Would a Republican government turn its back on Ukraine?

[Galaxie]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Forgive my ignorance, but who is the NWO King? He looks like he's dressed up for an episode of STTNG...

I'm going to guess Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum...???

Edit: Doh! I done got ninja'd

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Mike!

Forgive my ignorance, but who is the NWO King?

I mean the easy answer is Hulk Hogan but you could make an argument for Kevin Nash or even Scott Hall...

... oh sorry the whole NWO conspiracy theory is so stupid every time I hear it I assume it's a wrestling angle about the 1990s WCW Stable. It honestly usually works better that way.

[Stacyhs]

Poor Donnie Jr. tries so very hard to get Daddy's approval. I almost feel sorry for him. I said almost.

[SpitfireIX]

US Rep. Madison Cawthorn, one of the most vocal Congressional critics of US aid to Ukraine Putin mouthpieces, has been defeated in his bid to be renominated for his seat.

From NPR:

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a freshman Republican who's been beset by scandal since taking office last year, has been ousted in a heated primary in North Carolina's 11th Congressional District, according to a race call from The Associated Press. . . .

As of the AP race call, [state Sen. Chuck] Edwards had received more than 33% of the vote, to Cawthorn's nearly 32% of the vote. In North Carolina, a winner just needs to cross a 30% threshold in order to avoid a July runoff election.

Cawthorn, who was infamously recorded saying that Zelenskyy is "a thug" and Ukraine's government is "incredibly evil", lost despite Trump's endorsement and support.

And speaking of tweets, here are a couple of telling ones from state Sen. Edwards:

Let’s be clear. The thug is Vladimir Putin. We must unite as a nation to pray for President Zelensky and the brave people of Ukraine who are fighting for their lives and their freedom.

Anything less is counter to everything we stand for in America.

***

1/2 During times of international crisis our leaders need to lead, speak boldly with 1 voice, & encourage constituents to pray for & support our allies. We must do that for Ukraine now. I’ll do everything in my power to support their cause & that of freedom around the world

[SpitfireIX]

To reiterate and expand on what I wrote in the Russo-Ukraine war thread, even if Trump comes out tomorrow and says "no more aid to Ukraine, end all sanctions on Russia, and by the way we should veto Finland and Sweden in NATO," none of it will happen. Not this year, and not in the next two years, even if, as is exceedingly likely, the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress in November.

Only 11 Senate Republicans voted against the new Ukraine aid bill, and this was after Trump expressed reservations about it. According to Real Clear Politics, the absolute best case for the Republicans is they pick up five seats in the Senate (plus there will be some additional turnover due to retirements). Even if all the new Republican senators are extremely Trumpy, that still won't be a majority of the Republican Senate caucus. Similarly in the House, only about a quarter of Republicans voted against the latest bill.

It is true that the Republican Senate leader could block new Ukraine aid bills, but all of the Senate Republican leadership, and not just McConnell, is strongly supportive of Ukraine. In the House, the speaker cannot block legislation, due to different rules. This is also why Congress's preventing the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO would be a non-starter.

As for sanctions, the law gives Biden wide latitude in imposing them, so there's not much Congress can do to lift them. Even if the Republicans tried to change that, the Democrats would just filibuster any new anti-sanctions bills.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed."

[SpitfireIX]

I forgot to mention that Biden can also veto any bill that would restrict his ability to impose or continue sanctions.

[Silly Green Monkey]

The weirdest thing I've been hearing is people saying we're only helping Ukraine to support corporate interests, as though the country wasn't currently being invaded by a neighbor's military which is killing, raping, torturing, and taking Ukrainians as slaves.

[SpitfireIX]

That's one of the same stupid arguments that was made by a lot of isolationists prior to America's entry into WWII.

[Stacyhs]

Eleven Republican senators voted against the Ukraine aid bill:

Quote:

A $40 billion Ukraine aid package passed the Senate on Tuesday with relative ease despite opposition from 11 Republicans.

The package that passed 86-11 will give Ukraine another round of military and humanitarian assistance as the war with Russia drags on.

Despite support from Democratic and GOP leadership, 11 Republicans broke from their party and voted against the aid.

The conservative effort to stop the bill first began last week when the House sent the legislation to the Senate, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) objected to the measure. Paul delayed the passage of the bill by a week because he wanted language in the legislation that would have created an inspector general role to oversee Ukraine’s funds.

By the time the final vote came, 10 other Republicans joined Paul in opposing the measure.

[SpitfireIX]

I meant to mention earlier that the reason I haven't directly responded to the OP is that the question of what Trump will do about the Russo-Ukrainian War if God/doG/FSM forbid he's elected in 2024 is completely moot, because if the fighting is still going on then, Russia will have passed the points of complete military and economic collapse, and the Ukrainians will most likely be engaged in mopping up the remnants of Russian forces in their territory, assuming any are even left.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Suppose Republicans take the House and Senate by 2024. Suppose that Donald Trump wins a second term. Suppose further that the war in Ukraine remains just as hot by that time.

Would a Republican-controlled government stifle aid to Ukraine? Would sanctions against Russia be reversed? Would Trump try to pull us out of NATO?

I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'll let others comment.

The vast majority of congressional Republicans want to do more to help Ukraine and continue to urge Biden to give Ukraine heavier weapons, especially fighter jets and long-range missile systems. Most pro-GOP political sites have been very critical of Biden's cowardly, timid, incremental response to Putin's invasion.

As for Trump, just let it be noted that Trump urged NATO nations to increase defense spending, that Trump reversed Obama's refusal to sell Ukraine and Georgia weapons, that Trump tried to get Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, that Trump imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline when he couldn't get Germany to cancel it (sanctions that Biden quickly lifted after taking office, even as he cancelled the perfectly sane Keystone XL pipeline), that Trump expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and shut down two Russian consulates, that Trump imposed tariffs on Russian steel, and that Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal even though Putin strongly supported the deal.

In saying these things, I should add that I wish the GOP would move beyond Trump and even repudiate him. I am disturbed by his actions on January 6. I think he has a toxic personality and behaves like a spoiled teen far too often. I supported most of his policies but did not like how he behaved in many cases.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The vast majority of congressional Republicans want to do more to help Ukraine and continue to urge Biden to give Ukraine heavier weapons, especially fighter jets and long-range missile systems. Most pro-GOP political sites have been very critical of Biden's cowardly, timid, incremental response to Putin's invasion.

As for Trump, just let it be noted that Trump urged NATO nations to increase defense spending, that Trump reversed Obama's refusal to sell Ukraine and Georgia weapons, that Trump tried to get Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, that Trump imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline when he couldn't get Germany to cancel it (sanctions that Biden quickly lifted after taking office, even as he cancelled the perfectly sane Keystone XL pipeline), that Trump expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and shut down two Russian consulates, that Trump imposed tariffs on Russian steel, and that Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal even though Putin strongly supported the deal.

In saying these things, I should add that I wish the GOP would move beyond Trump and even repudiate him. I am disturbed by his actions on January 6. I think he has a toxic personality and behaves like a spoiled teen far too often. I supported most of his policies but did not like how he behaved in many cases.

"... Biden's cowardly, timid, incremental response to Putin's invasion."

You mean the plan that NATO members, not just Biden, agreed to implement? You seem to think NATO is run by Biden.


"...let it be noted that Trump urged NATO nations to increase defense spending"

Yes, he did, but he also made a slew of false statements about NATO spending:

Quote:

The president wrongly claimed that other NATO member countries’ spending on defense was “heading down” three years ago. That spending went up in 2015 and 2016. And he claimed countries that spent a low percentage of their GDP on defense were “delinquent.” They don’t owe NATO, or other countries, any money.

Quote:

Trump likes to take credit for increased spending by other NATO countries — which have upped their spending on defense by $40 billion, or 15%, from 2016 to 2019 — but he’s wrong to claim spending was “heading down” before he took office. Other countries had increased their defense spending by $12 billion or 4.8% from 2014 to 2016, according to the NATO report.

"Trump reversed Obama's refusal to sell Ukraine and Georgia weapons"

Quote:

Unlike Trump’s Ukraine aid freeze, which was for personal, political purposes and which the Government Accountability Office found was illegal, all of the Obama administration’s pauses of foreign aid cited by Trump were:

Done consistent with authority provided by Congress, which has the exclusive power of the purse;
Made in consultation with Congress and not in secret; and
To promote important, bipartisan U.S. national interests, not personal interests.

Quote:

While the Obama administration refused to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons in 2014 to fight Russian-backed separatists, it offered a range of other military and security aid — not just “blankets.” The administration’s concern was that providing lethal weapons like Javelin anti-tank missiles might provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin to escalate the conflict in the separatist Donbas area of Ukraine near Russia’s border.

By March 2015, the Obama administration had provided more than $120 million in security aid for Ukraine and promised $75 million worth of equipment, including counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Defense Department. The U.S. also pledged 230 Humvee vehicles.

In the last year of the Obama administration, the U.S. established the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provided U.S. military equipment and training to help defend Ukraine against Russian aggression.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Suppose Republicans take the House and Senate by 2024. Suppose that Donald Trump wins a second term. Suppose further that the war in Ukraine remains just as hot by that time.

I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I'll let others comment.

OK

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Would a Republican-controlled government stifle aid to Ukraine?

Absolutely, yes. 100%. Remember, it was Repugnicans who repeated Putin's propaganda talking point that it was Ukraine, and not Russia that interfered with 2016 election. Trump would want revenge for Zelenskyy standing up to his extortion attempts by not fabricating the political dirt he wanted on Joe and Hunter Biden.

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Would sanctions against Russia be reversed?

In a heartbeat. Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsay would place it at the very top of their priority lists - their motivation being what motivates all the scum in the GOP... greed and favors for their donors.

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Would Trump try to pull us out of NATO?

He's already tried pushing for it once, and lied incessantly about NATO funding. I see no reason why he wouldn't try it again.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The vast majority of congressional Republicans want to do more to help Ukraine and continue to urge Biden to give Ukraine heavier weapons, especially fighter jets and long-range missile systems. Most pro-GOP political sites have been very critical of Biden's cowardly, timid, incremental response to Putin's invasion.

As for Trump, just let it be noted that Trump urged NATO nations to increase defense spending, that Trump reversed Obama's refusal to sell Ukraine and Georgia weapons, that Trump tried to get Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, that Trump imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline when he couldn't get Germany to cancel it (sanctions that Biden quickly lifted after taking office, even as he cancelled the perfectly sane Keystone XL pipeline), that Trump expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and shut down two Russian consulates, that Trump imposed tariffs on Russian steel, and that Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal even though Putin strongly supported the deal.

In saying these things, I should add that I wish the GOP would move beyond Trump and even repudiate him. I am disturbed by his actions on January 6. I think he has a toxic personality and behaves like a spoiled teen far too often. I supported most of his policies but did not like how he behaved in many cases.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

The vast majority of congressional Republicans want to do more to help Ukraine...

What they claim they want to do now is not necessarily what they will do if Trump (or someone like him) becomes the republican nominee. We have see republicans abandon their principles before. If/when Trump starts to complain about aid to Ukraine, republicans in congress will likely follow along.

Quote:

Most pro-GOP political sites have been very critical of Biden's cowardly, timid, incremental response to Putin's invasion.

Really? Sites that are biased towards the republicans are finding fault with the democrats? Color me shocked!

(Sarcasm intended)

I rather suspect any complaints they have are just ways to score cheap political points.

Quote:

As for Trump, just let it be noted that Trump urged NATO nations to increase defense spending, that Trump reversed Obama's refusal to sell Ukraine and Georgia weapons

First of all, some context here is necessary. When Obama was president, Ukrainian leadership was generally seen as corrupt. (i.e. there were valid reasons to be hesitant about selling them weapons). Once they had a change in leadership, corruption was no longer an issue.

Secondly, Trump had very little to do with Ukrainian aid. Instead it was congress who decided to fund the aid, and tasked Trump with distributing it. (Something, it should be noted, Trump initially failed to do when he tried to blackmail Ukraine, and only turned over the promised equipment when the scandal was made public) Trump did not push for military assistance in the first place.

Lasty, as another poster pointed out, it is inaccurate to say "Obama refused to sell weapons".

From: CNN
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.

Quote:

, that Trump tried to get Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline

Yes he did. Although I think it was more a case of him trying to sell American natural gas (i.e. "Molecules of freedom") rather than a way to curtail russian activities.

I think it is a testament on just how bad of a diplomat Trump is when he couldn't get Germany to make a rational choice.

Quote:

that Trump expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and shut down two Russian consulates

From: Business Insider
President Donald Trump and some of his top aides have battled over the administration's stance toward President Vladimir Putin and Russia...The president was furious that his administration was being portrayed as taking the toughest stance on Russia

[/quote]that Trump imposed tariffs on Russian steel[/quote]
Ummm... Trump imposed Tariffs on just about every county's steel production, including Canada (normally the U.S.'s closest ally), Mexico and the E.U.

Quote:

and that Trump pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal even though Putin strongly supported the deal.

Umm... so? Most countries supported the deal. It was working.

Oh, and while you are trying to pretend Trump was some sort of tough guy when dealing with Russia, keep in mind that:
- Trump was pushing to have Russia re-admitted to the G7/G8.
- Trump publicly criticized the U.S. intelligence agencies when they indicated Russia interfered in the election.

Yeah, not exactly "hard on Russia" there, is he.

Quote:

In saying these things, I should add that I wish the GOP would move beyond Trump and even repudiate him.

They should, but they are not, are they.

Quote:

I am disturbed by his actions on January 6. I think he has a toxic personality and behaves like a spoiled teen far too often. I supported most of his policies but did not like how he behaved in many cases.

You mean his trade wars that ended up increasing the trade deficit?
Or his tax cuts that benefitted millionaires and drove up the fiscal deficit?
Or his "lets ignore covid and it will go away" policy?
How about his "lets take billions from the military (including money that would be used to support families) to build a border wall that is useless"?
What about his policy of "lets put anti-abortionist judges on the supreme court"?
Or his "lets support the coal industry even though the jobs are going to be lost anyways because of technology"?
His brilliant health care plan, which didn't actually exist? (But hey, at least there are thousands of Americans who no longer have insurance thangs to Trump.)

So you support all those plans?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Yeah, not exactly "hard on Russia" there, is he.

He also stood up for Putin when Putin claimed Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election despite the that fact that the evidence was so unequivocal and so overwhelming that even the Repulican led Senate Intelligence Committee came to that conclusion

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

They should, but they are not, are they.

You mean his trade wars that ended up increasing the trade deficit?
Or his tax cuts that benefitted millionaires and drove up the fiscal deficit?
Or his "lets ignore covid and it will go away" policy?
How about his "lets take billions from the military (including money that would be used to support families) to build a border wall that is useless"?
What about his policy of "lets put anti-abortionist judges on the supreme court"?
Or his "lets support the coal industry even though the jobs are going to be lost anyways because of technology"?
His brilliant health care plan, which didn't actually exist? (But hey, at least there are thousands of Americans who no longer have insurance thanks to Trump.)

So you support all those plans?

Oh, but wait, there's more

- What about his non-existent infrastructure plans - they came to nothing, as America's infrastructure continued to crumble.
- What about his promise to boost economic growth by 4 percent per year - the economy stalled, and unemployment rose to the highest levels since the Great Depression. At its peak, just over half of working-age Americans were employed - the worst ratio in 70 years.
- What about his commitment to be "the voice of American workers" - his administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages.
- What about his promise to end the opioid crisis - Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident.
- What about his commitment to release his tax returns - he has done nothing but fight against their release.
- What about his pledge to put America first - instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized US allies.

If anyone thinks that the GOP under Trump would not stab Ukraine in the back the first chance they get, they are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land!

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

He also stood up for Putin when Putin claimed Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election despite the that fact that the evidence was so unequivocal and so overwhelming that even the Repulican led Senate Intelligence Committee came to that conclusion



Oh, but wait, there's more

- What about his non-existent infrastructure plans - they came to nothing, as America's infrastructure continued to crumble.
- What about his promise to boost economic growth by 4 percent per year - the economy stalled, and unemployment rose to the highest levels since the Great Depression. At its peak, just over half of working-age Americans were employed - the worst ratio in 70 years.
- What about his commitment to be "the voice of American workers" - his administration has stripped workers of their rights, repealed overtime protections, rolled back workplace safety rules, and turned a blind eye to employers who steal their workers’ wages.
- What about his promise to end the opioid crisis - Americans are now more likely to die from an opioid overdose than a car accident.
- What about his commitment to release his tax returns - he has done nothing but fight against their release.
- What about his pledge to put America first - instead, he’s deferred to dictators and authoritarians at America’s expense, and ostracized US allies.

If anyone thinks that the GOP under Trump would not stab Ukraine in the back the first chance they get, they are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land!

Too right!

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What they claim they want to do now is not necessarily what they will do if Trump (or someone like him) becomes the republican nominee. We have see republicans abandon their principles before. If/when Trump starts to complain about aid to Ukraine, republicans in congress will likely follow along.

How many Republicans? All of them? The vast majority? A simple majority? Some? A few?

Also, Trump had already started complaining about aid to Ukraine even before the last vote, as I mentioned up-thread. And he just complained again in his speech to the NRA convention last Friday. Yet you don't see Congressional Republicans who voted for aid rushing to change their positions; in fact, some of them are calling for even more and faster aid.

Further, there are several problems with the idea that Trump can just issue some sort of imperial edict that all Congressional Republicans should oppose any additional measures to assist Ukraine or otherwise antagonize Russia, and the vast majority, including the leadership, will meekly fall in line. First, Trump has recently suffered some high-profile defeats in his vendettas against Republicans who have failed to kowtow to him in the past, notably in Georgia. There, Trump recruited strong candidates to mount primary challenges to Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who famously refused to "find" additional votes for Trump after he baselessly claimed the state's electoral votes were stolen from him. Yet both men survived to stand for reelection in November, winning renomination by wide margins, despite Trump's campaigning hard for their opponents.

Second, Trump's supporters are badly divided over the Russo-Ukrainian war, and he's already had to walk back some of his earlier support for Putin. From The Week, via MSN:

In the run-up to Putin’s invasion earlier this year, Trump “praised Putin for recognising Ukraine’s economic and strategic value to Russia”, reported The New York Times’ Leonhardt. But more recently, Trump has “shifted to a more mixed message”, arguing that the Russian president should “negotiate a peace agreement” while still “praising him”.

Trump appears to have realised that the invasion had “changed the situation” at home, “damaging Putin’s popularity in the US, even among Republicans”, Leonhardt continued. Most GOP backers “wish the Biden administration would take more aggressive action to help Ukraine”. . . .

Among Trump’s voter base, opinion is “splintered” over the war in Ukraine, according to NBC News. In “conversations with Trump voters”, the broadcaster reported, “the spectrum of thinking ran from giving Putin free rein, on one end, to sending in US troops”.

Finally, Congressional Republicans have defied Trump in the past, by joining Democrats in overriding Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act in 2020.

Also, to reiterate the points I made earlier, even if, hypothetically, a large number of Republicans were to abandon Ukraine, there would still, for a variety of reasons, be enough to join with Democrats in passing future aid appropriations, and even a solidly united Republican party with large majorities in Congress would be unable to force Biden to lift sanctions on Russia.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Quote:

What they claim they want to do now is not necessarily what they will do if Trump (or someone like him) becomes the republican nominee. We have see republicans abandon their principles before. If/when Trump starts to complain about aid to Ukraine, republicans in congress will likely follow along.

How many Republicans? All of them? The vast majority? A simple majority? Some? A few?

I suspect around 2/3rds. Granted, some might continue to claim they 'stand with ukraine' and do things that are totally useless as a way to show solidarity, but most will still end up caving in at the end.

Quote:

Also, Trump had already started complaining about aid to Ukraine even before the last vote, as I mentioned up-thread.

What I said is that they may turn their backs on Ukraine if trump becomes the republican nominee (or even president).

Trump is still incredibly influential in republican politics. But, his control is not as strong as it was back in 2016-2020. (I suspect most republicans are waiting to see if Trump makes a comeback before deciding just how much to support him.)

Quote:

Further, there are several problems with the idea that Trump can just issue some sort of imperial edict that all Congressional Republicans should oppose any additional measures to assist Ukraine or otherwise antagonize Russia, and the vast majority, including the leadership, will meekly fall in line. First, Trump has recently suffered some high-profile defeats in his vendettas against Republicans who have failed to kowtow to him in the past, notably in Georgia.

Again, wait and see if he manages to become the nominee or become president to see how congress will react.

Quote:

Second, Trump's supporters are badly divided over the Russo-Ukrainian war, and he's already had to walk back some of his earlier support for Putin.

So far that's pretty much just empty rhetoric. Wait and see what Trump's actual actions are.

Quote:

Among Trump’s voter base, opinion is “splintered” over the war in Ukraine, according to NBC News. In “conversations with Trump voters”, the broadcaster reported, “the spectrum of thinking ran from giving Putin free rein, on one end, to sending in US troops”.

And republicans thought that marriage infidelity was a serious issue... until Trump and Stormy Daniels. And republicans thought the debt was important, until Trump gave a bunch of tax breaks to Millionaires.

Yes, some MAGAchud might currently hold a hard-line pro-Ukraine stance. With Trump actually in charge, they will either change their opinion, or find some way to intellectually justify the discrepancy in their minds.

Quote:

Finally, Congressional Republicans have defied Trump in the past, by joining Democrats in overriding Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act in 2020.

The National Defense Authorization Act was passed in late 2020 (after the election), so while Trump was president, he was a lame duck at that point.

A better example would be Trump's "state of emergency" that he used to take money from the military to fund his border wall. In theory, republicans in congress should have blocked the declaration (supposedly being the 'pro-military' party). Yet only 11 republican senators voted against Trump (not enough to overcome a likely veto.)

I can imagine the same sort of scenario playing out over aid to the Ukraine... Congress authorizes funding, Trump declares state of emergency to divert funding to a border wall (or wastes the money in some other fashion), congress votes to override Trump's actions, but enough republicans side with Trump to block any sort of meaningful action.

Quote:

Also, to reiterate the points I made earlier, even if, hypothetically, a large number of Republicans were to abandon Ukraine, there would still, for a variety of reasons, be enough to join with Democrats in passing future aid appropriations, and even a solidly united Republican party with large majorities in Congress would be unable to force Biden to lift sanctions on Russia.

Again, that's why I said "Trump becomes the candidate/president" as a condition for the Republicans abandoning the Ukraine.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect around 2/3rds. Granted, some might continue to claim they 'stand with ukraine' and do things that are totally useless as a way to show solidarity, but most will still end up caving in at the end.

Granting arguendo that your estimate is correct, that will still be plenty of Republicans to vote with the Democrats for aid to Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

What I said is that they may turn their backs on Ukraine if trump becomes the republican nominee (or even president).

I was aware that you said that, but I don't agree with your premise that that would make a significant difference. Trump's ability to influence Congressional Republicans is based largely on his ability to scare them into believing he will turn a significant number of voters against them, or support primary challengers. I don't believe his being the nominee would matter that much in those calculations. Additionally, by the time he might be the nominee again, it would be too late for Trump to recruit and support primary challengers for 2024. And if he becomes President again, it's largely a moot point, because he will control sanctions and many aspects of military aid, plus Russia will probably have lost by then anyway.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So far that's pretty much just empty rhetoric. Wait and see what Trump's actual actions are.

Of course it's empty rhetoric. The point is Trump is afraid to say what he really believes because a lot of his supporters (not to mention other Republicans and independents whose votes he'll need in 2024) don't agree with him. And why would he suddenly start actively attacking Ukraine before the general election, when that would likely cost him votes among independents and moderate Republicans?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

And republicans thought that marriage infidelity was a serious issue... until Trump and Stormy Daniels. And republicans thought the debt was important, until Trump gave a bunch of tax breaks to Millionaires.

Trump's infidelity is a red herring. Very few Republican politicians wanted Trump; they were stuck with him by circumstances. Abandoning him would have meant handing the election to Hillary Clinton. And most Republicans have generally favored tax cuts; their preferred method of deficit reduction is spending cuts.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Yes, some MAGAchud might currently hold a hard-line pro-Ukraine stance. With Trump actually in charge, they will either change their opinion, or find some way to intellectually justify the discrepancy in their minds.

If Trump actually becomes President again, it won't matter what his supporters think, because he won't need their votes after that.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

The National Defense Authorization Act was passed in late 2020 (after the election), so while Trump was president, he was a lame duck at that point.

Along the lines of his being the nominee, I also don't believe his having been a lame duck made a significant difference. Additionally, if elected, he'll be a lame duck as soon as he's sworn in.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A better example would be Trump's "state of emergency" that he used to take money from the military to fund his border wall. In theory, republicans in congress should have blocked the declaration (supposedly being the 'pro-military' party). Yet only 11 republican senators voted against Trump (not enough to overcome a likely veto.)

I can imagine the same sort of scenario playing out over aid to the Ukraine... Congress authorizes funding, Trump declares state of emergency to divert funding to a border wall (or wastes the money in some other fashion), congress votes to override Trump's actions, but enough republicans side with Trump to block any sort of meaningful action.

The consequences of Trump's taking money from the defense budget to build the wall were minor, if not trivial. The consequences of failing to support Ukraine are potentially fateful. So that's a poor guide by which to judge the possibility that Republicans will go against Trump. Again, though, the issue of what Trump will do with respect to Ukraine is not terribly important, because if the war goes on that long, Russia will have suffered complete economic and military collapse by January 20, 2025.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is what happens when you blame Putin for the economy. I'm betting 2-4 weeks before Biden says he has to make a peace deal to restore US gas prices.

I'll take that bet. Call it July 15? No stakes, just the right to send a taunting emoji. For your win:

- There must be a US-initiated peace effort
- One of the reasons stated must be in order to alleviate US gas prices
- It must not be after or contingent to a significant Russian withdrawal (to 2021 borders)

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by The Don

It's possible but IMO very unlikely.

No, it's not possible. I have a generally low opinion of Biden, but he wouldn't try to sell out Ukraine the way Chamberlain sold out Czechoslovakia. There's also the fact that there's not much the US can do by itself to force Zelenskyy to give up large chunks of territory to Russia. Biden would also have to convince Britain and the EU to cut off weapons shipments and lift sanctions, which they won't do, at least not anytime soon.

Originally Posted by The Don

More likely that the GOP in the senate plus the two quislings prevent any further help.

As long as people keep making this claim, I'll keep debunking it. The Republicans in Congress will not block aid to Ukraine. Not now, and not after the midterms. Full stop.

Even if Trump is stupid enough to come out tomorrow and call for an end to military assistance and sanctions, very few if any Republicans who aren't already opposed to those policies will go along. Trump has recently failed to oust several Republicans who have defied him, notably the governor and other officials in Georgia who refused to endorse his stolen election bilge. So the idea that lots of Republican politicians are terrified of incurring Trump's wrath is specious.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

As long as people keep making this claim, I'll keep debunking it. The Republicans in Congress will not block aid to Ukraine. Not now, and not after the midterms. Full stop.

Even if Trump is stupid enough to come out tomorrow and call for an end to military assistance and sanctions, very few if any Republicans who aren't already opposed to those policies will go along. Trump has recently failed to oust several Republicans who have defied him, notably the governor and other officials in Georgia who refused to endorse his stolen election bilge. So the idea that lots of Republican politicians are terrified of incurring Trump's wrath is specious.

I find your confidence in the GOP charming and encouraging. I do not share it.

I'd have thought that it was only a lunatic fringe of the party who would believe that the vote was stolen from Donald Trump and that there were millions of illegally cast ballots. Immediately after the election, that's the way the GOP seemed to be going but it was only a few days until the vast majority of GOP representatives were fully on board with "The Big Lie".

I can easily foresee exactly the same thing happening to Ukraine as soon as and when Donald Trump makes his views known.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by The Don

I find your confidence in the GOP charming and encouraging. I do not share it.

I'd have thought that it was only a lunatic fringe of the party who would believe that the vote was stolen from Donald Trump and that there were millions of illegally cast ballots. Immediately after the election, that's the way the GOP seemed to be going but it was only a few days until the vast majority of GOP representatives were fully on board with "The Big Lie".

On the question of certification of the election results, only eight Republican senators out of 51 objected to at least one state's electoral votes. A few more had planned to object but changed their minds after the Capitol riots. So clearly "the vast majority" of Republican senators were not "fully on board with 'The Big Lie'." That's also nowhere near the 41 that would be required to filibuster any future Ukraine aid bill.

Additionally, objecting to the election results was seen by some Republicans as a handy way to curry favor with Trump and pander to his supporters with no real consequences, as the objection was certain to fail. But cutting off Ukraine would have obvious and serious potential consequences.

Originally Posted by The Don

I can easily foresee exactly the same thing happening to Ukraine as soon as and when Donald Trump makes his views known.

You're giving Trump way too much credit. Further, even after the Republicans take control of Congress in November, which is a near certainty, blocking Ukraine aid would require virtual unanimity among House Republicans, or the votes of 41 Republicans in the Senate. (The Senate Majority Leader could unilaterally block it, but Mitch McConnell is extremely pro-Ukraine, plus Trump has already tried and failed to have him removed as leader, due to his opposition to Trump's stolen-election narrative.)

[The Don]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

On the question of certification of the election results, only eight Republican senators out of 51 objected to at least one state's electoral votes. A few more had planned to object but changed their minds after the Capitol riots. So clearly "the vast majority" of Republican senators were not "fully on board with 'The Big Lie'." That's also nowhere near the 41 that would be required to filibuster any future Ukraine aid bill.

Additionally, objecting to the election results was seen by some Republicans as a handy way to curry favor with Trump and pander to his supporters with no real consequences, as the objection was certain to fail. But cutting off Ukraine would have obvious and serious potential consequences.




You're giving Trump way too much credit. Further, even after the Republicans take control of Congress in November, which is a near certainty, blocking Ukraine aid would require virtual unanimity among House Republicans, or the votes of 41 Republicans in the Senate. (The Senate Majority Leader could unilaterally block it, but Mitch McConnell is extremely pro-Ukraine, plus Trump has already tried and failed to have him removed as leader, due to his opposition to Trump's stolen-election narrative.)

Liz Cheney has been vilified and thrown out of her state party for daring to suggest that Joe Biden won fair and square. How many of her colleagues are willing to do the same ?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by The Don

Liz Cheney has been vilified and thrown out of her state party for daring to suggest that Joe Biden won fair and square. How many of her colleagues are willing to do the same ?

She's been vilified because she voted to impeach Trump, not because she said Biden won.

Mitch McConnell:

“I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden,” McConnell said as he opened the Senate.

“Many of us had hoped the presidential election would yield a different result,” he said. “But our system of government has the processes to determine who will be sworn in on Jan. 20. The electoral college has spoken.”

Republican Sen. Ben Sasse congratulates Biden:

Sasse is the fourth Republican senator to acknowledge the President-elect's victory. Maine Sen. Susan Collins issued a statement earlier today and offered congratulations to Biden and Harris. Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney has vocally congratulated the Biden-Harris ticket, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski also released a statement this weekend congratulating them

This is all beside the point, though. The point is the overwhelming majority of Republican senators failed to vote the way Trump wanted them to on objecting to the Electoral College vote. Just as plenty of Republican senators will vote to continue aid to Ukraine even if Trump comes out strongly against it. Which he won't, because his supporters are split, and almost everyone else is strongly in favor. He'll just continue to grumble and grouse about the cost or otherwise throw shade, but he won't openly call for cutting off Ukraine and ending sanctions.

[theprestige]

Crossposting from the invasion thread, this news seems relevant here as well:

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

This is somewhat disturbing:

From NBC News:

U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that the trajectory of the war in Ukraine is untenable and are quietly discussing whether President Volodymyr Zelenskyy should temper his hard-line public position that no territory will ever be ceded to Russia as part of an agreement to end the war, according to seven current U.S. officials, former U.S. officials and European officials.

Some officials want Zelenskyy to “dial it back a little bit,” as one of them put it, when it comes to telegraphing his red lines on ending the war. But the issue is fraught given that Biden is adamant about the U.S. not pressuring the Ukrainians to take steps one way or another. His administration’s position has been that any decision about how and on what terms to end the war is for Ukraine to decide.

It doesn't seem like GOP opposition to the war is where the risk lies.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Crossposting from the invasion thread, this news seems relevant here as well:



It doesn't seem like GOP opposition to the war is where the risk lies.

Or some in the administration are planning for a softer landing for Ukraine when Republicans take over Congress next year and freeze all aid.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

On the question of certification of the election results, only eight Republican senators out of 51 objected to at least one state's electoral votes. A few more had planned to object but changed their minds after the Capitol riots. So clearly "the vast majority" of Republican senators were not "fully on board with 'The Big Lie'." That's also nowhere near the 41 that would be required to filibuster any future Ukraine aid bill.

Additionally, objecting to the election results was seen by some Republicans as a handy way to curry favor with Trump and pander to his supporters with no real consequences, as the objection was certain to fail. But cutting off Ukraine would have obvious and serious potential consequences.




You're giving Trump way too much credit. Further, even after the Republicans take control of Congress in November, which is a near certainty, blocking Ukraine aid would require virtual unanimity among House Republicans, or the votes of 41 Republicans in the Senate. (The Senate Majority Leader could unilaterally block it, but Mitch McConnell is extremely pro-Ukraine, plus Trump has already tried and failed to have him removed as leader, due to his opposition to Trump's stolen-election narrative.)

Republican opinion can shift quite rapidly. Look at how they went from free trade to trade wars once they were told to.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Or some in the administration are planning for a softer landing for Ukraine when Republicans take over Congress next year and freeze all aid.

Why do you keep making this specious claim? If Republicans want to stop assistance to Ukraine, why didn't they just filibuster the last aid bill? And why did so many Republicans in the House vote in favor of it?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Republican opinion can shift quite rapidly. Look at how they went from free trade to trade wars once they were told to.

They did no such thing. From Politico:

Free-trading Republicans have feuded with the president for years now, and his decision on Monday to reimpose tariffs on Brazil and Argentina brought new criticism from GOP senators — right as he needs them to fend off the impeachment inquiry that threatens his presidency. . . .

The conflict between Trump and the Republican Party is very real, perhaps the most persistent disagreement between the president and the senators who typically serve as his allies. Yet time and again the Senate GOP has shied away from direct combat with Trump. Any talk of sanctioning Turkey, reforming the National Emergencies Act or restricting Trump’s tariffs has all been quickly sidelined. And no one on Capitol Hill thinks the GOP frustration on trade will dim support for Trump on impeachment. . . .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and many of his members reason that more can be gained in private communications with the president than in outright legislative warfare with him. They believe that their work to stop the president from imposing broad tariffs on Mexico earlier this year or imposing tariffs on foreign autos did far more good than confrontation with the president.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Why do you keep making this specious claim? If Republicans want to stop assistance to Ukraine, why didn't they just filibuster the last aid bill? And why did so many Republicans in the House vote in favor of it?

it's not that Republicans don't want to support Ukraine, it's that they don't give a **** about about Ukraine except inasmuch as it can help them win primaries and elections.
It won't win them anything in the midterms, so they support it for now.

But Trump has an axe to grind with Zelensky, making it very unlikely that Ukraine Aid won't be part of the GOP nomination discussion - at which point, the "America First" mantra will win.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

They did no such thing. From Politico:

Free-trading Republicans have feuded with the president for years now, and his decision on Monday to reimpose tariffs on Brazil and Argentina brought new criticism from GOP senators — right as he needs them to fend off the impeachment inquiry that threatens his presidency. . . .

The conflict between Trump and the Republican Party is very real, perhaps the most persistent disagreement between the president and the senators who typically serve as his allies. Yet time and again the Senate GOP has shied away from direct combat with Trump. Any talk of sanctioning Turkey, reforming the National Emergencies Act or restricting Trump’s tariffs has all been quickly sidelined. And no one on Capitol Hill thinks the GOP frustration on trade will dim support for Trump on impeachment. . . .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and many of his members reason that more can be gained in private communications with the president than in outright legislative warfare with him. They believe that their work to stop the president from imposing broad tariffs on Mexico earlier this year or imposing tariffs on foreign autos did far more good than confrontation with the president.

That's nice but I was talking about the base not the elite.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That's nice but I was talking about the base not the elite.

It's not true of the base, either. From Reason:

Speakers at the [2020] Republican Convention this week have routinely praised the success of Trump's economic policies, even though his record is, at best, mixed even if one discounts the COVID-19 pandemic. When it comes to the public's perception of Trump's trade policies, however, he seems to have accomplished something truly impressive, if a bit bizarre: almost the entire public—regardless of party—has now come to support international trade as a concept. . . .

However, under Trump, both percentages have abruptly soared to the point of almost complete consensus: nearly 90 percent of both Democrats and Republicans now say they support international trade, and the same holds for independents.

This remarkable phenomenon seems to have arisen from a difference in perception. Republicans conclude that, since Trump appears to support international trade, it must be a good thing. Democrats come to the same conclusion, but from the opposite direction. They look at Trump's tariffs and other anti-trade behavior and reckon that, since Trump appears to oppose international trade, it must be a good thing.

Some of that confusion is probably due to Trump's own mixed messages. The president has repeatedly characterized himself as a free trader. But, he says, he needs to engage actively to level the playing field by, for example, slapping tariffs on countries he judges to have broken the rules.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

it's not that Republicans don't want to support Ukraine, it's that they don't give a **** about about Ukraine except inasmuch as it can help them win primaries and elections.
It won't win them anything in the midterms, so they support it for now.

So we're back to the "most Republicans are evil/stupid/cowardly" narrative again. We'll see how well that holds up after November (hint: it won't).

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

But Trump has an axe to grind with Zelensky, making it very unlikely that Ukraine Aid won't be part of the GOP nomination discussion - at which point, the "America First" mantra will win.

Again, as I've mentioned, Trump is afraid to say what he really wants to say about the Russo-Ukrainian War, because his base is badly split, and almost everyone else is pro-Ukraine. Although war weariness is likely to set in among the voting public over time, I predict that this will be largely offset by continuing media reporting on the brutality, incompetence, corruption, and hypocrisy of the Russians and their quislings, along with regular Russian threats against NATO.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

So we're back to the "most Republicans are evil/stupid/cowardly" narrative again. We'll see how well that holds up after November (hint: it won't).

You are leaving out republicans love affair with autocrats. I mean they clearly do not view seeing the Chinese response to Tiananmen square protests in 91 as proper as a problem, or his support for the strong chinese response would have been an issue for them.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

So we're back to the "most Republicans are evil/stupid/cowardly" narrative again. We'll see how well that holds up after November (hint: it won't).

Out of curiousity, which election in the primaries is showing you how not evil/stupid/cowardly Republicans are?

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You are leaving out republicans love affair with autocrats. I mean they clearly do not view seeing the Chinese response to Tiananmen square protests in 91 as proper as a problem, or his support for the strong chinese response would have been an issue for them.

I'm afraid I don't follow your second sentence there. Could you rephrase?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I'm afraid I don't follow your second sentence there. Could you rephrase?

It is referencing Trump's praise for how the chinese handled the Tiananmen square protests. Made them look strong after all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...trength-2019-6

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Out of curiousity, which election in the primaries is showing you how not evil/stupid/cowardly Republicans are?

I don't think this would be a productive discussion, because your question implies that you believe that most or all primary elections demonstrate the opposite.

I will say that I reject the reasoning that goes along the lines of "I believe passionately in X. Anyone who is opposed to X is either stupid or evil. Most Republicans are are opposed to X. Therefore most Republicans are stupid or evil." I also reject that reasoning with respect to the Democrats.

Additionally, I will refer you to the numerous Republican state officials and state legislators who refused to go along with Trump's plan to overturn the election by invalidating their states' election results. Much is made of the number of Republicans in Congress who voted to object to the electoral results. However, as I've mentioned, this was essentially a meaningless vote that some saw as a handy way to curry favor with Trump and pander to his supporters. Yet practically no Republican officeholders who could have taken any meaningful action, from Mike Pence on down, went along.