Purposely opaque question about leadership. When you can define leader in every possible context I’ll answer. Do I think we should spend hundreds of millions, billions, trillions around the globe with undefined terms. No. The comment was binary that if we don’t bail them out then Europe will fall prey to Russian expansion and I reject the premise entirely. When I see Europe cutting off all purchases from Russia and talking about possibly using Volkswagen and Range Rover plants to built tanks let me know.
Interesting. If I understand your post, you don't want the US involved at all. Putin thanks you. Member of Congress don't share that view and are willing to share the load, BUT only if a draconian anti- immigration bill is passed. Personally, I find both positions shameful.....and very Trumpian.
Point of the spear against Russian aggression is how Id define leadership. It wasn’t a trick question. America has always been the deterrence for Russian global conquest. Mealy mouthed right wing opportunist make that less effective.
Sadly the Republican Party is willing to throw over 40 million Ukrainians under the bus ostensibly to promote legislation to strengthen security at the Southern border but in reality to boost the presidential campaign of their Orange god. It still amazes how the Republican Party has devolved from the party of Ronald Reagan who embraced America's role as leader of the free world to a political party centered around the worship of a charlatan who has made no secret of his obsequiousness to the leader of Russia who in turn has made no secret of his desire to resurrect the Soviet Union/Russian empire. Trump calls Putin 'genius' and 'savvy' for Ukraine invasion Putin Sees Himself as Part of the History of Russia's Tsars—Including Their Imperialism Putin rues Soviet collapse as the demise of historical Russia
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/us-congress-support-ukraine-war/677256/ https://archive.ph/2AJgk This is so discouraging. Trump isn’t even president and he is screwing things up. We have to ability to fund Ukraine, and at the same time pass historic border legislation, but the Republicans aren’t going to do it because they want to please Trump
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why is it so da*n important for some of you to be the leader of the free world? Why is it so important to put the interest of another country above our own? To put the interest of another people above our own? To spend money that could be spend domestically (infrastructure, economic, social programs that Democrats love so much) instead of in another country where we will never see it again? To continue to make to make the U.S. the chief enemy of an increasing amount of countries? Yes that is five why questions I want answered. Major parts of Europe would still be in rubble post World War II if it wasn't for the U.S. essentially providing the money to rebuild Europe. All of that could've been spent here domestically. Being the leader of the free world makes us the enemy of many countries and makes us more susceptible to terrorist attacks like 9/11. How many times do you hear of terrorist attacks in countries like Australia or New Zealand? You know why, because even though they have largely the same standard of living as the U.S., they don't worry about being this hypothetical "leader of the free world". I'm so tired of us having to be "leader of the free world". Forget that, let someone else taken the mantle and all its responsibility for awhile. I guarantee you they'll tire of it very quickly.
No one else will say it but I'll say it. Let Russia take Ukraine. No loss for us. Maybe Ukraine shoudn't have ever been separate from Russia or Belarus to begin with. Ukraine isn't a NATO ally and isn't important. Maybe do it with the condition Russia stops there. Russia doesn't go into any NATO country or anywhere else in Europe and in return they get Ukraine. I'd gladly take that deal.
Then they have no one to blame but themselves and you nuke them back into the stone age. But you at least try the compromise first letting them know the severe consequences if they break the agreement.
So you complain about the US having to rebuild Europe after WWII, but want us to revert back to the isolationism that led to WWII in the first place? Good thinking. Not.
Curious has anyone read the text of the proposed bill ? I haven’t. Haven’t seen a single actual quote or text or link to text. Maybe you have but I haven’t. Don’t understand how people can debate something they haven’t seen.
Tip of spear is just as vague as ‘leader of free world’. One of my basic tenants is “if it’s not important to you then it’s not important to me “. It’s really difficult for me to understand the motivation of protecting Europe from Russian expansion when Europe themselves dont seem too worried. Germany was completely dependent on Russian gas. 2 years into the war and Europeans are still buying LNG from Russian at alarming rate. See article below. I don’t see them ramping up logistics, increasing weapon production for war. Converting factories to build helicopter and tanks. Wanna send some weapons to hobble Putin. Sure. Sending blank checks to Uber corrupt Ukrainians. Hell no. Ukrainians have been corrupt longer than there have been casting couch jokes in Hollywood. To act like somehow we are obligated to protect Europe from a foe they don’t seem too worried about seems counter intuitive. And after watching Russians complete incompetence in combined arms warfare the last 2 years, other than ICBMs they are no threat to US. EU purchases of Russian LNG up 40% compared to pre-war levels: study
FYI. A summary although not actual text of the bill. Just my opinion if MAGA Mike following the instructions of his Dear Leader, Deranged Donald continues to reject the compromise, Biden should propose in his State of the Union Address and then go on the attack based on the proposition that it's the Republicans who are blocking immigration reform. The agreement is expected to give the executive branch a new legal authority to effectively suspend asylum in between official ports of entry when migrant crossings surpass certain thresholds. That would affect remote areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas where migrants regularly cross into the U.S. illegally to surrender themselves to overtaxed federal immigration officials who often release them because they don't have the resources to screen everyone for asylum. While the proposal negotiated by the White House and lawmakers would penalize those who enter the U.S. illegally, it would preserve asylum at official ports of entry. In fact, it would require U.S. border officials to continue processing more than 1,400 asylum-seekers daily at these official border crossings when the "shutdown" authority is invoked, sources told CBS News. Other border-related proposals that will likely be in any deal include expanding the scope of the expedited removal authority; instructing immigration officials to decide asylum cases within six months, as opposed to the current years-long timeframe; and raising the standard of proof in initial asylum interviews. Biden, Senators On Verge Of Striking Immigration Deal Aimed At Clamping Down On Illegal Border Crossings The legislation would also significantly increase the number of Border Patrol agents and immigration judges.
appreciate the link. I understand why politicians on both sides would be out speaking. Voting is emotional. Get your tribe/minions going. What I don’t understand is normal citizens debating with each other about something they haven’t seen. I don’t need the Washington post or ny post explaining to me what the bill says. My reading comp is fine
I'm so old I remember when Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement following Hitler's invasion of the Sudetenland was considered a failure and by emboldening Hitler was a factor that lead up to World War II. Who would have thought a major US political political party led by a former American president and current presidential candidate is supporting a policy that essentially emulates Chamberlain. I would also add that Vladimir Putin has made it perfectly clear that his goal is to reconstitute the Soviet/Russian Empire and that he considers Ukraine an integral part of Russia with no right to an independent existence.
That's a good question. Why do you think the Oklahoma GOP voted to censure their senator over border talks?
as I said I understand I why politicians on both sides do. To get people worked up. I’m very cynical of all politicians. I don’t understand why regular people debate something they haven’t seen based on information from unreliable sources who have their own vested interest. I’m guessing Lankford and maybe his colleagues have actually seen it
I agree on principle but legislation is done with compromise. Ukraine funding is more important in my mind. It baffles me that the Republican’s are supporting Putin.