All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

Not sure what that means...

[a fan]

So you're cheering on the GOP Freedom Caucus in the House for their efforts to eliminate deficit exploding omnibus spending bills.

Nope. That's all theater. Performance for their base now that a R isn't in the White House where the spending makes the economy go boom, so Republican voters like you can fall for it....and think "it was the tax cuts" that led to the good economy, instead of Trump's choice to increase Federal spending by 66% in four years.

Where was this focus on the deficit under Trump? Like you, they cheered for both spending and tax cuts. Sell it somewhere else. If you're dumb enough to think that Lauren freaking Boebert understands spending policies, you're far dumber than I would ever believe. (your'e a smart man...just stop with this)

Don't like deficits? Great news, welcome aboard. Vote for tax increases. You party doesn't want those, because taxes are bad, remember? Quit voting for your party if you're worried about deficits-----all they do is spend and cut taxes....the literal recipe for deficits.

Bernie would have made our defense as toothless as the EUros & there'd be nobody able to give the Ukrainians what they need to keep the Russians out.

So what? And your definition of "toothless" is just a TAD relative, FFS. Bernie would focus on defense. Remember what the word "defense" used to mean? You know: defending the US from attacks? Put me in charge. I'll close pointless bases , and plow that money into even more R&D for weapons. Focus on defense, get rid of offense.

We've gone over this.....we've been enabling NATO members by choice for 50+ years. It's absurd to think that Germany, the UK, and France can't build boats to keep the freaking sea lanes open....yet that's what you've been telling us. And out of the other side of your mouth...you whine about NATO spending. Gee OS, ya think these two things are linked? Can't figure out that we're cheering and enabling this behavior from NATO? Naaaaah. We should just keep whining, and pretend one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Russia's afraid of the US military because of the weapons & training paid for when the sequester caps on defense spending were lifted.

You'll never change. Everything awesome was the Republicans.

It's not the cumulative effect of the US blowing billions on R&D for decades, regardless of who was in the White House. It was all (snicker) because of Trump. Whatever you want to believe. You still sending him loving postcards, telling him he's still a Superhero in your eyes?

To get that done, domestic spending caps had to be lifted too.

No. It didn't you're flat out lying your *ss off. I pointed this out to you at the time. As usual, you didn't care, because of Trump's little R.

The military spending bill was 100% a stand alone, old salt. Trump fat spending bill--the one he "pretended to veto"? That was 100% non military spending. You didn't care. Your fellow Republican voters didn't care. You were dazzled by the magic R, as you always are. You'd vote for Putin if he had a R by his name. It's depressing.

And here you are, making the same stupid Reagan-era claim that Republicans spend on domestic stuff "because the mean ol' Dems make them".

Nope. NOTHING forced one single Republican to vote for that massive pre-Covid spending bill. And nothing forced Trump to sign it.

Yet here you are, lying to me, and more importantly, lying to yourself as to what actually happened. It's sad. I feel nothing but pity for your made-up worldview that based on big fat lies that you continually swallow like the world's largest pelican. All because you can't bring yourself to say that a Republican ever did something bad. Or that their policies are the polar opposite of what you claim to want.

Biden, Bernie & AOC want to forgive the student loan debt that deficit spending financed

Oh no!!! Something that might help someone who isn't in the 1%! You should be outraged, OS! Shouldn't Bernie instead of doing that, cut taxes for you and the MultiNational companies that you hold stock in? Oh, the horror.

Good thing your party would never help the 1% at the expense of the 99%, OS. You should TOTALLY keep voting for them.

BTW, OS, let's pretend you're not a Republican for 10 seconds, and can call balls an strikes. Riddle me this: if you asked Bernie to offer Federally-paid training for plumbers, construction workers, machinists, electricians, farmers, and on and on.....take a wild guess as to how F'ing fast he would do that if he had the power?

Meanwhile, what's your team's plan for these people, OS? That's right: socialism is bad. Spending money on training and education is bad. Their advice to all of the above workers (we have a shortage for them in the millions)? Shut the F up, and get a job at taco bell or in a meat packing plant.

You keep voting for this. I have no idea why, given what you keep telling me that you want. The best you can come up with as to why is that Bernie would give a break to college grads. I admit it's a stupid policy----but it's nowhere near the top of the list on things we shouldn't blow money on.

Sad thing is? You agree. If you had to pick between loan forgiveness, and Trump's tax cut for multinational (guess which one will cost more?), you'd pick the loan forgiveness. Because you're not an idiot.

The GOP's power for the next 2 years is going to be in what they can block in the House.

Yep. This is what you and your idiotic party does: if there's a D in the White House? Stop everything. Can't have good things for the American people......you asked for it, OS, you got it. Enjoy. Let the working class eat the inflation with no help for yet another generation.

Who cares, right? Maybe Boebert can get them to stop the "deficit funded" military pay raise those dumb ol' Dems just passed, right (that bill doesn't even come close to covering inflation)? Who cares that your fellow service members' families are lining up at charity Food Pantries, right?

Let's give these military families some good ol' Republican advice, shall we, OS? Quit whining, and get another job, ya deadbeats! Stop looking for a socialist handout from the government----the Federal minimum wage is PLENTY high enough.

[old salt]

So you're cheering on the GOP Freedom Caucus in the House for their efforts to eliminate deficit exploding omnibus spending bills.

Nope. That's all theater. Performance for their base now that a R isn't in the White House where the spending makes the economy go boom, so Republican voters like you can fall for it....and think "it was the tax cuts" that led to the good economy, instead of Trump's choice to increase Federal spending by 66% in four years.

Where was this focus on the deficit under Trump? Like you, they cheered for both spending and tax cuts. Sell it somewhere else. If you're dumb enough to think that Lauren freaking Boebert understands spending policies, you're far dumber than I would ever believe. (your'e a smart man...just stop with this)

Don't like deficits? Great news, welcome aboard. Vote for tax increases. You party doesn't want those, because taxes are bad, remember? Quit voting for your party if you're worried about deficits-----all they do is spend and cut taxes....the literal recipe for deficits.

Bernie would have made our defense as toothless as the EUros & there'd be nobody able to give the Ukrainians what they need to keep the Russians out.

Russia's afraid of the US military because of the weapons & training paid for when the sequester caps on defense spending were lifted.

You'll never change. Everything awesome was the Republicans.

It's not the cumulative effect of the US blowing billions on R&D for decades, regardless of who was in the White House. It was all (snicker) because of Trump. Whatever you want to believe. You still sending him loving postcards, telling him he's still a Superhero in your eyes?

To get that done, domestic spending caps had to be lifted too.

No. It didn't you're flat out lying your *ss off. I pointed this out to you at the time. As usual, you didn't care, because of Trump's little R.

The military spending bill was 100% a stand alone, old salt. Trump fat spending bill--the one he "pretended to veto"? That was 100% non military spending. You didn't care. Your fellow Republican voters didn't care. You were dazzled by the magic R, as you always are. You'd vote for Putin if he had a R by his name. It's depressing.

And here you are, making the same stupid Reagan-era claim that Republicans spend on domestic stuff "because the mean ol' Dems make them".

Yet here you are, lying to me, and more importantly, lying to yourself as to what actually happened. It's sad. I feel nothing but pity for your made-up worldview that based on big fat lies that you continually swallow like the world's largest pelican. All because you can't bring yourself to say that a Republican ever did something bad. Or that their policies are the polar opposite of what you claim to want.

Had we followed yours & Bernie's advice on defense spending & force deployment, we wouldn't be able to give the Ukrainians what they need to stop Putin's westward advance & our NATO allies would not be able to deter him without our presence in Europe. Grow up. You're not a hippie peacenick anymore.

The House GOP repeatedly tried to bust the defense sequester caps only.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-bill-ef ... se-funding

DECEMBER 18, 2017, 3:30 PM
As the congressional session draws to a close this week, policymakers face the important tasks of enacting appropriations bills for fiscal year 2018 that began on October 1, extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and other expired health programs, and providing vital disaster relief for communities hard hit by hurricanes and wildfires. But House Republican leaders are advancing a bill that solves none of these problems. Instead, their legislation reiterates their desire to increase defense spending substantially while leaving non-defense priorities underfunded, offsets the cost of extending CHIP and other health programs with provisions that would leave more people without health coverage, and ignores disaster relief entirely.

To reach agreement on 2018 funding, policymakers must first address the 2011 Budget Control Act’s (BCA) legally binding caps on overall defense and non-defense funding and the further “sequestration” cuts to those caps under the BCA. Recognizing after the BCA’s enactment that the post-sequestration caps were too low to meet either defense or non-defense funding needs, the President and Congress enacted a series of sequester relief measures that raised the caps one or two years at a time, always providing equal relief to defense and non-defense categories.

The last such measure expired in September, and House and Senate leaders from both parties are discussing raising the caps for 2018 and 2019. While they haven’t reached an agreement, the discussions reportedly center on providing significant relief from defense and non-defense sequestration cuts. Now, however, House Republicans are advancing a plan that addresses underfunding only in defense. It doesn’t raise the defense cap but, instead, effectively eliminates it for 2018 (by suspending its enforcement, which normally comes through automatic reductions if defense funding exceeds the cap level). This leaves only the non-defense funding cap, which receives no relief from the full sequestration cuts.

While eliminating the defense cap, the House bill also would enact a 2018 appropriations bill for the Defense Department (DOD) while leaving the rest of government operating under a continuing resolution.
House GOP Would Abandon Years of Bipartisan, Equal Relief From Sequestration by Boosting Defense, Ignoring Non-Defense
Meanwhile, the bill defers decisions about overall non-defense funding and the 11 other annual funding bills. Defense needs are important, but so are many non-defense needs, such as disease control and public health, scientific and medical research, medical care and other services for veterans, services and benefits for low-income people, law enforcement and homeland security, and environmental protection. (We’ve written about unmet needs in appropriated programs here and here.)

The House Republican plan to address defense funding now — rather than as part of an overall agreement for defense- and non-defense funding — would make it far less likely that House Republicans would later provide much-needed sequestration relief for non-defense funding. Fortunately, this approach has virtually no chance of gaining the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Senate Democrats have said they will not support legislation that addresses defense funding but ignores or shortchanges non-defense needs (and some Senate Republicans may share that view).

[a fan]

Had we followed yours & Bernie's advice on defense spending & force deployment, we wouldn't be able to give the Ukrainians what they need to stop Putin's westward advance & our NATO allies would not be able to deter him without our presence in Europe. Grow up. You're not a hippie peacenick anymore.

YOU have been telling us that Ukraine is part of Russia. So now you admit that yep, Bernie would have done nothing about Ukraine militarily. And the world would keep on spinning. This is what YOU have asked for.....now here you are telling me that once again, you share Bernies vision for policies. Do I have to draw you a picture so this sinks in, or something?

Putin couldn't and now can't attack a NATO nation. If you haven't figured this out by now, you never will. Your assessment of Putin has been wrong for over a decade now, and it seems you want to continue this hot streak. Knock yourself out, I guess.

BTW, Bernie would have NEVER stepped in to get Ukraine to surrender its nukes. So this whole mess would never have happened in the first place. You just refuse to hear that sometimes keeping our nose out of things, and not playing global cop can actually have positive outcomes.

All while spending badly needed money on infrastructure and the American working class. This is what you want, remember?

You're making my points for me. Appreciate that you're listening, whether you realize it or not....

The House GOP repeatedly tried to bust the defense sequester caps only.

Yeah. You're making my points for me.....or are you just not paying attention.

From your citation, notice the dates....

........DECEMBER 18, 2017, 3:30 PM......

To reach agreement on 2018 funding.......

The last such measure expired in September, and House and Senate leaders from both parties are discussing raising the caps for 2018 and 2019.
.....effectively eliminates it for 2018 .....

While eliminating the defense cap, the House bill also would enact a 2018 appropriations bill.........

Do ya 'member who was in the White House in those years, and what letter was by the occupant's name?

That's right....a D. And what did I just get done telling you is the cute game your party plays? When a R is POTUS, out comes the checkbook for domestic spending, together with claims that the mean ol' Dems "made them do it". See: fat domestic spending bill Trump signed. All with borrowed money. Why? Because R's know that this game of massive increases in domestic spending makes the economy boom....and they get to look swell. And naturally, R voters don't notice this spending, and think the economy is booming because of hard work. Nope. Borrowing a trillion dollars and pumping it through the economy is what did it.

But when a D is in office, as we have now, out comes the claims of fiscal restraint. Why? Because R's know what borrowed spending does----it makes the economy boom. And they have no interest in giving that to a Dem potus. So out comes the claims of fiscal discipline. And voters like you buy it, every. time. Snicker.....'member the "Tea Party"? Those guys were HILARIOUS.

And because registered Republicans are freaking idiots, and don't pay attention to what their team does, Trump can increase the size of the Federal government by 66% in four years, and guys like you won't bat an eye. You won't notice. What's more, you'll deny it happened, or blame the Dems. Why? Because you're idiots when it comes to anything your party does, and simply don't want to hear it when they do things that are contrary to your "supposed values".

See: registered Dems in denial about Obama's droning of civilians for an example of this phenomenon, where partisans lose IQ points any time it comes to criticizing their own party.

[old salt]

Had we followed yours & Bernie's advice on defense spending & force deployment, we wouldn't be able to give the Ukrainians what they need to stop Putin's westward advance & our NATO allies would not be able to deter him without our presence in Europe. Grow up. You're not a hippie peacenick anymore.

YOU have been telling us that Ukraine is part of Russia. So now you admit that yep, Bernie would have done nothing about Ukraine militarily. And the world would keep on spinning. This is what YOU have asked for.....now here you are telling me that once again, you share Bernies vision for policies. Do I have to draw you a picture so this sinks in, or something?

Putin couldn't and now can't attack a NATO nation. If you haven't figured this out by now, you never will. Your assessment of Putin has been wrong for over a decade now, and it seems you want to continue this hot streak. Knock yourself out, I guess.

BTW, Bernie would have NEVER stepped in to get Ukraine to surrender its nukes. So this whole mess would never have happened in the first place. You just refuse to hear that sometimes keeping our nose out of things, and not playing global cop can actually have positive outcomes.

All while spending badly needed money on infrastructure and the American working class. This is what you want, remember?

You're making my points for me. Appreciate that you're listening, whether you realize it or not....

The House GOP repeatedly tried to bust the defense sequester caps only.

Yeah. You're making my points for me.....or are you just not paying attention.

From your citation, notice the dates....

........DECEMBER 18, 2017, 3:30 PM......

To reach agreement on 2018 funding.......

The last such measure expired in September, and House and Senate leaders from both parties are discussing raising the caps for 2018 and 2019.
.....effectively eliminates it for 2018 .....

While eliminating the defense cap, the House bill also would enact a 2018 appropriations bill.........

Do ya 'member who was in the White House in those years, and what letter was by the occupant's name?

That's right....a D. And what did I just get done telling you is the cute game your party plays? When a R is POTUS, out comes the checkbook for domestic spending, together with claims that the mean ol' Dems "made them do it". See: fat domestic spending bill Trump signed. All with borrowed money. Why? Because R's know that this game of massive increases in domestic spending makes the economy boom....and they get to look swell. And naturally, R voters don't notice this spending, and think the economy is booming because of hard work. Nope. Borrowing a trillion dollars and pumping it through the economy is what did it.

But when a D is in office, as we have now, out comes the claims of fiscal restraint. Why? Because R's know what borrowed spending does----it makes the economy boom. And they have no interest in giving that to a Dem potus. So out comes the claims of fiscal discipline. And voters like you buy it, every. time. Snicker.....'member the "Tea Party"? Those guys were HILARIOUS.

And because registered Republicans are freaking idiots, and don't pay attention to what their team does, Trump can increase the size of the Federal government by 66% in four years, and guys like you won't bat an eye. You won't notice. What's more, you'll deny it happened, or blame the Dems. Why? Because you're idiots when it comes to anything your party does, and simply don't want to hear it when they do things that are contrary to your "supposed values".

See: registered Dems in denial about Obama's droning of civilians for an example of this phenomenon, where partisans lose IQ points any time it comes to criticizing their own party.

You have no idea what Bernie would have done re. Ukraine, nor do I. He's an irrelevant diversion anyway.
Before NATO (mostly US) reinforced the Baltic states & Poland in 2014, Putun could have easily rolled through the Suwalki gap & established a land corridor to Kaliningrad just as he seized Crimea. That's why a US led NATO scrambled to reinforce that area & plug that gap.

My link explained the BCA all the way back to 2011. It's simple -- the (R)'s are/were willing to increase defense spending without a corresponding increase in non-defense spending. When unable to do that because of the (D)'s ability to block it in Congress or the WH, they go along to keep the military functional & prevent the govt from shutting down. The House (R)"s are the only current players in the process who are willing return to the normal budget process of separate appropriations bills, drafted debated & passed via normal order, rather than cobbled together before a deadline & crammed through via massive deficit busting omnibus bills.

[MDlaxfan76]

Obviously the military needs to grow its budget faster than all other government budgets.

Actually, I could buy that in the event of something happening like Ukraine, but hmmm...

How about we raise tax rates back to prior levels on very rich and large corps?
How about we actually fund the auditing of complex, large tax returns...you know...where the $ are?

Any whining about deficits with an unwillingness to pay for desired increases through taxes is total BS.

[a fan]

You have no idea what Bernie would have done re. Ukraine, nor do I. He's an irrelevant diversion anyway.

You just got done telling me he'd let the military go toothless...change of heart?

You're just upset that I clearly laid out that Bernie is your guy for the policies you want, and would have left Ukraine alone, just as Obama left Crimea alone. Bernie isn't (duh) a neo-con. Biden is, and is acting accordingly, just as I told you he would before he was sworn in. We're back to global cop. You think that that little D makes Bernie "bad", and so you're lashing out.

Before NATO (mostly US) reinforced the Baltic states & Poland in 2014, Putun could have easily rolled through the Suwalki gap & established a land corridor to Kaliningrad just as he seized Crimea. That's why a US led NATO scrambled to reinforce that area & plug that gap.

After watching this mess.......You STILL think the Putin's military...... that can't defeat a bunch of 18th rate soldiers and guerillas..... would EVER want to tangle with even 1,000 US marines? NATO would eviscerate Putin's joke of an army. If you don't understand that now, you never will. Putin knows, even if you're pretending you don't.

My link explained the BCA all the way back to 2011. It's simple -- the (R)'s are/were willing to increase defense spending without a corresponding increase in non-defense spending. When unable to do that because of the (D)'s ability to block it in Congress or the WH, they go along to keep the military functional & prevent the govt from shutting down

Want me to start citing domestic only spending bills for Trump and Bush? Trump had the military spending bill signed and sealed BEFORE he broke out the domestic spending mess. I'd wager you can't name a single thing in that domestic bill, OS.

You're lying. Bush and Trump signed domestic spending bills all by themselves. Both made the Federal Government LARGER. Both borrowed trillions to do it. No one forced Trump or Bush to sign those bills. They weren't coupled with Defense spending, mate.

You're lying. Like a five year old with chocolate all over his face, telling mommy that "no, I didn't have any chocolate".

The House (R)"s are the only current players in the process who are willing return to the normal budget process of separate appropriations bills, drafted debated & passed via normal order, rather than cobbled together before a deadline & crammed through via massive deficit busting omnibus bills.

Yeah, and if we "just vote for Trump", he'll pass an immigration bill.

Why the F do you believe a word any of these people tell you?
You see through the BS of the Dems. Yet you transform into a gullible 5 year old the minute someone with a R by their name shows up with a bill of goods for you.

Sure old salt. These Republicans who are all election denier nutjobs, and signed on for both the Trump tax cuts and spending bills have seen "Financial Jeezus", and want to cut government and now that Biden's little D is in power.

We saw what you party thinks of Big Government under Trump. He left office having made the Federal Government 66% larger. And you're here, pretending that that didn't happen. Grow up.

[PizzaSnake]

You have no idea what Bernie would have done re. Ukraine, nor do I. He's an irrelevant diversion anyway.

You just got done telling me he'd let the military go toothless...change of heart?

You're just upset that I clearly laid out that Bernie is your guy for the policies you want, and would have left Ukraine alone, just as Obama left Crimea alone. Bernie isn't (duh) a neo-con. Biden is, and is acting accordingly, just as I told you he would before he was sworn in. We're back to global cop. You think that that little D makes Bernie "bad", and so you're lashing out.

Before NATO (mostly US) reinforced the Baltic states & Poland in 2014, Putun could have easily rolled through the Suwalki gap & established a land corridor to Kaliningrad just as he seized Crimea. That's why a US led NATO scrambled to reinforce that area & plug that gap.

After watching this mess.......You STILL think the Putin's military...... that can't defeat a bunch of 18th rate soldiers and guerillas..... would EVER want to tangle with even 1,000 US marines? NATO would eviscerate Putin's joke of an army. If you don't understand that now, you never will. Putin knows, even if you're pretending you don't.

My link explained the BCA all the way back to 2011. It's simple -- the (R)'s are/were willing to increase defense spending without a corresponding increase in non-defense spending. When unable to do that because of the (D)'s ability to block it in Congress or the WH, they go along to keep the military functional & prevent the govt from shutting down

Want me to start citing domestic only spending bills for Trump and Bush? Trump had the military spending bill signed and sealed BEFORE he broke out the domestic spending mess. I'd wager you can't name a single thing in that domestic bill, OS.

You're lying. Bush and Trump signed domestic spending bills all by themselves. Both made the Federal Government LARGER. Both borrowed trillions to do it. No one forced Trump or Bush to sign those bills. They weren't coupled with Defense spending, mate.

You're lying. Like a five year old with chocolate all over his face, telling mommy that "no, I didn't have any chocolate".

The House (R)"s are the only current players in the process who are willing return to the normal budget process of separate appropriations bills, drafted debated & passed via normal order, rather than cobbled together before a deadline & crammed through via massive deficit busting omnibus bills.

Yeah, and if we "just vote for Trump", he'll pass an immigration bill.

Why the F do you believe a word any of these people tell you?
You see through the BS of the Dems. Yet you transform into a gullible 5 year old the minute someone with a R by their name shows up with a bill of goods for you.

Sure old salt. These Republicans who are all election denier nutjobs, and signed on for both the Trump tax cuts and spending bills have seen "Financial Jeezus", and want to cut government and now that Biden's little D is in power.

We saw what you party thinks of Big Government under Trump. He left office having made the Federal Government 66% larger. And you're here, pretending that that didn't happen. Grow up.

“In February 2018, after three years of gingerly avoiding a direct confrontation, the two world powers went toe to toe for the first time since the end of World War I in what came to be known as the Battle of Khasham — a roughly four-hour battle in which the mighty Russian bear (with its Syrian allies) was reduced to a whimpering pup by a much smaller force of American commandos.”

https://www.coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-syria-khasham

[old salt]

You have no idea what Bernie would have done re. Ukraine, nor do I. He's an irrelevant diversion anyway.

You just got done telling me he'd let the military go toothless...change of heart?

You're just upset that I clearly laid out that Bernie is your guy for the policies you want, and would have left Ukraine alone, just as Obama left Crimea alone. Bernie isn't (duh) a neo-con. Biden is, and is acting accordingly, just as I told you he would before he was sworn in. We're back to global cop. You think that that little D makes Bernie "bad", and so you're lashing out.

[old salt]

Before NATO (mostly US) reinforced the Baltic states & Poland in 2014, Putun could have easily rolled through the Suwalki gap & established a land corridor to Kaliningrad just as he seized Crimea. That's why a US led NATO scrambled to reinforce that area & plug that gap.

After watching this mess.......You STILL think the Putin's military...... that can't defeat a bunch of 18th rate soldiers and guerillas..... would EVER want to tangle with even 1,000 US marines? NATO would eviscerate Putin's joke of an army. If you don't understand that now, you never will. Putin knows, even if you're pretending you don't.

https://www.google.com/search?q=putin+t ... nt=gws-wiz

[a fan]

Before NATO (mostly US) reinforced the Baltic states & Poland in 2014, Putun could have easily rolled through the Suwalki gap & established a land corridor to Kaliningrad just as he seized Crimea. That's why a US led NATO scrambled to reinforce that area & plug that gap.

After watching this mess.......You STILL think the Putin's military...... that can't defeat a bunch of 18th rate soldiers and guerillas..... would EVER want to tangle with even 1,000 US marines? NATO would eviscerate Putin's joke of an army. If you don't understand that now, you never will. Putin knows, even if you're pretending you don't.

https://www.google.com/search?q=putin+t ... nt=gws-wiz

So the answer is yes. You still think the Russian army stands a chance against NATO (US forces).

Yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.

[a fan]

You have no idea what Bernie would have done re. Ukraine, nor do I. He's an irrelevant diversion anyway.

You just got done telling me he'd let the military go toothless...change of heart?

You're just upset that I clearly laid out that Bernie is your guy for the policies you want, and would have left Ukraine alone, just as Obama left Crimea alone. Bernie isn't (duh) a neo-con. Biden is, and is acting accordingly, just as I told you he would before he was sworn in. We're back to global cop. You think that that little D makes Bernie "bad", and so you're lashing out.

Just a TAD misleading. There's more than just military stuff in the bill these children are criticizing. Maybe, Oh, I dunno, ask Bernie why he voted for that bill?

"Among other things, the bill provides appropriations for defense equipment, migration and refugee assistance, regulatory and technical support regarding nuclear power issues, emergency food assistance, economic assistance, and seizures of property related to the invasion."

How about this....BEFORE the war, and before Bernie could be coaxed into voting for a bill that sends humanitarian aid to Ukraine, with defense money in it, too.

Wars,” Sanders wrote in February, “have unintended consequences.” In the case of the impending Russian invasion of Ukraine, he predicted massive civilian casualties, the large-scale movement of refugees into nearby countries, and economic ripple effects “with impacts on energy, banking, food and the day-to-day needs of ordinary people throughout the entire world.”

Odd, Old Salt. That sounds an awful lot like your opinion on this war in Ukraine, doesn't it?



https://jacobin.com/2022/07/bernie-sand ... ssia-putin

[MDlaxfan76]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

[old salt]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

[a fan]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

So "some other guy" has been telling us.....

-that Ukraine isn't a "real" country. It's part of Russia
-that Biden has been "doing it wrong" this entire, giving Ukraine the wrong weapons at the wrong time
-that this war isn't worth the economic damage
-that this war isn't worth the civilian damage
-that this isn't our war, it's the "Euroburgers" war

That wasn't you since day one?

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

Trying to tell you how to vote to get the policies you want enacted. You don't want to hear that you're aligned with a liberal Dem....so you deny it.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.

Yep. Two older-than-dirt neocons think more war will fix it. It's been SUCH a perfect strategy for the last 50 years, so why not, right?

You should LOVE their plan. We can leave bases and US Troops in Ukraine for a few hundred years! You know: because of Putin's sooper-awesome Army that you're so worried about.

Up next: Tax cuts, right?

[MDlaxfan76]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

[cradleandshoot]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

[NattyBohChamps04]

So you're cheering on the GOP Freedom Caucus in the House for their efforts to eliminate deficit exploding omnibus spending bills.

[...]

The revolt this week was about getting rolled on omnibus deficit spending bills, not on cultural stuff.

Right on cue...

GOP's IRS Funding Repeal Could Cost Over $100 Billion, Encourage Tax Cheating

[MDlaxfan76]

sheesh, Salty and Bernie are both on the side of appeasement of brutal war criminal aggressors?

Nothing to worry about, them's all "Russians" after all...

No I'm not. afan keeps insisting that I am, despite me showing him otherwise.

Who (besides afan) care's what Bernie thinks ? I don't.

More significantly, look what Bob Gates & Condi Rice think.
{for the benefit of WP non-subscribers}

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... el-russia/

Opinion. Time is not on Ukraine’s side

By Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates, January 7, 2023

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, about the only thing that’s certain right now is that the fighting and destruction will continue.
Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

Both of us have dealt with Putin on a number of occasions, and we are convinced he believes time is on his side: that he can wear down the Ukrainians and that U.S. and European unity and support for Ukraine will eventually erode and fracture. To be sure, the Russian economy and people will suffer as the war continues, but Russians have endured far worse.

For Putin, defeat is not an option. He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago. Count on Putin to be patient to achieve his destiny.

Meanwhile, although Ukraine’s response to the invasion has been heroic and its military has performed brilliantly, the country’s economy is in a shambles, millions of its people have fled, its infrastructure is being destroyed, and much of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity and considerable agricultural land are under Russian control. Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

The only way to avoid such a scenario is for the United States and its allies to urgently provide Ukraine with a dramatic increase in military supplies and capability — sufficient to deter a renewed Russian offensive and to enable Ukraine to push back Russian forces in the east and south. Congress has provided enough money to pay for such reinforcement; what is needed now are decisions by the United States and its allies to provide the Ukrainians the additional military equipment they need — above all, mobile armor. The U.S. agreement Thursday to provide Bradley Fighting Vehicles is commendable, if overdue. Because there are serious logistical challenges associated with sending American Abrams heavy tanks, Germany and other allies should fill this need. NATO members also should provide the Ukrainians with longer-range missiles, advanced drones, significant ammunition stocks (including artillery shells), more reconnaissance and surveillance capability, and other equipment. These capabilities are needed in weeks, not months.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Is Biden willing to roll the dice, double down & finish it now ?

You do understand that what Gates and Rice are arguing is what I have been saying throughout?
(They are not arguing for direct US involvement, simply a faster pace of support, not retreat from such)
That first blued part is exactly why Ukraine cannot afford to let Russia control those lands.

But there's another train of thought, articulated repeatedly by you and right wing ultra nationalists around the world, especially Europe, that this is "not our war", 'it's a conflict between Russians', a legitimate play by Russia to reclaim its lands and peoples, and wrapped in the notion that we should tend to our own troubles not those of others, that Ukraine is corrupt and 'deserves' to be invaded because it had not become democratic and strong before now, it had 'missed its chance' to arm itself, that Putin was pushed into this war by NATO expansion. Much of the latter was intended to appeal to the left wing pacifists as well as the right wing isolationists, but really it was just Russian propaganda repeated by most predominantly the right wing.

Let's note that there's been a huge change in European sentiment and commitments led by Biden's iterative, but consistently advancing, approach. I'd want to go faster, but it's been very effective.

It has it been very effective in what Putin will finally do as a wounded animal trapped in a corner with no escape. The 64 thousand dollar question is if Putin is bluffing about how, where and when he will raise the stakes in this war that is turning rapidly into a very dangerous game of chicken. What does Putin have to lose at this point in time? I'm certain that Vlad is not too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks about him.

I don't think this is actually a game of chicken; I think the nuclear threats have been neutered and are basically empty. Why? Because the Russian military knows that it will be utterly decimated if they go to that step. And, they've been warned that such a step would lose all Chinese and Indian support of any kind. Much, much better will be withdrawal from a misbegotten enterprise.

I do think that the incremental approach taken by the West has blunted the likelihood of radical escalation, though I think we could have gone faster. But our European allies were quite understandably more concerned than we about that, as well as the sudden and complete loss of energy supplies.

The slower pace has allowed them to adjust and prepare on the energy front, while helping the Ukrainians make progress on the battlefield.

That said, I think the sooner the West equips the Ukrainians for a spring/summer push, the better. Feels like that's what is happening.

In the meantime, though, the Russians are pouring bodies into the fray at Bakhmut etc. Devastating losses.

But yes, Putin's chief concern should not be so much the rest of the world (he's lost most of them as it is), but rather the domestic audience in the face of so many body bags and injured sons and husbands.

[a fan]

So you're cheering on the GOP Freedom Caucus in the House for their efforts to eliminate deficit exploding omnibus spending bills.

[...]

The revolt this week was about getting rolled on omnibus deficit spending bills, not on cultural stuff.

Right on cue...

GOP's IRS Funding Repeal Could Cost Over $100 Billion, Encourage Tax Cheating

Oh yeah, they're SOOPER serious about reducing the deficit. These idiots are just the "I can't figure out how to use this calculator" gift that keeps right on givin'.