Schumer: If We Don’t Aid Ukraine Then ‘We Could be Fighting in Eastern Europe’
Ukraine has been fighting Russia since 2014. Stop with the scare tactics.
I cannot believe I missed this!
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer used scare tactics, the good old politician scheme to get people to do what they want, to get support for the Ukraine aid they attached to the border bill.
Because if you don’t we will all dies! Schumer implied the U.S. would end up in eastern Europe if we don’t aid Ukraine:
SCHUMER: “Look, it took a long time, four months of arduous negotiations. They fell off the tracks a whole bunch of times, I had to be on the phone even at midnight, saying we got to keep going. Why? We’re at a turning point in America. This bill is crucial and history will look back on it and say, did America fail itself? Why is it crucial? Well, if we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war and we could be fighting in eastern Europe and a NATO ally in a few years. Americans won’t like that”
.@SenSchumer threatens to send U.S. troops to fight Russia unless Republicans agree to his $100 billion world-aid bill:
"If we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will be walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war & we could be fighting in eastern Europe & a NATO ally in a few years.… pic.twitter.com/run7FcvwRN
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 5, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Got news for you Chucky boy, only the President can order troops into combat.
But if you and the rest of the facist party want to support Ukraine, by all means volunteer.
Chuckie, you have a standing invitation to join Colonel Klink at the Eastern Front.
You first, Chuckie.
You do know his buddy is president don’t you? You should also know by now that the president hates Americans.
He didn’t suggest otherwise.
Finland, Sweden, Poland need to prepare for war to ensure peace. Ukraine needs to either kick the Russians out or accept it is not getting Donbas and Crimea back.
Maybe there’s a similar urgent sense of alarm in Germany, France, Italy, or Turkey – but I’m not perceiving it being communicated here in the U.S.
It seems they’re much closer to any potential threat of an actual wider war over there than we are.
Possible, though, that the more-sophisticated E-U-style Europeans don’t really care about what might happen to those Ukrainian strangers as much as Americans might.
Who is this “we” you are referring to Chuckie?
What is this ‘we’, Kemosabe?
Is chuck the lone ranger?
>>“If we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will be walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war & we could be fighting in eastern Europe & a NATO ally in a few years. Americans won’t like that.”
Oh heck no Chuckles, “We” are not at war so there is no effing “war” that we could lose if we don’t fund that fraud by the name of Zelenskyy.
Zelenskyy lose the war. Not the United States. And unless NATO is fecking insane that will be it. But the United States will lose the war? It ain’t our war to lose.
The USA is at war with Russia.
Without USA $$$$, the war would have ended right away, as it should have.
The solution is a negotiated peace.
End the war now!
You nailed it with one missing bit of info. This war is about converting US aid back into US politicians bank accounts.
Ukraine is Washington’s money laundry.
Unfortunately, the detergent is peasants’ blood.
ding ding ding
we have a winner
that is it … Chucky is
worried that the gravy train
‘is about to go off the tracks.
No matter what Schumer states in his interviews the United States is NOT at war with Russia. So there is no “War” to be lost by the United States if Congress fails to fund that fraud by the name of Zelenskyy. As you state, at this point Zelenskyy is going to have to do something he declared he’d never do. Negotiate a settlement with Putin and end the conflict. it won’t be fun for Zelenskyy, It won’t be painless. But that’s all he’s got right now to keep even a semblance of his country intact.
And as for that abortion of a Congressional Bill? Needs to be split into three separate bills.
(1) A bill dealing with immigration and border issues
(2) A bill dealing with Israeli funding
(3) A bill dealing with Ukraine funding
And each should be taken up individually, debated, and voted upon by the House & Senate in the manner that Congress is supposed to work.
We SO need an amendment to require single issue bills. On top of other things.
Although I agree with the sentiment, it’s no solution, just a further complication to game away.
Arizona has exactly such a constitutional provision (Article 4, Section 13), stipulating that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Two years ago, it was amended to encompass citizen initiatives as well. But in reality, all it means is that the butthurt party sues to bring the legislation before a biased judge, who rules that in his opinion the language does only one thing, or more than one thing, depending entirely on which outcome he likes better.
You don’t containe people who’s talent is gaming the rules, by making more rules, no matter how obviously on-point the rules might seem on the face.
“But that’s all he’s got right now to keep even a semblance of his country intact.” No not at all, he could keep fighting a defensive war which they are doing exceptionally well at. The fact that Republicans continue to demonstrate stupidity doesn’t negate Ukraine’s right to self defence.
Nope. They cannot keep up a “defensive war” long. Eventually Zelenskyy will run out of equipment and then he loses. Eventually Zelenskyy will run out of people to press gang into his army and then he loses. Eventually Zelenskyy runs out of money and then he loses. Waging a “defensive war” is not something you can win over the long term. Especially when all you’ve got is such an incompetent military leader like Zelenskyy. Idiot didn’t even prepare his country for the war in the beginning. But Zelenskyy’s incompetence is a whole other issue.
The only option that Zelenskyy has at this point is to do something he declared he’d never do. Negotiate with Russia. As I said, it won’t be fun. It won’t be painless. And it certainly won’t end in. Ukraine’s favor. He isn’t getting back the Donbas or Crimea. And he will have to give up some more territory. Negotiation with Russia. That is the only way Zelenskyy can guarantee that he has even a semblance of country left. Full stop.
You might want to ask some of their new conscripts, to the extant they can shanghai them and they actually survive, what they think of the exceptionally well done war.
Our economy is about 29 trillion. The rooskies economy is about 2.1 trillion. I think we have a very slight edge.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-105-trillion-world-economy-in-one-chart/
Except they can manufacture tanks, aircraft and ammunition…apparently we decided it was too much trouble awhile ago.
Ammunition maybe. But they are specifically lacking much advanced military aircraft manufacturing capability these days and have had to go pretty deep into their very old reserve stocks to replace their horrendous tank losses. T-54, T-55, T-62, PT-76, etc..
At least the Russians have that older equipment to draw on. The United States ain’t got ‘nuthin (or very little left) now that the United States has given it all to that fraud by the name of Zelenskyy.
@Lucifer Morningstar
Eh, The US has literally thousands of Abrams estimated to be around 5000 ish
So has Estes actually rebuilt the only black powder manufacturing facility in the United States and restarted black powder production? Kinda hard to manufacture ammunition for military weapons without black powder.
Has the military solved its recruitment problems yet? Can’t fight wars without recruits in a voluntary military. And the young people have wised up to the fact that they’re just cannon fodder for the neocon war mongers and aren’t joining any longer.
Has the federal government replaced all the military equipment stocks that they’ve handed over to that fraud Zelenskyy yet? No? They’re still years away from replenishing equipment stock? Hard to fight a war when you don’t have the equipment to do so.
Has the . . . well, should I go on?
I’m not going. Anyone else?
“we will lose the war”? We’re at war with Russia? Somebody should have mentioned this to me before I planned my European vacation.
Take a box or two of extra ammo and have a good trip.
“Why are you bringing these weapons into Europe, sir?”
“Hunting.”
“And what would we be hunting, sir?”
“Commies, terrorists, fascists, whatever is in season.”
If Schumer parroting the neocon/forever war claptrap doesn’t tell you there is a uni party I don’t know what will. Maybe just follow the clear evidence here. The uni party produced a bill to basically cement open borders and provide another $60 billion to fund a forever war in Ukraine (FWIW the total annual budget of the USMC is $53 Billion) All while providing a ‘bipartisan’ bill, whose negotiations excluded the HoR, designed to:
A. Pass and cement the open borders agenda and locking in Ukraine funding
B. Passage is intended to mitigate the issue of immigration for the ’24 elections ‘hey, look stupid constituents we DID something about it, nothing more to to see or worry about, move along home’
Alternatively if it Fails to pass then the message is ‘hey, we Tried to Do Something but those mean old, bigoted, Putin loving radicals in the GoP wouldn’t let us solve the problem so it is all THEIR fault’.
The open borders folks are the forever war/neocons are the globalists. The burgeoning populism in the USA is a direct threat to them. They don’t want the govt gravy train to end, not in terms of $, power, prestige or their ideological preferences of consistently putting the middle class of the USA dead last behind the interests of the multinational corporations.
“All while providing a ‘bipartisan’ bill, whose negotiations excluded the HoR”
Because whyever would the House be interested in a $60B spending bill?
‘hey, we Tried to Do Something but those mean old, bigoted, Putin loving radicals in the GoP wouldn’t let us solve the problem so it is all THEIR fault’.
Which is why Ukraine and the border are tied together.
this is why Hindu Hillary
is all about forever war ….
So then why don’t they make the ukraine aid package a stand alone piece of legislation, and not link it to other things?? Then it gets passed easier.
It might not get passed, then, either. And this way they get to make that “See we tried to work on the border with the Russia lovers, but they don’t want us to do anything.”
IMO it would not be passed as a stand alone bill. Any GoP member or member repeating a purple CD would face a strong future primary challenge and for some ’24 challenge from their opponents:
‘Rep X put an $60 Billion for Ukraine over funding a border wall. Rep X is more interested in getting Russians out of Ukraine than the tens of millions of illegal immigrants deported from the USA.’ Cue images of ‘migrant’ caravans, illegals overwhelming Border patrol, overcrowded ‘shelters’ and so on.
Sheesh. Schumer reminds me of my years in college debate when opposing teams argued from remote and small causes to grand and catastrophic consequences. It’s the desperate move of someone who knows he’s losing.
“But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.”
Does he imagine anyone is dumb enough to believe what he says?
Its so insulting.
You ever met one of the democrat base voters?
You ever met his unfunny cousin Amy?
>>Does he imagine anyone is dumb enough to believe what he says?
Why yes, yes he does think that people are dumb enough to believe what he says. The people are dumb enough to vote Schumer into office every time he comes up for re-election so they must be dumb enough to believe everything he says.
Alas, his behavior going back to the 1990s indicates that he does.
So propose a clean bill for Ukraine funding then, you fucking jackass.
The bill should have been split into three separate bills.
(1) Immigration/Border reform
(2) Israel funding
(3) Ukraine funding
And then each bill debated and voted upon in Congress in the manner in which Congress is supposed to pass legislation.
What was that? “We have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it?” This, again?
A bill dropped after “months of negotiation” on the D-L, needs to be DOA. Legit “negotiation” is out in the open where we can see it, since it’s us negotiating how we want to govern ourselves.
So, Chuck, you feel the priority is sending money to Ukraine, not securing our border? Of course, you do. Even though nationwide US citizens consider controlling our border a top priority.
Biden wants to show how tough he is against Putin by sending Ukrainians to fight and die in his proxy war. A war that wouldn’t have happened had Blinken and Biden made genuine efforts to negotiate and taken Ukraine’s potential NATO membership off the table.
Hey Chuck-U-Schumer, Can you please explain how you are able to call it a Border Bill when you are sending the money to the money to the wrong Country!
Hey Chuck-U-Schumer, Can you please explain how you are able to call it a Border Bill when you are sending the money to the wrong Country!
What he’s saying is certainly a possibility. Just not the only one. It’s certainly possible that if Putin successfully conquers the Ukraine he may next decide to invade a NATO ally, which we are sworn to defend, and then we will find ourselves in combat.
Much the way that allowing Germany to eat the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia led directly to its invading Poland. And if that had been allowed to happen without a war then there would have been a next victim and a next one, until the West was forced to fight. Eventually he would have attacked the USA.
That is what Schumer is warning of. And it’s possible. But it’s not certain.
And in both instances it was weak men in positions of responsibility that led to both events taking place.
Elections really do have consequences, especially when the bad guys really have nothing to fear from those supposedly elected to office.
Your attempt to blame Biden for the Ukraine war is really quite absurd. Trump sat there praising Putin and attacking NATO vs Biden who stood up to him and set out to strengthen NATO. Your position is just incoherent.
Huh? Note well that Putin didn’t invade the Ukraine while Trump was president. That’s not a coincidence. He didn’t dare.
And. That doesn’t negate the fact that Trump weakened NATO and Biden did the opposite. You think it was a last minute decision to invade Ukraine, no it was planned in advance and in part because of Trump setting the conditions of the war. Biden inherited Trumps mess. The reality is that Putins decision making is likely separate and distinct from the US presidents in either case.
Trump weakened NATO
Hoo boy. Bart, you seem a little confused about “strengthened” and “weakened”. The fact is that NATO was severely weakened by Europeans long before Trump took office. They did so by ignoring their own duties toward defense and relied almost entirely on US forces. Trump’s rhetoric merely demanded they pony up for their part of things.
This would have strengthened them in the long run, like a coach insisting you keep running even though you don’t want to. Biden came along and told them they didn’t have to listen to the mean coach anymore, and Mommy was here and would get them a donut if they sat here on the sidelines and rested. Then she’d see about them only having to jump one hurdle in the race, instead of 5.
Biden’s problem was that he basically told the world (not necessarily in words) that the mean guy wasn’t around anymore to make them afraid, so get back to business as usual. For Putin, that meant “Get back to reconquering your empire, Vlad.”
No, Bart, Trump strengthened NATO, by making sure the other members paid something at least a little closer to their fair share. Biden is happy for the US taxpayer to bear almost the entire burden, so the other members are happy to go back to sponging on us.
Trump strengthened NATO
I wouldn’t make quite that strong of a statement. He was forcing them to pick up the weights and work out. But actual strengthening would have required an ongoing effort, and between Covid and Trump being beaten in 2020, they all started hanging out behind the gym and smoking again, instead of inside working out.
(I don’t know why athletic metaphors are in my mind this morning.)
Trump didn’t weaken NATO. If anything he did just the opposite.
He told told our NATO allies that the US was tired of carrying their freeloading arses and that it was time for them to start living up to their funding and military force obligations to the alliance.
No more funding their socialist agendas by shorting their militaries while depending on us to defend them.
@GWB
Errr no, Trump set out to undermine the relationship which is far more fundamental than slight changes in defence spending from much smaller partner nations. You fundamentally misunderstand the damage that Trump did to NATO and the dynamics involved. The man who claimed to be a great deal maker massively fucked up making a deal with the Europeans who instead of stumping up more cash thought he was a massive bell end. Trumps rhetoric was to cosy up to Putin and other dictators, a fact you’ve conveniently forgotten which is precisely the opposite to what you claim about the ‘mean guy’ and it was more the ‘dumb guy’ FYI.
As for your claim about Biden, that’s just a dumb thing to say given the support Biden offered and gave Ukraine pre war.
“Trump weakened NATO and Biden did the opposite.”
Hey, remember when Trump bombed his NATO allies’ energy pipeline?
Good times!
You are either a flaming idiot or a gaslighting c*nt. Or perhaps an idiotic, gaslighting c*nt.
Its not even a requirement that Putin succeeds in Ukraine. The premise for attacking the west isn’t a full scale war at all, its to trigger a scenario where Article 5 is triggered but NATO members don’t think its important enough to actually get involved. This would in effect kill NATO.
That wouldn’t get us into combat, which is what Schumer is warning of as the dire consequence of not helping the Ukraine now.
What he’s warning of is possible. But there are many other possibilities, and it seems that a more prudent policy would be to say sufficient to the day the troubles thereof, and let tomorrow worry about tomorrow. Anything might happen tomorrow, and even if the worst happens we may be in a better position then to deal with it.
My point is that an aggressive action towards NATO isn’t reliant on success or failure with respect to Ukraine. In the scenario outlined above it would either be a) NATO strikes back after invoking article 5 or b) NATO falls apart precipitating war in more localised locations depending on the ambitions of Putin that could mean taking the Eastern block ie the old Warsaw pact countries or something else. Either way not a good outcome.
Its a hypothetical which should be thought about, The question is whether there are meaningful actions that could reasonably prevent that hypothetical. Clearly preventing war is a better outcome than walking into one due to inaction.
If it doesn’t get us into combat, then why should we care? Schumer is trying to frighten us into ponying up ridiculous fortunes, money that we haven’t got, to shovel into the corrupt pockets of the Ukranian government (with an appropriate commission being kicked back to the Democrat Party), and he’s doing so by warning us that if we don’t pay up now while someone else is doing the fighting we’ll end up having to do it ourselves later.
That, by the way, is something that we are now seeing in the Red Sea. We’re now in combat with the Houthis because Biden prevented the Saudis from pounding them to smithereens a few years ago, at no cost to ourselves. What a maroon.
But back to Schumer, his threat depends on the idea that if Russia loses in the Ukraine we won’t end up in future combat with it, while if it wins then we will. If our chance of ending up in combat in Eastern Europe doesn’t depend on the outcome in the Ukraine, then remind me why we should care who wins there? And if the Ukraine losing won’t get us into combat then why do we care what Russia will do?
The hypothetical you are trying to make has existed in fact throughout the entire existence of NATO. It is the premise under which NATO was born – deterrence of attack via the mutual defense of alliance members.
The USSR overran both Hungary and Czechoslovakia long after the establishment of NATO without a peep from the alliance other than “there and no further” because they weren’t NATO members, just as Ukraine isn’t.
On the other hand the USSR/Russia has never attacked a NATO country and is unlikely to ever do so as long as the alliance exists and maintains a credible force.
Gosport,
Deliberately choosing to expand NATO membership and its Eastward march long after the purpose of its creation imploded (USSR died 30 years ago) all the way to Russia’s borders makes a conflict more likely.
Assuming of course that Russia has the military and economic heft to take on NATO. Also assuming they want to do so for some purpose. Also assuming they would choose to do so. IMO none of those assumptions is close to accurate.
Commochief
It’s not a matter of ‘choosing to expand NATO’. It’s a matter of sovereign countries deciding to join a mutual defence alliance. The fact that they might share a border with Russia doesn’t negate their right to do so.
NATO’s mission statement says nothing about the USSR OR Russia.
That being said, the reality of the USSR was that no matter what it said on the label it consisted of mother Russia and her vassal/buffer states. Running out of money forced a downsizing, return to their own borders, and rebranding with a retro name, but that didn’t change how they are perceived by their neighbors (especially their former victims).
I have much more sympathy for the border/buffer countries Russia insists upon existing than I do for Russian fears of another invasion from Europe. Those states deserve the security and freedom of not being Russian vassals, Russian proxies (looking at you Belarus), or of being used as battlegrounds between Russia and NATO.
If that means those states choose to join NATO because they perceive a continuing Russian threat to themselves then toughski shitski to the Russians ’cause they don’t get a vote.
@Milhouse
Because war in Europe could very easily expand and it gives US enemies an advantage. It would decimate US credibility in the world and change the world order from a US centric one to a China centric one. That should be patently obvious.
You asserting that the Democrats get kick backs from the Ukraine war is just conspiratorial nonsense. Ukraine is a developing country tacking corruption, which is more than I can say when you look at the way MAGA behaves with its idol worshipping of Trump
“That, by the way, is something that we are now seeing in the Red Sea. We’re now in combat with the Houthis because Biden prevented the Saudis from pounding them to smithereens a few years ago, at no cost to ourselves. What a maroon.” This appears to support a proactive argument not an isolationist one
Your last statement is very confused. The point I identified is that its an entirely separate issue which may or may not have sperate remedies. That said if Ukraine wins, that is to say takes back its territory that necessarily limits the Russian ability to be aggressive elsewhere.
@Gosport
Sure but hardly to the same extent when the west was unified against a Soviet threat. Its not clear to me why you mention Ukraine in this context, its a given that Ukraine doesn’t form part of NATO which is why when its at war it literally cant become a member of NATO without triggering war.
Your last statement misses the point, as I’ve already stated the hypothetical is to create a wedge issue between member states. It wouldn’t be about a full scale war rather creating a division in responses.
@Commochief
Putin clearly has ambitions towards recreating a Soviet type empire, this should be abundantly clear based on his actions towards various nations such as Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, and Belorussia
BartE,
Why would a Russian gov’t would seek to exercise direct or indirect hegemony on its neighbors? It couldn’t be that Russia has been invaded time and again could it?
Their legitimate fear of invasion/hostile neighbors is based upon history and not paranoia. Considering NATO deliberately choosing to:
1. Continue to exist well beyond the purpose for the creation ended…3 decades in fact
2. Add additional members
3. Push the Easter boundaries of NATO up to the Russian border on multiple fronts
Putin is not a nice guy and while I am sympathetic for the Ukrainians dying and maimed in the conflict this was a direct result of NATO misreading what Russia would tolerate. Adversaries get vote on future events and when they tell you X is deal breaker it is wise to evaluate whether that is bluster or is a historical constant across history.
You might notice that none of the Nations you cite are NATO members and all are within the historical sphere of Russian hegemony. The Russians will lose badly in a direct conflict with NATO which is why they have avoided that. Instead it is NATO choosing to be unnecessarily and deliberately provocative to Russia, IMO.
“It’s a matter of sovereign countries deciding to join a mutual defence alliance. The fact that they might share a border with Russia doesn’t negate their right to do so.”
What is this right you speak of, kemosabe?
They’re free to ask. They have no right to be accepted. Questions of NATO membership are entirely up to NATO members. And many NATO members support the wisdom of the current “buffer zone” approach,
Putin rejects a NATO-fortified Ukraine on his doorstep for exactly the same reason that Kennedy rejected a USSR-fortified Cuba on his. Goose, gander.
If the European Nations wish to club together based on some, IMO, irrational fear of Russia who let’s not forget still sells them energy sure have at it. That doesn’t mean the USA should be in NATO.
As for arguing that NATO was created as bloc in opposition to the Soviet Union …that’s not a good faith argument. Nor is pretending that with the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago that NATO has lost its primary purpose.
Don’t forget how we got here. Why is Russia in Ukraine? Did the Fusions just get a wild hair one day, say eff it, and invade Ukraine for no reason at all? Of course not. The US and UK have been pushing hard to provoke Russia and dragged the continental European NATO members into this mess.
FWIW there’s a theory that the US neocons are using Ukraine as the cats paw not so much v Russia as v the EU in order to break the EU Nations financially/socially to cement US economic hegemony. It isn’t that far fetched an idea.
Consider that the economic power of the EU Nations is based on industrial might and manufacturing (as opposed the US) and effing up the supply of cheap Russian energy is wreaking havoc on their ability to manufacture domestically.
Then there’s the recent Biden admin decision to halt all permits for LNG pipelines and port facilities. That was the replacement energy for Europe along with some from the Middle East which is just coincidently having a little shipping problem at the moment… so no cheap energy replacement for Europe to power their domestic manufacturing.
That’s highly unlikely based on what we know about Russian objectives. They can keep up the scare speeches about the unstoppable Sovie-, er Russian juggernaut but good grief. And if it’s really such a threat, maybe NATO could stop destroying its own conventional military capability? They certainly are not taking it seriously, apart from maybe Poland and the Baltics.
“They can keep up the scare speeches about the unstoppable Sovie-, er Russian juggernaut but good grief.”
So ironic.
When the Russians WERE Communists, Republicans railed against them, and Democrats wanted to jump their bones and have their babies (while ridiculing Republicans for their “scare tactics”).
Now that they have shaken off communism, the Russians are the Democrats’ go-to boogeyman for all occasions, and they continually accuse Republicans of getting into bed with them.
“if Putin successfully conquers the Ukraine he may next decide to invade a NATO ally”
That’s presuming his “invasion” of Ukraine had anything to do with raw territorial ambitions, and not simply putting an end to the never-ending oppression and persecution (by the Ukraine government) of the Russian-speaking, Russian-aligned population of far eastern Ukraine.
So does Chucklehead not know Ukraine is in eastern Europe?
Huh?! Of course he knows. What is your point?
I believe his point is that we are already at war in Eastern Europe if we’re involved in Ukraine. We’re already “fighting there” as far as our money is concerned.
No, we’re not fighting there. We’re merely spending money there. And he’s warning that if we don’t spend money now we may find ourselves fighting later. He may even prove right, but it’s far from as certain as he portrays it.
There is a reason Schumer is saber-rattling about Ukraine.
It is to distract national attention from the fact that the bill does nothing to actually close our borders to illegal crossings. In fact it writes admitting 5000 illegals per day into our law and good luck ever getting that out of there.
Four months of ‘arduous negotiations’?
I wonder if he is referring to diplomatic efforts between warring factions to stop the bloodshed — or backroom dealing between Senators to see how much more money comes out of our pockets to be laundered through Ukraine to their friends and family.
So, with all of the money we’ve already shoveled into that particular landfill, Ukraine is still losing? Gee, the way I heard it they are kicking all kind of Russian butt. Which is it?
So we’re supposed to throw good money after bad? That doesn’t seem very sensible.
Send EVERY person who got their student loan paid off. after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. THEY owe it to America to fight for what they got from Taxpayers by a bogus installed President.
Since that ruling, nobody has had their loan forgiven under the program that was struck down. Biden has not defied the ruling at all. Instead he has looked for and found other ways to write off loans, ways that are lawful, or at least that the court hasn’t said were unlawful.
Remember, courts do not make decisions with an outcome in mind. The supreme court didn’t and couldn’t say that student loans should not be forgiven, because that is a policy decision, not a legal one, and is out of the court’s bailiwick.
We have no idea what any of the justices think about the wisdom of forgiving student loans. All we know is their opinions on the legality of the program Biden was using, and that was challenged. Nothing more.
He looks so much the part he plays. One wonders if an ugly appearance leads one into an ugly life.
I think it’s the other way around. Look at photos of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a young woman vs. later in life. She went from drop-dead gorgeous to butt-ugly, after spending her adult life promoting left-wing causes. Hmmm.
Chuck lacks the refined sensibilities of The Great Mutato.
Schumer: If We Don’t Aid Ukraine Then …
‘We Could be Fighting in Eastern Europe’
and Tonto replies, ‘What you mean, “we,” Kemo Sabe?’
How about starting with a conscription of all the folks who avoided service in Vietnam including females? Force all the chicken hawk neocon boomers to go and put their ass on the line for once bringing the hippies with them to this folly.
“conscription of all the folks who avoided service in Vietnam”
I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part, and sending a bunch of 70-90-year-olds into battle is the way to do it!
But the draft is over…’ya effed up, ya trusted us’.
Call it the Geezer Crusade.
Maybe we could save Ukraine’s a$$ if we sent over a couple million illegal aliens we don’t really need here in the USA. No need to try to conscript any more Uke citizens! What a deal!
It couldn’t hurt to try. Let ICE empty their facilities into the Ukrainian trenches.
Conscript Schumer and Graham. Issue them M16s, backpack, parachute. Then toss them off an airplane over the Ukraine. Certainly they will fight heroically!
If Chuck-y wants to tell all the countries what to do, maybe he should run for head of the UN.
Meanwhile “Russia” has the numbers, counting the restive Russian Federation, vs. Ukraine stand-alone. From the beginning, this game has been about which coalition holds. I do hate it when Chuck-y is not entirely wrong, for his typical grifting reasons.