63 House Republicans vote against resolution affirming support for NATO..

[Subieguy]

Actually, spoken from someone who has actually lived that reality. Which apparently you have not, or you have chosen to deny reality.

progressive don't, the Trump Cult does however. Read about it:

Amazon.com: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control: 9781982127336: Hassan, Steven: Books

Amazon.com: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control: 9781982127336: Hassan, Steven: Books

www.amazon.com

 

[noonereal]

And now you let the world know that you can't understand a simple English sentence. Good stuff.

Oh, you did not know what you wrote either.

 

[Glitch]

1. House Resolutions are generally useless and a waste of time.

Agreed.

2. NATO was formed as a defensive alliance, not as a vehicle for members to meddle in the internal politics of other members.

It was formed as both actually. But as the name suggests, it was only suppose to include those nations bordering the North Atlantic. Which could be construed to include Spain and Portugal, but not nations in the Mediterranean, Aegean, or Baltic Seas. An interesting footnote, the Warsaw Pact would not have existed had NATO not included West Germany in 1955 (which is also not bordering the North Atlantic).

After the fall of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 the US saw it as the perfect opportunity to expand its influence. The US used NATO (NATO is the US) to include all the former Warsaw Pact nations and become a direct threat to Russia. The only former Warsaw Pact member nation not yet either included or destroyed by NATO is Bulgaria. I suspect that they will be NATO's next target after the Ukraine fiasco they caused.

3. The US, while arguably getting the least security benefit from being part of NATO, bears a dramatically oversized burden from it, and so perhaps if the House is going to issue a resolution related to NATO, it at least ought to include something about encouraging the other members to pull their own weight.

NATO was created for a completely different purpose that it now serves. NATO exists to further US hegemony. That has been NATO's sole purpose since 1991.

4. The resolution, as written, is comically vague.

Is that enough?

They usually are. The House spits out ~5,000 pieces of legislation per year. Fewer than 5% ever become law.

 

[Narco]

spoken from the alt reality of the TC. Wow.

No, there's just the actual reality, and your alternate one which you need to snap out of.

The America First BS is what brought this on. Russia and China ran around the world picking what Trump decided didn’t matter.

The "America First" stuff was the popular anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush narrative during that day and age. Now all of sudden much of the same camp is all in favor of "spreading democracy" - probably simply out of opposition to a specific president, which may have been the case originally.

 

[Narco]

sounds very much like a TC response.

It's a fact, I'm sorry that's your anathema.

You obviously don't understand what NATO's purpose and functions are.

Russia isn't at the top of the list of countries in terms of potential human rights violations. China is way up there and very undemocratic, but is still one of the largest trading partners with the US and Europe.

Many who were hostile to the notion of "spreading democratic values" in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be singing a different tone, likely just because of the political party they're opposed to.

And not nearly as much media attention was given to Russia prior to the conspiracies about "interference" in the election.

So naturally, there's nothing of substance here to address outside the rantings and ravings of some inbred jingoists whom any actual discussion of NATO or foreign relations would be lost on. That's how pretty much every thread which mentions Russia devolves.

 

[Glitch]

No, there's just the actual reality, and your alternate one which you need to snap out of.


The "America First" stuff was the popular anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush narrative during that day and age. Now all of sudden much of the same camp is all in favor of "spreading democracy" - probably simply out of opposition to a specific president, which may have been the case originally.

The "America First" mantra has been popular with isolationists since the founding of the nation. They are also known as the "doves," while those advocating for the "spreading" of anything are the "hawks." One side never wants conflict, while the other side always wants conflict. Pick your poison.

 

[US&THEM]

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you must be a Trumper.

Nope just the persons who recite the MAGA bs.

 

[craig]

Ah yes, anyone who disagrees with you must be a Trumper.

He has become an albatross around conservative's necks.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Many not surprisingly are Trump supporters.

It is almost impossible to be a Republican and hate Trump the Terrorist these days. I bet all 63 of them supported the terrorist attack last year.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Nope just the persons who recite the MAGA bs.

The "MAGA bs" to which you have no adult response. Got it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

He has become an albatross around conservative's necks.

That's a problem for conservatives, not for me.

 

[US&THEM]

The "MAGA bs" to which you have no adult response. Got it.

America first, which is exactly what you posted about. It is a failed policy and we are all suffering because of it.

 

[craig]

That's a problem for conservatives, not for me.

So you disavow him?

 

[Cordelier]

I am now going to find out if my Cathy McMorris Rogers voted against this. Pretty sure she did as she was head Campaign Chair for Trump in the last election. She can expect a not very nice letter.....this is just another glowing example of how some in the GOP have veered completely off a cliff.

She voted "yea".... you can put the pen and paper away.

 

[Noodlegawd]

America first, which is exactly what you posted about.

No it's not. Get a clue.

 

[Noodlegawd]

So you disavow him?

Disavow whom, and in what respect?

 

[Subieguy]

No, there's just the actual reality, and your alternate one which you need to snap out of.


The "America First" stuff was the popular anti-Iraq war and anti-Bush narrative during that day and age. Now all of sudden much of the same camp is all in favor of "spreading democracy" - probably simply out of opposition to a specific president, which may have been the case originally.

Amazon.com: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control: 9781982127336: Hassan, Steven: Books

Amazon.com: The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control: 9781982127336: Hassan, Steven: Books

www.amazon.com

 

[Subieguy]

America first, which is exactly what you posted about. It is a failed policy and we are all suffering because of it.

In our reality, not theirs it was more like America, LAST, but they don't know this.

 

[Rawley]

its a resolution affirming support for NATO. Pretty simple and basic. To me anyway. You guys always try to justify your position which is usually wrong by saying you do understand it or the wording isn't right and on and on and on.

?? You said you do not understand it. There are are only three points to the resolution. The first affirms NATO. The other two ask the President to support "new Strategic Concept for NATO" and the "Center for Democratic Resilience"

I asked you what these two are and you said you didn't know. But you're going to vote for it anyway, even though you have no idea what you are voting for. WTF?

 

[Subieguy]

?? You said you do not understand it. There are are only three points to the resolution. The first affirms NATO. The other two ask the President to support "new Strategic Concept for NATO" and the "Center for Democratic Resilience"

I asked you what these two are and you said you didn't know. But you're going to vote for it anyway, even though you have no idea what you are voting for. WTF?

I don't have the power to vote for it sadly, otherwise I would I support the Ukraine. Whom do you support? And tell me you supported EVERYTHING Trump put out, right? Even though you may not have known what it all was.

 

[Rawley]

I don't have the power to vote for it sadly, otherwise I would I support the Ukraine. Whom do you support? And tell me you supported EVERYTHING Trump put out, right? Even though you may not have known what it all was.

Nope

Rather disingenuous that you are criticizing REpubs for voting against a Resolution that you don't understand. Are you really that hyer-partisan that you'd support anything your party tells you to support?

 

[Subieguy]

Nope

Rather disingenuous that you are criticizing REpubs for voting against a Resolution that you don't understand. Are you really that hyer-partisan that you'd support anything your party tells you to support?

I support an affirmation for Ukraine. Who do you support?

 

[Liberal7360]

Did you actually read the resolution before making that breathless exclamation?

Yes I did. Did you?

What do you find objectionable?

All it says is that we reaffirm the organization and create a department within nato to strengthen it and affirm democracy.

Here is the resolution:

Loading…

connolly.house.gov

Why do you find promoting democracy so objectionable?

​

 

[Liberal7360]

Yawn. Whether or not you agree with it, any sensible person can see that there are plenty of rational reasons not to vote for this resolution. You're just too brainwashed to understand them.

Please give the board those reasons.

What is the rational reason to vote against democracy?

 

[Subieguy]

Yes I did. Did you?

What do you find objectionable?

All it says is that we reaffirm the organization and create a department within nato to strengthen it and affirm democracy.

Here is the resolution:

Loading…

connolly.house.gov

Why do you find promoting democracy so objectionable?

​

here you go Rawley!