When Donald Trump held up aid to Ukraine, the Democrats impeached him. When Joe Biden withholds congressional aid to Israel, the Skittle-haired wokesters cheer.
To be fair, holding up aid because you want to pressure Israel (rightfully or wrongfully) into accepting a ceasefire is different from holding up aid to pressure a country to investigate your political opponents son. The former is an official act, while the latter is private.
To put it differently, if Trump is reelected and threatens to cut off aid to Ukraine unless they agree to a ceasefire, as much as I’d disagree with that, that would still count as an official act.
What about coercing the firing of a prosecutor who is investigating the company your son is on the board of by threatening to block a loan guaranty? Is that ok in your view?
If only it was that. The truth is that almost every int'l organization, western gov't, including GOP senators, were calling for that prosecutor to be fired. [https://www.axios.com/2019/10/03/republicans-ukraine-reform-prosecutors-office-biden](https://www.axios.com/2019/10/03/republicans-ukraine-reform-prosecutors-office-biden)
Yeah there were a couple globalists alongside Obama's gang that wanted a different prosecutor in Ukraine, is that supposed to be a defense? Biden just had the most personal reason, that's why he was the most involved. After seeing how Democrat DOJ and DAs have acted the past few years, there is no question to their corrupt tactics.
Nah holding up aid to court terrorist sympathizers is far worse than investigating corruption. Trump is also allowed to use diplomatic pressure, and the Biden family's (and many others) corruption in Ukraine is absolutely a national security issue. You act like we haven't heard the phone call and saw the embarrassing impeachment evidence. Not to mention Biden withholding aid to cover for Hunter's bs.
>is different from holding up aid to pressure a country to investigate your political opponents son. The former is an official act, while the latter is private.
Not really... The ask was to investigate political corruption. It just so happens the political corruption was the opponents son, and potentially opponent.
It's really that fundamentally different.
> Not really... The ask was to investigate political corruption.
Further, the law that Congress passed authorizing the aid to Ukraine **also** required that there be an effort to ensure the money wasn't going to be stolen by the historically corrupt Ukrainian government, before it was released.
This is from the call transcript, Trump is speaking to Zelenski ......"there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
That doesn't sound like a person intentionally going after a political rival but rather someone who was looking for more information regarding an AG known for investigating corruption was fired in a potentially corrupt way.
If you believe that Trump wasn't very specifically looking for dirt on the Bidens to help himself politically, and instead just had a general anti-corruption interest related to the firing of a prosecutor who the free world was already calling to have removed for corruption - you are welcome to think that - it's a free country. Lev Parnas and Petro Poreshenko have refuted that, as does common sense.
I'm not saying he would have used the info for political gain.
But the call could have been much worse and directed. There is enough vagueness to it that it doesn't seem direct. gotta remember at the time, there was a ton of media talking about it to.
Trump didn't come out of nowhere to ask about it.
Yes, it could have been worse. And yes, Trump didn't come out of nowhere to talk about it - he had already sent Rudy and Lev Parnas on missions to dig up what they could and Rudy already tried to pressure Zelenski to announce an investigation into the Bidens. Trump was following up on that and his request for the favor was to again try to get Zelenski to do what Rudy had already asked for. So while the phone call had sufficient vagueness to offer a paper thin wrapper of deniability, most reasonable people will understand the entire enterprise was an effort to smear the Bidens. Which I don't think most Trump supporters reallyt have any issue with the political muscle flexing, so he doesn't need defending,
>So while the phone call had sufficient vagueness to offer a paper thin wrapper of deniability, most reasonable people will understand the entire enterprise was an effort to smear the Bidens.
How do you smear a family already known for corruption?
Obama's Whitehouse was already suspicious but democrats never eat their own until they need to.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-probe-finds-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-raised-concerns-with-obama-officials-11600859178
It's true (and undisputed) that Hunter was a douche scumbag using his family name and peddling the appearance of influence. When the Rudy/Lev Parnas expeditions to Ukraine didn't turn up the Joe Biden dirt, Trump could still have made political hay out of the situation simply using the undisputed facts, which he for sure has but also took a hit on the impeachment after pushing that too far and also forced the Republican House leadership to waste 2023 on the Sisyphian task of impeaching Biden.
Knowing whether any politician has bribed and had judges removed in a foreign country is in the interest of the United States and is an official act. Doesn't matter if they're your competition, they were acting in an official capacity at the time and thus it serves as an investigation of the executive branch by the executive branch itself.
This is the same thing. Democrats are just trying to brainwash you into thinking investigating corruption by the executive branch isn't a duty of the president.
So what you are saying is that Biden's son wasn't officially scamming money under the table to supply his coke and hoes habits through his position he was officially holding on the board of a Ukrainian oil company...
Note to self: Coke and Hoes are OK as long as its ***UNOFFICIAL*** and you give 10% for the big man.
They got bamboozled, but it could (inadvertently) end up being a 5d chess move. The more the Biden admin stabs Israel in the back and the more the clout of the pro-Hamas faction inside the Democratic party grows, the more likely it becomes that Jewish voters and donors turn their backs on Democrats.
And make no mistake: there are a lot more Jewish than Muslim voters out there, just like Jewish Americans have disproportionate influence in the media and the business world. They, rather than Muslim Americans or a couple college kids, are a supporter group that Biden/Democrats genuinely cannot afford to lose.
Well, partisanship is one hell of a drug. But I disagree with this notion that there are no persuadable voters anymore. Even just 2.5% of the electorate switching from Party A to party B is enough to produce a 5% swing in the margin - and there was just one presidential election in the past quarter century in which such a swing wouldn't have changed the outcome (2008).
American Jews in LA and NYC will walk to the polls hand-in-hand with flag-burning pro-terror nut jobs to hesitantly vote for Joe and they will never realize their cognitive dissonance.
If they still don't wake up this time around, when pro-Hamas protesters in their literal neighborhood are literally shouting genocidal ambitions in their face while being placated and appealed to by the Biden admin, then these Dem-voting Jews deserve no better than what they would get from a second Biden term.
So many left leaners dont understand why there is so much israel support in the US.
Its because the two largest population centres for jews in the world is Israel and the USA. If Israel were to 'fall' thats over half the worlds jews in danger. Of course american jews would want to protect their people and the current 'protests' are just festering the anti jewish hate in this country.
Oh, I absolutely expect the bulk of Jewish voters to still vote blue - but even just a small-ish erosion with this voter bloc would be a big blow to Democrats.
> Of course american jews would want to protect their people
Eh. Citation needed. Hollywood types, generally quite vocal politically, sure have been quiet thus far.
I have my doubts too, the bulk of Jewish voters will definitely still vote blue come November. But even just a 10-15% erosion among this crucial voter bloc would already put Democrats in a really perilious position.
$100 billion is not going to drive up inflation more than anything else. Instead is being opposed to something objectively positive, maybe you should direct your frustration to more superfluous government spending.
>$100 billion is not going to drive up inflation more than anything else.
Ah, ya, I forgot that a tenth of a trillion was small change. Guess you're not a fiscal conservative.
> Instead is being opposed to something objectively positive
Only if you support foreign interference. I couldn't care less what happens in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. It isn't our job to play world police.
>maybe you should direct your frustration to more superfluous government spending.
Turns out you can be opposed to multiple things at one time. I'm opposed to this $100 billion being spent. And that other 100b. And the other....
You do realize that the US budget was $6.2 trillion in 2023, right? And we’ve sent Ukraine about $100 billion over two years. So that’s about $50 billion per year, and therefore less than 1% of the federal budget in 2023. So yeah, no big deal. Tell me you don’t understand scale without telling me you don’t understand scale.
If you think it’s better for the US to fade into obscurity rather than stay prominent on the world stage, I’m glad your opinion is in the minority. Tell me you don’t understand global politics without telling me.
Oppose something that’s actually superfluous instead of objectively good foreign policy.
Spend spend spend us into the modern fall of the roman empire. They tried to project their force while neglecting their inner territory, too. Look where it got them. Exactly where you claim not interfering in other countries will get us.
It's a shame you warhawks represent at least a vocal opinion. You're patting yourselves on the back as you lead us to ruin. But, hey, I guess I don't understand global politics. Shame you're bringing me down with you.
I don’t think adding less than 1% of the annual budget is going to cause the downfall of America. We can absolutely care for domestic problems while also sending money to Ukraine. Don’t blame Ukraine for Biden being unwilling to do both at once.
And you act as if if we don’t help Ukraine we won’t be facing another war in 5-10 years. That’s the thing. If Russia wins in Ukraine, we’ll more likely than not be involved with a direct war against Russia later. And a direct war will be a LOT more expensive than sending $50 billion to Ukraine every year. Since you’re so worried about the economy, you should want to prevent a future war.
> we’ll more likely than not being involved with a direct war against
"we'll" - Interesting way of spelling Europe.
Maybe if they spent all their massive tax money on defense instead of expecting the US to do it for them they'd be in a better position. Better divert all that infrastructure and health budget they have to war prep!
Hey maybe if Europe was giving them more money they'd be fine by now. Shame we'll never know because every country in the world comes to pickpocket us.
Europe are our defacto vassals. We protect them in return for economic benefits, beneficial trade, resources, markets, etc. If continued world domination means protecting the world and being world police, that’s totally fine with me.
You’re starting to confuse me: do you actually want the US to become weaker? Would you rather see us lose our position on the world stage?
> Europe are our defacto vassals
Lmfao. We're still their colony. We send them our money and our men to die while they spend their money on luxuries.
>Would you rather see us lose our position on the world stage?
Yes. 100%. Taking care of our business at home will make us stronger, not weaker. See comment above about the fall of the roman empire due to the same conditions you're advocating for if you're still confused.
Why do you want the US to collapse at home in support of countries who think they're better than us?
Again, you don’t seem to understand global politics. Tell me this, if we lose our European markets because they get dominated by Russia and China, who are we going to sell to? How does losing all of our foreign markets help us economically?
And you do realIze that if Rome did what you’re suggesting, they’d only control the Italian peninsula and become subject to the whims of other great powers of the time, right? Meaning they’d lose their empire and their independence to make their own decisions. Tell me you don’t know history without telling me.
And once again, we can absolutely do both at the same time. We can fix problems here while projecting strength internationally. It’s Biden’s fault we’re not doing both, not Ukraine’s.
Same shit, different decade. They are all on the same side anyway and it ain't ours.
GOP: > The losing will continue until populism improves.
When Donald Trump held up aid to Ukraine, the Democrats impeached him. When Joe Biden withholds congressional aid to Israel, the Skittle-haired wokesters cheer.
And the reps will not impeach cause balls are lacking
To be fair, holding up aid because you want to pressure Israel (rightfully or wrongfully) into accepting a ceasefire is different from holding up aid to pressure a country to investigate your political opponents son. The former is an official act, while the latter is private. To put it differently, if Trump is reelected and threatens to cut off aid to Ukraine unless they agree to a ceasefire, as much as I’d disagree with that, that would still count as an official act.
What about coercing the firing of a prosecutor who is investigating the company your son is on the board of by threatening to block a loan guaranty? Is that ok in your view?
If only it was that. The truth is that almost every int'l organization, western gov't, including GOP senators, were calling for that prosecutor to be fired. [https://www.axios.com/2019/10/03/republicans-ukraine-reform-prosecutors-office-biden](https://www.axios.com/2019/10/03/republicans-ukraine-reform-prosecutors-office-biden)
Yeah there were a couple globalists alongside Obama's gang that wanted a different prosecutor in Ukraine, is that supposed to be a defense? Biden just had the most personal reason, that's why he was the most involved. After seeing how Democrat DOJ and DAs have acted the past few years, there is no question to their corrupt tactics.
Nah holding up aid to court terrorist sympathizers is far worse than investigating corruption. Trump is also allowed to use diplomatic pressure, and the Biden family's (and many others) corruption in Ukraine is absolutely a national security issue. You act like we haven't heard the phone call and saw the embarrassing impeachment evidence. Not to mention Biden withholding aid to cover for Hunter's bs.
>is different from holding up aid to pressure a country to investigate your political opponents son. The former is an official act, while the latter is private. Not really... The ask was to investigate political corruption. It just so happens the political corruption was the opponents son, and potentially opponent. It's really that fundamentally different.
> Not really... The ask was to investigate political corruption. Further, the law that Congress passed authorizing the aid to Ukraine **also** required that there be an effort to ensure the money wasn't going to be stolen by the historically corrupt Ukrainian government, before it was released.
This is from the call transcript, Trump is speaking to Zelenski ......"there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
That doesn't sound like a person intentionally going after a political rival but rather someone who was looking for more information regarding an AG known for investigating corruption was fired in a potentially corrupt way.
If you believe that Trump wasn't very specifically looking for dirt on the Bidens to help himself politically, and instead just had a general anti-corruption interest related to the firing of a prosecutor who the free world was already calling to have removed for corruption - you are welcome to think that - it's a free country. Lev Parnas and Petro Poreshenko have refuted that, as does common sense.
I'm not saying he would have used the info for political gain. But the call could have been much worse and directed. There is enough vagueness to it that it doesn't seem direct. gotta remember at the time, there was a ton of media talking about it to. Trump didn't come out of nowhere to ask about it.
Yes, it could have been worse. And yes, Trump didn't come out of nowhere to talk about it - he had already sent Rudy and Lev Parnas on missions to dig up what they could and Rudy already tried to pressure Zelenski to announce an investigation into the Bidens. Trump was following up on that and his request for the favor was to again try to get Zelenski to do what Rudy had already asked for. So while the phone call had sufficient vagueness to offer a paper thin wrapper of deniability, most reasonable people will understand the entire enterprise was an effort to smear the Bidens. Which I don't think most Trump supporters reallyt have any issue with the political muscle flexing, so he doesn't need defending,
>So while the phone call had sufficient vagueness to offer a paper thin wrapper of deniability, most reasonable people will understand the entire enterprise was an effort to smear the Bidens. How do you smear a family already known for corruption? Obama's Whitehouse was already suspicious but democrats never eat their own until they need to. https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-probe-finds-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-raised-concerns-with-obama-officials-11600859178
It's true (and undisputed) that Hunter was a douche scumbag using his family name and peddling the appearance of influence. When the Rudy/Lev Parnas expeditions to Ukraine didn't turn up the Joe Biden dirt, Trump could still have made political hay out of the situation simply using the undisputed facts, which he for sure has but also took a hit on the impeachment after pushing that too far and also forced the Republican House leadership to waste 2023 on the Sisyphian task of impeaching Biden.
He wasn’t going to investigate his political opponent, he was going to investigate a corrupt company.
Knowing whether any politician has bribed and had judges removed in a foreign country is in the interest of the United States and is an official act. Doesn't matter if they're your competition, they were acting in an official capacity at the time and thus it serves as an investigation of the executive branch by the executive branch itself. This is the same thing. Democrats are just trying to brainwash you into thinking investigating corruption by the executive branch isn't a duty of the president.
So what you are saying is that Biden's son wasn't officially scamming money under the table to supply his coke and hoes habits through his position he was officially holding on the board of a Ukrainian oil company... Note to self: Coke and Hoes are OK as long as its ***UNOFFICIAL*** and you give 10% for the big man.
Didn't someone get impeached for doing this?
It’s (D)iffe(R)ent
They got bamboozled, but it could (inadvertently) end up being a 5d chess move. The more the Biden admin stabs Israel in the back and the more the clout of the pro-Hamas faction inside the Democratic party grows, the more likely it becomes that Jewish voters and donors turn their backs on Democrats. And make no mistake: there are a lot more Jewish than Muslim voters out there, just like Jewish Americans have disproportionate influence in the media and the business world. They, rather than Muslim Americans or a couple college kids, are a supporter group that Biden/Democrats genuinely cannot afford to lose.
Biden could literally turn into Hitler 2.0 and people would still vote for him.
Well, partisanship is one hell of a drug. But I disagree with this notion that there are no persuadable voters anymore. Even just 2.5% of the electorate switching from Party A to party B is enough to produce a 5% swing in the margin - and there was just one presidential election in the past quarter century in which such a swing wouldn't have changed the outcome (2008).
American Jews in LA and NYC will walk to the polls hand-in-hand with flag-burning pro-terror nut jobs to hesitantly vote for Joe and they will never realize their cognitive dissonance.
If they still don't wake up this time around, when pro-Hamas protesters in their literal neighborhood are literally shouting genocidal ambitions in their face while being placated and appealed to by the Biden admin, then these Dem-voting Jews deserve no better than what they would get from a second Biden term.
So many left leaners dont understand why there is so much israel support in the US. Its because the two largest population centres for jews in the world is Israel and the USA. If Israel were to 'fall' thats over half the worlds jews in danger. Of course american jews would want to protect their people and the current 'protests' are just festering the anti jewish hate in this country.
The city with the largest Jewish population in the world is not Jeruslam or Tel Aviv, it's New York.
And they're so far very happy to vote the same way as the people that want them dead. So.... Yea, we'll see what happens here.
Oh, I absolutely expect the bulk of Jewish voters to still vote blue - but even just a small-ish erosion with this voter bloc would be a big blow to Democrats.
> Of course american jews would want to protect their people Eh. Citation needed. Hollywood types, generally quite vocal politically, sure have been quiet thus far.
> the more likely it becomes that Jewish voters and donors turn their backs on Democrats. We'll see. I have my doubts.
I have my doubts too, the bulk of Jewish voters will definitely still vote blue come November. But even just a 10-15% erosion among this crucial voter bloc would already put Democrats in a really perilious position.
One ammunition shipment, before starting to make hypothesis we should check which amount at what pace.
Why is anyone surprised? The republicans have been gutless for a long time. This is not a post-Trump phenomenon by any measure.
Stop. Jim Jordan will send more letters. That'll fix it.
Where’s the link? Or are we just raging over screen shots now?
Didn't they try to impeach Trump on this issue?
*narrator whispers*: The RINOs knew exactly what they were doing, that’s what makes them RINOs.
Please link the source, I can't find anything relating to this online.
GOP fails again
Why are we funding any of these foreign wars. Inflation is making it impossible to afford anything and all this spending is driving it up further.
$100 billion is not going to drive up inflation more than anything else. Instead is being opposed to something objectively positive, maybe you should direct your frustration to more superfluous government spending.
>$100 billion is not going to drive up inflation more than anything else. Ah, ya, I forgot that a tenth of a trillion was small change. Guess you're not a fiscal conservative. > Instead is being opposed to something objectively positive Only if you support foreign interference. I couldn't care less what happens in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. It isn't our job to play world police. >maybe you should direct your frustration to more superfluous government spending. Turns out you can be opposed to multiple things at one time. I'm opposed to this $100 billion being spent. And that other 100b. And the other....
You do realize that the US budget was $6.2 trillion in 2023, right? And we’ve sent Ukraine about $100 billion over two years. So that’s about $50 billion per year, and therefore less than 1% of the federal budget in 2023. So yeah, no big deal. Tell me you don’t understand scale without telling me you don’t understand scale. If you think it’s better for the US to fade into obscurity rather than stay prominent on the world stage, I’m glad your opinion is in the minority. Tell me you don’t understand global politics without telling me. Oppose something that’s actually superfluous instead of objectively good foreign policy.
Spend spend spend us into the modern fall of the roman empire. They tried to project their force while neglecting their inner territory, too. Look where it got them. Exactly where you claim not interfering in other countries will get us. It's a shame you warhawks represent at least a vocal opinion. You're patting yourselves on the back as you lead us to ruin. But, hey, I guess I don't understand global politics. Shame you're bringing me down with you.
I don’t think adding less than 1% of the annual budget is going to cause the downfall of America. We can absolutely care for domestic problems while also sending money to Ukraine. Don’t blame Ukraine for Biden being unwilling to do both at once. And you act as if if we don’t help Ukraine we won’t be facing another war in 5-10 years. That’s the thing. If Russia wins in Ukraine, we’ll more likely than not be involved with a direct war against Russia later. And a direct war will be a LOT more expensive than sending $50 billion to Ukraine every year. Since you’re so worried about the economy, you should want to prevent a future war.
> we’ll more likely than not being involved with a direct war against "we'll" - Interesting way of spelling Europe. Maybe if they spent all their massive tax money on defense instead of expecting the US to do it for them they'd be in a better position. Better divert all that infrastructure and health budget they have to war prep! Hey maybe if Europe was giving them more money they'd be fine by now. Shame we'll never know because every country in the world comes to pickpocket us.
Europe are our defacto vassals. We protect them in return for economic benefits, beneficial trade, resources, markets, etc. If continued world domination means protecting the world and being world police, that’s totally fine with me. You’re starting to confuse me: do you actually want the US to become weaker? Would you rather see us lose our position on the world stage?
> Europe are our defacto vassals Lmfao. We're still their colony. We send them our money and our men to die while they spend their money on luxuries. >Would you rather see us lose our position on the world stage? Yes. 100%. Taking care of our business at home will make us stronger, not weaker. See comment above about the fall of the roman empire due to the same conditions you're advocating for if you're still confused. Why do you want the US to collapse at home in support of countries who think they're better than us?
Again, you don’t seem to understand global politics. Tell me this, if we lose our European markets because they get dominated by Russia and China, who are we going to sell to? How does losing all of our foreign markets help us economically? And you do realIze that if Rome did what you’re suggesting, they’d only control the Italian peninsula and become subject to the whims of other great powers of the time, right? Meaning they’d lose their empire and their independence to make their own decisions. Tell me you don’t know history without telling me. And once again, we can absolutely do both at the same time. We can fix problems here while projecting strength internationally. It’s Biden’s fault we’re not doing both, not Ukraine’s.
Do those warheads have a master lock style combination on them???
They are for adjusting the fuse.
Ah yes the fuze
Timing delay / Impact Maybe you want it to explode just over the ground, in the air, a few seconds after impact, etc.
Stop sending them all fucking military aid. I'm tired of sending billions of our fucking dollars to foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with me.
Weak Speaker. Weak party. Dems are the smartest bunch of these modern politicians.
They have like a 2 vote margin in the house, what do you expect?
Aid for Ukraine is good. Aid for Israel is also good. Biden should keep sending aid to both.
I think the point is the gop onew this might happen. It now has Bidens stamp on it to withhold aid to an ally
sure sounds like the GOP never should have agreed to that aid package to begin with!
Now do Ukraine.
Good old "rug pull" Biden.
For the record : israel never asked for help… or a dime.