Jump to content

the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Royal We said:

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.

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

  • Fuck You 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 
 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Royal We said:

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.

Hey, you know what? You have yourself a great weekend, sir. Tell your dad you love him. 

Pax and Agape to you all-- the beach is calling my name.

  • Fuck You 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

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? 
 

I don't. I'm for approving the $60bn and like I said, I think it's stupid to hold it hostage (especially if it's still being held hostage for border walls or whatever that ignorant stuff was. It reminds me of Abbott's idiocy to hold the ISD money until he gets his stupid vouchers).

But what I do want is, even if it's limited, some sort of assurance that we we are going to be limiting our funding footprint after this and demanding others step up and take a bigger role.

And if India gets called to the carpet for their sinister pro-Russia behavior as part of that, even better!

I have to run for real now. I love you, man.

  • Fuck You 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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 need to stop thinking in terms of dollars. We aren’t sending them cash or wiring them dollars.  
 

we are giving them older, useful stuff to fight with.  Things that we want to replace or have replaced and are spending money to securely store. 
 

then we are spending our money to replace that stuff with the stuff we want.  Which puts money into our economy, secures jobs, fattens the MIC which is always hungry, and updates our military inventory. 
 

yeah, there could be some money spent on excess dumb shells manufactured specifically to give to Ukraine but that’s a small portion of an overall aid package. 
 

and maybe there’s humanitarian aid in included and some of the same benefits occur outside the defense contractor ecosystem. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

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. 

Russia will come to the table if they get to keep Crimea and everything else they’ve taken. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

We're not giving money and resources away,  we are investing it.  We're investing in a country being a wall to protecting the rest of Europe.  Investing in our own industry by showing off to the world how effective our old and new military equipment is. Investing in our own soldiers by limiting possible NATO war and face to face conflict.  Investing in a future partner and NATO ally with a very capable society.  The ROI on this stands to be massive considering the circumstances forced onto the world by Putin and his alliances.

Based on what DJT said, this is probably going to be reframed as a loan, which everyone understands will never be repaid because you don’t give back a Bradley or a Patriot interceptor. It simply has to be framed that way as a sop to the grotesque ego of a man who needs to show he makes “good deals” and to satisfy—not LOW information voters— rather WRONG information voters. Just doing the thing that needs to be done by creating a Rube Goldberg machine for simpletons and half-wits to gawk at. 
 

This especially uninspired bit of high school drama would be understandable as politics if the end result wasn’t killing lots of brave people who want to like us. It’s astounding how eager the GOP IS celebrate their own stupid harmfulness. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

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. 

It’s not just that, it’s also that newer American stuff is being proven to work (HIMARS etc.) and as a result, American defense companies are hiring more workers and ramping up the number of shifts because quite a few countries are all of the sudden buying our proven hardware. That boosts our economy quite a bit. The HIMARS production line alone has nearly tripled yearly output, and has a massive backlog thanks to the war. 
 

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We have the equipment and DIB to give stuff.  The others don’t. It sucks but it’s what it is.

Yep, no other country had almost a thousand F-16s sitting in long-term storage waiting to be sold or given to allies, used for parts, or eventually scrapped. That’s just one example, and it is the way it is because we chose to have a big fucking military because it’s in our economic interest.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Until next time

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, I wouldn't count on that as a long-term fix. 

Yep, just until they can fully equip and properly train up a few hundred thousand new troops.

I will be shocked if Belarus isn’t Anschlussed this year (I know it’s not a real word, don’t care).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours 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.

how about you go fuck right off back to Moscow, you fucking scumbag and/or aggie

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BeardIP said:

Hey, you know what? You have yourself a great weekend, sir. Tell your dad you love him. 

Pax and Agape to you all-- the beach is calling my name.

The only thing agape around here is your asshole

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Prepare your anus 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people like Beard don’t seem to get is that Putin is publicly telling us who he is and what he believes, and that he’s not going to stop with Ukraine. In his mind, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics, part of Poland, etc. all belong to him and Mother Russia.  Georgia and Transnistria, and Ukraine in 2014 were the first steps into making that a reality once again.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to stop thinking in terms of dollars. We aren’t sending them cash or wiring them dollars.  
 
we are giving them older, useful stuff to fight with.  Things that we want to replace or have replaced and are spending money to securely store. 
 
then we are spending our money to replace that stuff with the stuff we want.  Which puts money into our economy, secures jobs, fattens the MIC which is always hungry, and updates our military inventory. 
 
yeah, there could be some money spent on excess dumb shells manufactured specifically to give to Ukraine but that’s a small portion of an overall aid package. 
 
and maybe there’s humanitarian aid in included and some of the same benefits occur outside the defense contractor ecosystem. 
He's not interested in actual dialog.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people like Beard don’t seem to get is that Putin is publicly telling us who he is and what he believes, and that he’s not going to stop with Ukraine. In his mind, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics, part of Poland, etc. all belong to him and Mother Russia.  Georgia and Transnistria, and Ukraine in 2014 were the first steps into making that a reality once again.
He gets it, he just doesn't care.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Smax said:

Why haven't "we" tapped into the $300 billion frozen Russian asset yet? I assume because its unprecedented but given what's at stake and the maga morons strangle on congress, isn't it time?

The west should tell Russia, this is where we are at, cease all hostilities and retreat or we are going to start liquidating Russian assets to pay for the war and in all honesty we should do it anyways and put some of it aside to pay for rebuilding.

Give Ukraine more offensive weapons and take the restraint off, let Ukraine send missiles and drones into Moscow on the reg and see how they like it


An argument against liquidating Russian holdings in the west is that it takes away a chip if / when Putin dies.

The Russian economy will be in shambles.

theyll need that $.

The west can use it to ensure a sympathetic leader is installed to get the $ spigot going.

Without that leverage who know what crazy is ‘elected’ or installed.

Im not 100% convinced of this argument but I can see its merits and it is at least a strategy, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/house-republicans-israel-ukraine-iran/index.html
 

Quote

Speaker Mike Johnson announced Monday evening the House will take up separate bills this week to provide aid for Israel and Ukraine, heeding demands from the far right to keep the issues separate as the threat of a vote to oust him from the speakership looms.

The long-awaited decision by Johnson marks a pivotal moment for the Louisiana Republican as he has faced intense pressure from his conference over how he would handle foreign aid to the key US allies. Johnson predicted the House will vote Friday evening on the separate bills.

Quote

“There are precipitating events around the globe that we’re all watching very carefully,” Johnson told reporters after a GOP conference meeting Monday evening. “And we know that the world is watching us to see how we react.”

Quote

Despite the speaker’s attempt to thread the needle, however, GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who continues to dangle the threat of a vote on Johnson’s ouster, was quick to criticize the foreign aid plan. “I am firmly against the plan as it stands right now,” Greene told reporters, though when asked whether she would force a vote on the motion to vacate as a result, she said, “I haven’t decided on that yet.”

Johnson dismissed concerns over a vote to oust him by his conservative flank if he moves on aid to Ukraine, telling CNN, “I don’t spend my time worrying about motions to vacate. We’re having to govern here and we’re going to do our job.”

Johnson feeling a lot of heat from the Republicans who aren’t on the Russian payroll.  There’s talk that one or more Republicans are about to bail as well.

MTG going to try and do a motion to vacate this week, I’m guessing.  She’s been so adamant against any Ukraine aid, no way she doesn’t try and gum up the works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine aid needs to get done ASAP. I’m not holding my breath and I’ve got a pretty cynical view of Johnson’s determination to get it done. But if it doesn’t get done then that will be a further indictment of the pro-Putin sympathies in the GOP. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MrBig said:

I read that some Dem Reps like Joaquin Castro and others are willing to back Johnson to remain speaker for the sake of trying to get things done. 

I mean, there’s not much left to do this year, legislatively. It’s already April, they only have about 12 work weeks left where both chambers are in session.  Basically off all of August and October

Just get the important shit done, let Marge have her tantrum and further embarrass the GOP right before election season and campaign on restoring functionality and normalcy back to the House

God forbid the Dems let someone like Gym get the gavel in May and he immediately goes hog wild with fake Benghazi stuff to try to influence the election 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MrBig said:

I read that some Dem Reps like Joaquin Castro and others are willing to back Johnson to remain speaker for the sake of trying to get things done. 

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I am counting on there being some bullshit that sinks the Ukraine bill, Johnson will say he tried, and we will just give up. Lots of people looking for reasons to throw them overboard. 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/mike-johnson-foreign-aid-plan-republican-reaction/index.html
 

Quote

Republican hardliners are growing angry at House Speaker Mike Johnson’s complex plan to advance billions in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, the latest indication that Democratic support will be needed to save it.

But the text of the plan has not been released, so House Democrats are still weighing whether to bail out Johnson – or stand up against it and pressure Republicans to instead take up the $95 billion Senate package that Johnson has sidelined for two months. House Democrats meet Tuesday morning.

Quote

The first problem for Johnson: Approving the rule that governs floor debate, a procedural step that allows legislation to be passed by a majority vote. For decades, these rules have been approved along straight-party lines, but GOP divisions have derailed rules seven times this Congress and stymied its agenda.

At least one Republican – Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia – said she will vote against the rule. Several others told CNN they are still considering how they’d vote. And members including Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky are railing against the plan Tuesday morning. It’s the latest sign that Democrats will be needed to save the rule, a prospect that would open up Johnson to backlash from an already angry right wing.

I think there’s more than enough Republican votes in support of Ukraine to get it across the finishing line, but there’s also enough pro-Russia Republicans to stymy the floor debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think there’s more than enough Republican votes in support of Ukraine to get it across the finishing line, but there’s also enough pro-Russia Republicans to stymy the floor debate.

And the fact of the matter is, Johnson has straight up been refusing to bring those bills to the floor. The GOP doesn't want to govern. They want to rule. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And the fact of the matter is, Johnson has straight up been refusing to bring those bills to the floor. The GOP doesn't want to govern. They want to rule. 

They’re for sale and Russia is buying.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They’re for sale and Russia is buying.

Heaven forbid we actually fucking prosecute anyone trading favors for rubles, though. Just think if they were investigating YOU for taking illegal campaign contributions from the russians!

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...