Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

Ummm, yeah—let’s severely reduce our footprint overseas and bring those costs down as well.  And again, I don’t worry about Russia attacking the US anytime soon.  Here’s a novel idea:  Allow Europe to defend…oh, I don’t know…Europe?
You know what I do worry about…yep, there it is below again for you. 
https://www.usdebtclock.org

Oh look you’re and “issue guy” bit a “politics guy” but you’re literally parroting a presidential candidate. Let’s just pull chalks and go home, all we need is some subs and some nukes that’ll be much cheaper. That’s not how a global supply chain economy works. I mean just for example there is exactly 1 Nickel mine in the USA, and it’s closing. So what exactly are we doing to get that when stuff starts going sideways in any of the places we deploy to protect our interests?

Again, you mentioned earlier “it’s not 1950” yeah boss it’s not 1854 either. That ocean on either side of our country isn’t an economic force field. We are dependent on a global supply chain system that will take decades of effort to move back into this hemisphere much less this country.

You’re living in the most prosperous 70 years of human in the country sitting on top of the pile because we chose to not do after WWII what we did after WWI. The Russians and Chinese have no kidding threatened to annex countries by force. The Russians have actually done it. The next country after Ukraine that they have openly said they want has a 5/6 chance of being a NATO country. We’ve been here before, and appeasement/isolationism wasn’t the cheaper option.

But keep bitching about the debt clock while you ignore all of that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

7 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh look you’re and “issue guy” bit a “politics guy” but you’re literally parroting a presidential candidate.

Alright man, I tried, probably against my better judgment.  Good luck in Europe and stay safe.

[BashiChuni]

[BashiChuni]

Yeah the border crisis is the republicans fault. 
 

stop. 

[TreeA10]

Here's another couple numbers for conversation, CBO says payment on debt will exceed DoD budget this year. What could possibly go wrong with more spending?

[raimius]

Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan, and our own border are all valid and *separate* issues.  Our political class continues to display its ineptitude by demanding package deals they know their opponents won't accept.  They are not serious about trying to solve problems, but only about maintaining their own power.

We need votes about single topics.

[StoleIt]

Russian landing ship, allegedly carrying ammunition resupplies, turned into a submarine:

Video

Edited February 14 by StoleIt
Link

[brabus]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

We need votes about single topics.

Absolutely! Throw in term limits, age limits, and a transition back to the federalized system we should be, and we’ll be on a relatively smooth path to another few hundred years of being the greatest nation on earth.  But no, that won’t happen, because power greed is a real thing.

[uhhello]

 

[Lawman]

Absolutely! Throw in term limits, age limits, and a transition back to the federalized system we should be, and we’ll be on a relatively smooth path to another few hundred years of being the greatest nation on earth.  But no, that won’t happen, because power greed is a real thing.

I mean we (a general electorate) bring a ton of this on ourselves in the media generation as Congressional popularity has become more important than actual performance in the chambers.

Go to YouTube and look around at how many videos of a grandstanding congressman/senator in some committee or public hearing, it’s what we reward them on. Then compare the loudest most obnoxious but seemingly popular idiots (because media loves it too) and then compare what legislation they’ve actually advanced…

We are going backwards but the collective whole doesn’t notice because they’d rather watch clips of _____ owning _____ at some worthless hearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

14 hours ago, Lawman said:

And in the last ten days you read that bill in its entirety when exactly?

Again when the head of the organization that is critical of the current admin but is tasked with actually solving the issues on the border says “yes we want this by consensus.” That means a lot more than Trump screaming “this bill is bad” which he did 5 days before normal people could read it, and a bunch of reps in the house lining up to say “we don’t support this.” We know they didn’t do anything to actually make any improvement to the border except bitch about Biden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your argument is "you have to read the entire bill in its legislative text form before you are allowed to have an opinion on it" then there is a follow-on issue with your claim that the Republican senators in favor of it should be some sort of endorsement. I assure you, they did not read the bill in its entirety.

 

Unfortunately the conflict in Ukraine is not exempted from the process of politics. You ask why Israel gets a pass on their funding, that's because both sides believe in funding them. That's it. Ukraine does not share the same support, so it must go through a more negotiated process.

 

I would love to live in the world where political brinksmanship wasn't the standard on every issue everyday. But we are nearing the end of this saeculum, and that's just how it works. In 20 to 30 years, if we are both still around, we can marvel at the newfound efficiency that follows great global conflicts, and the cycle will repeat once more.

[SocialD]

Maybe more shenanigans..."imminent national security threat."

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, SocialD said:

Maybe more shenanigans..."imminent national security threat."

[Lawman]

If your argument is "you have to read the entire bill in its legislative text form before you are allowed to have an opinion on it" then there is a follow-on issue with your claim that the Republican senators in favor of it should be some sort of endorsement. I assure you, they did not read the bill in its entirety.
 
Unfortunately the conflict in Ukraine is not exempted from the process of politics. You ask why Israel gets a pass on their funding, that's because both sides believe in funding them. That's it. Ukraine does not share the same support, so it must go through a more negotiated process.
 
I would love to live in the world where political brinksmanship wasn't the standard on every issue everyday. But we are nearing the end of this saeculum, and that's just how it works. In 20 to 30 years, if we are both still around, we can marvel at the newfound efficiency that follows great global conflicts, and the cycle will repeat once more.

No I’m making a comment about him saying he can find the truth in the issues for himself like it’s not days you can count on one hand since the public could actually read this bill.

Everybody speaking on it authoritatively was doing so with second hand information, the difference being a whole lot of critics lined up to get behind Trump’s avalanche of criticism when that guy currently has as much access to things like security briefings or the goings on in Congressional committees as Taylor Swift has. But he gets on X to bitch about stuff in a bill that would threaten his reelection campaign and wow suddenly it’s a bad bill.

I’m pragmatic about reality which some seem to not want to acknowledge. If this is truly the crises that demands all action than any forward progress is needed, that’s exactly what the Border Patrol union leaders were saying when they came out and supported this bill. But when you have people like Troy Nehls saying any deal is effectively dead because it’s more critical to hurt Biden than secure any action on the border, yeah it’s clear we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. The wing of the Republican Party saying no to any assistance from democrats and demanding their bills be considered are ignoring the fact they can’t do this without democrats, and their vocal public defections actually weaken the Republican position in bargaining for a better deal. They’re posturing to make deals like they control either the chambers with some sweeping margin, they don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

any deal that ALLOWS 5,000 illegals PER DAY is a no starter.

saying no to that is perfectly acceptable. biden created the border crisis. not the republicans.

but enough thread derail back to the russians.

Edited February 14 by BashiChuni

[brabus]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

I mean we (a general electorate) bring a ton of this on ourselves

100%. The people could stop this bullshit pretty quickly, but they won’t, because TikTok, Obama Phones, etc. 

[Lawman]

any deal that ALLOWS 5,000 illegals PER DAY is a no starter.
saying no to that is perfectly acceptable. biden created the border crisis. not the republicans.
but enough thread derail back to the russians.

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

100%. The people could stop this bullshit pretty quickly, but they won’t, because TikTok, Obama Phones, etc. 

The algorithm rewards the lizard brain.

You kind find videos from Forbes of “so and so owns ____.”

The irony of having Congress hold a public hearing to grandstand blasting the heads of the very media methods they use to spread populist reelection sound bites should not be lost on anybody. Absolutely nothing of impact changed from that meeting and all it did was set up reelection video fodder for a bunch of asshats who aren’t doing their real job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

edited for personal attack 😄

Edited February 15 by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., in a Feb. 4 X post.

 

i suppose you're calling steve scalise a "low information parrot" then. you really are a piece of work.

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Except it doesn’t (or rather didn’t) allow that at all, as stated by the Border Patrol reps when they issued their support for the bill.

But hey thanks for representing the low information parrots to dumb talking points and obstructionism that I was talking about. It’s good to know you’re useful for something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lawman]

“Here’s what the people pushing this ‘deal’ aren’t telling you: It accepts 5,000 illegal immigrants a day,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., in a Feb. 4 X post.
 
i suppose you're calling steve scalise a "low information parrot" then. you really are a piece of work.
 

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[1:1:1]

58 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Semantics.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Oh wow a congressman said it on twitter. In like a whole sentence? Omg it must be true… except no it isn’t.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/no-the-senate-immigration-bill-does-not-allow-5000-people-to-illegally-enter-the-us-daily/

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-senate-border-bill-would-not-have-allowed-5000-migrants-per-day-verify/65-ad109cd1-6671-4d0c-8239-b5e4b4d4d951


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

how's this smart guy.... ZERO illegal immigration. period. no wait in US for your court date. wall.

there should be NO compromise on the border. none. it's a fucking border...don't cross it illegally. bring back "remain in mexico"

i DGAF how you call it...."encounters"..."illegals"...the number of 5,000 PER FUCKING DAY is unacceptable.

Edited February 15 by BashiChuni

[Lawman]

how's this smart guy.... ZERO illegal immigration. period. no wait in US for your court date. wall.
there should be NO compromise on the border. none. it's a ing border...don't cross it illegally. bring back "remain in mexico"
i DGAF how you call it...."encounters"..."illegals"...the number of 5,000 PER ING DAY is unacceptable.

You’re not getting a wall or a minefield or whatever other jingoistic fantasy you think will ever achieve your “No Compromise” solution. That border is an 800 billion dollar trade corridor remember?

This won’t be voted on simply because the people actually tasked with doing something about this crisis arent nearly as concerned with making real impact to it as they are pounding their chest and campaign off it. With a larger majority margin of control and the actual presidency the wall couldn’t happen. You are vastly confused at how bargaining positions actually work when Republicans can afford exactly 2 defections voting as a party to achieve even a simple majority much less get anything done.

And meanwhile instead of actually changing things like catch and release in codified law which an executive can’t ignore or empowering asylum requests to be literally ignored once triggered by the 5k number you’re mischaracterizing, or putting a F load more agents and facilities to deal with the problem, you’ll get the continued status quo and solve nothing. So much winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bfargin]

56 minutes ago, Lawman said:

This won’t be voted on simply because the people actually tasked with doing something about this crisis arent nearly as concerned with making real impact to it as they are pounding their chest and campaign off it.

Gang load the oxygen regulator, you’re suffering hypoxia.

The people “tasked with doing something” is the current administration who’s ignored the law and opened the “door” and told every douchenozzle in the world to “come on in”.