching USAs total contributions and if you look at France and their economy's size they are percentage wise out spending the US in contributions.
The nice thing here is most support money gets spend in their own country, stimulating their economy, Ukraine is putting their own citizens and soldiers life on the line and it will weaken a common Nato foe. But not supporting Ukraine will emboldened Russia and now that most of their military ineptitude and corruption has been exposed and is being improved, Russia might calculate further expansion, since that is their modus operandi.
giving arms for Ukraine would provoke and not deter
This rationale is given time and time again for why we shouldn't have supported Ukraine and every time it's completely false.
Hopefully people can learn from this history and not make the same mistakes in the past.
Ukraine should've mined the shit out of their border with Russia.
Exactly, but hindsight is 20/20. What I wanted to show was that a lack of support for Ukraine was then a win for Russia. But even more so now, that a lack of full continuous support for Ukraine today is just another win for Russia.
You're advocating for minefields. Sick fuck
Guess what, they have mine fields now. Probably much more than a strategic strip at the border.
Well at least the US was able to aid the genocide in Gaza. I’m sure none of this will backfire.
Maybe the real genocide was the friends we made along the way.
Yep. Strange how Biden was able to figure out how to get weapons to Israel without congressional approval and against the wishes of people he's depending on to get re-elected but can't use that same brain power of his to help Ukraine.
I don’t understand why Israel needs so much money. They’re not a poor country.
This is actually a fair question. To answer it fairly, wars are extraordinarily expensive.
Remember in the first Captain America movie, how Cap starts off as a showman, trying to sell war bonds to the American public? This bit of the movie is rooted in real history, the government actually did that, just to raise money to help pay for WW2. War bonds are basically just savings bonds, where the govt goes to its citizens and says "give me $100 now to help pay for the war, and we'll pay you back with interest in a few years".
Israel has fewer borrowing opportunities than the massive US did, though, so it's a little harder.
Even Russia's war, relying on huge backstocks of Soviet equipment, is very expensive, and they saved up a huge amount of money over many years to be able to do what they are doing right now.
They don’t need to save up, they get billions from Europe for oil
Regardless of level of need, they did. They began the war with a gigantic war chest saved up. Hard to say what its at now, just about no level of income can pay for the level of expenditure a large, full-scale modern war requires.
They see they can get it, so they do.
Haha but why we send it?
Evangelicals think they need to trigger the apocalypse manually, part of it would involve all Jews returning to Israel.
Interesting. But where is “Israel”? It’s all made up. The Kingdom of Judah?
Thing is, even with the massive influx of weapons, Ukraine is going to face a severe risk of mutiny and exhaustion because they just don't have enough people to rotate through the front lines.
Even with the recent news of the expanded draft, the AFU just recently ended the service limit for conscripts and is still outnumbered by Russian troops on the front line.
Either Ukraine will have to extend the draft further, seriously hindering their economy, or another country will have to get involved directly. France was supposedly considering deploying troops to the Ukrainian-Belorussian border to free up troops to fight in the East, but that clearly isn't coming to fruition (yet?).
The opportunity for Ukraine to get any kind of decisive victory and a decent peace deal was within the first year of the war. Russia was always going to have time on their side.
Definitely a good idea to secure Ukraine's other borders so that they can focus on their defense.
I bet as people die, the amount of weapons needed to fight Russia increases. There will be a point of no return.
Nearly every country dragged its heels.
Biden should go around congress to ship them weapons.
Can't buy weapons without money.
The US and our allies cannot produce weapons at a rate faster than Russia does with 10% of the budget. Increasing our military budget further is going to make our national security situation worse
RepubliQans! MFrs
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The shortages forced Kyiv’s military to withdraw from a key eastern city in February, and with no progress in Washington, Ukrainian soldiers are now desperately trying to hold on to their positions along some 600 miles of the front line.
Ukrainian leaders, backed up by Western officials, are pushing Republicans to break the logjam before it is too late, fearing the Kremlin could seek to take advantage by launching a new offensive over the summer or sooner.
He told Congress that Ukraine will run out of artillery shells and air defense interceptors “in fairly short order” without new U.S. support, leaving it vulnerable to a partial or total defeat.
Russia has turned its attention back to Ukraine’s energy grid, striking key facilities in missile and drone attacks that have exploited a shortage of air defense systems across the country.
Zelenskyy said last week he was still hopeful for a “positive vote” in Congress, and even suggested that Kyiv would be willing to get the aid in the form of a loan rather than a handout, an idea floated by House Republicans that seemingly originated with Trump.
Just six months out from the U.S. election, the possibility that Trump could cut off Ukraine completely or try to force it to cede territory as part of a truce deal with Russia may be focusing minds in Kyiv.
The original article contains 1,504 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
why does America have to do everything? the EU will be far more negatively impacted if Russia wins (energy, food, trade in general) - why arent the EU member states doing more?
Read some history and find out why the US is called the arsenal of Democracy.
EU should be heavily investing in this war... unless they already decided the fate of ukraine and are letting the efforts against Russia to stall. Each country is different anyway, some have to balance arm exports with the reaction of the people political support, others may be fearing a future escalation of the war if Ukraine ends collapsing and prefer to arm themselves.
Just as the efforts to achieve net zero emissions: its all just acting, nobody will move a finger when the moment of action comes.
Issue is, the Hungarian far-right wants its ancient lands back, some of it is Transcarpatia. Beyond that, once Russia destroys Ukraine with its culture, they'll have some basis on doing the same with Slovakia.
Because America spent a lot of time trading security for political points. Nobody is interested in having given the points and now also have to do the security.
In recent years EU countries have been growing their armies and relying less on America, but nobody is ready to fight Russia. If America actually started withdrawing its promises and overseas assets, europe would wake up; but america doesn't want that.
What are political points?
It's political influence and favors. "Let us use your roads and airspace to go wage war in this country, we'll give you a good deal on your exports". "Let us keep a base here and help us maintain it, we'll be a military presence for you". "Please stop buying gas from this psychopath and we will help you economically in Ukraine".
A lot of these deals are based on trust between leaders.
Its Biden's job to move the country in terms of rhetoric. You move the country and the elected representatives will follow. They want to stay elected. He's failed utterly, in this regard.
The country didn't put Republicans in charge of the House. Gerrymandering did.
You take the big seat and you have to play cards with the hand you are dealt. The buck stops there.
Biden is the president. Not the House, not the Senate, not Trump. What you are saying when you make your point is that the Republicans are actually in control of the presidency and that Biden doesn't bear responsibility for the outcomes of his leadership (or lack there of).
Either the buck stops with the President or it doesn't. Excusing Biden's inability to lead isn't an acceptable answer. That's the job of leadership. To change minds, especially those who don't agree with them. Blaming Republicans gives Biden cover for his lack of leadership, and the material fact that he isn't able to drive a narrative, or to whip congress or the American people or international leadership towards an end. That's the job of the president, and the buck stops with them. It doesn't pass to any one else. The buck stops at the desk in the oval office.
So the question I would put back to you, is does the buck stop with the President or not?
Yes, I know what the phrase means and the history of it.
That doesn't mean that Biden is a dictator. He can't just say, "fuck you, congress. We're sending aid to Ukraine."
That's simply not how things work in the U.S. government.
Just because a racist, genocidal shitbag like Harry S. Truman said a phrase doesn't make it true.
You know what buck didn't stop with Truman? Acknowledging the lack of civil rights of millions of American citizens and acknowledging his culpability in the nuclear annihilation of two Japanese cities, beginning a nuclear arms race that has put humanity at the risk of destruction multiple times since.
So maybe he was a hypocritical asshole and you shouldn't look to him for things presidents should be able to do.
I don't think you actually understand the phrase or appreciate its significance in terms of what it means for leadership. Why don't you actually address the primacy of the point that I made?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn't leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that's not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat. Whether you are passing the buck in terms of the outcomes of this four years from Biden to congress, or Biden to the Supreme Court, or Biden to the American people, or Biden to Russia, that's just not how the world works. A Republican congress wont be voted out of office because they stymied Biden's efforts: they'll be rewarded for it. Its Biden's job to break through these kinds of issues; that's the role of a President.
Making excuses for Biden, repeatedly, incessantly, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately this election coming up is a referendum on his time in leadership and what he has to show for it. Biden understand what the phrase means when he said "The Buck stops with me on Afghanistan", maybe you should take the time to develop that understanding as well.
If the buck stops with Biden on Afghanistan (his words, not ours), does it not also stop with him on Ukraine?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
When congress and the judiciary is working against them? Not.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn’t leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that’s not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat.
So the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution is not a thing and Biden has the unilateral power to do whatever he likes. Gotcha.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
Do me a favor and google "Anita Hill". Then google what the chair of the senate judiciary does
So Biden confirmed Clarence Thomas because he knew that decades later, he would be president and the president before him would confirm three ultra-conservative justices so that he could avoid culpability when they overthrew Roe v. Wade? Is that what you're claiming?
Im claiming that Biden spent decades in the senate enabling the radical right's rise to power. Some of that was from incompetence, some was from anti-Black and anti-arab racism. Some of it was because the neoliberal policies he supports aren't that different from what 'fiscal conservatives' want.
Biden has had a hand in most of the disastrous policies of the last 30 years - from putting sexist pieces of shit in SCOTUS and drastically expanding the prison population, to invading Iraq and drastically expanding the surveillance state.
Weird that you're blaming Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and not the presidents who appointed the justices who overturned it...
Of course Reagan and the Bushes deserve a lot the blame. But none of them are currently president, and Biden built his career on bipartisanship - even more than his democratic peers. He was there at every step that set the stage for Trump's appointments that were the final nails in the coffin
I've never been supportive of, you know, "it's my body, I can do what I want with it.
Biden in the year 2024
And now I know you're dishonest by taking that quote out of context:
I asked Biden what he would do in a second term to protect abortion access at the federal level. “Pass Roe v. Wade as the law of the land,” he said. Democrats would need to win control of the House of Representatives and gain seats in the Senate, but Biden expressed confidence. “A few more elections like we’ve seen taking place in the states” would suffice, he said. “You’re seeing the country changing.” Then, reiterating his position on Roe, he said, “I’ve never been supportive of, you know, ‘It’s my body, I can do what I want with it.’ But I have been supportive of the notion that this is probably the most rational allocation of responsibility that all the major religions have signed on and debated over the last thousand years.”
All that's clear from your response is that you don't appreciate the role of leadership and how it works.
Leadership doesn't get to pass on responsibility. It doesn't matter if its a conservative SC or you don't have congress in your favor. The deck being stacked against you doesn't mean you get a pass. What it means is you have to come up with a different way of getting the job done. You have to be clever and strategic and get around obstacles. Every leader has to deal with these things, the job of leadership is to figure out ways to overcome these things. A leader who passes the buck on the responsibility for the outcomes of their tenure is no leader at all. By deferring responsibility, you are making the point that Biden is a weak leader incapable of overcoming adversity. If that's the case, why should any one vote for them?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context. Your desire that Biden not be considered responsible for his tenure is just.. its not how the world works. Defending Biden's weakness isn't having the effect you think it should, rather, it highlights how ineffectual he's been as President and that he may not really be qualified for the role.
An edit because I did want to respond to this:
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
Yes absolutely. We should blame Biden, and the Democrats writ large for both the conservative Supreme court and the fact that Dobbs v. Jackson was even allowed to be on the table. I don't know if you remember, but Biden was vice president in recent history. That's an incredibly powerful position. He was also a Senator, and the Democrats held a majority in congress for enough time to get a national right to an abortion into congress, but they decided it wasn't a priority. Democrats are as to blame for the erosion of abortion rights in this country as the conservatives advocating for a christian theocracy. These guys aren't marvel heroes or sports stars. You don't need to cheer them on, you need to hold them responsible. They're employees who've failed to take their jobs seriously and get the priorities of their voters into law. If anything, Democrats are more responsible for the current state of abortion rights in this country because they chose to not make them a priority.
and the Democrats held a majority in congress for enough time to get a national right to an abortion into congress,
At what point did pro-choice Democrats hold that majority?
At what point could any of the previous Democratic presidents in the last 30 years have gotten a Supreme Court majority?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context.
I gave you the context. The context was that it was said by a president who committed genocide and sat on his ass when it came to most civil rights issues.
Weird that I brought those two things up and you don't seem to believe the buck stopped with him on them.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Like it or not, Biden is going to be held accountable for the outcomes of his time in office. You don't seem to think they should be held accountable to that standard, but your opinion on this is basically irrelevant, because they will be. Its why they are losing this election and defending them in the way that you are is setting them up for failure. You seem to view the Democrats as victims of circumstance, but that if that's the case, then why should any one vote for them?
When you are a leader the buck stops with you. The phrase is over 200 years old and has been used in many contexts to describe the finality of responsibility, and how it inevitably lands on the shoulders of a figurehead like a President. You obviously have no appreciation for its significance or how leadership is ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Your defense of the indefensible highlights how weak Joe Biden has been as a leader and ultimately weakens any argument for why he should be President again. Blaming Republicans or the SC or anything but Joe Biden for the outcomes of Joe Biden's presidency is passing the on responsibility of leadership, and in spite of your desire that it be some other way, it just isn't so.
What he will be held accountable for and what he is able to achieve are two different things.
And I notice you didn't answer my question of when the Democrats had a pro-choice majority.
What he will be held accountable for and what he is able to achieve are two different things.
Hes not going to be President is whats going to happen.
Okay, that still doesn't change the fact that he can't achieve what he can't achieve. He isn't a dictator and he doesn't have magic powers. If that will cost him the election, that really can't be helped. You might as well blame his inability to time travel.
We will receive the Ukrainian ladies with open arms into our countries. Once they decide to migrate, of course 🧐🧐🧐🐈
What the fuck if wrong with you?
Thst guy ain't right
Issue is, they'll be taken as war trophies by the Russians.
You're disgusting. Instead of worrying about the plight of millions you and your buddy here decide to objectify women who have lost their fathers, brothers, husbands and friends to a horrific war.
You disgust me.
That wasn't my intention, however the realities of this war point in that direction.
This is sending a giant red flag to America's allies: we will not support you in times of war, do not rely on us since we will drop you whenever it is politically convenient to do so.
Sadly, this shouldn't be the case and it's indicating an abdication of responsibility in being the Arsenal of Democracy for the free world.
Except if our religious conservatives vouch for you. Then you get the platinum package and a blind eye.
Europe better start their own version of NATO.
They kinda do, EU has a mutual defence policy as well
The primary difference is defense industrial policy and production capacity.
That is nothing new, look at Afghanistan.
I feel Turkey going with the Chinese moonbase instead of the US “moonbase” will come up as a turning point in future history books. Trump hollowed out a great deal of the remaining good will to the US. Biden can’t turn the corner with the potential of trump returning. The US should get ready to be a regional power in 50 years, after people in europe and asia get tired of hosting their bases for no protection.
Not really.
Look at Israel.
America is Israel's bitch, different situation.
I really hope Europe can step up to fill America's gap, because it's clear that America will not get its shit together in time to help at this point, if it ever will again.
This has been so frustrating to watch. We have half of our country bootlicking the Russian leader that their cult leader is strangely endeared towards. This was our opportunity to really do the right thing and support a people defending themselves and their democracy. Something we as Americans could have been proud of for generations. But no. Republicans couldn’t have us do the right thing. Not even once.
Don't say half the country - most of the country doesn't vote. Trump got 74m votes and the US has a population of 330m.
You're right. Not voting is a vote for Trump, so much more than half.
Snooze
Not voting doesn't mean you're a Putin bootlicker. Way to move the goalpost
I guess everyone with a marijuana conviction loves Putin, huh?
Fair point. Choosing not to vote then.
But you're still kinda right. Not voting is a vote for trump, and conservatives know this. Disenfranchisement via drug convictions is a key weapon in their arsenal.
He's not right to say that half the country voted for Trump. I am tired of the narrative that half the country is magats
Sounds like a good portion of the country is not represented and we need to do away with first past the post voting.
More people voting means more democratic votes, so what's the holdup blue states?
What if Republicans want to not vote for Trump, but are tied to him because if they don't vote for him the democrats win?
Not just FPTP voting...the electoral college has to go, tok. Many people think "my vote doesn't matter, my state is voting X anyway" and, in a way, they're right. The electoral college makes our votes matter less.
There's also too many people who are barred from voting. For example, one of the most politically-active people I know can't vote because he got a felony for possessing a half ounce of weed 15 years ago in college.
So what, you assume that everyone not literally voting for Trump doesn't support him? That's ridiculous. The real number surely is closer to half than it is to the quarter that the votes add up to.
Not all all considering
Young people generally lean left. Especially now with their access to information
People with non-violent convictions like marijuana felonies also generally lean left. Disenfranchisement is a tool used mostly by one side of the aisle
Yes, 330 million souls. But how many are voters? Or in US children vote in kindergarten 😉
America is occupied with sending aid to Israel. There's only so much money Biden can draw down for foreign military aid with Congress being in the state its in and the budget being in the state its in. It's been the Biden administration's policy that Israel's military needs are important as well and many bills have tied aid for Ukraine to aid for Israel.
This isn't about the amount of money available, it's the GOP intentionally doing what Putin wants.
Only France is willing to fight. The rest of Europe are terrified of Putin. They will give Putin whatever he wants.
Why would France want to fight? They’re the biggest customer.
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-talk-tough-ukraine-while-gobble-up-more-russia-gas/
JFC. Well. I guess Putin can have Europe if he wants it then. The U.S. is being held down by conservatives, so we all get to watch Putin murder our allies.
There is no such thing as a "good conservative" alive today. Conservatism is a cancer. It is killing us all.
Which was Trump's plan all along (recalling him demanding that Europe pull their weight in NATO). Man's playing 4D chess.
(This was meant to be a Poe).
Poe's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
It's pretty much impossible to tell at this point. There is nothing too insane you can claim about Trump that someone hasn't actually claimed.
We went over that cliff a long time ago.
Best not to try.
There’s nothing 4d chess about having supporters push your agenda too. Especially his supporters in congress.
Because you missed it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
As conservatives cheer. Conservatives did this. Your conservative neighbors, co-workers, family members and acquaintances... They all did this.
That pov only has value inside of america. This is a two sided sword, conservatives acted against it, democrats didnt do enough, and from outside, america choosed to let ukraine rot.
Thinking retrospectively, It's a good thing that they stoped their counteroffensive last year and ended up distributing forces in the multiple fronts.
Then these conservatives should be the first to go fight ww3 with Russia.
Their kids will probably be honored to die for their country.
A smart soldier focuses on letting the other side die for theirs.
No they didn't.
Not only did they do this, they continue to do so. Because many Republicans in Congress are funded by dirty Russian money. Traitors all that should be tried for treason. And the ring leader in the clown car is the worst of all.
Fuck Mike Johnson
Mike Johnson is pushing to get Ukraine aid. It’s part of why mtg is trying to get him removed. So while there are other issues with him, this isn’t one of them
I don’t get the impression he is trying very hard
We can use this argument? I don't get the impression Biden is trying very hard on all sorts of things.
For example, Biden went around congress to get weapons to Israel. So why isn't he doing that for Ukraine?
The administration has gone around congress
Ok. Keep doing it.
Alternatively, Mike Johnson could simply call a vote. Congress is useless
So we've established neither Mike Johnson nor Joe Biden are trying very hard to help Ukraine.
It’s not easy for the executive to fund things without congress. The March aid was from DoD cost savings. The Israel weapons were added to a pre-approved weapons sale. They have to find creative loopholes every time where the actual solution is for congress to do their jobs
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/wireStory/house-speaker-mike-johnson-negotiating-white-house-advance-109152573
He’s trying hard enough democrats said they’d support him to stay speaker if he gets it passed.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4585578-aguilar-johnson-speaker-ukraine/amp/
So he's doing the bare minimum?
Trying to get it pushed when your party says they’ll remove you is more than the bare minimum.
Would you prefer he did nothing and Ukraine doesn’t get aid at all?
I'd prefer if he'd allow the Senate-passed bill, in front of him for months now, to come to a simple up-or-down vote by the people's Representatives instead of obstructing it with his Speaker powers.
But it seems he'd rather waste more time trying to write a different one, than allow any voting on the existing one.
He's not trying very hard. That's the point. If he were trying hard he would be going on a punditry tour saying that Republicans are not playing ball on Ukraine and they had better start and why and that he is staking his position on it. That would be trying hard.
And no, I am glad he is doing the bare minimum. I just wish he would do more than the bare minimum.
I think he’s trying very hard. He has taken a position on it and spoke out against other republicans. Weird he’s done what you want him to do and you are still upset.
It’s part of why mtg is trying to remove him.
With your attitude, he should fall back to party lines and block the funding. If he can’t get support from the democrats then he needs to fall back in line.
He hasn't done what I want him to do. He's made some milquetoast attempts.
Look, Mike Johnson is an innocent hard working man who saw a large group of morally corrupt assholes who won't do anything unless it makes the life of a woman, child or minority worse in some way and said "Hey, I'd like to be the head asshole of this group." I think he deserves some respect.
/s
And it's not like he always could just lie about things, or want even more once he got them...
He's playing both sides. He will never do anything that will result in Ukraine getting aid. He works for the Putin party.
So is Biden. So is every pro-corporate trash politician in this country.
Agreed. Neoliberals are conservatives.
Yes he has to protect his job as well. It’s why we call it politics. Had he just pushed it forward, it would have failed.
I’m not so sure some of the more centrist republicans wouldn’t have voted for the aid in the same way they did on the stopgap funding bill that got McCarthy booted. Its not my job to worry about Johnson remaining speaker and I won’t give him credit for accepting house rules that leave him hamstrung by the space laser caucus.
Mtg needs to go. She’s a waste of space in my opinion. I’ll let time decide how I feel towards Johnson but I see him trying to get things done.
Boebert is another I’ll be glad to see leave.
All Mike Johnson has to do is schedule an up or down vote on the Ukraine Aid bill that the Senate approved months ago. That's it. He has failed to do even that.
If he does, it’ll be downvoted and fail. That’s what you want?
Given both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Ukraine aid bill in the Senate, it will sail past an easy majority vote in the House. All Mike Johnson has to do is schedule a vote, a thing he has been stalling for months while Ukrainians die, Russians make advances, and America's allies are forced to confront the reality of an unreliable American partnership.
I wanted him to do his job and put it up for a vote, where it just passed today with a supermajority in the House. Would have been so much simpler if he would have done this months ago.
Different bill months ago.
I think a lot of people forget how before the war, but after the 2014 annexure, Ukraine begged to be able to buy western weapons, such as the javelin, because one random guy can take out a whole tank (great force multipliers against the russian bear). Great deterrent. But they were not approved because they fought giving arms for Ukraine would provoke and not deter, and that dialog and greater economic integration with Russia would be the solution.
So the west miscalculated, luckily Russia as well and Kiev did not fall, but now Ukraine is in a war, and unlike previously where they could have put resources into acquiring western weapons, they now have to input their resources into fighting and defending their country.
The EU and America have stepped up initially, like 90% of the pledges went straight back into the American economy, since the give Ukraine their old stock and manufacture replacement stock for themselves. EU is close to matching USAs total contributions and if you look at France and their economy's size they are percentage wise out spending the US in contributions.
The nice thing here is most support money gets spend in their own country, stimulating their economy, Ukraine is putting their own citizens and soldiers life on the line and it will weaken a common Nato foe. But not supporting Ukraine will emboldened Russia and now that most of their military ineptitude and corruption has been exposed and is being improved, Russia might calculate further expansion, since that is their modus operandi.
This rationale is given time and time again for why we shouldn't have supported Ukraine and every time it's completely false.
Hopefully people can learn from this history and not make the same mistakes in the past.
Ukraine should've mined the shit out of their border with Russia.
Exactly, but hindsight is 20/20. What I wanted to show was that a lack of support for Ukraine was then a win for Russia. But even more so now, that a lack of full continuous support for Ukraine today is just another win for Russia.
You're advocating for minefields. Sick fuck
Guess what, they have mine fields now. Probably much more than a strategic strip at the border.
Well at least the US was able to aid the genocide in Gaza. I’m sure none of this will backfire.
Maybe the real genocide was the friends we made along the way.
Yep. Strange how Biden was able to figure out how to get weapons to Israel without congressional approval and against the wishes of people he's depending on to get re-elected but can't use that same brain power of his to help Ukraine.
I don’t understand why Israel needs so much money. They’re not a poor country.
This is actually a fair question. To answer it fairly, wars are extraordinarily expensive.
Remember in the first Captain America movie, how Cap starts off as a showman, trying to sell war bonds to the American public? This bit of the movie is rooted in real history, the government actually did that, just to raise money to help pay for WW2. War bonds are basically just savings bonds, where the govt goes to its citizens and says "give me $100 now to help pay for the war, and we'll pay you back with interest in a few years".
Israel has fewer borrowing opportunities than the massive US did, though, so it's a little harder.
Even Russia's war, relying on huge backstocks of Soviet equipment, is very expensive, and they saved up a huge amount of money over many years to be able to do what they are doing right now.
They don’t need to save up, they get billions from Europe for oil
Regardless of level of need, they did. They began the war with a gigantic war chest saved up. Hard to say what its at now, just about no level of income can pay for the level of expenditure a large, full-scale modern war requires.
They see they can get it, so they do.
Haha but why we send it?
Evangelicals think they need to trigger the apocalypse manually, part of it would involve all Jews returning to Israel.
Interesting. But where is “Israel”? It’s all made up. The Kingdom of Judah?
Thing is, even with the massive influx of weapons, Ukraine is going to face a severe risk of mutiny and exhaustion because they just don't have enough people to rotate through the front lines.
Even with the recent news of the expanded draft, the AFU just recently ended the service limit for conscripts and is still outnumbered by Russian troops on the front line.
Either Ukraine will have to extend the draft further, seriously hindering their economy, or another country will have to get involved directly. France was supposedly considering deploying troops to the Ukrainian-Belorussian border to free up troops to fight in the East, but that clearly isn't coming to fruition (yet?).
The opportunity for Ukraine to get any kind of decisive victory and a decent peace deal was within the first year of the war. Russia was always going to have time on their side.
Definitely a good idea to secure Ukraine's other borders so that they can focus on their defense.
I bet as people die, the amount of weapons needed to fight Russia increases. There will be a point of no return.
Nearly every country dragged its heels.
Biden should go around congress to ship them weapons.
Can't buy weapons without money.
The US and our allies cannot produce weapons at a rate faster than Russia does with 10% of the budget. Increasing our military budget further is going to make our national security situation worse
RepubliQans! MFrs
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The shortages forced Kyiv’s military to withdraw from a key eastern city in February, and with no progress in Washington, Ukrainian soldiers are now desperately trying to hold on to their positions along some 600 miles of the front line.
Ukrainian leaders, backed up by Western officials, are pushing Republicans to break the logjam before it is too late, fearing the Kremlin could seek to take advantage by launching a new offensive over the summer or sooner.
He told Congress that Ukraine will run out of artillery shells and air defense interceptors “in fairly short order” without new U.S. support, leaving it vulnerable to a partial or total defeat.
Russia has turned its attention back to Ukraine’s energy grid, striking key facilities in missile and drone attacks that have exploited a shortage of air defense systems across the country.
Zelenskyy said last week he was still hopeful for a “positive vote” in Congress, and even suggested that Kyiv would be willing to get the aid in the form of a loan rather than a handout, an idea floated by House Republicans that seemingly originated with Trump.
Just six months out from the U.S. election, the possibility that Trump could cut off Ukraine completely or try to force it to cede territory as part of a truce deal with Russia may be focusing minds in Kyiv.
The original article contains 1,504 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
why does America have to do everything? the EU will be far more negatively impacted if Russia wins (energy, food, trade in general) - why arent the EU member states doing more?
Read some history and find out why the US is called the arsenal of Democracy.
EU should be heavily investing in this war... unless they already decided the fate of ukraine and are letting the efforts against Russia to stall. Each country is different anyway, some have to balance arm exports with the reaction of the people political support, others may be fearing a future escalation of the war if Ukraine ends collapsing and prefer to arm themselves.
Just as the efforts to achieve net zero emissions: its all just acting, nobody will move a finger when the moment of action comes.
Issue is, the Hungarian far-right wants its ancient lands back, some of it is Transcarpatia. Beyond that, once Russia destroys Ukraine with its culture, they'll have some basis on doing the same with Slovakia.
Because America spent a lot of time trading security for political points. Nobody is interested in having given the points and now also have to do the security.
In recent years EU countries have been growing their armies and relying less on America, but nobody is ready to fight Russia. If America actually started withdrawing its promises and overseas assets, europe would wake up; but america doesn't want that.
What are political points?
It's political influence and favors. "Let us use your roads and airspace to go wage war in this country, we'll give you a good deal on your exports". "Let us keep a base here and help us maintain it, we'll be a military presence for you". "Please stop buying gas from this psychopath and we will help you economically in Ukraine".
A lot of these deals are based on trust between leaders.
Its Biden's job to move the country in terms of rhetoric. You move the country and the elected representatives will follow. They want to stay elected. He's failed utterly, in this regard.
The country agrees with Biden.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx
The country didn't put Republicans in charge of the House. Gerrymandering did.
You take the big seat and you have to play cards with the hand you are dealt. The buck stops there.
Biden is the president. Not the House, not the Senate, not Trump. What you are saying when you make your point is that the Republicans are actually in control of the presidency and that Biden doesn't bear responsibility for the outcomes of his leadership (or lack there of).
Either the buck stops with the President or it doesn't. Excusing Biden's inability to lead isn't an acceptable answer. That's the job of leadership. To change minds, especially those who don't agree with them. Blaming Republicans gives Biden cover for his lack of leadership, and the material fact that he isn't able to drive a narrative, or to whip congress or the American people or international leadership towards an end. That's the job of the president, and the buck stops with them. It doesn't pass to any one else. The buck stops at the desk in the oval office.
So the question I would put back to you, is does the buck stop with the President or not?
For reference, here is the wiki on the phrase. You might read it for some consideration and context.
Yes, I know what the phrase means and the history of it.
That doesn't mean that Biden is a dictator. He can't just say, "fuck you, congress. We're sending aid to Ukraine."
That's simply not how things work in the U.S. government.
Just because a racist, genocidal shitbag like Harry S. Truman said a phrase doesn't make it true.
You know what buck didn't stop with Truman? Acknowledging the lack of civil rights of millions of American citizens and acknowledging his culpability in the nuclear annihilation of two Japanese cities, beginning a nuclear arms race that has put humanity at the risk of destruction multiple times since.
So maybe he was a hypocritical asshole and you shouldn't look to him for things presidents should be able to do.
I don't think you actually understand the phrase or appreciate its significance in terms of what it means for leadership. Why don't you actually address the primacy of the point that I made?
Do you consider the President responsible for the outcomes of their tenure or not?
You seem insistent in an interpretation that doesn't leave Biden culpable for the outcomes of his time as President. But that's not how leadership works. The buck stops with you when you are in the big seat. Whether you are passing the buck in terms of the outcomes of this four years from Biden to congress, or Biden to the Supreme Court, or Biden to the American people, or Biden to Russia, that's just not how the world works. A Republican congress wont be voted out of office because they stymied Biden's efforts: they'll be rewarded for it. Its Biden's job to break through these kinds of issues; that's the role of a President.
Making excuses for Biden, repeatedly, incessantly, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately this election coming up is a referendum on his time in leadership and what he has to show for it. Biden understand what the phrase means when he said "The Buck stops with me on Afghanistan", maybe you should take the time to develop that understanding as well.
If the buck stops with Biden on Afghanistan (his words, not ours), does it not also stop with him on Ukraine?
When congress and the judiciary is working against them? Not.
Are you going to blame Biden for the conservative majority on the Supreme court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson as well?
So the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution is not a thing and Biden has the unilateral power to do whatever he likes. Gotcha.
Do me a favor and google "Anita Hill". Then google what the chair of the senate judiciary does
So Biden confirmed Clarence Thomas because he knew that decades later, he would be president and the president before him would confirm three ultra-conservative justices so that he could avoid culpability when they overthrew Roe v. Wade? Is that what you're claiming?
Im claiming that Biden spent decades in the senate enabling the radical right's rise to power. Some of that was from incompetence, some was from anti-Black and anti-arab racism. Some of it was because the neoliberal policies he supports aren't that different from what 'fiscal conservatives' want.
Biden has had a hand in most of the disastrous policies of the last 30 years - from putting sexist pieces of shit in SCOTUS and drastically expanding the prison population, to invading Iraq and drastically expanding the surveillance state.
Weird that you're blaming Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade and not the presidents who appointed the justices who overturned it...
Of course Reagan and the Bushes deserve a lot the blame. But none of them are currently president, and Biden built his career on bipartisanship - even more than his democratic peers. He was there at every step that set the stage for Trump's appointments that were the final nails in the coffin
And now I know you're dishonest by taking that quote out of context:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/11/joe-biden-profile
A simple Google search showed me the context. If you're going to be dishonest, do it better.
All that's clear from your response is that you don't appreciate the role of leadership and how it works.
Leadership doesn't get to pass on responsibility. It doesn't matter if its a conservative SC or you don't have congress in your favor. The deck being stacked against you doesn't mean you get a pass. What it means is you have to come up with a different way of getting the job done. You have to be clever and strategic and get around obstacles. Every leader has to deal with these things, the job of leadership is to figure out ways to overcome these things. A leader who passes the buck on the responsibility for the outcomes of their tenure is no leader at all. By deferring responsibility, you are making the point that Biden is a weak leader incapable of overcoming adversity. If that's the case, why should any one vote for them?
You should meditate on that phrase and look at it in historical context. Your desire that Biden not be considered responsible for his tenure is just.. its not how the world works. Defending Biden's weakness isn't having the effect you think it should, rather, it highlights how ineffectual he's been as President and that he may not really be qualified for the role.
An edit because I did want to respond to this:
Yes absolutely. We should blame Biden, and the Democrats writ large for both the conservative Supreme court and the fact that Dobbs v. Jackson was even allowed to be on the table. I don't know if you remember, but Biden was vice president in recent history. That's an incredibly powerful position. He was also a Senator, and the Democrats held a majority in congress for enough time to get a national right to an abortion into congress, but they decided it wasn't a priority. Democrats are as to blame for the erosion of abortion rights in this country as the conservatives advocating for a christian theocracy. These guys aren't marvel heroes or sports stars. You don't need to cheer them on, you need to hold them responsible. They're employees who've failed to take their jobs seriously and get the priorities of their voters into law. If anything, Democrats are more responsible for the current state of abortion rights in this country because they chose to not make them a priority.
At what point did pro-choice Democrats hold that majority?
At what point could any of the previous Democratic presidents in the last 30 years have gotten a Supreme Court majority?
I gave you the context. The context was that it was said by a president who committed genocide and sat on his ass when it came to most civil rights issues.
Weird that I brought those two things up and you don't seem to believe the buck stopped with him on them.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Like it or not, Biden is going to be held accountable for the outcomes of his time in office. You don't seem to think they should be held accountable to that standard, but your opinion on this is basically irrelevant, because they will be. Its why they are losing this election and defending them in the way that you are is setting them up for failure. You seem to view the Democrats as victims of circumstance, but that if that's the case, then why should any one vote for them?
When you are a leader the buck stops with you. The phrase is over 200 years old and has been used in many contexts to describe the finality of responsibility, and how it inevitably lands on the shoulders of a figurehead like a President. You obviously have no appreciation for its significance or how leadership is ultimately responsible for the outcomes of their tenure. Your defense of the indefensible highlights how weak Joe Biden has been as a leader and ultimately weakens any argument for why he should be President again. Blaming Republicans or the SC or anything but Joe Biden for the outcomes of Joe Biden's presidency is passing the on responsibility of leadership, and in spite of your desire that it be some other way, it just isn't so.
What he will be held accountable for and what he is able to achieve are two different things.
And I notice you didn't answer my question of when the Democrats had a pro-choice majority.
Hes not going to be President is whats going to happen.
Okay, that still doesn't change the fact that he can't achieve what he can't achieve. He isn't a dictator and he doesn't have magic powers. If that will cost him the election, that really can't be helped. You might as well blame his inability to time travel.
Why are you evading my question?
People want the government to operate without opposition. Almost like in a... one-party state?
Like Russia, with its de-facto one-party state.
We will receive the Ukrainian ladies with open arms into our countries. Once they decide to migrate, of course 🧐🧐🧐🐈
What the fuck if wrong with you?
Thst guy ain't right
Issue is, they'll be taken as war trophies by the Russians.
You're disgusting. Instead of worrying about the plight of millions you and your buddy here decide to objectify women who have lost their fathers, brothers, husbands and friends to a horrific war.
You disgust me.
That wasn't my intention, however the realities of this war point in that direction.
Fucking Russians. Ruining everything