The good news is that Congress, at the last minute, averted a government shutdown, at least for now. The bad news is that billions of dollars of funding for Ukraine were stripped from the continuing resolution as a sop to House Republicans who want to cut off the embattled democracy altogether.

Aid to Ukraine still has the support of roughly two-thirds of both houses — something you can’t say about many other issues — but a dangerous milestone was reached last week when more House Republicans voted against Ukraine aid (117) than voted for it (101). That reflects a broader turn in Republican opinion, with only 39 percent of Republicans saying in a recent CBS News-YouGov poll that the United States should send weapons to Ukraine and 61 percent saying it shouldn’t.

To do the right thing for Ukraine, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will now have to go against a growing portion of the Republican base. It is, nevertheless, imperative that he show a modicum of backbone and bring a Ukraine funding bill to the floor immediately. It is not only the right thing to do morally — we have an obligation to support a fellow democracy fending off an unprovoked invasion — but it also is the right thing to do strategically. In fact, it is hard to think of any U.S. foreign policy initiative since the end of the Cold War that has been more successful or more important than U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Yes, in absolute terms, Washington has given a lot of money to Ukraine: $76.8 billion in total assistance, including $46.6 billion in military aid. But that’s a tiny portion — just 0.65 percent — of the total federal spending in the past two years of $11.8 trillion. With U.S. and other Western aid, Ukraine has been able to stop the Russian onslaught and begin to roll it back.

In the process, Russia has lost an estimated 120,000 soldiers and 170,000 to 180,000 have been injured. Russia has also lost an estimated 2,329 tanks, 2,817 infantry fighting vehicles, 2,868 trucks and jeeps, 354 armored personnel carriers, 538 self-propelled artillery vehicles, 310 towed artillery pieces, 92 fixed-wing aircraft and 106 helicopters.

The Russian armed forces have been devastated, thereby reducing the risk to front-line NATO states such as Poland and the Baltic republics that the United States is treaty-bound to protect. And all of that has been accomplished without having to put a single U.S. soldier at risk on the front lines.

That’s an incredible investment, especially compared with U.S. involvement in other recent wars. In Afghanistan and Iraq, both launched under a Republican administration, almost 7,000 U.S. troops were killed and more than 50,000 were wounded while Washington spent more than $8 trillion — only to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and Iraq come under Iranian influence.

Republicans who claim to worry so much about corruption in Ukraine, even though there is no evidence that any U.S. aid has been misused, seldom had anything to say about the truly pervasive corruption in Afghanistan and Iraq, which siphoned off billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars. A forensic accountant who audited U.S. spending in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2012 found that about 40 percent of $106 billion in Defense Department contracts “ended up in the pockets of insurgents, criminal syndicates or corrupt Afghan officials.” Yet Republicans never proposed to end funding for that war.

The war in Ukraine also stacks up impressively compared with other proxy wars that Republicans, under the Reagan administration, did so much to support — from Afghanistan to Nicaragua to Mozambique. In Ukraine, we don’t have to worry about our weapons going to anti-American religious fundamentalists such as the Haqqani network. We are funding a free people fighting to preserve a liberal democracy that will be a stalwart member of the Western community for years to come.

Republicans often complain that the United States is doing the heavy lifting and our European allies aren’t doing their fair share. That’s not true in the case of Ukraine. This summer, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy reported that “Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large.” Yet, despite the growing European assistance, Ukraine still relies on U.S. support; even combined, Europe and the United States can barely keep up with Ukraine’s need for artillery ammunition and other munitions as it wages an industrialized war of attrition.

By funding Ukraine, we are strengthening transatlantic ties and keeping faith with our closest allies. If we were to cut off Ukraine, that would be an unspeakable betrayal not only of the people of Ukraine but also of all of Europe. Stopping Russian aggression is an existential issue for the entire continent. Cutting off Ukraine would mean that the United States is turning its back on its post-1945 security commitment to Europe — a commitment that has underpinned the longest period without a major-power conflict since the emergence of the modern state system in the 17th century.

Supporting Ukraine is also needed to deter Chinese aggression. Some on the right claim that the war in Ukraine is a distraction from the Pacific, but that’s not how the Taiwanese see it. Taiwan’s representative in Washington noted this year that supporting Ukraine — as Taiwan is doing with humanitarian assistance — “will help to deter any consideration or miscalculation that an invasion can be conducted unpunished.”

Many Republicans understand that. “It’s certainly not the time to go wobbly,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said recently. But the MAGA wing of the party, led by former president Donald Trump, has turned against the war because of its isolationism and soft spot for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, a war criminal whom some on the right ludicrously see as a champion of Christian values.

Ironically, many on the right claim to want a negotiated solution to the conflict while doing everything possible to ensure that Putin has no incentive to negotiate seriously. The more Republicans do to endanger aid to Ukraine, the more likely Putin is to assume he can outlast the West and keep fighting.

Once upon a time, Republicans understood the need to resist the “evil empire.” As a former Republican, it sickens me to see so many Republicans so eager to do Moscow’s bidding. But, mercifully, the vast majority of members of Congress — including many Republicans — still staunchly support Ukraine. McCarthy cannot let the MAGA caucus block the best investment the United States can make in its own security.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not even that they’ll gladly sell each other out if it can benefit their personal business interests.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, fine. Then let’s spend our money on healthcare for Americans.

      No? Then what about green technologies to keep us competitive, create jobs, and help the environment? Also no?

      Oh, I see. We should spend the money on payments to the wealthy in the hopes that they would let a few pennies spill out of their pockets and be too lazy to pick them up before the poor people scramble to get them. Got it.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      spend our money on Americans first

      Well that’s actually true! It’s just that they want it spent on a very small and select group of Americans first.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can’t call yourself a true patriot if you don’t relish the thought of an old adversary perishing in a war against someone else. Its gotta be obvious the Republican party is compromised at this point, especially after allegations over the years.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why couldn’t we have helped Russia after the collapse of the USSR instead of letting it languish and turn into what it has become today? That would’ve saved a lot of lives, but I suppose then you couldn’t have that eternal enemy to show off how much of a patriot you are.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We could have, and we should have. But those choices were made by different people than us. Maybe if we had made some other choices instead of just nationalist ones we could have had an ally by now. But as you said, we’d have no eternal enemy to point to, and imperialists love state enemies.

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

          The choices being made right now are being made by different people than us (the literal us). Voters largely have little say in US foreign policy.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Voters absolutely have a say in foreign policy because they absolutely have control over how their representatives vote. If anything, they have undue influence due to rampant gerrymandering.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you being sarcastic? I can’t tell because I’ve seen your other posts and let’s just say your takes are really something, so it’s hard to tell if you’re being serious.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My takes are the truth, which rubs a lot of people here the wrong way.

                If you don’t believe you have a say in foreign policy, consider that maybe as small a number as 100k Americans just ousted the Speaker of the House.

                It’s not my fault most people don’t understand politics at all.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I both agree and disagree, but you are blaming the US/West far too much. Russia was not a US colony, and there is no manual on how to fix a country when it collapses. It’s not entirely clear how we could’ve helped, especially in a manner that didn’t just look like enriching private corporations or wealthy Russian oligarchs.

        What happened in the end is a very common story – a place is having economic hardship and struggle, a strongman leader restores stability, the strongman rules as a tyrant. The tyrant longs for old days of glory, and so forth.

        I disagree with the commenter above that we should relish the thought of Russia’s defeat because they were a former adversary. I wish things had happened far differently. My disdain is largely for Putin, not for Russia itself. We can learn from the past, but the fact remains – Putin and Russia must fail in Ukraine for peace to be established, innocent lives to be saved, and sovereignty to be respected. Ukraine is not Russia’s colony, and Putin needs to be punished for forgetting that.

        Say Russia loses and Putin is deposed. What do you think the US and West should do in that situation? This isn’t some gotcha question, I’m genuinely interested in what you think would be the best path forward for the Russian people to thrive and have a peaceful democracy.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is a manual on how to fix a country when it collapses and it was written after world war 2. We saw how Germany was punished after world war 1 and how it didn’t solve the underlying problems. The problem was solved when Germany got proper support instead of being let to fester in economic misery. It takes a village to raise to raise a child and a world to raise a country. Instead, the US sought to exploit the fall of the USSR with “free market” BS and laundering money for the wealthy to maximize wealth extraction.

          When this war has ended, my hope is that the world extends a hand to help Russia diversify its economy and become more stable. We should also dismantle cold war era organizations like NATO, whose only goal is to act as an adversary. We need to emphasize cooperation.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the thing though, proper support and enriching the wealthy aren’t mutually exclusive here. Whatever aid we provide, some big companies will benefit and oligarchs will get richer. Either way though, I think we can agree that while the West was not obligated to do more, they should have done more. And I am completely with you on a global effort to rebuild and stabilize Russia as a liberal democracy. We need to make sure the country doesn’t fall into ruin again and give us Putin 2.0.

            I will have to disagree on NATO though, largely because countries like Ukraine are going to want defensive assurances for a very long time after this. It provides peace of mind to the smaller nations that we won’t allow them to be conquered by neo imperialist upstarts. What I do think though is NATO needs to expand into a general defensive pact. Perhaps it should become an agreement by the largest military powers that they will defend all democracies from attack, or something.

            Things like NATO will naturally die when they are no longer relevant. People really didn’t care as much about it before the Ukraine invasion, and much of the left questioned why we even had it. Russia has made it relevant again. In a hundred years, it may exist only on paper, if Russia and the West have jolly cooperation.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t call the terrible market reforms that created the oligarchs “help”. That “broken people culturally inured” line is nonsense. You’re like those racists who think black people are genetically programmed for crime.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except unlike racism, which is nonsense, countries do in fact have a persistent cultural zeitgeist

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So when the US elected Trump, they were “a broken people culturally inured to welcoming and even demanding tyrants”?

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, rather the US is very prone to demagoguery by nationalists.

                • hark@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Dressing up the word doesn’t change anything. Nationalism runs rampant in the US. You can see it in all the flag-waving, the chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A, Number 1, Number 1!”, American exceptionalism, and constant claims of being the greatest country on Earth.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh I wouldn’t go that far. I have no desire for the UK nor Germany to perish in a war for instance. And I don’t want to see Russia perish in war. But they must absolutely lose in Ukraine, unequivocally.

      I would’ve preferred to see them be a thriving democracy, perhaps one that had figured out how to better mix capitalism and communism. We could have shared our cultures and combined our knowledge to make massive scientific advancements.

      But Russia didn’t choose that path. And now they have to be defeated. They promoted far right candidates in the West with the intent of destabilizing countries, and they actively spread COVID misinformation. If there’s to be a hope for democracy and a free Russian people, we have to do everything we can to defeat the Putin regime.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree with you. But I am tired of these “Patriots” supporting a country that does nothing but destabilize ours and sells oil. If they are the true red-blooded patriots they say they are then they should be lining up to pay Ukraine themselves.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I completely agree, but it’s good to know your audience. I usually save that language directly for the traitorous fucks, and try to be more conciliatory otherwise. It’s often better for getting people to see your viewpoint and agree.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Helping Ukraine isn’t relishing war. Yes, peace would be better, but that’s entirely in Russia’s control. If Mexico invaded the US and seized a state or two, does anyone think that the US would just sign a peace treaty and give up those states? (I mean, maybe if it was Mississippi or Alabama.) No, we’d strike back until we took back every inch of territory that we had lost.

        Russia could have peace tomorrow by pulling their troops out and agreeing to never again invade a sovereign country. (I’m sure there were be more conditions before it would be a lasting peace, but that would be a great start.) Russia’s idea of “peace,” though, is “Ukraine becomes part of Russia and everyone in Ukraine who doesn’t like this is tortured, raped, and then killed.”

        It’s a false equivalence to pretend that fighting to free your country from an invading force is the same as fighting as part of the invading force.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We certainly aren’t fighting to free our country!

          We’re giving Ukraine juuust enough support to never lose, but not enough to ever win. The goal isn’t to free Ukraine, the goal is the weaken Russia.

          America would prefer this war never ends.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t call yourself human if you’re not willing to fight monsters.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t have to relish war, but you can be hopeful about the outcome. The unfortunate reality is, to keep peace you must be ready for war.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They don’t want a weak Russia. They want a strong Russia. Because that’s what Putin wants and Putin now controls their party as much as Trump does.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember when a bunch of high profile Republicans went on a trip to Moscow and tried to get an audience with Putin on Independence Day?

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The republican traitor filth are owned by the blyats. That’s why they can’t acknowledge the obvious: Western interests, and especially American interests, are perfectly aligned with helping Ukraine. We’re getting another century of American-led Western dominance by destroying the pathological russian state. And at a steep discount, compared to direct action.

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    $10b would provide meals for kids in schools and eliminate school food debt. We did it for one year during COVID but now lunch ladies get to go back to debt collection. Just to put these figures in perspective. The US govt doesn’t care about its own people.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      $10b is nothing, a rounding error in the federal budget. It’s a sad day when you come to the realization that people go hungry and homeless simply because we allow it. Both problems could be solved in under a year if we had the will to do so.

      That said, Ukraine is worth supporting, it’s definitely not an either/or situation.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In Afghanistan and Iraq … Washington spent more than $8 trillion

      Never let anyone say we (America) don’t have the money do to things. That’s bullshit. If this country could spend $8 trillion dollars on a war that accomplished nothing, we can spend money to help those that need it.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    To do the right thing for Ukraine, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will now have to go against a growing portion of the Republican base.

    Aaaand he’s gone the very next day.

  • Tigbitties@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Weakening the enemy and getting Intel at a fraction of the cost with someone else’s boots on the ground. Then there’s looking good on the world stage and strengthening relationships with allies. They’re also getting rid of old gear to swap for new. It’s cheaper giving it away then dismantling it.

    This isn’t “world police” bullshit. The US is taking advantage it.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly. And if this war does expand to NATO vs Russia (which segments of Russia seem to really want and others rightfully fear), it will involve fresh NATO troops with tons of weapons and intel as to how to use them for maximum damage vs tired Russian troops with limited supplies/ammo.

      Assuming such a hypothetical scenario doesn’t turn nuclear (which, admittedly, is a big assumption), the US/NATO would be a much better position for having supported Ukraine. In fact, it might prevent such a war because Russia might have been so weakened by the Ukraine conflict that they don’t even try to attack a NATO country - knowing that they’ll be soundly defeated.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is “world police” shit and we should be the world police.

    • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      someone else’s boots on the ground

      That it absolutely fucking disgusting! Saying the death of someone else is ok so the profits of companies like Blackrock, Boeing, Lockheed, etc are protected. You have lowered the value of someone else’s life to chattel

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The bad news is that billions of dollars of funding for Ukraine were stripped from the continuing resolution as a sop to House Republicans who want to cut off the embattled democracy altogether.

    To do the right thing for Ukraine, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will now have to go against a growing portion of the Republican base.

    It is, nevertheless, imperative that he show a modicum of backbone and bring a Ukraine funding bill to the floor immediately.

    In fact, it is hard to think of any U.S. foreign policy initiative since the end of the Cold War that has been more successful or more important than U.S. aid to Ukraine.

    We are funding a free people fighting to preserve a liberal democracy that will be a stalwart member of the Western community for years to come.

    Republicans often complain that the United States is doing the heavy lifting and our European allies aren’t doing their fair share.


    The original article contains 1,096 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’ve provided enough support, The US’s goal of weakening Russia and sending a message to China is complete. Europe can continue providing all the support they want. If US Tax player dollars are going to go to fire fighters, doctors, EMT’s it should at least go to those based on US soil.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The west can not afford to let Ukraine be destroyed and taken over by Russia. It would set an incredibly dangerous precedent and it would send a certain message to all allies and everyone else that would destroy diplomatic standing of usa. The support usa gave is miniscule, mostly old weapons that they would have to pay do destroy anyway. Miniscule in regards their military budget, a budget that is huge exactly because of Russia and threats like it.

      • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I agree, Europe can’t afford it. The US has contributed way more than necessary all ready, more than all other nations combined. We are literally paying peoples salary in Ukraine now. Enough is enough, Europe can take charge of their own back yard clean up now and will have to for at least the next month because the temporary funding bill that just passed in the US eliminated any further aid.

        • NoiseColor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like I said already, it’s mostly old weapons without any real value. USA has not contributed nearly enough. It was just breadcrumbs. Of course they have all the perogative to stop, but when you look at the economics of the situation, usa has no option but to continue and drastically increase funding for Ukraine. That is what is happening and will continue to happen until Ukraine is not occupied anymore and is protected enough against threats from Russia.

          The aid you speak of that was supposed to be eliminated is only an aid mechanism which was never used. The aid is coming in through other channels, usually directly through congress. In reality, nothing has changed and it’s likely this mechanism will also be soon reinstated to give Ukraine more options on the conditions it receives aid on.

          If you want to talk numbers, I think Ukraine will need at least half of the usa military budget to win this war and more to keep the Russian hordes at bay after the war. Europe can provide some of that, but where weapons are in question, that is more of a usa thing.

          If America wants to keep it’s status in the world, which provides enormous diplomatic and economic benefits, they have to step up when that is needed.

          • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m tired of my tax dollars going to being world police. My tax dollars should go to my community not be used to fund a war half way around the world. If Ukraine would like to BUY military equipment from us then fantastic. I also hear the Taliban have a shit ton of our military equipment they might be looking to sell. The countries in Europe should have always been the first ones to step in with aid and contribute the largest amounts.

            If your claim is true that Ukraine still needs half of our military budget just to survive, then that sounds like a lost cause to me. Because they obviously can’t afford that, and it’s certainly not the US taxpayers job to fund it.

            • NoiseColor@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You may be tired, but then prepare to get completely exhausted. America is America because of its army and how that army is used. Your community is that, because of who and what americas army is. For better and for worse. Europe is how it is because of that also.

              In this situation it is the job of America and the west to defend Ukraine and it is the moral imperitive for the west to stand behind them and help with whatever we can. That is the only option. The only option. If we don’t do it, the consequences may be dire, but it is also the right thing to do. America should and will increase the funding. My estimates are half of the budget for one year. That money is a negligible percentage of all the money that was spent in history to bring Russia to it’s knees and no American soldiers lives.

              • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Actually, if we want to assume hurting Russia is what’s best for America, then we need to trickle just enough material aid to keep Ukraine’s military from complete collapse and let the whole conflict grind on for a few decades. Just like what we did for Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the last thing we’d want is for Ukraine to win quickly.

                • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve heard this talking point before, but it’s completely illogical. If you want to hurt Russia you give the other side everything they want and in great numbers and let them do whatever they want with it.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You don’t pay enough in taxes to deserve a say.

              I know this because to be this dumb there’s no way you have a real job.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It really doesn’t. You get a vote, but not a say.

                  And, statistically, your vote isn’t impactful because you probably don’t live somewhere where it matters.

                  Enjoy voting no on school levies or whatever though.