When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
The 'US indebtedness is too high' argument would be valid if many of the same people were not arguing for tax cuts for the rich.
It's also inconsistent that they proclaim 'Make America Great Again' whilst diminishing the US in the world's eyes. The fall of the 'petrodollar' and the rise of the 'multipolar world' are two things Russia and their friends want. Neither is in the US's interests.
Or that a far more effective intervention over the two years might've been a crackdown on obesity and inactivity, the comorbidities we could actually mitigate.
Getting to the bottom of how the decision was made to ban outdoor sports activities would be a more useful question for the inquiry to focus on than whether people in Number 10 were drinking on the job.
It was such a missed opportunity not to prioritise trying to improve the nation's cardiovascular health, and it might actually have suited someone like Matt Hancock.
I can only conclude that plenty of the government and their advisors get off on massively restricting and controlling other people's lives.
It may even be that any form of "fun" was felt to be entirely inappropriate given the seriousness of the situation.
The UK rules were similar to many countries - less do than here in Spain for example.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
But they're not, are they? Most of the stuff being sent to Ukraine is obsolete and due to be scrapped anyway. In fact, quite a lot of the stuff being sent saves the US the bother and expense of getting rid of it in other ways. It's worth as much as a Trump pledge to follow the law.
Biden daren't say this of course, but if there were any sane GOP senators (they mostly voted to acquit Trump, so I have reservations) they might have spotted it for themselves.
Yes, most of the arguments are about money being spent abroad rather than at home, yet the actual cost of the military aid is in logistics and intelligence, the weapons themselves being militarily almost obsolete to the US.
Most of what the Republicans want is also not particularly expensive in actual new money, they want to see the National Guard on the Mexican border, and a change of attitude against simply letting migrants cross into the country.
The big news yesterday was of course the resignation of Jenrick but the Rwandan government position on international law is a big deal .
Effectively this rubbishes any future Tory decision to try and turn the election into let’s leave the ECHR to stop the boats .
I am not surprised that Rwanda want to pull the plug on anything against international law.
Rwanda is wanting foreign investment and tourism, so not wanting to be a pariah state and dumping ground for our deportees.
Well, the whole reason the Supreme Court ruled the scheme was illegal was the way Rwanda behaved in the past, including breaching an explicit assurance against "refoulement" in a similar previous agreement with Israel.
This government seems to have taken us a long way down the rabbit hole.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
Christ are you still whinging about this? Let it go.
Wait til you discover Remain voters and Brexit
Remain voters lives were impacted by Brexit when people voted to take their rights away. Nobody was impacted by Starmer having a takeaway at the end of a day’s work.
Elon Musk watchers may be amused by this account of an incident in 2012, which suggests Musk took against AI then because someone told him that when the machines took over they might go to Mars and destroy his colony there! https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-speechless-mars
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
That's largely balls. Much of the Ukraine aid is in the form of weapons from stock, accounted for at inflated valuations. The 'alarming amount' of money being discussed represents (including the weapons value) represents under 0.2% of the $9 trillion the Trump administration increased the debt - which included an unfunded $2 to $3 trillion tax cut for the rich - which those same Republican senators voted for.
The Ukraine issue possesses an urgency which the border issue doesn't. Without a bill, aid will effectively cease by the year end - and Congress shortly goes on holiday.
As far as the border issue is concerned, these same Republicans again did nothing substantive about it from 2017 to 2019, when they controlled all three branches of the federal government.
Is there room for a deal ? Perhaps. But the idea that the Republicans are negotiating in good faith is delusional.
Given that people think it was fine for Sir Keir to have his curry and beers inside with colleagues when no one else was allowed, while he was the chief covid hawk doubling down that no one should else should be allowed, we can safely say that all that matters was that it was technically legal - nobody here seems annoyed that he did it at all, or thinks it was a liberty, a bit much.
I find it hard to believe that people who were not allowed to go out socially were so relaxed about it, yet so furious when it happened at 10 Downing St. Do they really put hastily drawn up Covid Law over what feels wrong or right? What if it had been technically legal for MPs to visit dying relatives when we weren’t, or attend funerals, or to go abroad on holiday when we couldn’t? Would they just say “oh it’s ok, they’re not breaking the law”
You do seem to fail to acknowledge that beergate was May 2021, when lockdown rules had loosened for us all, and face to face meetings were allowed for food and drink where essential. Starmer never denied or lied about it.
Not only did Boris's offences occur at the height of the strictest restrictions a year earlier, and he was the author of those, he serially lied about it afterwards including in Parliament.
That you cannot see the difference makes me wonder if you are Nadine Dorries in disguise.
Clearly different yes, although if Starmer was as worried about covid as he made out every time in the Commons, he would not have had a beer and curry.
Would you have approved if it was a soft drink with his takeaway at a late night political meeting?
I think it highly unlikely that he was drawn all the way to Teesside by the prospect of a takeaway curry purely as a social event.
Though isam is right that in public Starmer was insisting that restrictions should be tighter, banging on about the "Johnson variant", while in private he was socialising.
He didn't break the law, but he is a hypocrite who didn't practice what he was preaching. He stuck to the law as it was, not the law as he wanted it to be and claimed it needed to be. Which is entirely legal of course, nothing against the law for politicians to be total hypocrites, but it is worth noting when they are.
Nevertheless, hypocrisy - while regrettable - is neither a crime, not likely to dent Starmer's numbers meaningfully. It was not Starmer, after all, who prevented children from visiting their dying parents.
He didn’t oppose it either, and we all know he was a lockdown hawk. We also know deep down he didn’t really think it mattered that much if you socialised indoors with people you didn’t live with, despite calling for the measures to continue for everyone else.
How about this: Starmer believed the country would be better off with stricter restrictions. That didn't happen. He complied with the rules as they were written.
This doesn't seem very different to someone who believes that we should all pay more taxes, yet who doesn't cut a cheque for an additional £10k to HMRC.
What am I missing?
Well he complied with the rules that meant he could have a drink inside with people when no one else could; that was a benefit for him. Losing £10k would be a sacrifice
Looking at the rules for campaigning at the time, I’m amazed he got away with it, and people defend him for it
Actually Robert @rcs1000, I think your example is a poor one - Sir Keir would be saying everyone should pay more tax whilst benefitting from a legal offshore tax scheme that meant he paid less , not simply not donating money to HMRC
He had a curry with colleagues after working. Something that was within the rules. And something one didn't need to be a gazillionaire to benefit from.
Unless curries are rather more expensive in your part of the world than where I am.
When GOP senators are saying in plain terms "this is not a negotiation", they are effectively saying that unless the administration surrenders power to them, they will let Russia defeat Ukraine.
Other GOP senators are saying they will negotiate and why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return.
They only need 11 switchers for it to pass. Every GOP senator voted against it not just the headbangers.
Biden says he will negotiate. He needs to, in good faith and appeal to the more moderate ones.
Anyway the BBC says further negotiations are planned so we will see.
"... why wouldn’t they lever it to get something they want in return. "
Because supporting Ukraine is the correct thing to do, regardless of the politics? And the risks of any Russian 'win' will be bad for the US and US interests around the world?
Well they are being asked to pony up a colossal amount of money ant a time when US indebtedness is rising at an alarming rate and debt repayments are rising due to interest rate increases.
This is all GOP senators not just the lunatic fringe and, quite frankly, there are some who do not think supporting Ukraine is either right thing to do. Especially as it is unqualified support.
If the US govt wants to pass it they need to work with the saner republicans and do a deal.
But they're not, are they? Most of the stuff being sent to Ukraine is obsolete and due to be scrapped anyway. In fact, quite a lot of the stuff being sent saves the US the bother and expense of getting rid of it in other ways. It's worth as much as a Trump pledge to follow the law.
Biden daren't say this of course, but if there were any sane GOP senators (they mostly voted to acquit Trump, so I have reservations) they might have spotted it for themselves.
Yes, most of the arguments are about money being spent abroad rather than at home, yet the actual cost of the military aid is in logistics and intelligence, the weapons themselves being militarily almost obsolete to the US.
Most of what the Republicans want is also not particularly expensive in actual new money, they want to see the National Guard on the Mexican border, and a change of attitude against simply letting migrants cross into the country.
Republicans voted against as it did not include funds for control of the Mexican border.
Bernie Sanders voted against as it included funds for Israel and their Gaza campaign
Comments
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1732224914189672627?t=3shIXfGWf9vH0pEauv9caQ&s=19
Rwanda is wanting foreign investment and tourism, so not wanting to be a pariah state and dumping ground for our deportees.
It's also inconsistent that they proclaim 'Make America Great Again' whilst diminishing the US in the world's eyes. The fall of the 'petrodollar' and the rise of the 'multipolar world' are two things Russia and their friends want. Neither is in the US's interests.
NEW THREAD
Most of what the Republicans want is also not particularly expensive in actual new money, they want to see the National Guard on the Mexican border, and a change of attitude against simply letting migrants cross into the country.
This government seems to have taken us a long way down the rabbit hole.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/elon-musk-speechless-mars
Much of the Ukraine aid is in the form of weapons from stock, accounted for at inflated valuations.
The 'alarming amount' of money being discussed represents (including the weapons value) represents under 0.2% of the $9 trillion the Trump administration increased the debt - which included an unfunded $2 to $3 trillion tax cut for the rich - which those same Republican senators voted for.
The Ukraine issue possesses an urgency which the border issue doesn't. Without a bill, aid will effectively cease by the year end - and Congress shortly goes on holiday.
As far as the border issue is concerned, these same Republicans again did nothing substantive about it from 2017 to 2019, when they controlled all three branches of the federal government.
Is there room for a deal ? Perhaps.
But the idea that the Republicans are negotiating in good faith is delusional.
Bernie Sanders voted against as it included funds for Israel and their Gaza campaign