Who do you agree with: Rand Paul or Mitch McConnell

How could any reasonable person agree with either of those clowns?

@tjandmia: are you for or against sending 50 billion plus to Ukraine to send more weapons, such as artillery, armored vehicles, and ammunition, to Ukraine.

If you only agree with Democrats then pick Mitch McConnell because they are on the same shit.

I am against $50 billion plus to Ukraine. Also, it turns out many of the people receiving those weapons in Ukraine are selling them on the black market, to terrorist type groups, and then running off with the cash. Should we really be pumping Eastern Europe full of military weapons? Especially when it is at our expense? No, we shouldn't.

@eoten: how can we say we are not at war with Russia when we are giving a non nato nation 50 billion in tanks, artillery, and weapons to fight Russia...

They want war with Russia. I don't want any part of it.

The US is on the verge of a colossal strategic victory over Russia, I can see how a part of the republican party doesn't like to see this happening under Biden. Of course it's not really about helping Ukraine but rather taking the opportunity Putin gave them.

This is about long term foreign policy, something that should never be a partisan issue if the US wants to remain a global power and not get demoted to a regional role, like happened to Russia.

@sargentd: I agree with McConnell; assisting Ukraine is not only the right thing morally, but it serves the US's interests; we have a long history of supporting nations that oppose the then-Soviet Union and present-day Russia, and I see no reason to stop that tradition.

Paul is playing political theater right now and is trying to score points with traditional conservatives, a breed of GOP voter that I am not even sure exists anymore as they all seemed to die off with McCain.

US not only needs to stay present on the international stage, but it needs to be a positive force in the world. Also a few billion dollars in aid--emphasis on aid, not just cash--is not really that much.

I would argue it is the prudent thing to do.

Russia has gone on record they want to undermine the US. Better Russia gets Curbed in Ukraine, rather than build up power by annexing nearby countries and then use their newfound power against the US.

That makes no sense. McCain hated Rand Paul's guts and would be in support of sending aid to Ukraine.

The military budget of the usa in 2021 was 801 billon usd. To use a part of it to deter Russia from starting future wars in Europe by forcing a bad result in Ukraine is efficient use of money.

Especially since the Americans don't even have to have casualties here.

You're right, I meant to say McConnell.

Paul is trying to score points with Trumpers.

@sargentd: I am ok with sending Ukraine money and weapons. Anything that will make Putin and the Putin loving Republicans look worse than they already do by loving Russia so much is a good thing for real Americans. Moscow Mitch is an anti American traitor. Old age needs to make him go away.

Rand.

McConnell is a snake.

McConnell is a full on dirt bag but he's right with this one. Rand Paul is delusional and loves to play this same song and dance when it comes to fiscal measures since he has no working knowledge on how things actually work. Him and his dad are paleoconservatives, gold standard supporters, and should be disregarded in most matters concerning budgeting and economics. There's very little positive to say about staunch Ayn Rand faux libertarians.

The problem with Rand is that he already has his worldview sculpted and has to interpret reality to fit that narrow delusion of his. What happens in Ukraine will affect the US and global economy, to suggest otherwise is childish and shows just how moronic a lot of these isolationist politicians are. They're incapable of viewing anything past the primary point of cause/effect. What else can we expect from someone still propagating 2020 election steal lies?

I'll agree with supporting Ukraine and also to tell both senators from Kentucky to eat shit. How's that?

So if "Moscow Mitch" is in the pocket of Putin... but he's supporting money to Ukraine to fight Putin... Something doesn't add up, does it?

@Vaasman: "I'll agree with supporting Ukraine and also to tell both senators from Kentucky to eat shit. How's that?"

Well said. I'll make that my answer too.

@HoolaHoopMan: I agree with you on Rand Paul. Constrained by a very narrow economic and political worldview handed down by daddy. A 17th century mindset for the 21st century....hell no!

Pretty much my thoughts. That said I agree with the Ukrainian aid.

Rand Paul is a psycho, I agree with most Americans that we should support Ukraine.

Helping maintain a sovereign Ukraine has implications that will directly affect the western world and global economy. There is very little good to come out of a Russian controlled Ukraine and invigorated Russia if they were to succeed. Based on a perspective of 'USA First', supporting Ukraine would be the best option still. You SHOULD want to help support Ukraine if your stance is to keep US economic hegemony in place for the foreseeable future.

When have facts ever gotten in the way of opinion?

They do seem intent on convincing themselves that two completely contradictory ideas are both simultaneously true, don't they?

I think that about the GOP everyday.

The ironic part is Solar replied with that sentence to a literal covid, southern strategy, 2020 election, vaccine, and climate denier who happened to be going off-topic ITT.

Rand Paul has been consistent.

Has been critical of foreign aide long before Trump.

Disagree, Ukraine has jack shit to do with us.

Ukraine is a piss poor country riddled with corruption. That doesn't mean I support Russia either, **** Russia and Putin.

Ukraine should fight Russia for their Sovereignty, *if they want it* but i don't support giving them 54 billion in USD for military's equipment they never have to pay back to us. Half that money will get pocketed by oligarchs and war profiteers. Ukraine isn't an ally and this isn't our war. It would be like Russia giving Iraq 54 billion in military's weaponry to fight America. Sounds like a declaration of war to me. How can we not say that is not a declaration of war against Russia?

WHY is there ZERO debate happening on this military aide to Ukraine. How can they push this to congress and demand a vote with 3 hours to decide and they all just say yes and don't read it.

Why is the left all of a sudden pro war, pro military spending??? is it really just because Biden is saying do it. He said jump and you jump??

Russia spends 65 billion on their ENTIRE military per year. We have gave Ukraine almost that amount in 2 months???

and that's just from us, not including everything other countries are giving them.

I'm against giving this money to Ukraine, people are struggling here at home. This is not Americas responsibility.

But I will say this, if we do approve the additional 40 billion and if Ukraine doesn't win. Or if Ukraine ends up folding. It will be embarrassing. So if you guys want to keep throwing our tax dollars into the war machine you better hope it pays off.

Leftists and Rhinos all in unison supporting US funding war in Ukraine against Russia.

John McCain's corpse probably has the biggest boner right now.

Please. Like everyone doesn't already know that the only reason why Moscow Mitch is on board with the Ukraine aid is because traitor Trump isn't in office. If he were, Moscow Mitch's excuse would be something about how the U.S. is broke and "we can't afford it" to appease traitor Trump, all while preparing another round of $2+ trillion in tax cuts for the super rich that the middle class will pay for, again. He's supporting it because it's politically expedient for him to do so, nothing more.

@sargentd: this has almost nothing to do with Ukraine itself. Its to prevent further invasions from happening. Specially a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

If the are no consequences of invading a country, specially a European country, Russia will be much more likely to invade another country again soon.

If China sees Russia can get away with it minimal looses they will try the same in Taiwan.

And if the country of tscm is military attacked, it will be a massive blow for the global economy and for democracy as a system.

Actually, it's about money. The billions of dollars spent on weapons go to the companies who make those weapons, companies that donate several millions of dollars in elections every cycle. It's a way for the most corrupt politicians in Washington (which is damn near all of them) to take a **** load of taxpayer dollars, and distribute them out in a manner they will personally see returns on.

Are you going to sit there and tell me none of these politicians are going to profit in any way off this?

@eoten: USA internal corruption is a lot less influential to the rest of the world than large scale war in Europe or Eastern Asia.

If strength is not shown here, we will be seen more of that.

Showing internal division and weaknesses now will be creating the message that invading is not so costly and they can take another country and go back to business as usual in no time.

This already happened before when Russia took crimea in 2014. The US response was weak then, Germany response was appalling. They even authorized nord stream 2 after the invasion already happened.

This cannot happen again. They would be making the world way more dangerous.

@Vaasman: Oh yeah! Same.

What a sight to behold, a record of being consistently wrong. Hold that prize up high, Rand!

First sentence tells me you're an infant with no real base on global relations or economics. Ukraine does affect us. Hell, if that weren't the case we wouldn't have inflated energy costs due to the war, not to mention that Ukraine is a huge exporter of goods and grains. Proclaiming that a ground war in continental Europe, involving one of the pre-eminent military powers on the planet, has no effect on the US is painstakingly stupid. Please repeat after me: The outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian war will absolutely affect every American, European, etc. To ignore that outcome is myopic.

Continue to sell yourself on the above lie. The rest of us aren't buying it.

The commitment the Trump cult shows in everything that translates into the US losing global relevance is astounding. Hard to believe it's just ignorance, but maybe it's just that.

@zaryia: i agree, we should keep supporting the ukraine. Mcconell is a turd regardless, i dont know if either party actually likes him.

@HoolaHoopMan: you can communicate more effectively with other people if you discard the ad hominems and pejorative talk...

I will never understand people that enjoy this way arguing. It doesn't lead to anything good im real life, why would it be positive on the internet?

I don't know. It got trump elected.

correction its $934 billion.

add black budget...

its A TRILLION~

An ad hominem assumes that any pejorative assumed by others is a means to dismantle his stance. That is not what is happening. I'm describing why his stance is delusional, independent of any inferred slight on his part or yours. So instead of nitpicking and incorrectly applying fallacies, why not stick to the substance of my responses?

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/biden-wanted-33b-more-for-ukraine?s=r

From the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the Biden White House has repeatedly announced large and seemingly random amounts of money that it intends to send to fuel the war in Ukraine. The latest such dispatch, pursuant to an initial $3.5 billion fund authorized by Congress early on, was announced on Friday; “Biden says U.S. will send $1.3 billion in additional military and economic support to Ukraine,” read the CNBC headline. This was preceded by a series of new lavish spending packages for the war, unveiled every two to three weeks, starting on the third day of the war:

• Feb. 26: “Biden approves $350 million in military aid for Ukraine": Reuters;
• Mar. 16: “Biden announces $800 million in military aid for Ukraine”: The New York Times;
• Mar. 30: “Ukraine to receive additional $500 million in aid from U.S., Biden announces”: NBC News;
• Apr. 12: “U.S. to announce $750 million more in weapons for Ukraine, officials say": Reuters;
• May 6: “Biden announces new $150 million weapons package for Ukraine”: Reuters.

Those amounts by themselves are in excess of $3 billion; by the end of April, the total U.S. expenditure on the war in Ukraine was close to $14 billion, drawn from the additional $13.5 billion Congress authorized in mid-March. While some of that is earmarked for economic and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, most of it will go into the coffers of the weapons industry — including Raytheon, on whose Board of Directors the current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, sat immediately before being chosen by Biden to run the Pentagon. As CNN put it: “about $6.5 billion, roughly half of the aid package, will go to the US Department of Defense so it can deploy troops to the region and send defense equipment to Ukraine.”

As enormous as those sums already are, they were dwarfed by the Biden administration's announcement on April 28 that it “is asking Congress for $33 billion in funding to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, more than double the $14 billion in support authorized so far.” The White House itself acknowledges that the vast majority of that new spending package will go to the purchase of weaponry and other military assets: “$20.4 billion in additional security and military assistance for Ukraine and for U.S. efforts to strengthen European security in cooperation with our NATO allies and other partners in the region.”

It is difficult to put into context how enormous these expenditures are — particularly since the war is only ten weeks old, and U.S. officials predict/hope that this war will last not months but years. That ensures that the ultimate amounts will be significantly higher still.

The amounts allocated thus far — the new Biden request of $33 billion combined with the $14 billion already spent — already exceed the average annual amount the U.S. spent for its own war in Afghanistan ($46 billion). In the twenty-year U.S. war in Afghanistan which ended just eight months ago, there was at least some pretense of a self-defense rationale given the claim that the Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the time of the 9/11 attack. Now the U.S. will spend more than that annual average after just ten weeks of a war in Ukraine that nobody claims has any remote connection to American self-defense.

Even more amazingly, the total amount spent by the U.S. on the Russia/Ukraine war in less than three months is close to Russia's total military budget for the entire year ($65.9 billion). While Washington depicts Russia as some sort of grave and existential menace to the U.S., the reality is that the U.S. spends more than ten times on its military what Russia spends on its military each year; indeed, the U.S. spends three times more than the second-highest military spender, China, and more than the next twelve countries combined.

But as gargantuan as Biden's already-spent and newly requested sums are — for a ten-week war in which the U.S. claims not to be a belligerent — it was apparently woefully inadequate in the eyes of the bipartisan establishment in Congress, who is ostensibly elected to serve the needs and interests of American citizens, not Ukrainians. Leaders of both parties instantly decreed that Biden's $33 billion request was not enough. They thus raised it to $40 billion — a more than 20% increase over the White House's request — and are now working together to create an accelerated procedure to ensure immediate passage and disbursement of these weapons and funds to the war zone in Ukraine. "Time is of the essence – and we cannot afford to wait,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a letter to House members, adding: "This package, which builds on the robust support already secured by Congress, will be pivotal in helping Ukraine defend not only its nation but democracy for the world."

It's no wonder ukraine is still in this war. With the amount of money we're throwing at this conflict, and the rest of nato...I'm thinking it must be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in support. As for who i agree with, I lean towards McTurtle. The guy is a snake bastard and a backstabber, but he's right. If we don't help ukraine, then putin and his buddy xi jinping will get big heads. They need to know what will happen. Let's see china try to invade Taiwan now.

@sargentd: jeez, that's just ridiculous. Tax payers are getting bent over as usual. These ridiculous politicians have no common sense..where is the accounting??

@sargentd: honestly this should be just seen as way of spending the 1 trillion of military spending the USA has.

Stopping an enemy military expansion before it gets out of hand is exactly the reason they get this money.

Also, it will be even cheaper if it serves as a deterrent against invading Taiwan.

A lot of the equipment they get are more or less leftovers. Yes some of it is fancy jew tech, not denying that. However there has also been work done to find weapons and equipment they are already used to so they can use it right away without training.

How much of that money or equipment do you think is actually going to make it where they tell us it is going?

@sargentd:

3 things

1. Regarding Pro-War. It has to do with Casus Belli. The War on Terror was a war of aggression. This isn't. Supporting a key importer of grain, from falling into the hands of a belligerent country is very prudent. Stop the infection before it spreads. Russia will not stop at Ukraine and they made their anti-american sentiments very abundantly clear. Stopping Russia before they annex a bunch of countries is gonna be cheaper than stopping them AFTER they have done so.
2. Regarding our econommies. Ukraine is a key importer of grain. The fact is, if you like bread, pasta, pancakes, and a slew of other stuff, keeping the production of grain flowing would be extremely prudent. Every country tends to specialize in certain economic niches and this is how modern economy and prosperity works.
3. Yes aid towards ukraine has been very costly. But stopping Russia now is chepaer than stopping them later on. Stopping things before they get to truly manifest has always been prohibtely expensive. This is one reason why the US spends so much on healthcare, relative to other countries (while also getting inferior results). Hell, costs of preventable COVID were estimated to go for 14 billion dollars over a 6 month period. That is to say, in a 6 month period, anti-vaxxer sentiments cost society 14 billion dollars.