In article <1gywN.72943$U1cc....@fx04.iad>,
max....@lathymes.com
says...
>
> On 2/6/2024 2:14 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
> > In article <JTxwN.403152$p%Mb.9...@fx15.iad>, l...@cap.con says...
> >>
> >> On 2/6/2024 1:39 PM, Gak, fucked up the ass by priests hundreds of times ? and
> >> *admits* it ? puled:
> >>
> >>> On 2/6/2024 4:21 PM, Lou Bricano wrote:
> >>>> Behind the GOP?s shifting excuses for abandoning Ukraine
> >>>>
> >>>> By David Frum
> >>>> December 18, 2023
> >>>>
> >>>> The White House and Senate continue to work frantically toward a deal to
> >>>> supply Ukraine before Congress recesses for Christmas. Supposedly, all leaders
> >>>> of Congress are united in their commitment to Ukraine?so the new speaker of
> >>>> the House, Mike Johnson, insists. Yet somehow this allegedly united commitment
> >>>> is not translating into action. Why not?
> >>>>
> >>>> The notional answer is that Republicans must have a border-security deal as
> >>>> the price for Ukraine aid. But who on earth sets a price that could stymie
> >>>> something they affirmatively want to do? Republicans have not conditioned
> >>>> their support for Social Security on getting a border deal. They would never
> >>>> say that tax cuts must wait until after the border is secure. Only Ukraine is
> >>>> treated as something to be bartered, as if at a county fair. How did that happen?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ukraine?s expendability to congressional Republicans originates in the
> >>>> sinister special relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pre-Trump, Republicans expressed much more hawkish views on Russia than
> >>>> Democrats did. Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea in spring
> >>>> 2014. In a Pew Research survey in March of that year, 58 percent of
> >>>> Republicans complained that President Barack Obama?s response was ?not tough
> >>>> enough,? compared with just 22 percent of Democrats. After the annexation,
> >>>> Republicans were more than twice as likely as Democrats to describe Russia as
> >>>> ?an adversary? of the United States: 42 percent to 19 percent. As for Putin
> >>>> personally, his rule was condemned by overwhelming majorities of both parties.
> >>>> Only about 20 percent of Democrats expressed confidence in Putin in a 2015 Pew
> >>>> survey, and 17 percent of Republicans.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump changed all that?with a lot of help from pro-Putin voices on Fox News
> >>>> and right-wing social media.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the beginning of Trump?s ascendancy in the GOP, even his future allies in
> >>>> Congress distrusted his pro-Russian affinities. Kevin McCarthy, a future House
> >>>> speaker, was inadvertently recorded in a June 2016 meeting with other
> >>>> Republican congressional leaders, saying, ?There?s two people I think Putin
> >>>> pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.? Some in the room laughed. McCarthy responded,
> >>>> ?Swear to God.? (Dana Rohrabacher was a Republican House member from
> >>>> California, a notorious Putin apologist, and a joke figure among his caucus
> >>>> colleagues; despite almost 30 years? seniority in the House, he was kept away
> >>>> from major committee assignments.)
> >>>>
> >>>>
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/republicans-congress-ukraine-aid-trump/676374/
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump is a Putin tool. Republiscums/QAnon in Congress are blocking aid to
> >>>> Ukraine because Trump tells them to, because Trump is Putin's tool. Putin has
> >>>> instructed Trump to tell the Republiscums/QAnon in Congress to cut off aid to
> >>>> Ukraine.
> >>>
> >>> Screw Ukraine.
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >>> We can't afford it
> >>
> >> We can, and it is in our interest.
> >>
> >>> and the founding fathers
> >>
> >> Fuck off with your childish founders fetishism.
> >>
> >> The problem is the Republiscums/QAnon are not opposing the aid for any
> >> principled reason. It's only because Trump is Putin's tool and Trump is telling
> >> them to. The Republiscums/QAnon strongly support aid to Israel, which is *not*
> >> in our interest.
> >
> > It's supposed to be about the open border.
>
> There is no "open border." The "open border" lie was long ago demolished.
Nice evasion. Joe doesn't need to pass a bill. All he has to do is
follow the law.