A Loud GOP Minority Pledges to Make Trouble on Ukraine Military Aid

angels for sure, probably bigfoot

 

which is why we do not support Putin, we support the United States

 

oh please. Not all opinions call upon expertise. For instance, it is one thing to opine that “I don’t think we should be sending money to Ukraine.” That’s an opinion that does not call on expertise. Those are the kinds of opinions you see all the time on this forum.

But it is something else entirely to opine that Ukraine doesn’t need jets and would be better off with artillery. That’s an opinion that calls upon military expertise (which you evidently don’t have.). Do you at least admit that you have no such expertise and would have to defer to someone more knowledgeable than you on the subject?

I personally have no military expertise. I defer to experts on the subject. And the consensus among the experts is that Ukraine would greatly benefit from jets.

It does not surprise me that conservatives don’t believe in deferring to experts. The willingness to defer requires two things: (1) maturity and (2) being an expert in your own field.

 

It is interesting that you know what a Henning nickel is. Here is one. There are several dates of them, but the 1944 is the most famous. Note the missing mint mark, which gave this away and the "flagpole" die break on top of Monticello.



Henning was a counterfeiter who made fake nickels. He dumped a lot his stash in the Schoolkilll River when he was caught circa 1954. He had a $5 to bill on the drawing board when he was caught.

 

So you can't name any specific propaganda from "MAGA media."

Same ole same ole.

 

I've seen no such claims from "experts" making the claim that Ukraine would benefit from F-16's. I've seen Zelenskyy make it, and I'm sure those countries that want to do a swap of their F-16's for newer aircraft could rustle up a few "experts" to make that point, and of course I'm sure General Dynamics could supply all the "experts" you want on the F-16 and how every country should have several. But that doesn't tell me the argument for why F-16's over other kind of military equipment, would be the most useful item that Ukraine could acquire to fight this particular type of war.

As for my "expertise" I don't claim it. I'm an expert in my own narrow military field that I served in, but I wouldn't make a claim that covers every aspect of military knowledge and experience. But I'll just note a few general observations about this war.

I was surprised that the Russians didn't fight engaging with a similar combined arms doctrine that the US would have used in a similar campaign. We would have had a large contingent of airpower to to take out air defense and other strategic assets that would allow mechanized infantry and armor to invade. They didn't do that. Whether it was because Ukrainian air defense was too formidable, the Russians are not competent enough to pull that off, or some mixture of both, I don't know. But that changed the character of the war.

The past few months Russia has been fighting this as a war of attrition. Barely moving the lines but pounding on Ukrainian positions day and night for months with practically unlimited amounts of artillery assets. In cases like Bahkmut, which the Russians recently took, Ukraine was sending forces to that city for months to reinforce it and just kept taking casualties over and over.

In my NONEXPERT opinion, Ukraine would benefit from expanded artillery assets to give back to the Russians what the Russians have been giving to them for the past 10 months or so. F-16's, assuming they can get through Russian air defense can do what exactly? Deliver precision armaments? They can't bring the amount of firepower downrange that artillery can.

Dollar for HE, artillery is a much better bargain. Now, let's hear the case for F-16's from whom I assume is a sales rep from General Dynamics.

 

WTF? Of course I can. I could even cite court cases. But who cares! That has nothing to do with my point. Amazing that you open a thread and then you don't know what it's about.

 

I was responding to your point which you clearly can't back up.

Just enjoying your inability to make an argument. Please continue.

 

I remember in the very early days of the war, the Russian tanks were stuck in a traffic jam outside of Kiev. A drone or something flew over them and took pictures. They were like sitting ducks, waiting to be bombed. They might have shot back at aerial attack, but they sure couldn’t have run for cover. It was an early indicator of how inept the Russian Army is.

Yet the Biden administration refused to allow the Ukrainians to have any air power, not even some obsolete Russian MiGs. At the time I thought Biden really looked bad, like he was holding out on the Ukrainians on purpose.

 

When it comes to the border, we have spent a hell of a lot of money. We have built walls, but they still come. We have increased CBP from 5000 to about 25000 people, and yet they are still coming. And yet, you want to spend more money at the border without dealing with the root cause, just the symptoms.

 

that is what Alexander Hamilton wanted eventually, but knew that "printing money" was problematic given the times. The biggest crime in those days was "clippings" the coin. But the reality is that Article 1, Section 8, clause five says, "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures... The standards of weights and measures can include printed money, among other things. At the same time, we also have a clause called the necessary and proper clause. Thus the Constitution is flexible and that was exemplified in McCulloch vs Maryland which the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the Government to print paper money via the Second Bank of the United States.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/ge...on contains only two,to print their own money.

 

It was early in the war, we provided intelligence, and the Ukrainian Air Force was still capable but was busy fighting other Russian jets.

 

You can coin paper?

How do you keep it from sticking to the dies?

"Necessary and Proper" - Now violating the constitution is necessary and proper. What will you leftists think of next...

 

It was not violating the US Constitution because the Supreme Court, through Article 6, is now law. We were printing money in the early 19th century. Were they violating the Constitution then? Or in 1913 and afterward?

 

Yeah they were and are.

 

WHO?

 

So how does the Supreme Court get it wrong in McCulloch vs Maryland? Not eve Alito will agree to your argument here.

 

MTG, Lauren Boebert, Donald J Trump, the entire Freedom Caucus, etc. And those who are puporting it to Conservative social media, radio programs, Twitter, Rumble, and others. It is not just Tucker but the whole kit and caboodle

 

No, just this Tucker person, I think I spelled it correctly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Well they did get Roe v. Wade right the second visit, everybody makes mistakes.

 

All the Supreme Court did was make it a state issue with abortion and that has turned into a fiasco.

But since you are really being strict, I guess those who are in the Space Force and Air Force are violating the Constitution. Then there is no such thing as right to privacy, is there?

https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

 

Tucker is simply the poster boy for conservative BS arguments. We can look at Hannity, Laura Ingram, anything OANN and Newsmax says, etc.

 

Way to change the subject Alwayssa.

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." - US constitution article One section Ten

 

As a conservative, I haven't much exposure to any of those examples you mention ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Funny, you keep repeating the same talking points they are making.