Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So you're just going to blah blah and not bother to tally up the years of support another poster mentioned because....feelings? Or something...

Where have I said Europe is not helping? I am saying not at the same rate or at the same amount as the US when they should. That's all. If you are in agreement on the US footing the bill to secure Europe and they not committing as much, that's another topic. But as an American I would have thought you would like for them to be as serious and in it as we are. A fraction of the investment doesn't show any seriousness nor commitment.

Ah, so you know the tally for the military assistance in reply 37 then? How much is it? Dollars or Euros...I'll leave that up to you.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... to-ukraine

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Where have I said Europe is not helping? I am saying not at the same rate or at the same amount as the US when they should. That's all. If you are in agreement on the US footing the bill to secure Europe and they not committing as much, that's another topic. But as an American I would have thought you would like for them to be as serious and in it as we are. A fraction of the investment doesn't show any seriousness nor commitment.

Ah, so you know the tally for the military assistance in reply 37 then? How much is it? Dollars or Euros...I'll leave that up to you.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... to-ukraine

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

That wasn't the question. You post a graphic regarding a three month period, when the poster mentioned was talking about 10-15 years.

And I thought conservatives don't consider The Economist a reliable source anyway??

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Where have I said Europe is not helping? I am saying not at the same rate or at the same amount as the US when they should. That's all. If you are in agreement on the US footing the bill to secure Europe and they not committing as much, that's another topic. But as an American I would have thought you would like for them to be as serious and in it as we are. A fraction of the investment doesn't show any seriousness nor commitment.

Ah, so you know the tally for the military assistance in reply 37 then? How much is it? Dollars or Euros...I'll leave that up to you.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... to-ukraine

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

Sigh. You continue to fail to read fine print and waste everybody's time. It clearly says, the way they're "slicing" is January 24-April 23, 2022. And now you're either incapable or intentionally ignoring all timeframes beyond that. What a waste of time.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ah, so you know the tally for the military assistance in reply 37 then? How much is it? Dollars or Euros...I'll leave that up to you.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... to-ukraine

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

That wasn't the question. You post a graphic regarding a three month period, when the poster mentioned was talking about 10-15 years.

And I thought conservatives don't consider The Economist a reliable source anyway??

Again, if you are questioning my posts, please go ahead and show with evidence that my statement is wrong.
The US has vastly spent more in security for Ukraine than Europe. Since 2014.

Its your turn to actually tell me if I am wrong, and if so, go ahead ans post the evidence, not my job.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... to-ukraine

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

That wasn't the question. You post a graphic regarding a three month period, when the poster mentioned was talking about 10-15 years.

And I thought conservatives don't consider The Economist a reliable source anyway??

Again, if you are questioning my posts, please go ahead and show with evidence that my statement is wrong.
The US has vastly spent more in security for Ukraine than Europe. Since 2014.

Its your turn to actually tell me if I am wrong, and if so, go ahead ans post the evidence, not my job.

That's not how it works. The originating claim was yours - still unsourced/unchecked. If you can somehow show us GDB's post was in error, then you might be onto something. But so far...bupkis.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

That wasn't the question. You post a graphic regarding a three month period, when the poster mentioned was talking about 10-15 years.

And I thought conservatives don't consider The Economist a reliable source anyway??

Again, if you are questioning my posts, please go ahead and show with evidence that my statement is wrong.
The US has vastly spent more in security for Ukraine than Europe. Since 2014.

Its your turn to actually tell me if I am wrong, and if so, go ahead ans post the evidence, not my job.

That's not how it works. The originating claim was yours - still unsourced/unchecked. If you can somehow show us GDB's post was in error, then you might be onto something. But so far...bupkis.

Actually GDB never claimed the contrary of my opinion. Just mentioned all the help. Never said Europe spent more.

So for now my comment stands till proven otherwise.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Again, if you are questioning my posts, please go ahead and show with evidence that my statement is wrong.
The US has vastly spent more in security for Ukraine than Europe. Since 2014.

Its your turn to actually tell me if I am wrong, and if so, go ahead ans post the evidence, not my job.

That's not how it works. The originating claim was yours - still unsourced/unchecked. If you can somehow show us GDB's post was in error, then you might be onto something. But so far...bupkis.

Actually GDB never claimed the contrary of my opinion. Just mentioned all the help. Never said Europe spent more.

So for now my comment stands till proven otherwise.

Mmmkay, I suggest rereading that post a few times until reality sinks in.

How about some other graphs

https://donortracker.org/sites/default/ ... dified.png

Or this map

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... nters.html

This is more up-to-date
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60555472.amp

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpspr ... -nc-nc.png

If you think Slovakia has taken ~400000 Ukranian refugees. They have a population of about 5.4mio so almost 7.5% of their population.
That would be as if the US would take in 24mio refugees.

Lies, damn lies, statistics.
Or never trust a statistic you have not falsified yourself.

There are other ways to help apart from money.

Another random thought.
It says EU to send etc.
Is this from the EU budget or from each member states budget?

stratosphere wrote:

I want to know what Europe is throwing in the mix compared to the US since this is in their backyard. You know the industrial military complex in this country is alive and well and loves a war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60555472.amp
Europe is taking care (and paying for) of 6 million refugees. Not only the governments, but also people like you and me. 40 billion might be a huge amount, with 6 million people to take care of it’s gone in no time.

And now Hungary is vetoing any Russian gas/oil cutoff, which will make this war go on for years. Europe is so screwed with this situation because they CANT let go of Russian gas. Then you have Finland and Sweden racing to be in NATO (translation get protection by big daddy USA).

So yes, why should USA give Ukraine a single dime if Europe is giving its enemy a billion a day? It's a logical question.

US sends $40 billion to ally, and Europe sends $1 billion a DAY to enemy which is fighting that ally. Let that sink in.

zhiao wrote:

US sends $40 billion to ally, and Europe sends $1 billion a DAY to enemy which is fighting that ally. Let that sink in.

It’s already a billion a day? Do you have a reasonable source or is this just the usual Europe bashing?

Not sure what the word "already" is supposed to do. If anything you are agreeing. And to be fair there is no easy solution. You cant just cut gas off overnight.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/europe-w ... rgy-habit/

I would guess that figure is a bit lower now that Poland and another country (I can't remember who) aren't receiving Russian gas and foreign Gasprom subsidiaries have also stopped receiving gas (admittedly in Germany only 3% of yearly gas).

Also Finland will no longer get Russian electricity (and probably gas)

Both here (in German)

https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/krieg-in ... 9NcCvtlFcJ

zhiao wrote:

Not sure what the word "already" is supposed to do. If anything you are agreeing. And to be fair there is no easy solution. You cant just cut gas off overnight.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/09/europe-w ... rgy-habit/

At least you acknowledge that there is no easy solution, but Russia is already cutting the supply.

Back on topic: 40 billion is pocket money for the USA and being a world power, they are willing to spend it.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

So please provide evidence or sources on my claim that the US is not funding much more than Europe with this 40 Billion, than Europe ever has.

I have seen other reports on which Europe has sent 500 million more, and another 550 million. With the 500 million today we are at the very least 1.55 billion. Lets say we missed something and there is another 500 million I have missed. Thats 2 Billion compared to the 40 Billion the US is sending.

Again, why should the US vastly spend on the security of Ukraine when its Europe that one that needs that the most, why can't Europe step up and spend. Why should I, an American taxpayer pay for this more than an European taxpayer.

I am all for helping out, but I am still wondering why I should put more than a French or German when its Russia who is closer to them and who is a much more of a threat to me. Why can't Europeans pay up more.

2 Billion won't cut it, and even if they manage to pay 20 billion, that's half of what this 40 B package is. Don't see the commitment here.

The US hasn't sent the money yet. We don't know what else Europe may do, and it's clear that Europe to date has been the leader in Ukraine funding. So your outrage seems premature and is frankly a completely different point than the article you used to start this thread. In a couple months you may have more ground to stand on. We shall see.

Well, I just found out that since Biden took over, they have sent 2 Billion in aid

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo ... r-ukraine/

Before the EU announced the 500 million today, the reports total around 1 billion euros the EU has sent. The US has vastly till this day foot the bill in Ukraine. Based on what's out there in the internet the US 2 Billion (since last year) and the EU recently 1B euros. That's half of what the US has spent.

My point is, why can't the Europeans pay more for this, why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans, they have sufficient money to actually even match the US on aid. Probably this might have never happened if Putin had seen Europe supporting seriously Ukraine. The US has had to pay up much more since 2014, that's pretty much obvious and now with this 40B we are still doing it.

"Why is it always the US having to come to the rescue of Europeans..."

To answer that, I understand that some EU countries offer free education to their citizens, some including post-secondary educations. And to add to that Health care provided... well it's costs a lot to provide those things for their citizens, so, yes, they need the US to come to the rescue, even though the US citizens lack the educational and health care opportunities of their brothers in the EU.

But I understand the EU's position, if you can get a sucker like the US (taxpayer) to to help them keep their status quo, then why not!!!!

DIRECTFLT wrote:

To answer that, I understand that some EU countries offer free education to their citizens, some including post-secondary educations

Correct, but only to a point. I'm mainly familiar with Finland, since I talked to a tour guide about it. You don't just get a free college education in anything. First, the government decides how many of which profession they will need in the future. Then, they hold competitive exams and interviews for prospective students. The accepted students are then given a free education. I find that a superior students because the best and brightest get the education without worrying about how they are going to pay off student loan debt.

johns624 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

To answer that, I understand that some EU countries offer free education to their citizens, some including post-secondary educations

Correct, but only to a point. I'm mainly familiar with Finland, since I talked to a tour guide about it. You don't just get a free college education in anything. First, the government decides how many of which profession they will need in the future. Then, they hold competitive exams and interviews for prospective students. The accepted students are then given a free education. I find that a superior students because the best and brightest get the education without worrying about how they are going to pay off student loan debt.

That sounds good to me...

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

All that money won't bring back those dead people. Or the ones who will die in the months that lie ahead but it's ok. As I said when it comes to bad actors you either do something or you don't. If it makes you feel good sending money great. I am still waiting to see Haiti build back from that earthquake but doesn't seem to happen. We sent them a lot of money.

NIKV69 wrote:

As I said when it comes to bad actors you either do something or you don't.

A grain of truth there. Hundreds of billion$ in petrodollars and decades later, and Saudi Arabia still isn't a modern country, though they like to play one with shiny new roads and buildings for social media promotions.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

As I said when it comes to bad actors you either do something or you don't.

A grain of truth there. Hundreds of billion$ in petrodollars and decades later, and Saudi Arabia still isn't a modern country, though they like to play one with shiny new roads and buildings for social media promotions.

Sounds a lot like China. Which to some seems a better client to do business with, and people just pretend its worth doing business with them despite they having people in concentration camps, as we speak. Say all you want, but having concentration camps in 2022. That's pretty bad.

There is no difference between the leadership in China and the KSA. One pretends to be modern and democratic, the other doesn't.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

As I said when it comes to bad actors you either do something or you don't.

A grain of truth there. Hundreds of billion$ in petrodollars and decades later, and Saudi Arabia still isn't a modern country, though they like to play one with shiny new roads and buildings for social media promotions.

Sounds a lot like China. Which to some seems a better client to do business with, and people just pretend its worth doing business with them despite they having people in concentration camps, as we speak. Say all you want, but having concentration camps in 2022. That's pretty bad.

There is no difference between the leadership in China and the KSA. One pretends to be modern and democratic, the other doesn't.

You're a sole proprietor right? Fortune 500 companies only see a market of 700 million middle class consumers when they have looked at China the last 20 years. $$$ is the only motivating factor there.

And as reps from the PRC foreign ministry have already met with the Ukrainian government several times in recent months, you can bet they will play a role in reconstruction there whenever this situation resolves.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

A grain of truth there. Hundreds of billion$ in petrodollars and decades later, and Saudi Arabia still isn't a modern country, though they like to play one with shiny new roads and buildings for social media promotions.

Sounds a lot like China. Which to some seems a better client to do business with, and people just pretend its worth doing business with them despite they having people in concentration camps, as we speak. Say all you want, but having concentration camps in 2022. That's pretty bad.

There is no difference between the leadership in China and the KSA. One pretends to be modern and democratic, the other doesn't.

You're a sole proprietor right? Fortune 500 companies only see a market of 700 million middle class consumers when they have looked at China the last 20 years. $$$ is the only motivating factor there.

And as reps from the PRC foreign ministry have already met with the Ukrainian government several times in recent months, you can bet they will play a role in reconstruction there whenever this situation resolves.

I think for the International community, they must now see how China has actually done nothing to help with Ukraine.

First was COVID in 2020, now Ukraine. Its pretty clear that the CCP is on the side of the worst always. Can't be trusted.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Sounds a lot like China. Which to some seems a better client to do business with, and people just pretend its worth doing business with them despite they having people in concentration camps, as we speak. Say all you want, but having concentration camps in 2022. That's pretty bad.

There is no difference between the leadership in China and the KSA. One pretends to be modern and democratic, the other doesn't.

You're a sole proprietor right? Fortune 500 companies only see a market of 700 million middle class consumers when they have looked at China the last 20 years. $$$ is the only motivating factor there.

And as reps from the PRC foreign ministry have already met with the Ukrainian government several times in recent months, you can bet they will play a role in reconstruction there whenever this situation resolves.

I think for the International community, they must now see how China has actually done nothing to help with Ukraine.

First was COVID in 2020, now Ukraine. Its pretty clear that the CCP is on the side of the worst always. Can't be trusted.

What are you talking about? They’re on their own side and nobody else’s. That’s China’s whole MO.

They watch situations like a hawk and strategize how to derive benefit. They have played both EU and Russia in the current situation. They have met with Ukraine to ensure they can be part of rebuilding there.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Gotta admire Rand, like him or hate him, on this subject he does have some consistency.

40B is a lot, and 40B that we have to borrow, and we are headed towards a recession, which might allow for the conversation of 'stimulus' and you know the amount of money we are to lose in revenue as a result as well.

He's consistent all right, consistently a hypocrite. Ever wonder how much was added to the national debt by the tax cuts that he voted for? Funny how when other states are hit with a natural disaster he gets on his soap box about fiscal matters. Yet, when it's his home state he sings a different tune.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Anywhere you add up, the US vastly overspends Europe.

The initial and ongoing costs of supporting more than 6,000,000 (and rising) refugees is a huge burden on European countries, especially Poland. $40B would be eaten up pretty fast with that number of souls. Asking why the tax payers of the US should primarily pay all the costs is ignoring some pretty amazing (and costly) support that you're not including in any of your "why always the US" thoughts.

The anti-war Left is no more. RIP.

In a few years, if this all goes to crap if will be interesting to see how the spin goes.

Bricktop wrote:

The anti-war Left is no more. RIP.

In a few years, if this all goes to crap if will be interesting to see how the spin goes.

Another non sequitur. Is it really that difficult to differentiate nuance these days? Obviously it’s quite different to oppose actions in Iraq/Iran with no clear strategic outcome in sight vs. defensive action against an invading neighbor. At least I used to think reasonable people could tell the difference...

GDB wrote:

Polling shows the great majority of Americans support aid to Ukraine, so a bit like being pro choice too.

What did polling show before we invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001 (war on terror) and before we invaded Iraq in March, 2003 over WMD? IIRC, most Americans were for it and both had widespread bi-partisan support.

afcjets wrote:

GDB wrote:

Polling shows the great majority of Americans support aid to Ukraine, so a bit like being pro choice too.

What did polling show before we invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001 (war on terror) and before we invaded Iraq in March, 2003 over WMD? IIRC, most Americans were for it and both had widespread bi-partisan support.

Who said to his opponent in a famous Presidential Debate, 'there you go again'?
Many Americans (uniquely in the World it seems), actually believed Real President Cheney's BS about Saddam being involved in 9/11.
(Not what the intel agencies told him or Bush that, so he ignored them and set up his own one).

As the fires were still burning in the rubble of the Towers the core of 60's draft dodgers in that administration were planning on attacking Iraq, some complaining of 'not enough bombing targets' in Afghanistan.
Of course when became clear to all but the most dumb/gullible that the secularist Iraqi regime had no time for Islamists and worse, 'Mission Accomplished' was anything but, then the grim and increasing bodies coming home, it very quickly became very unpopular.

So what has that deception got to do with Ukraine?
US forces are not engaged in Ukraine, nor any NATO ones.
This is a real thing, not GOP BS to go after a nation that had nothing to do with Al Queda.
A clear cut invasion of a sovereign nation by a hostile state, that unlike Iraq in 2003, (militarily defanged in 1991), is a threat to the US. Seen those 'events' on Russian TV about how their nukes can destroy US?
The fact of Putin being best buds with the previous White House occupant rather muddies the waters perhaps with some in the GOP, as I said, wrong side of history, Bund 2.0

Anyway, look who has turned up in Ukraine, he needs to have a word with weirdo Rand when he gets back.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... n-senators

Like reproductive choice, around 70% of Americans broadly support aid to Ukraine.

GDB wrote:

So what has that deception got to do with Ukraine?
US forces are not engaged in Ukraine, nor any NATO ones.
This is a real thing, not GOP BS to go after a nation that had nothing to do with Al Queda.
A clear cut invasion of a sovereign nation by a hostile state ,that unlike Iraq in 2003, militarily defanged in 1991, was no threat to the US.

People are so partisan they are incapable of seeing the nuance in the above. It's really a sorry state of affairs, and a total F in critical thinking 101.

FGITD wrote:

The whole argument being made by those against sending the money is completely false at any rate.

Don’t want to send the money to help Europe and Ukraine. Why? Because many think it would be put to better use back home to help Americans.

But then any proposal to spend money on Americans gets rejected as overspending, handouts, etc.

Go look back at the threads on the infrastructure bill. Many of the same users who don’t think we should spend money outside the US are also adamantly against spending it inside the US as well

And many of those who are in favor of spending it have been very vocal against American intervention amd foreign policy for decades.

Including of course many of the European posters who now want us to spend more than them on their security. How convenient!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Including of course many of the European posters who now want us to spend more than them on their security. How convenient!

Question: how much does the US spend for the security of Europe?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The US by contrast is sending 80 times that with the 40 billion.

Just think of all the abortions that could fund!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

The whole argument being made by those against sending the money is completely false at any rate.

Don’t want to send the money to help Europe and Ukraine. Why? Because many think it would be put to better use back home to help Americans.

But then any proposal to spend money on Americans gets rejected as overspending, handouts, etc.

Go look back at the threads on the infrastructure bill. Many of the same users who don’t think we should spend money outside the US are also adamantly against spending it inside the US as well

And many of those who are in favor of spending it have been very vocal against American intervention amd foreign policy for decades.

Including of course many of the European posters who now want us to spend more than them on their security. How convenient!

Again, do you understand the difference between intervention and supporting an ally's defense from invasion? It's okay to say 'No, I don't'.

marcelh wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Including of course many of the European posters who now want us to spend more than them on their security. How convenient!

Question: how much does the US spend for the security of Europe?

Answer:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/3-charts-that-show-who-pays-most-for-the-defence-of-europe-b63fb5f2f4/

Although these are numbers from 2018, it gives a good insight how much US tax payers money was spent for the security of Europe, compared to European tax money.

marcelh wrote:

marcelh wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Including of course many of the European posters who now want us to spend more than them on their security. How convenient!

Question: how much does the US spend for the security of Europe?

Answer:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/3-charts-that-show-who-pays-most-for-the-defence-of-europe-b63fb5f2f4/

Although these are numbers from 2018, it gives a good insight how much US tax payers money was spent for the security of Europe, compared to European tax money.

So the United States is funding socialism to stop communism? That is the Republican narrative: socialism bad, communism bad. The whole 2% goal is happening. Because countries like Belgium and England and Spain can not contribute the actual dollar amount we in the United States contribute, they are bad? Even if they meet or exceed 2%? Another Republican narrative.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

The anti-war Left is no more. RIP.

In a few years, if this all goes to crap if will be interesting to see how the spin goes.

Another non sequitur. Is it really that difficult to differentiate nuance these days? Obviously it’s quite different to oppose actions in Iraq/Iran with no clear strategic outcome in sight vs. defensive action against an invading neighbor. At least I used to think reasonable people could tell the difference...

Non sequitur and nuance? Oh dear. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

It was just a few months ago that Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie saying that it was partly our fault for the war by trying to get Ukraine into NATO. It goes against everything the Left has ever stood for. And yet all you have to trot out is "This time it's different". Well true, one thing is different. Democrats are going to get smoked in the midterms, so sure as crap let's get our paws on some of that MIC money first. Who knows? Maybe we can even get a new gig over on the Dark Side. So please, no talk about Lloyd Austin's Raytheon like we did about Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Biden wanted 33? Let's make it a round 40 and really get our beaks wet. From Endless War Afghanistan to Endless War The Sequel: Ukraine in under a year. The MIC throws some tasty dog treats on the ground, and Dems start lapping them up. But ask any questions and you're a Putin stooge, as ratified by the NY Times. “House Passes $40 Billion More in Ukraine Aid, With Few Questions Asked". Shut up and let me grab your money!

Your party is as venal as the Republican Party. Rationalize it as much as necessary but the hard truth is right there. No nuance needed.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

The anti-war Left is no more. RIP.

In a few years, if this all goes to crap if will be interesting to see how the spin goes.

Another non sequitur. Is it really that difficult to differentiate nuance these days? Obviously it’s quite different to oppose actions in Iraq/Iran with no clear strategic outcome in sight vs. defensive action against an invading neighbor. At least I used to think reasonable people could tell the difference...

Non sequitur and nuance? Oh dear. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

It was just a few months ago that Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie saying that it was partly our fault for the war by trying to get Ukraine into NATO. It goes against everything the Left has ever stood for. And yet all you have to trot out is "This time it's different". Well true, one thing is different. Democrats are going to get smoked in the midterms, so sure as crap let's get our paws on some of that MIC money first. Who knows? Maybe we can even get a new gig over on the Dark Side. So please, no talk about Lloyd Austin's Raytheon like we did about Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Biden wanted 33? Let's make it a round 40 and really get our beaks wet. From Endless War Afghanistan to Endless War The Sequel: Ukraine in under a year. The MIC throws some tasty dog treats on the ground, and Dems start lapping them up. But ask any questions and you're a Putin stooge, as ratified by the NY Times. “House Passes $40 Billion More in Ukraine Aid, With Few Questions Asked". Shut up and let me grab your money!

Your party is as venal as the Republican Party. Rationalize it as much as necessary but the hard truth is right there. No nuance needed.

What’s this ‘your party’ nonsense? I registered independent as soon as the Dems voted in near-lockstep for Iraq in 2002.

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Another non sequitur. Is it really that difficult to differentiate nuance these days? Obviously it’s quite different to oppose actions in Iraq/Iran with no clear strategic outcome in sight vs. defensive action against an invading neighbor. At least I used to think reasonable people could tell the difference...

Non sequitur and nuance? Oh dear. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

It was just a few months ago that Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie saying that it was partly our fault for the war by trying to get Ukraine into NATO. It goes against everything the Left has ever stood for. And yet all you have to trot out is "This time it's different". Well true, one thing is different. Democrats are going to get smoked in the midterms, so sure as crap let's get our paws on some of that MIC money first. Who knows? Maybe we can even get a new gig over on the Dark Side. So please, no talk about Lloyd Austin's Raytheon like we did about Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Biden wanted 33? Let's make it a round 40 and really get our beaks wet. From Endless War Afghanistan to Endless War The Sequel: Ukraine in under a year. The MIC throws some tasty dog treats on the ground, and Dems start lapping them up. But ask any questions and you're a Putin stooge, as ratified by the NY Times. “House Passes $40 Billion More in Ukraine Aid, With Few Questions Asked". Shut up and let me grab your money!

Your party is as venal as the Republican Party. Rationalize it as much as necessary but the hard truth is right there. No nuance needed.

What’s this ‘your party’ nonsense? I registered independent as soon as the Dems voted in near-lockstep for Iraq in 2002.

Apologies for the insult. The rest of it stands.

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Non sequitur and nuance? Oh dear. Well, whatever gets you through the night.

It was just a few months ago that Honeymoon in Moscow Bernie saying that it was partly our fault for the war by trying to get Ukraine into NATO. It goes against everything the Left has ever stood for. And yet all you have to trot out is "This time it's different". Well true, one thing is different. Democrats are going to get smoked in the midterms, so sure as crap let's get our paws on some of that MIC money first. Who knows? Maybe we can even get a new gig over on the Dark Side. So please, no talk about Lloyd Austin's Raytheon like we did about Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Biden wanted 33? Let's make it a round 40 and really get our beaks wet. From Endless War Afghanistan to Endless War The Sequel: Ukraine in under a year. The MIC throws some tasty dog treats on the ground, and Dems start lapping them up. But ask any questions and you're a Putin stooge, as ratified by the NY Times. “House Passes $40 Billion More in Ukraine Aid, With Few Questions Asked". Shut up and let me grab your money!

Your party is as venal as the Republican Party. Rationalize it as much as necessary but the hard truth is right there. No nuance needed.

What’s this ‘your party’ nonsense? I registered independent as soon as the Dems voted in near-lockstep for Iraq in 2002.

Apologies for the insult. The rest of it stands.

Democrat is an insult now? And you wonder why hardly anyone takes you seriously?

edited to add:
since it seems mandatory to declare allegiance to one party or the other. I am Dutch so am ineligable to vote. But I am bemused at the hyper-partisanship over in the States.
I am also noticing a worrying trend that this is catching on in in the Netherlands as well (and Europe as a whole).

petertenthije wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What’s this ‘your party’ nonsense? I registered independent as soon as the Dems voted in near-lockstep for Iraq in 2002.

Apologies for the insult. The rest of it stands.

Democrat is an insult now? And you wonder why hardly anyone takes you seriously?

edited to add:
since it seems mandatory to declare allegiance to one party or the other. I am Dutch so am ineligable to vote. But I am bemused at the hyper-partisanship over in the States.
I am also noticing a worrying trend that this is catching on in in the Netherlands as well (and Europe as a whole).

It was a joke. I didn't think I needed to add a smilie, but it seems I was wrong.

As for the notion that hyper-partisanship is "catching on" in Europe, it's always been there. That's for another thread though.

petertenthije wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

What’s this ‘your party’ nonsense? I registered independent as soon as the Dems voted in near-lockstep for Iraq in 2002.

Apologies for the insult. The rest of it stands.

Democrat is an insult now? And you wonder why hardly anyone takes you seriously?

edited to add:
since it seems mandatory to declare allegiance to one party or the other. I am Dutch so am ineligable to vote. But I am bemused at the hyper-partisanship over in the States.
I am also noticing a worrying trend that this is catching on in in the Netherlands as well (and Europe as a whole).

The point is: Republicans don't seem to want to help Ukraine. Some even support Putin. GOP darling and cocaine fueled sex party denier Madison Cawthorn called Zelenskyy a thug. while king MAGA himself praised Putin as a genius. And no one dares speak out against the king.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics ... index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... n-00010923

It looks like they are going to see if it passes again.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... atest-news

Will have to see if Rand Paul tries to block it again.

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Yeah but I seriously, seriously doubt the Ukrainians have the ability to manage $40 billion. It will, conversely, empower the mafia. Just as it did in Afghanistan. Too much money actually un-solves problems.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You might have a point if it were 400 billion. The Florida State Retirement system has $36B in unfunded pension liabilities, for comparison. 40 billion will not be a blink in the eye of the national debt.

https://reason.org/commentary/the-flori ... of-reform/

Also Lockheed-Martin generates a lot of jobs in GA and CO - maybe you should take it up with the Senators from those states?

Yeah but I seriously, seriously doubt the Ukrainians have the ability to manage $40 billion. It will, conversely, empower the mafia. Just as it did in Afghanistan. Too much money actually un-solves problems.

I'm sure the vast, vast majority of the money voted for isn't going to be literally sent to Ukraine. It will be in equipment, etc.

seb146 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Apologies for the insult. The rest of it stands.

Democrat is an insult now? And you wonder why hardly anyone takes you seriously?

edited to add:
since it seems mandatory to declare allegiance to one party or the other. I am Dutch so am ineligable to vote. But I am bemused at the hyper-partisanship over in the States.
I am also noticing a worrying trend that this is catching on in in the Netherlands as well (and Europe as a whole).

The point is: Republicans don't seem to want to help Ukraine. Some even support Putin. GOP darling and cocaine fueled sex party denier Madison Cawthorn called Zelenskyy a thug. while king MAGA himself praised Putin as a genius. And no one dares speak out against the king.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/10/politics ... index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/2 ... n-00010923

Let's call these republicans for what they really are - seditious traitors. They want to support the enemy than support the allies.