Political Satire

Towwelie

Well-Known Member
If it was such a bad bill, why would he say that?
Because it is. The issue is that foreign aid pack was put under the border security bill, to pass it (foreign aid) through Congress. And now, when it in the House, they ditched border security bill and left only foreign aid pack.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Really? Do you really think that your government should help foreign country before solving problems of their own?
And do you really think that your government should send $150b to foreign country without any accounting? Because nobody controls where those money are spent.
If you don't understand the severity of the problem, I will explain you. Last year, your government borrowed $100b to send to Ukraine and nobody counted or controlled where and how that money were spent. Now, your government wants to barrow $49b more to do the same. Barrowed means that you as a tax payer will have to pay this debt for a number of years, probably tens of years.
Your government barrows more and more money while it can barely pay interest on their existing debt. No regular person would be able to do that. And any financial advisor would tell that increasing your debt when you can't pay interest on existing is not a very smart move.
Several hundred thousand dead Russian invaders was a pretty good return on that investment. Not to mention the need for Russia to re-arm after losing so much military hardware. The US managed that without losing a single soldier.

I've never understood why Putin invaded Ukraine. Would you please explain this? What problems inside Russia did his invasion solve?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Because it is. The issue is that foreign aid pack was put under the border security bill, to pass it (foreign aid) through Congress. And now, when it in the House, they ditched border security bill and left only foreign aid pack.
Which the Democrats then said fine Republicans come up with your wet dream bill, we will pass it alone, and the GQP still rejected it because Orange messiah wanted to be able to use it as a sound bite.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Because it is. The issue is that foreign aid pack was put under the border security bill, to pass it (foreign aid) through Congress. And now, when it in the House, they ditched border security bill and left only foreign aid pack.
The border bill was attached to foreign aid at the demand of Republicans. Democrats gave Republicans everything they demanded for border security and then, when it was time to vote on it -- and it would pass through both houses -- Republican leadership rejected it.

Republicans bargained like children and moved the goalpost when their demands were about to be met. Because, as Trump said, "it would be a suicide pact for Republicans". Which is only partly true. It was a pact that would have killed Trump's presidential campaign. No loss there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Poll is an opinion of people participating.


Because people kept spending money as mad.
I see you're not willing to have a discussion using facts. The Hill is a reputable source.


1709141672962.png

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on balanced editorial positions and news reporting that is low-biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.

This was a facts based report, not an opinion column. I cited my source and without justification you disclaimed it. You don't cite any sources. What value do your unfounded opinions have?

This is the wrong thread for this topic. I will now stop replying to you and give you the last word. If you want to continue a discussion with me, choose an appropriate thread that fits your topic. Also, bring more than words. Bring sources.

aatempfornow.gif
 
Last edited:

Towwelie

Well-Known Member
The money goes to American companies to produce the weapons Ukraine needs to fight off the invading Putin forces.
Why don't send them weapons instead, not money to buy weapons, like European countries did? Because to steal and sell weapons is much harder than to steal money that nobody controls.
How much salary do you think people get if they are unemployed? They are very related.
Really salaries show how much your salary can buy. It has nothing to do with unemployment.
Because the GQP want to be able to scare our citizens about 'them' and actively stop any and all actual ability to solve the problems that arise from chaotic immigration.
Do you want to say that Republican party doesn't allow to hire US citizens for those jobs? I think, that US citizens don't get those jobs, because it's much cheaper to hire an illegal immigrants and have them under control.
Then voting against Republicans will go a long way in getting there, because it is them that keep it a mess to be able to use as propaganda.
That is exactly what Republicans are afraid of. That non citizens that entered the country illegally will vote and decide the future of the country. Do you want that people who sneak into your house decide on your future?
I don't understand how people who see what a shit hole (literally) is L.A. and N.Y. became under democrats want the same people running the country.
 

Towwelie

Well-Known Member
Several hundred thousand dead Russian invaders was a pretty good return on that investment. Not to mention the need for Russia to re-arm after losing so much military hardware. The US managed that without losing a single soldier.

I've never understood why Putin invaded Ukraine. Would you please explain this? What problems inside Russia did his invasion solve?
Thanks to US money Ukraine just opened new cemetery for 1,5 million graves. Is that a good enough return on that investment for you?

Putin invaded Ukraine because NATO and US in particular broke a lot of signed on paper promises made after the collapse of Soviet Union. The last one was invitation of Ukraine to be a NATO candidate country.
I don't support invasion what so ever, but to say it was unprovoked, is just lack of knowledge on the context.
 

sunni

Administrator
Staff member
As a reminder debates should be kept within TOS if you are going to do so, if you become problematic you will be removed from the conversation. be mindful you are following TOS guidelines.

If youre going to post this much i sure hope you have adblocker removed ;)
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Because from what I see nobody in Europe, except France, is rushing to send money to Ukraine.
That’s strange, given the fact France is slacking compared to about half of the rest of Europe.

That and the fact the EU as a whole agreed on 51 billion aid for Ukraine just 3 weeks ago. Making it 93 billion total compared to US 75 billion. Pushed and paid not so much by France as by Germany and several others not-France.

4000019B-883F-4E4F-83DD-DB40B632FFF1.jpeg

“See”? France not on that list.

They are if you include their share of EU support:
EEBE8A3B-9470-49F5-B67E-CA120D2BAB43.jpeg

This statement “nobody in Europe, except France, is rushing to send money to Ukraine.” is again entirely fact-free and nearly the complete opposite of reality.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Why don't send them weapons instead, not money to buy weapons, like European countries did? Because to steal and sell weapons is much harder than to steal money that nobody controls.


That money goes to American companies to produce the things that Ukraine needs to fight off the invading Russian murderers. It is not money going to Ukraine to then turn around and just spend anyway that they want. All that shit is well accounted for and tracked, it is not what you are thinking it is based on what you have typed so far.

Really salaries show how much your salary can buy. It has nothing to do with unemployment.
If you are unemployed how much 'real salary' so you think you have?


Do you want to say that Republican party doesn't allow to hire US citizens for those jobs? I think, that US citizens don't get those jobs, because it's much cheaper to hire an illegal immigrants and have them under control.
It is because Americans are not forced to work shit jobs for low wages. Immigration is a very beneficial thing for American companies. There are plenty of jobs here for us all and then some, which is why all the snow flaking about immigration is nonsensical.

The GQP killing immigration bills is preventing us from being able to have a stabilized system for people to immigrate because they want to use fear mongering racist propaganda to have a chance in hell at getting the current shit candidates that they are running re-eleted.

That is exactly what Republicans are afraid of. That non citizens that entered the country illegally will vote and decide the future of the country. Do you want that people who sneak into your house decide on your future?
I don't understand how people who see what a shit hole (literally) is L.A. and N.Y. became under democrats want the same people running the country.
lol at fear mongering about 'voting' immigrants. That is just dumb.

I don't understand how people who see what a shit hole (literally) is L.A. and N.Y. became under democrats want the same people running the country.
I am sure from whatever nation you call home that the right wing propaganda fear mongering about it would be difficult to understand.

But actual history of the way we stuffed poor minority communities into these neighborhoods and then white flight along with state sanctioned white flight occurred it is pretty easy to understand why the gerrymandering caused this and not 'Democrats' who in most situations have had almost no power to actually change it since they became the only party in the world to fully represent the populations that they govern over.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/conservatives-programed-to-trigger-at-words-black-lives-matter-by-russian-trolls.1034523/post-16438845

Thanks to US money Ukraine just opened new cemetery for 1,5 million graves. Is that a good enough return on that investment for you?

Putin invaded Ukraine because NATO and US in particular broke a lot of signed on paper promises made after the collapse of Soviet Union. The last one was invitation of Ukraine to be a NATO candidate country.
I don't support invasion what so ever, but to say it was unprovoked, is just lack of knowledge on the context.


"Signed" is propaganda unless you can point to it, which you can't, because it doesn't exist.

Russian propagandists have been trying like hell to rewrite history, but adding NATO members was not agreed on, and it is up to the countries to want to be apart of it for it to happen. Nobody is forcing them, well outside of Putin attacking them making them understand the need of friends to have their backs.

And as much as those graves suck, and I truly feel for all those Russian families that have lost loved ones, it is not on anyone but Putin that this war is occurring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

injinji

Well-Known Member
Can you explain why? Because from what I see nobody in Europe, except France, is rushing to send money to Ukraine.


They want money for the border and don't want money for foreign aid. Now it's only foreign and on the vote, not the border bill. Because of democrats.
Folks are sending weapons, not money. In this country there are four states that have military contractors who are working around the clock. The folks who work there are getting the money.
 

injinji

Well-Known Member
Because it is. The issue is that foreign aid pack was put under the border security bill, to pass it (foreign aid) through Congress. And now, when it in the House, they ditched border security bill and left only foreign aid pack.
The trumpf in chief had the house put out the word that they would not take up the bill (that had enough GOP support to pass). After the house said they would only take it if it included border and aid.

Fuck it. Never mind. You are right. Biden is the devil. Trumpf is the 2nd coming of jesus christ.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Which part? That Zelenskyy is corrupt as hell, or that invasion wasn't unprovoked?
Both. Both are false, and being actively sold by extreme-right “news” organizations, which is pronounced “propaganda dissemination outlets.”

Do you have reliable (no Murdochs, Bitchute or other purveyors of Putin’s lies) text journalism from respected sources detailing Zelensky’s alleged corruption?

As for the fact of Russia engaging in unprovoked aggression, here are some good articles from generally honest sources.








 

Towwelie

Well-Known Member
en trying like hell to rewrite history, but adding NATO members was not agreed on,
It was:
Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany
 
Top