Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    4 months ago

    They didn’t, though. They’re doing their paymaster’s bidding just fine, stalling Ukraine aid.

    • silence7OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      4 months ago

      It kind of makes the point that this is what they’re doing even more explicit. The stuff they claim to care about? Not so much. Helping Putin? Definitely.

      • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        From a Euro-Nato layman’s point of view, our alliance with the US has become more a liability than anything else. Believing that we can rely on you (like you did on us after 9/11) looks more and more like a trap which diverts our energy and attention away from our own interests.

        • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          4 months ago

          How is it a liability? Russia is a threat to Euro-NATO nations. It is in your/their best interests to have the US help against Russia even if US Republicans try to prevent it.

          • svc@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Maybe the US is not a liability in itself, but trusting the US can be a liability. It’s like a group project when you have a partner that you know won’t do any work. You have to do their part too so that the whole group isn’t brought down.

            If Trump returns to office or the GOP controls the legislature, NATO will have to do all the work to defend against Russia that it might have otherwise expected the US to help with.

            • UsernameHere@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              Right I get that, but the alternative is no help from the US. Which is less beneficial to Europe/NATO than some help until/if Republicans block additional help.

              • pearable@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I think it’s more useful to look at military spending over the last three decades. NATO membership entails spending 2% of GDP on their military. The US is one of few countries in NATO that have actually kept up with that. A couple countries have followed suit but many have been lax. Recently that trend has reversed and more countries are ramping up military buildup, in part due to the US’s recent flaky foreign policy. A huge amount of military industry is outsourced to the US as well. Lots of weapons are made there and the prospect of losing your primary source of military industry due to political instability isn’t appealing.

                Basically, folks got lulled into a false sense of security.

                That’s a narrative I’ve heard but I honestly can’t speak to how valid it is. I find western media’s discussion of US military hegemeny suspect.

                • frezik@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  A few years ago, you’d be shouted down for saying that. Problem was that it’s true, and the Ukraine invasion woke up a lot of European leaders that they need to fund their own militaries to at least a base level. Nobody seems to argue against it anymore except the odd tankie.

                • PugJesus@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That’s a narrative I’ve heard but I honestly can’t speak to how valid it is.

                  It’s pretty valid. Between the end of the Cold War and now, most European countries have chosen to wind down military spending, sometimes to an excessive degree. In the 2011 Libya Intervention, the US was initially content to sit back and let Europe handle an affair close to Europe - until it emerged that our allies had started to run out of precision munitions after a few weeks of strikes.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Historically, the US is the one propping up Europe. It’s been criticized for that for decades:

              .

              I don’t completely disagree, because the entire situation with aid to Ukraine shows how fickle the US can be. If it was up Trump, Ukraine would have got nothing from the start, and there’s even a non-zero chance he’d give equipment and funds to Russia. Still, the solution is for the Europe side of NATO to get their own forces up to snuff.

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Considering the massive spend in the US for the generally inferior healthcare, starting to wonder if spending is even a good metric for military.

            • silence7OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              It’s a decent one; the US has the ability to project force globally in a way that other countries don’t right now.

              • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                the US can’t now though because half congress are spineless lickspittles hoping to get some green piss trickledown from russian and US oligarchs.

                • silence7OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, the President already has authority to get US troops involved. Having an actual fight like that tends to create a rally-round-the-flag effect which would make it a lot harder for Republicans to start saying ‘no’.

                  This would also escalate to nuclear before Congress could really change their mind, which is an incredible deterrent for Russia.

            • pearable@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              I agree spending is not a great indicator. Price of labor is a major cost associated with creating military hardware. China can spend a lot less on their military and get more due to lower labor costs. Percentage of GDP spent on Military might be a better indication? Military personnel, bases, and aircraft carriers are a better metric. Last I heard the US was far ahead of everyone else on the last two cases though.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              The two have some links, as well. The full cost of the Vietnam war hit a few decades after the US pulled out. All those veterans started to use their benefits, and a big one is the VA hospital system.

              The vets from the first stages of the War on Terror are starting to hit that right about now.

              In fact, I believe that to get to the $801B number in the graph above, you have to include vet benefits. Though it’d be a huge chunk of that pie regardless.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Nothing wrong with maintaining the defensive alliance. NATO is a matter of standardization and training cooperation, and the US is unlikely to be attacked. Just… look to your own forces in case next time there’s a crisis we have a dupe in the White House.

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Worked out okay for you guys in the first two world wars. Not great in a lot of cases but you’re also not posting in German. Now, if you are German, I can understand why you may not welcome us again simply out of habit but if/when #3 kicks off, we’ll be there and you’ll be happy to see us coming.

      • pearable@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think helping Putin is really high on their list of priorities. They’re trying to craft a narrative going into the presidential election that Biden is ineffectual and corrupt.

        • silence7OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          There’s a big difference between what Republicans say and what they do. They’ve been really consistent about helping Putin for the past several months.

  • Darkonion@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    4 months ago

    Rapidly abandoning a compromise is GOP 101. They get you to come half way and then they get you to come half of what is left, and so on. This has always been the tactic.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    4 months ago

    How is republican media spinning this? It seems so obviously stupid even those guys who think trump looks like elvis have to be scratching their head

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 months ago

      They’re trying to spin some nonsense about how we don’t actually need any new law for the border (even though they were screaming we did for years, but forget about that) and Biden just needs to enforce current laws and “shut it down.” What current laws are not being enforced? They cannot say. What they mean by “shut it down,” they don’t know.

      • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Shut it down means we do something like the red light//green light game in squidt Gamesz along the border, and nothing that moves gets in.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Carlson is busy in Russia interviewing a despot, so the marching order talking-points haven’t fully come in.

      I’ve seen some half-assed arguments from conservatives here and there, but they’ve really got nothing. They mostly just lie, as usual.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        EDIT: I’m back to apologize, hadn’t seen the latest. But I’m leaving the comment.

        C’mon, don’t spread the speculative shit conservatives so. Tucker was seen in the Bolshoi Theater. That’s it. It’s one of the most famous theaters in the world and the man is filthy rich. That’s not weird. Any other take is pure speculation. (But we could have fun with that without stating it as fact.)

        It’s appalling that conservatives would have anything to do with Russia, but that’s where we’re at. The GOP is bought and paid for by our arch enemy, and no one cares.

    • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      National Review writer I read was saying that the fact it allows 5000 a day is ridiculous so it doesn’t actually matter what the concessions are.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        And it doesn’t even “allow” 5,000 a day. That’s just the number that when breached they start turning everyone away no matter what, asylum case or no. All the people saying it allows 5,000 undocumented immigrants a day are making up nonsense.

        Sorrry I know you probably know, more for anyone reading this.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Probably something like: “Democrats added an amendment that would require all Texan children to only use unisex communal cat litterboxes!!1!”

      Or something equality ridiculous and stupid.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    We need single issue bills. It should be illegal to pack your legislature fatter than Augustus Gloop.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Also, fuck these assholes. Its painfully obvious they just want to fuck over Democrats AT OUR EXPENSE. WE PAY THEIR SALARIES THROUGH TAXES NOW FUCKEN WORK.

      • Hegar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not just about fucking over democrats at any cost, it’s also about showing their allies in the kremlin how useful they are.

        The clear majority of americans don’t want republican party policies. Republicans have openly discussed that reality since bush lost the election in 2000 and got to be president anyway. Senior strategists like pat buchanan have been quite honest that they feel like this is their last chance to foist their ultra conservative vision on an unwilling country before they’re confined to the dustbin of history.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s how things get done in Congress honestly. If Republicans say, “we promise if you provide border funding, we’ll support legislation to provide Israel and Ukraine funding” you have to trust that after you pass the law, they won’t back off of their deal.

      I’d be curious how other countries handle this situation

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        In non-first past the post systems you often end up with coalition governments.

        The result is that you can screw the other guy over, but you’re likely to be in government with them sooner rather than later, at which point they’ll screw you right back.

        It breeds compromise, even if it happens after spending a full year negotiating before agreeing to enter a coalition government and exactly and to ten decimal places which laws you that government will be enacting during the coming parliament.

      • silence7OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Except that this stuff was packaged together, so they couldn’t pick one and refuse the other. So they refused the whole package.

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          So? If they weren’t both packaged together they were both going to be voted down. Republicans don’t want the Ukraine funding and Republicans have decided for now that it’s better politically to have a mess at the border to blame on Biden. They don’t want either proposal to pass so splitting them does nothing.

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nothing would ever get passed then. Every party would vote for what their side aligns with. Concessions means taking a small loss instead of a complete one. For both sides.

  • Hegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    Oh look, another article from the NY times accepting the lie that manageable and needed immigration is somehow a crisis surge. I really wish democrats hadn’t decided that xenophobia is bipartisan now.

      • Hegar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        The NY times isn’t in congress though.

        Diplomacy is usually between different nations. When political parties negotiate it’s more commonly called horse-trading, or compromise. But again that’s not the job of a national newspaper.

        It’s also quite possible to compromise with someone without parroting their lies.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Immigration isn’t always a xenophobia issue. See also, Canada right now. The US situation isn’t currently comparable but there has been a surge so it’s not surprising that people would be investigating that.

    • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Here in Boston we’ve got migrants sleeping in the airport, the state transportation building, and now the state owned gym and pool complex across the street from my house. The governor is draining a $600 million rainy day fund plus asking for another $250 million to help manage the inflow of migrants. Meanwhile our housing crisis is only getting worse, and we’ve literally got no place to send these desperate people. I’m pretty far left, but this doesn’t feel manageable to me.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’re going to get help from the federal government as soon as Democrats have the House. They’ll probably reduce funding for the border that goes to Texas to pay for it.

        Republicans are fucking your state to help their election chances. Stop them by voting in Democratic House members to get your money back from Texas and Florida.

        • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Uh, you do realize I’m from Massachusetts, right? Our elections are decided in the democratic primary when we pick which candidates will breeze through the general election and take their house seats. The last time we sent a republican to DC was in 1994.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Hey the better Griffin does in the primary the more of a message may be able to get across to Warren who is wanting term three.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Joe Biden comes out and pointedly blames Donald Trump for expected defeat of bipartisan border bill. Blames Trump for wanting to make this a campaign issue and says “he’d rather weaponize” border than solve it. He calls on GOP to show “some spine” and stand up to Trump.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

    The turn of events led to a remarkable Capitol Hill spectacle this week as a parade of Senate Republicans almost instantly repudiated a major piece of legislation they had spent months demanding as part of any agreement to provide more help to a beleaguered Ukraine.

    “A year ago they said, ‘We need a change in the law,’” said Mr. Lankford, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had been up in arms about the border situation only to suddenly reject the new legislation.

    As they sought to rationalize their anticipated decision to mount a filibuster against legislation they had called for, Republicans said they needed more time to digest the bill and perhaps be allowed to propose some changes.

    Mr. Barrasso’s statement was just the latest indication that the looming election — and Donald J. Trump’s tightening grip on the party as the expected nominee — had made Republican approval of the border deal all but impossible.

    Plus, House Republicans are going to be in a pitched battle to hold on to their majority after two years in charge with minimal accomplishment, and many of them view immigration as a winning wedge issue.


    The original article contains 1,033 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Biden could have unilaterally ended this entire charade by activating the national guard, but he’s a fucking coward so we get this “fascist-lite” bill that will never pass instead. It’s disgusting political theater, playing with the lives of migrant children. I fucking hate this country. This isn’t some master Liberal political play, it’s pathetic. I can’t believe I’m going to vote for this rotting sack of genocidal flesh again.

    • yacht_boy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Uh, Biden didactivate the national guard.

      I legitimately don’t understand the hate. He’s done more for this country than any president since FDR. He’s a wet dream for progressives. He’s doing it all in the face of insane pressure from Russia and Trump. And yet all he gets is a shrug and side eye from the people who are ought to be thanking him every minute of every day for standing firm.

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That is genuinely very useful information, thank you for sharing it. I spend a loooooot of time online defending Biden among leftists, trying to get them to vote for him and showcasing how much good he’s done. But I too am fucking sick of the war shit