They didn't, though. They're doing their paymaster's bidding just fine, stalling Ukraine aid.
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
278 points (97.3% liked)
politics
18850 readers
3655 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It kind of makes the point that this is what they're doing even more explicit. The stuff they claim to care about? Not so much. Helping Putin? Definitely.
From a Euro-Nato layman's point of view, our alliance with the US has become more a liability than anything else. Believing that we can rely on you (like you did on us after 9/11) looks more and more like a trap which diverts our energy and attention away from our own interests.
How is it a liability? Russia is a threat to Euro-NATO nations. It is in your/their best interests to have the US help against Russia even if US Republicans try to prevent it.
Maybe the US is not a liability in itself, but trusting the US can be a liability. It's like a group project when you have a partner that you know won't do any work. You have to do their part too so that the whole group isn't brought down.
If Trump returns to office or the GOP controls the legislature, NATO will have to do all the work to defend against Russia that it might have otherwise expected the US to help with.
Right I get that, but the alternative is no help from the US. Which is less beneficial to Europe/NATO than some help until/if Republicans block additional help.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I agree that Trump and the Republicans have created a meaningful risk of non-support.
The absolutely huge military spending by the US can make it worthwhile even in light of that risk:
Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.
I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.
It's a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don't right now.
the US can't now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.
In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying 'no'.
This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.
The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.
The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.
In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it'd be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nothing wrong with maintaining the defensive alliance. NATO is a matter of standardization and training cooperation, and the US is unlikely to be attacked. Just... look to your own forces in case next time there's a crisis we have a dupe in the White House.
load more comments
(1 replies)
LOL
Worked out okay for you guys in the first two world wars. Not great in a lot of cases but you're also not posting in German. Now, if you are German, I can understand why you may not welcome us again simply out of habit but if/when #3 kicks off, we'll be there and you'll be happy to see us coming.
If WW3 happens no one is going anywhere except an early grave.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Rapidly abandoning a compromise is GOP 101. They get you to come half way and then they get you to come half of what is left, and so on. This has always been the tactic.
How is republican media spinning this? It seems so obviously stupid even those guys who think trump looks like elvis have to be scratching their head
They're trying to spin some nonsense about how we don't actually need any new law for the border (even though they were screaming we did for years, but forget about that) and Biden just needs to enforce current laws and "shut it down." What current laws are not being enforced? They cannot say. What they mean by "shut it down," they don't know.
Shut it down means we do something like the red light//green light game in squidt Gamesz along the border, and nothing that moves gets in.
Carlson is busy in Russia interviewing a despot, so the marching order talking-points haven't fully come in.
I've seen some half-assed arguments from conservatives here and there, but they've really got nothing. They mostly just lie, as usual.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Word in conservative circles is that it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault.
National Review writer I read was saying that the fact it allows 5000 a day is ridiculous so it doesn't actually matter what the concessions are.
That's such a low number.
And it doesn't even "allow" 5,000 a day. That's just the number that when breached they start turning everyone away no matter what, asylum case or no. All the people saying it allows 5,000 undocumented immigrants a day are making up nonsense.
Sorrry I know you probably know, more for anyone reading this.
Probably something like: "Democrats added an amendment that would require all Texan children to only use unisex communal cat litterboxes!!1!"
Or something equality ridiculous and stupid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
We need single issue bills. It should be illegal to pack your legislature fatter than Augustus Gloop.
Also, fuck these assholes. Its painfully obvious they just want to fuck over Democrats AT OUR EXPENSE. WE PAY THEIR SALARIES THROUGH TAXES NOW FUCKEN WORK.
It's not just about fucking over democrats at any cost, it's also about showing their allies in the kremlin how useful they are.
The clear majority of americans don't want republican party policies. Republicans have openly discussed that reality since bush lost the election in 2000 and got to be president anyway. Senior strategists like pat buchanan have been quite honest that they feel like this is their last chance to foist their ultra conservative vision on an unwilling country before they're confined to the dustbin of history.
That's how things get done in Congress honestly. If Republicans say, "we promise if you provide border funding, we'll support legislation to provide Israel and Ukraine funding" you have to trust that after you pass the law, they won't back off of their deal.
I'd be curious how other countries handle this situation
In non-first past the post systems you often end up with coalition governments.
The result is that you can screw the other guy over, but you're likely to be in government with them sooner rather than later, at which point they'll screw you right back.
It breeds compromise, even if it happens after spending a full year negotiating before agreeing to enter a coalition government and exactly and to ten decimal places which laws you that government will be enacting during the coming parliament.
Except that this stuff was packaged together, so they couldn't pick one and refuse the other. So they refused the whole package.
So? If they weren't both packaged together they were both going to be voted down. Republicans don't want the Ukraine funding and Republicans have decided for now that it's better politically to have a mess at the border to blame on Biden. They don't want either proposal to pass so splitting them does nothing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nothing would ever get passed then. Every party would vote for what their side aligns with. Concessions means taking a small loss instead of a complete one. For both sides.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh look, another article from the NY times accepting the lie that manageable and needed immigration is somehow a crisis surge. I really wish democrats hadn't decided that xenophobia is bipartisan now.
It’s called diplomacy and it is a requirement of getting anything done in a split Congress.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Immigration isn't always a xenophobia issue. See also, Canada right now. The US situation isn't currently comparable but there has been a surge so it's not surprising that people would be investigating that.
Here in Boston we've got migrants sleeping in the airport, the state transportation building, and now the state owned gym and pool complex across the street from my house. The governor is draining a $600 million rainy day fund plus asking for another $250 million to help manage the inflow of migrants. Meanwhile our housing crisis is only getting worse, and we've literally got no place to send these desperate people. I'm pretty far left, but this doesn't feel manageable to me.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Joe Biden comes out and pointedly blames Donald Trump for expected defeat of bipartisan border bill. Blames Trump for wanting to make this a campaign issue and says "he'd rather weaponize" border than solve it. He calls on GOP to show "some spine" and stand up to Trump.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.
The turn of events led to a remarkable Capitol Hill spectacle this week as a parade of Senate Republicans almost instantly repudiated a major piece of legislation they had spent months demanding as part of any agreement to provide more help to a beleaguered Ukraine.
“A year ago they said, ‘We need a change in the law,’” said Mr. Lankford, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had been up in arms about the border situation only to suddenly reject the new legislation.
As they sought to rationalize their anticipated decision to mount a filibuster against legislation they had called for, Republicans said they needed more time to digest the bill and perhaps be allowed to propose some changes.
Mr. Barrasso’s statement was just the latest indication that the looming election — and Donald J. Trump’s tightening grip on the party as the expected nominee — had made Republican approval of the border deal all but impossible.
Plus, House Republicans are going to be in a pitched battle to hold on to their majority after two years in charge with minimal accomplishment, and many of them view immigration as a winning wedge issue.
The original article contains 1,033 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›