Yeah, sure. Because the Republicans would have allowed us to use that money for healthcare. Because you would actually support that money going toward healthcare. No, you’re an unserious person and disingenuous at that.
US money has been used to pay for pensions in Ukraine. Ukrainian businesses are being financed with American dollars. A handbag factory for example.
I'll have to disagree with you here. I read the op more so as this would be a thread about Costa and whether his opinion amounts to anything. He didn't state anything new in his criticisms of both candidates. We have plenty of threads and discussion of the non-novel statements he made, but as usual the thread turned into Trump is a POS and Biden has dementia. How about why is a sports guy's opinion something we should or shouldn't listen to?
I would assume that if you were around back in 1940 and 1941 you would have opposed US aid to the British since it would have been "funding somebody else's war".
This type of rhetoric is as baffling as it is inane. German/Hitler attacks on Britain (and nearly all other allies in Europe) in 1941 were substantively, morally, strategically, financially, etc. different and distinct from Russian attacks on Ukraine in 2020's. That doesn't mean that America should or should not have supported Britain in 1941 because of what may happen in Ukraine in 2020's. Nor does the analysis of whether to support Ukraine in 2020's have anything to do with supporting Britain in 1941. Having differing, or even similar, policies/reactions is not inconsistent nor hypocritical. In short, the decisions surrounding foreign affairs on a case by case basis do not constitute or determine if one is an isolationist, warhawk, racist, greedy, etc. In fact, one might consider it prudent to tailor such decisions to the circumstances at hand and not be tied to dogma.
While the current situation with respect to Ukraine and the situation involving Great Britain in 1940 and 1941 aren't completely analogous there was still a very strong America First movement during that period. I would also add that Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he will not stop with Ukraine and that his longer term goal is to reconstitute the Soviet/Russian Empire. The History of the America First Committee of 1940
You raise good points - Russia's unprovoked aggression, concern that USSR is re-forming, spread of Russian economic control, etc. - that deserve consideration. Admittedly, my first reaction to the Russian invasion was for America to pull out the stops and smack the bully in the nose and support a "friend" in that geopolitical arena. As the conflict continued and I had a chance to speak with people from Ukraine and countries near it, I became more aware of certain aspects that I had not appreciated, namely: the ruling class/leaders of Ukraine were/are as corrupt and chaotic as you can imagine; many, if not most, of the people living in eastern Ukraine identify as Russian or are supportive of Russia; and, Ukraine's bravest and most loyal are being treated like pawns (granted, this is a qualified/biased opinion depending upon who you follow). So, one might say that my position has "evolved." However, at no time did I consider what happened somewhere else at some other point in time. (Of course, having knowledge of Russia, Ukraine, and geopolitical history in that region is critical to assess outcomes and prepare logistics.) Your further jabs at America First and op-eds to the same were unnecessary and misguided as most op-eds tend to be about America First. In simplest terms, America First's priority/consideration about foreign affairs is "what is in the best interests of America?" Sometimes that analysis renders a "join in the fray" position. Sometimes that analysis renders a "stay out of it" position. In other words, it is not isolationist nor anti-diplomacy. If risks to American interests by stepping away from supporting Ukraine do not outweigh the costs/risks/potential escalation of maintaining the status quo, then so be it and let's get out of it (might have been a good decision in VietNam 1965 - see, anyone can play this game). And, clearly, that is not the final analysis - how will this decision or that decision affect interests in China's role in global affairs/economics; how will closer allies (UK, France, Canada, etc.) react/lead/follow; etc. There is no easy, obvious answer - just like everything in life. The question becomes where does one place primacy of interests to form the analysis. Agree or disagree, in whole or part, but there is no reason to besmirch or caricaturize one as a simpleton or immoral because he/she appreciates an America First principle.
This may have some validity if "America First" weren't simply a mask for kowtowing to Russia at the behest of a person who clearly puts his allegiance to Vladimir Putin ahead of his oath to defend the Constitution.
I hate it that there have been so many deaths of Ukrainians at the hand of Killer Joe. I wish politicians would stop selling out our country to the next big fad. Killer Joe killed so many people during Covid, with this war in Ukraine and he stands by cheering as Gazans suffer a ghastly death toll for a population their size. Killer Joe has been selling out this country for a long time, however. It's unfathomable that people would actually think about voting for this killer.
Is that the same Trump who said that Covid would disappear? All of the times President Trump said Covid-19 will disappear Just a reminder and the overwhelming majority of deaths in February 2021 were most likely people who contracted the virus when Trump was in office (prior to January 20, 2021).
