the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion

[Dahobbs 18335]

15 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Ukraine is going to get plenty of weapons whether there is a resolution or not.  No way Lockheed Martin and other big boy defense contractors are going to miss out on those revenues.

? Ukraine is literally starved of ammunition right now. It has no money to purchase weapons except through aid. 

[texasdago 7771]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

? Ukraine is literally starved of ammunition right now. It has no money to purchase weapons except through aid. 

 

Thinking out of the box here...

 

[Biff Tannen 46175]

I don't get how giving in to the people holding our government hostage is a good idea. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't get how giving in to the people holding our government hostage is a good idea. 

If there is a moderate wing, then it isn't giving in to the people holding the government hostage. It is working with the few sane(ish) people to get something done. 

[Js1 87210]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If there is a moderate wing, then it isn't giving in to the people holding the government hostage. It is working with the few sane(ish) people to get something done. 

Except they keep resisting overtures to find a compromise candidate. Every time. They don’t want to work with the Dems on it. They’re no sane either!

[Dahobbs 18335]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Except they keep resisting overtures to find a compromise candidate. Every time. They don’t want to work with the Dems on it. They’re no sane either!

That's probably true. I would have hoped there was 5-6 somewhat sane ones in there that Dems could work with, but if that isn't the case then nothing can be done. I still think Ukraine aid is important enough that if an opportunity to compromise with such a group emerges, the morally correct thing to do is the take it. 

[kevwun 16442]

Republicans would rather do Putin's bidding then side with Democrats on anything.  That's where we are in 2024.

Edited April 12 by kevwun

['stache 22145]

Their literal party platform is to obstruct and blame Biden. There aren't any "moderates" just some who pretend to talk moderate. Some years ago I'd be on board with compromise, but when it's only ever asked and expected from one side, and when that side always has to be the adult in the room, and still lose elections, I'd say hell no to compromise. At least under the current climate. If enough will support Jeffries, do it, if not, let them tear each other apart. There's no solutions either way, they want Russia to win, so Russia will win. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26870]

The compromise candidate is Hakeem Jeffries with a pledge to bring any bill with a bipartisan whipcount majority to the floor. 
Their bad faith in both houses demonstrate that they can’t be trusted with more. 

[safe sex 12031]

I feel like if Jeffries were to become Speaker, the Republicans would renege and vote against anything brought up to the floor. Why not? Then you can blame the Democrats. They just went full Marxist, so they had to break the deal.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Maybe I should crank up some Beastie Boys, crack open a beer and start yelling "Party!"

do you even Muricuh, bro?

[Fudge Nuggets 19465]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

? Ukraine is literally starved of ammunition right now. It has no money to purchase weapons except through aid. 

DoD / CIA has plenty of practice smuggling guns, ammo and other deadly shit to hot spots around the globe.  This is old hat for them.

[Captainant 28573]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

DoD / CIA has plenty of practice smuggling guns, ammo and other deadly shit to hot spots around the globe.  This is old hat for them.

It's gonna take a military level of support to defeat russia in the field. Not a few handfuls of missiles and ammo that CIA could scrounge

[Fudge Nuggets 19465]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It's gonna take a military level of support to defeat russia in the field. Not a few handfuls of missiles and ammo that CIA could scrounge

Same as 1980 Afghanistan?

[Bozo_Casanova 26870]

46 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I feel like if Jeffries were to become Speaker, the Republicans would renege and vote against anything brought up to the floor. Why not? Then you can blame the Democrats. They just went full Marxist, so they had to break the deal.

As long as their business interest doners can go without appropriations, I guess. The power of the speakers gavel is vast. 

[Captainant 28573]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Same as 1980 Afghanistan?

You tryna tell me that the plains and peninsulas of Ukraine are similar fighting conditions to the mountainous and desert Afghanistan?

[horn4life 3838]

It's all a designed Catch 22 (read up younguns). You elect a speaker so far right he is absolutely unwilling to pass any legislation with the help of the minority. (The Hastert Rule). Speaker insists the President needs to negotiate with the House.  President negotiates with the speaker, who is unwilling to put any legislation forward that cannot pass with only Republican votes.  Since there is no margin to pass anything other than the original legislation without compromise!  And this circle repeats itself like an endless loop

The speaker should simply turn and negotiate with the Dems and actually get some shit done and roll the morons like MTG, but NOooo..... we have to instead go kiss the Dear Leader's ring, and bow to MTG and the Golden God.

The GOP is the single best asset Putin has ever had... And that is amazing considering at one time the GOP was the party of Ronald Reagan.

 

[Dahobbs 18335]

36 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Same as 1980 Afghanistan?

The Soviets had like 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, being supplied far for home. In Ukraine, Russia is fighting right next door to its border and supply lines. And it has engaged many times that number of troops, with casualties estimates being in the hundreds of thousands. These are not comparable wars. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

It is like saying the US should have been able to win WW2 with the same size force it used in the Spanish-American war. It is a profoundly ignorant statement. 

[Ghost of LL 15699]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The Soviets had like 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, being supplied far for home. In Ukraine, Russia is fighting right next door to its border and supply lines. And it has engaged many times that number of troops, with casualties estimates being in the hundreds of thousands. These are not comparable wars. 

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union.

[Dahobbs 18335]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union.

Yes, but hardly along central supply lines. The Soviets had to extend their logistic network. That simply isn't the case for Russia in Ukraine. Again, these conflicts are not even close to the same scale. 

[The Dog 44862]

 

[immamac 44386]

36 minutes ago, horn4life said:

It's all a designed Catch 22 (read up younguns). You elect a speaker so far right he is absolutely unwilling to pass any legislation with the help of the minority. (The Hastert Rule). Speaker insists the President needs to negotiate with the House.  President negotiates with the speaker, who is unwilling to put any legislation forward that cannot pass with only Republican votes.  Since there is no margin to pass anything other than the original legislation without compromise!  And this circle repeats itself like an endless loop

The speaker should simply turn and negotiate with the Dems and actually get some shit done and roll the morons like MTG, but NOooo..... we have to instead go kiss the Dear Leader's ring, and bow to MTG and the Golden God.

The GOP is the single best asset Putin has ever had... And that is amazing considering at one time the GOP was the party of Ronald Reagan.

 

Except they did this and got legislation that was passable and then tanked it because trump thought it would hurt his chances if they did something bipartisan that didn’t suck. 

[SydneyCarton 49511]

I'll play speaker conspiracy planning bingo, I guess. The Democrats should find the actual moderate R, the guy who wins in a purple district, and the sanest there is, and offer to elevate HIM to speaker with the carrot being aid to Ukraine. Find 5 guys and let THEM pick amongst themselves. 

[kevwun 16442]

You should probably change user accounts again comrade.

Edited April 12 by kevwun

[WhatTheBuck 28932]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Except they keep resisting overtures to find a compromise candidate. Every time. They don’t want to work with the Dems on it. They’re no sane either!

Most Republicans in the House want to send aide to Ukraine. It’s just Johnson (I.e. Trump) and a handful of extremists blocking it. The thing is that any Republican in the House who cooperates with the Dems and goes against Trump on anything will get primaried and lose their seat. So even if they’re sane and moderate they can’t do anything about it because teaming up with the Dems would be a political death sentence. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

7 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

With the caveat of a promise that this is the last, best and final aid package to Ukraine, I think this would be a deal.

Go fuck yourself. 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Ukraine is going to get plenty of weapons whether there is a resolution or not.  No way Lockheed Martin and other big boy defense contractors are going to miss out on those revenues.

Yeah, this is wishcasting. This consensus doesn’t exist. The obstructionist wing of the GOP is invulnerable to even domestic economic lobbying. 

[WhatTheBuck 28932]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Same as 1980 Afghanistan?

If we supported Ukraine like we supported the Taliban then this war would’ve been over long ago and Russia would’ve won. They’re not remotely similar. 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

13 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

With the caveat of a promise that this is the last, best and final aid package to Ukraine, I think this would be a deal.

All U.S. military aid to Ukraine either comes from U.S. stocks and is backfilled with newer, better stuff or is being produced in the U.S. and reinvigorating our defense base and preparing us to fight the next war. You’re choosing American weakness and Russia/PRC victory. 

[Chewbacca 7830]

21 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

With the caveat of a promise that this is the last, best and final aid package to Ukraine, I think this would be a deal.

Fuck off outta here with this pro-Putin bullshit.  Russia is not our ally.  Never has been, never will be.

[safe sex 12031]

Chrispy wasn't banned after the Derka thread after all?

[SydneyCarton 49511]

2 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Chrispy wasn't banned after the Derka thread after all?

I believe Immamac stopped at "It's not really Chrispy."

 

[YGIFS 19458]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

It's gonna take a military level of support to defeat russia in the field. Not a few handfuls of missiles and ammo that CIA could scrounge

Yeah, in the from the 1970's to the 1990's, we were able to discretely move around some shit in Africa and Central America and even the Balkans relatively unnoticed.  In this day and age, with so much "Congressional" scrutiny, it'd be hard to move that much product into/near the theater given satellite imagery.  Plus in this case, you tacitly want Russia to see us backfilling our NATO friends who then deploy, modify, and coach up the weapons systems and operators so Russia knows.  It lifts all spirits except Russia's.  Obviously arms smugglers and SAC/SAD can move shit into just on the outskirts of the front, and they probably already are.  But at some point, it becomes a futile risk.  Move in wholesale through Germany, Poland, or Czech and let it be know to make logistics easier, lift morale, and force posture.  And then directly behind it---money for ammo, artillery, food, and medical supplies.  I'm far from an expert, this thread has forgotten more than I'll ever know about this shit........but sneaking in a couple trucks and an EM-50 doesn't do much........may as well go full AC/DC---balls to the walls.  

[956 Worldwide 35598]

53 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, but hardly along central supply lines. The Soviets had to extend their logistic network. That simply isn't the case for Russia in Ukraine. Again, these conflicts are not even close to the same scale. 

Also, the Soviets won in Afghanistan, at least the early going. We financed an insurgent campaign designed to inflict maximum attrition anytime they left their urban strongholds. 
 

The goal in Ukraine is not to surrender the nation to Russia and then bleed them dry. Not to re-litigate the morality of what happened there, but this would be a cruel and cynical approach that would cost at a minimum tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian lives and would confirm the worst narrative of what we are doing by supporting Ukraine.  We want Ukraine to be free and sovereign. The goal isn’t just dead Russian soldiers as useful as that is. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

35 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If we supported Ukraine like we supported the Taliban then this war would’ve been over long ago and Russia would’ve won. They’re not remotely similar. 

Yeah, US aid to Afghanistan peaked at the equivalent of $1.7 billion annually during the war. That amount wouldn't have done squat for Ukraine against Russia. 

[Dahobbs 18335]

3 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I am pro-Ukraine (and pro-Israel) and anti-Russia (and anti-Hamas)

No, you're not. 

Quote

What the message I hear by people reflexively freaking out about trying to put some guard rails around the spending on a very inefficient war

We're sending old equipment that would need to be replaced anyway and replacing it with new stuff we wanted to buy anyway. How on earth is that "inefficient"? From our perspective, it is literally the most efficient use of our military resources ever. 

Quote

with a very improbable positive outcome (Ukraine wins, because again I'm a Ukraine guy),

Again, bullshit. You're not a Ukraine guy. And Ukraine can and will win if supported. It has already shown that will be the case. 

Quote

is that you guys are okay with just a blank check indefinitely for a war that will eventually end at a stalemate or loss?

Announcing a set end to aid is the same thing as telling Russia it just needs to continue a little longer. Fuck you.

Quote

@Dahobbs is right, Russia isn't going to lose, no matter how much aid is wasted.

Double fuck yourself, I never even came close to saying that. 

Quote

And it will be wasted, just like the Ukrainian lives.

The only wasted life here is yours. 

 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

15 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I am pro-Ukraine (and pro-Israel) and anti-Russia (and anti-Hamas), so your personal attacks don't offend me. Before just cutting checks every session, why not go after your "allies" like India who are funding Russia by buying their gasoline, spitting in the face of the West?

What the message I hear by people reflexively freaking out about trying to put some guard rails around the spending on a very inefficient war with a very improbable positive outcome (Ukraine wins, because again I'm a Ukraine guy), is that you guys are okay with just a blank check indefinitely for a war that will eventually end at a stalemate or loss? @Dahobbs is right, Russia isn't going to lose, no matter how much aid is wasted. And it will be wasted, just like the Ukrainian lives.

Or you can just dismiss any stance that is anything other than "give billions of dollars for the life of the war" as being a commie or secret russia lover, but it seems to me that a reasonable conversation can and should be had around America (and ultimately the American people-- you and I) responsibility and financial commitment. AND Europe's responsibility and financial commitment as direct neighbors.

Anyone who lives in a world where Bucha, Mariupol, and Irpin happened and where Russia is forcibly deporting tens and thousands of children yet still says the loss of life is “wasted” is being either willfully ignorant or dishonest. 
 

This is what armies are for. They exist to fight and die so that other armies don’t rape and murder civilians and kidnap children. 

[Captainant 28573]

2 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

You are saying that the problem in communicating that is it gives Russia incentive to not come to the table with a deal to end the war knowing we don't have an appetite to subsidy Ukraine for the life of the war?

Russia is already never coming to the table as long as putin is breathing. You are repeating putin and tucker carlson's useful lie that they would negotiate a peace. You should open a fucking history book to the mid to late 1930s and read up on how appeasing these sorts of figures tends to go. 

And why shouldn't we be willing to subsidize Ukraine? They are a globally significant producer of wheat, a major science and technology hub (most of Russia's best equipment was designed and made in Ukraine), and a key strategic ally as a check against Russian expansionism. Their boys shoot our guns at Ivan so our boys don't have to.

Do you just want to see some American blood shed too before you're willing to support our allies?

For fucks sake, your sort of thinking would have given the axis powers the free hand they needed to win in WWII. Were it not for lend/lease the war likely would have ended in 1940. 

But hey at least it would have avoided all those """unnecessary deaths""" amirite???

[Brisketexan 106951]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Anyone who lives in a world where Bucha, Mariupol, and Irpin happened and where Russia is forcibly deporting tens and thousands of children yet still says the loss of life is “wasted” is being either willfully ignorant or dishonest. 
 

This is what armies are for. They exist to fight and die so that other armies don’t rape and murder civilians and kidnap children. 

This.

And a "Ukraine can't win" conclusion is uninformed by history.  Army v. Army, Russia has had an advantage in a shitload of wars.  Yet....Russia regularly loses or collapses as a government/state.  Russia's one great victory, WWII?  It was fought using a shitload of western materiel.  Otherwise?  You don't beat Russia by straight head-to-head matchup.  You beat Russia by humiliating it, bleeding it, and causing a crisis within Russia and Russian leadership.  The Ukraine strategy is to fight to a point of either Putin declaring victory of some sort to save face/save his ass, or collapse of the current Russian regime (either by actual collapse or Putin's death/incapacity).

I regularly advise smaller clients in fights against much larger, better-funded adversaries.  I tell them "we don't have to beat them head-to-head right now.  They are going to throw everything they have at us.  All we have to do is survive the onslaught, and outlast them."  That strategy works.  It works a lot.  Because a lot of the "big boy bullies" in this world only have "bully" in their arsenal. When "bully" fails to achieve the desired result....they become confused, vulnerable, and lose their will to fight.  Which creates the opportunity for a negotiate resolution that is much, much more favorable for the smaller adversary than you would have thought at the outbreak of hostilities.

All that BeardIP is telling us is that either 1) he is fucking lying about supporting Ukraine, and/or 2) he's a shitty strategic thinker who has minimal experience in adversarial engagement.

[Dahobbs 18335]

14 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

See? Reasonable minds can disagree, and with such respect too!

I am pro-Ukraine, despite your wishcasting. I don't want Russia to win if given a choice in the matter. 

So the $60bn from what you are saying and what I've read is "to purchase new weapons from U.S. companies to refill inventories that have been tapped to help Ukraine, finance military operations and sign contracts for new weapons for Kyiv."

That sounds fine and I think we all agree on that. Where I'm getting the vitriol is by saying that it should be a one-time/one-off. You are saying that the problem in communicating that is it gives Russia incentive to not come to the table with a deal to end the war knowing we don't have an appetite to subsidy Ukraine for the life of the war?

To that, again, I say-- Europe, step up. India, stand down.

You're a troll and a disingenuous shit stain. You deserve absolutely zero respect, and so I offer none. You repeat Russian lies that support Russia because you want Russia to win. You want rape and death to win. Could I magically teleport you there, I would, preferably in the middle of a minefield. 

[The Royal We 3100]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Their boys shoot our guns at Ivan so our boys don't have to.

Fucking this. I've got sons that are 14 and 10 years old. The quoted is essentially what I told my dad when he was spouting the same horseshit <animal><tobacco> is saying here. We either fight them now with our money, our old equipment, and their men OR we fight them later with our money, our new equipment, and potentially my sons. The Russians have made it very clear they don't intend to stop at Ukraine.

The fact that a back bench bitch from Louisiana is holding up a vote on funding is fucking infuriating.

[Dahobbs 18335]

2 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I just think that the USA, with economic problems at home (e.g. inflation, housing, etc.) has already given $80bn to Ukraine's war effort. I think Europe as a whole continent of countries have given ~$90bn?

Instead of looking to USA to carry the lion share of the load here indefinitely, all I'm saying is to add some accountability for others to help support Ukraine.

It should be a source of embarrassment to Ukraine's brother and sister countries and land (neighbors, etc.) that Russia with the help of NK/China are able to out-produce and out-gun Ukraine with the whole of NATO/EU behind them. Those countries ought to be subsidizing the majority of the war and yes, America should too, but not disproportionately IMO. And I don't think it's that wildly offensive of an opinion and one shared by many.

To the point of this thread, I think it's stupid to hold the money hostage, but I also think it's stupid to just be a revolving door and blank check go brrrrrrffftttttt (or even have the optics of it) when domestically we have our own financial issues (see: Inflation report this week).

The US hasn't given $80 bn to Ukraine. It has given most of it to itself. And not only are we getting new equipment that we wanted anyway, we're also seriously degrading the capabilities of a longtime foe. 

[The Royal We 3100]

JFC, we're not sending them big brown bags with a green dollar sign on the side stuffed full of cash.

You further beclown yourself when you say ignorant ass shit like we can't give them a blank check. Literally no one is suggesting that.

[956 Worldwide 35598]

3 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I just think that the USA, with economic problems at home (e.g. inflation, housing, etc.) has already given $80bn to Ukraine's war effort. I think Europe as a whole continent of countries have given ~$90bn?

Instead of looking to USA to carry the lion share of the load here indefinitely, all I'm saying is to add some accountability for others to help support Ukraine.

It should be a source of embarrassment to Ukraine's brother and sister countries and land (neighbors, etc.) that Russia with the help of NK/China are able to out-produce and out-gun Ukraine with the whole of NATO/EU behind them. Those countries ought to be subsidizing the majority of the war and yes, America should too, but not disproportionately IMO. And I don't think it's that wildly offensive of an opinion and one shared by many.

To the point of this thread, I think it's stupid to hold the money hostage, but I also think it's stupid to just be a revolving door and blank check go brrrrrrffftttttt (or even have the optics of it) when domestically we have our own financial issues (see: Inflation report this week).

You keep repeating nonsense GOP lines (there’s no money printer) and you are actually making a great point that the NATO Allies outside of us as a whole are slightly larger than the U.S. and have a slightly larger economy cumulatively— and have contributed proportionally. 
 

The Alliance can’t undo years of mistakes and underinvestment. We have the equipment and DIB to give stuff.  The others don’t. It sucks but it’s what it is. The question is why you want to abandon US leadership in Europe and why you hate the idea of modernizing our own forces while supporting Ukraine and creating America jobs? 
 

[The Royal We 3100]

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Well, to me your dad sounds like a responsible, smart man with experience and wisdom.

He's a brainwashed Boomer who can no longer think critically. I love him dearly, but you're not in great company if your thought processes aligns with his.

[Sawbonz 28232]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Afghanistan bordered the Soviet Union.

[Captainant 28573]

6 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I just think that the USA, with economic problems at home (e.g. inflation, housing, etc.) has already given $80bn to Ukraine's war effort. I think Europe as a whole continent of countries have given ~$90bn?

Motherfucker read a fucking history book about how the US was going domestically in the 1930s. Hint: it wasn't sunshine and handjobs. Do you teach your children that they should only do the right thing if everyone else is doing it?

7 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Instead of looking to USA to carry the lion share of the load here indefinitely, all I'm saying is to add some accountability for others to help support Ukraine.

This is literally the trumpist anti-NATO argument and talking point being regurgitated and smeared across the Ukrainian war. 

8 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

To the point of this thread, I think it's stupid to hold the money hostage, but I also think it's stupid to just be a revolving door and blank check go brrrrrrffftttttt (or even have the optics of it) when domestically we have our own financial issues (see: Inflation report this week).

Motherfucker the dude you voted for - the so called "king of debt" -  is who put us on this debt spiral. Government revenues are down because of the obscene corporate and ultra wealthy tax cuts passed in 2017. You don't get to throw gasoline on a fire and then complain about all the smoke and heat. 

[956 Worldwide 35598]

On Ukraine, as with so much— this exchange is instructive.  GOP supporters are simply chronically incapable of making a case for what they want based on facts. Every single argument has to be based on easily disprovable lies and truth manipulation like “blank check, money printer.”  It all falls apart if you just acknowledge the world as it exists. 

[Chewbacca 7830]

42 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I am pro-Ukraine (and pro-Israel) and anti-Russia (and anti-Hamas), so your personal attacks don't offend me. Before just cutting checks every session, why not go after your "allies" like India who are funding Russia by buying their gasoline, spitting in the face of the West?

What the message I hear by people reflexively freaking out about trying to put some guard rails around the spending on a very inefficient war with a very improbable positive outcome (Ukraine wins, because again I'm a Ukraine guy), is that you guys are okay with just a blank check indefinitely for a war that will eventually end at a stalemate or loss? @Dahobbs is right, Russia isn't going to lose, no matter how much aid is wasted. And it will be wasted, just like the Ukrainian lives.

Or you can just dismiss any stance that is anything other than "give billions of dollars for the life of the war" as being a commie or secret russia lover, but it seems to me that a reasonable conversation can and should be had around America (and ultimately the American people-- you and I) responsibility and financial commitment. AND Europe's responsibility and financial commitment as direct neighbors.

Ah, so you're a Whatabouter.

 

I think funding Ukraine is the right thing to do so I support it.  Despite your words, you don't.