The passing of aid without border reform is a major blunder for Republicans no? Either that or a seemingly tacit admission that they want the border to remain an issue to use for political means...
The passing of aid without border reform is a major blunder for Republicans no? Either that or a seemingly tacit admission that they want the border to remain an issue to use for political means right?
They had a similar aid package bundled with border reform that Democrats were ready to compromise on, and they rejected it out of hand ostensibly because Trump didn't want to give Biden a win. Now they've passed this bill which seems to have barely required compromise from Democrats.
Am I missing something? I'm also very curious about what influenced Johnson's hard flip on aid in a very short timeframe.
From the various articles I've read it's a combination of him receiving national security briefings now that he's speaker, and that his son will soon be entering the naval academy. So finally...
I'm also very curious about what influenced Johnson's hard flip on aid in a very short timeframe.
From the various articles I've read it's a combination of him receiving national security briefings now that he's speaker, and that his son will soon be entering the naval academy. So finally getting regular real intelligence reports, and realizing that his political actions could directly result in putting his son at risk.
I think we don’t truly understand how much the responsibility of holding power affects someone. The more power someone has, the more they have to care about the bigger picture. Johnson was able to...
I think we don’t truly understand how much the responsibility of holding power affects someone. The more power someone has, the more they have to care about the bigger picture.
Johnson was able to play identity politics when he was just another congressman, but the Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to the presidency. He can’t afford to keep playing partisan politics anymore, because his actions have real consequences that he is now able to see.
It’s similar to how President Biden acts differently now than he did as a senator years ago. He may have spoken out against previous presidents for not immediately ending atrocities like the Gaza crisis overseas, but now that he is president he sees the bigger picture in those conflicts. Israel is key to projecting power in the Middle East. If he pushes Israel too hard it can destabilize the US presence in the region. If the US can’t project power to prevent other countries from acting however they like, it can show weakness and inspire other nations to try to disrupt the current world order.
Johnson sees now that the buck partially stops with him to preserve the US hegemony worldwide.
I assume he also knows that his holding the speakership is contingent on pleasing as many people as possible. If he reaches across the isle for items like this, it really hurts the rabble rousing...
I assume he also knows that his holding the speakership is contingent on pleasing as many people as possible. If he reaches across the isle for items like this, it really hurts the rabble rousing "Freedom Caucus" and their ability to pressure Johnson. The dems won't be quick to remove someone who is helping them get more than expected done
Saw a reddit comment with an interesting observation/take, that this is essentially a coalition government in action, between Democrats and "Moderate," non-MAGA/Freedom Caucus Republicans. Which...
Saw a reddit comment with an interesting observation/take, that this is essentially a coalition government in action, between Democrats and "Moderate," non-MAGA/Freedom Caucus Republicans. Which is unheard of in the US political duopoly, at least in modern times.
Republicans from the non-MAGA faction had to rely on minority Democrats in the Rules Committee. The separate Ukraine funding bill passed with majority Democratic support, while the majority of Republicans did not support it. If the motion to vacate the speakership is triggered against Johnson, he may have to rely on opposition Democrats to maintain his position. Obviously it's not yet clear if the motion will come to a vote, or if Democrats will rally on his behalf if it does, or if enough of his own party will even oust him. But if Democrats have to save Johnson, I imagine there'll be concessions. These all point to an effective coalition government in the House.
Trump also gave Johnson the "very good job" line a little bit ago giving him some level of approval for the time being. The Freedom Caucus don't necessarily care about Trump's direct approval...
Trump also gave Johnson the "very good job" line a little bit ago giving him some level of approval for the time being. The Freedom Caucus don't necessarily care about Trump's direct approval anymore so it just depends on how much that matters overalll
I'm open to an argument that the Republicans played chicken, and in the end were the first to look away as Ukraine so desperately needs the aid. I think part of their thinking has to be how losing...
I'm open to an argument that the Republicans played chicken, and in the end were the first to look away as Ukraine so desperately needs the aid. I think part of their thinking has to be how losing an issue it is if they're the ones who cause Ukraine to lose the war.
The politicking is happening behind closed doors, so we don't know what the calculus is, but I think you're totally right that the Republicans have egg on their face, irrespective of the exact reasons.
Eh? Sadly, who cares these days? The point was to make a stink about it so their supporters could say they tried and then got swindled by the dems or whatever.
The passing of aid without border reform is a major blunder for Republicans no?
Eh? Sadly, who cares these days?
The point was to make a stink about it so their supporters could say they tried and then got swindled by the dems or whatever.
More actions less words - same here. I don't think it's a Trump talking point to emphasize that NATO allies aren't carrying their own weight, and for the US -- the underwriter of world security at...
More actions less words - same here. I don't think it's a Trump talking point to emphasize that NATO allies aren't carrying their own weight, and for the US -- the underwriter of world security at this point -- it must be awfully daunting to see two, possibly three conflicts happening at once.
My government (Canada) just greenlit decent defense funding after years of neglect of its armed forces, but we're still not contributing 2% of GDP. For countries with more precarious geography - I'm thinking of Japan and Germany - longstanding pacifist strategies have always confused me.
I get the symbolic approach, but when your neighbor is arming up (something that takes time and investment) why aren't you taking that seriously?
Neither of these countries has "longstanding pacifist strategies" by any stretch of the imagination. Their "pacifism" is a relatively recent phenomenon that was more or less forced upon each of...
For countries with more precarious geography - I'm thinking of Japan and Germany - longstanding pacifist strategies have always confused me.
Neither of these countries has "longstanding pacifist strategies" by any stretch of the imagination. Their "pacifism" is a relatively recent phenomenon that was more or less forced upon each of them in the wake of WW2.
Sure, but doesn't 70 years of not starting shit count as longstanding? They didn't build up arms because it wasn't allowed, but adopted pacifist strategies (it was Japan's official stance) until...
Sure, but doesn't 70 years of not starting shit count as longstanding? They didn't build up arms because it wasn't allowed, but adopted pacifist strategies (it was Japan's official stance) until recently.
I'm not really sure I understand the "but" there. They weren't allowed to build up arms, and it would look very, very bad look for their new governments to have ANYTHING to do with the hyper...
They didn't build up arms because it wasn't allowed, but adopted pacifist strategies (it was Japan's official stance) until recently.
I'm not really sure I understand the "but" there. They weren't allowed to build up arms, and it would look very, very bad look for their new governments to have ANYTHING to do with the hyper militaristic atrocities their predecessors committed to the international community. So... they didn't.
I can see it somewhat with Germany, they're more insulated from their past at this point, and are surrounded by other powers, and Russia has been a concern. But for Japan, US involvement in the east never really subsided, with the Vietnam War, Korean War, and the very uneasy but steady peace with the CCP in the 80s (remember, the USSR collapsed, but the CCP never did!). It would make other Eastern allies very uneasy for Japan to remilitarize - South Korea, another important ally in the region, still bitterly remembers Meiji Japan, especially since unlike Germany, Japan hasn't really, like, apologized for much of it.
Good points. I'm not too familiar with the circumstances surrounding Japan's strategy and to what degree that was/is imposed versus voluntary during the present day. If it's the former, I could...
Good points. I'm not too familiar with the circumstances surrounding Japan's strategy and to what degree that was/is imposed versus voluntary during the present day.
If it's the former, I could see the Americans negotiating a larger military for Japan given the rising threat of China. Given the time between WW2 and present day and cooperation with the west, though, I don't see the latter being unrealistic. Plenty of war mongers who won haven't apologized to those whom they hurt.
Germany is also hardly demilitarized as of now anyway. The Bundeswehr is the second largest military force in the EU (after France) and Germany also still hosts the highest number of US military...
Germany is also hardly demilitarized as of now anyway. The Bundeswehr is the second largest military force in the EU (after France) and Germany also still hosts the highest number of US military personnel of any European country. Germany also had compulsory military service for men from the 1950s until 2011, and recently (mostly in response to the war in Ukraine) there has been discussion of reintroducing mandatory military service in some capacity. Lately Germany has been pushing to increase its military power and expand its military leadership role in Europe, so criticizing it for "pacifism" is just uninformed.
The passing of aid without border reform is a major blunder for Republicans no? Either that or a seemingly tacit admission that they want the border to remain an issue to use for political means right?
They had a similar aid package bundled with border reform that Democrats were ready to compromise on, and they rejected it out of hand ostensibly because Trump didn't want to give Biden a win. Now they've passed this bill which seems to have barely required compromise from Democrats.
Am I missing something? I'm also very curious about what influenced Johnson's hard flip on aid in a very short timeframe.
From the various articles I've read it's a combination of him receiving national security briefings now that he's speaker, and that his son will soon be entering the naval academy. So finally getting regular real intelligence reports, and realizing that his political actions could directly result in putting his son at risk.
I think we don’t truly understand how much the responsibility of holding power affects someone. The more power someone has, the more they have to care about the bigger picture.
Johnson was able to play identity politics when he was just another congressman, but the Speaker of the House is 3rd in line to the presidency. He can’t afford to keep playing partisan politics anymore, because his actions have real consequences that he is now able to see.
It’s similar to how President Biden acts differently now than he did as a senator years ago. He may have spoken out against previous presidents for not immediately ending atrocities like the Gaza crisis overseas, but now that he is president he sees the bigger picture in those conflicts. Israel is key to projecting power in the Middle East. If he pushes Israel too hard it can destabilize the US presence in the region. If the US can’t project power to prevent other countries from acting however they like, it can show weakness and inspire other nations to try to disrupt the current world order.
Johnson sees now that the buck partially stops with him to preserve the US hegemony worldwide.
I assume he also knows that his holding the speakership is contingent on pleasing as many people as possible. If he reaches across the isle for items like this, it really hurts the rabble rousing "Freedom Caucus" and their ability to pressure Johnson. The dems won't be quick to remove someone who is helping them get more than expected done
Saw a reddit comment with an interesting observation/take, that this is essentially a coalition government in action, between Democrats and "Moderate," non-MAGA/Freedom Caucus Republicans. Which is unheard of in the US political duopoly, at least in modern times.
Republicans from the non-MAGA faction had to rely on minority Democrats in the Rules Committee. The separate Ukraine funding bill passed with majority Democratic support, while the majority of Republicans did not support it. If the motion to vacate the speakership is triggered against Johnson, he may have to rely on opposition Democrats to maintain his position. Obviously it's not yet clear if the motion will come to a vote, or if Democrats will rally on his behalf if it does, or if enough of his own party will even oust him. But if Democrats have to save Johnson, I imagine there'll be concessions. These all point to an effective coalition government in the House.
Trump also gave Johnson the "very good job" line a little bit ago giving him some level of approval for the time being. The Freedom Caucus don't necessarily care about Trump's direct approval anymore so it just depends on how much that matters overalll
I'm open to an argument that the Republicans played chicken, and in the end were the first to look away as Ukraine so desperately needs the aid. I think part of their thinking has to be how losing an issue it is if they're the ones who cause Ukraine to lose the war.
The politicking is happening behind closed doors, so we don't know what the calculus is, but I think you're totally right that the Republicans have egg on their face, irrespective of the exact reasons.
Eh? Sadly, who cares these days?
The point was to make a stink about it so their supporters could say they tried and then got swindled by the dems or whatever.
I legitimately didn't think they'd do it. Happy to be wrong, but I truly thought the pro-Putin half of the Republican party had won this fight.
And they're also forcing a sale of Tiktok which I think is good.
More actions less words - same here. I don't think it's a Trump talking point to emphasize that NATO allies aren't carrying their own weight, and for the US -- the underwriter of world security at this point -- it must be awfully daunting to see two, possibly three conflicts happening at once.
My government (Canada) just greenlit decent defense funding after years of neglect of its armed forces, but we're still not contributing 2% of GDP. For countries with more precarious geography - I'm thinking of Japan and Germany - longstanding pacifist strategies have always confused me.
I get the symbolic approach, but when your neighbor is arming up (something that takes time and investment) why aren't you taking that seriously?
Neither of these countries has "longstanding pacifist strategies" by any stretch of the imagination. Their "pacifism" is a relatively recent phenomenon that was more or less forced upon each of them in the wake of WW2.
Sure, but doesn't 70 years of not starting shit count as longstanding? They didn't build up arms because it wasn't allowed, but adopted pacifist strategies (it was Japan's official stance) until recently.
I'm not really sure I understand the "but" there. They weren't allowed to build up arms, and it would look very, very bad look for their new governments to have ANYTHING to do with the hyper militaristic atrocities their predecessors committed to the international community. So... they didn't.
I can see it somewhat with Germany, they're more insulated from their past at this point, and are surrounded by other powers, and Russia has been a concern. But for Japan, US involvement in the east never really subsided, with the Vietnam War, Korean War, and the very uneasy but steady peace with the CCP in the 80s (remember, the USSR collapsed, but the CCP never did!). It would make other Eastern allies very uneasy for Japan to remilitarize - South Korea, another important ally in the region, still bitterly remembers Meiji Japan, especially since unlike Germany, Japan hasn't really, like, apologized for much of it.
Good points. I'm not too familiar with the circumstances surrounding Japan's strategy and to what degree that was/is imposed versus voluntary during the present day.
If it's the former, I could see the Americans negotiating a larger military for Japan given the rising threat of China. Given the time between WW2 and present day and cooperation with the west, though, I don't see the latter being unrealistic. Plenty of war mongers who won haven't apologized to those whom they hurt.
Germany is also hardly demilitarized as of now anyway. The Bundeswehr is the second largest military force in the EU (after France) and Germany also still hosts the highest number of US military personnel of any European country. Germany also had compulsory military service for men from the 1950s until 2011, and recently (mostly in response to the war in Ukraine) there has been discussion of reintroducing mandatory military service in some capacity. Lately Germany has been pushing to increase its military power and expand its military leadership role in Europe, so criticizing it for "pacifism" is just uninformed.