The reason for this new subscriber is that Bill O'Reilly asked us (one of his loyal members) to visit your website. The reason I signed up for membership is because of you and your honest reporting and I enjoy lively debate and various opinions.
"...approximately 90% of all U.S. taxpayer money allocated for Ukraine has stayed right here, in our own country, to build and replace weaponry."
I wonder if this is a major reason why Trump opposes Ukraine aid and why his toadies so willingly follow him on this issue. Typically, I'm loathe to question someone's motivations in such a cynical manner. But, thanks to Trump, his bootlickers in Congress unmistakably have demonstrated that they value holding their political office over the welfare of the country.
I don't know why this factoid (to use an O'Reillyism) isn't hammered by the proponents of Ukraine aid. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only time it's mentioned is as an after-thought.
It's still unclear to me precisely what needs to happen in order for warmongering Putin to give up on his dreams.
Sorry, but for me personally, I'm more interested in that type of substantive, legitimate debate than whatever faux-nonsense clowns like Kari Lake or MTG cite.
As with Israel, it's survival as a sovereign nation. That might ultimately include giving up some land, or it might mean pushing Russia back all the way to its pre-war border.
What's amazing to me in all this is how some in this country would rather make Putin's wet, genocidal, warmongering dreams a reality than allocate a tiny little portion of our defense fund (an overwhelming amount of which stays in our country, and improves our own arsenal) to a cause that pays huge dividends for us and the rest of the free world.
I'm currently reading Liz Cheney's book on the 2020 Election, J6 and the aftermatch. Mike Johnson was a one of the key players in aiding Trump's effort to overturn the election. He recently went to Mar a Largo to kiss Trump's ring, so one would assume that his efforts to fund aid to Ukraine are being done with Trump's blessing. So, the question is, if Trump is OK with aiding Ukraine, why are his bootlickers such as MTG making such a fuss? Did they not get the memo, or are they like the Joker in The Dark Knight, and just want to watch the world burn?
People who talk to Trump behind the scenes say he's much more anti-Ukraine than he lets on publicly (and we already know his affection for Putin), which may account for the behavior of MTG, JD Vance, etc.
But that makes his presumed blessing of Johnson's recent actions even more interesting. Maybe someone convinced Trump that Ukraine falling would be terrible for his November prospects, being that everyone knows his love for Putin, and that Republicans have been the ones trying to abandon Ukraine. But that's just a guess on my part (I'm not sure I believe it myself).
I think there is a political calculation on Trump's part. He may want Ukraine to hold its own so he can come in as POTUS with his brilliant deal that will end the conflict in 24 hours. But he can't do that if Ukraine is already defeated by next January.
It's also possible that Mike Johnson has accepted the gravity of the Speaker role, and decided to put on his "big boy" pants, and actually do his job, but that may be giving him WAY to much credit.
The reason for this new subscriber is that Bill O'Reilly asked us (one of his loyal members) to visit your website. The reason I signed up for membership is because of you and your honest reporting and I enjoy lively debate and various opinions.
"...approximately 90% of all U.S. taxpayer money allocated for Ukraine has stayed right here, in our own country, to build and replace weaponry."
I wonder if this is a major reason why Trump opposes Ukraine aid and why his toadies so willingly follow him on this issue. Typically, I'm loathe to question someone's motivations in such a cynical manner. But, thanks to Trump, his bootlickers in Congress unmistakably have demonstrated that they value holding their political office over the welfare of the country.
I don't know why this factoid (to use an O'Reillyism) isn't hammered by the proponents of Ukraine aid. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only time it's mentioned is as an after-thought.
It's still unclear to me precisely what needs to happen in order for warmongering Putin to give up on his dreams.
Sorry, but for me personally, I'm more interested in that type of substantive, legitimate debate than whatever faux-nonsense clowns like Kari Lake or MTG cite.
// Russia’s failure to achieve its goals
So what exactly does Ukraine "winning" look like? Please play out a plausible scenario.
As with Israel, it's survival as a sovereign nation. That might ultimately include giving up some land, or it might mean pushing Russia back all the way to its pre-war border.
What's amazing to me in all this is how some in this country would rather make Putin's wet, genocidal, warmongering dreams a reality than allocate a tiny little portion of our defense fund (an overwhelming amount of which stays in our country, and improves our own arsenal) to a cause that pays huge dividends for us and the rest of the free world.
I'm currently reading Liz Cheney's book on the 2020 Election, J6 and the aftermatch. Mike Johnson was a one of the key players in aiding Trump's effort to overturn the election. He recently went to Mar a Largo to kiss Trump's ring, so one would assume that his efforts to fund aid to Ukraine are being done with Trump's blessing. So, the question is, if Trump is OK with aiding Ukraine, why are his bootlickers such as MTG making such a fuss? Did they not get the memo, or are they like the Joker in The Dark Knight, and just want to watch the world burn?
People who talk to Trump behind the scenes say he's much more anti-Ukraine than he lets on publicly (and we already know his affection for Putin), which may account for the behavior of MTG, JD Vance, etc.
But that makes his presumed blessing of Johnson's recent actions even more interesting. Maybe someone convinced Trump that Ukraine falling would be terrible for his November prospects, being that everyone knows his love for Putin, and that Republicans have been the ones trying to abandon Ukraine. But that's just a guess on my part (I'm not sure I believe it myself).
I think there is a political calculation on Trump's part. He may want Ukraine to hold its own so he can come in as POTUS with his brilliant deal that will end the conflict in 24 hours. But he can't do that if Ukraine is already defeated by next January.
It's also possible that Mike Johnson has accepted the gravity of the Speaker role, and decided to put on his "big boy" pants, and actually do his job, but that may be giving him WAY to much credit.