Posted on 08/04/2023 12:36:48 PM PDT by Mariner
Most Americans oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to support Ukraine in its war with Russia, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, as the public splits over whether the US has already done enough to assist Ukraine.
Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more. A poll conducted in the early days of the Russian invasion in late February 2022 found 62% who felt the US should have been doing more.
Partisan divisions have widened since that poll, too, with most Democrats and Republicans now on opposing sides of questions on the US role in Ukraine.
A majority, but not all (68%) of those who say the US should do more to support Ukraine favor additional funding, as do 23% of those who say the US has already done enough.
When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).
Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
“That’s because you assumed I was a man. I’m not. I’m a woman, and I’ll turn 76 next week.”
Women serve now and they served way back when.
“Sorry, but I think you are the one living in Pollyannaland, because you seem to think things in this country are hunky-dory...”
Some historian: You assume facts not in evidence, jump to conclusions, and rush to judgment. The fact is, that a lot of the problems we are facing here at home were instigated and fostered and orchestrated by some of our external foes. So, things are certainly NOT hunky-dory here at home; and I never claimed they were.
“...and that the only real threat to us here is from overseas, specifically Russia, when it’s clearly right here in front of you.”
Wrong again: I never said that. In fact, our biggest threat is from Communist China, not Russia; but Russia is China’s little attack dog at present, as is North Korea. And both Russia and China have over the years flooded the US with their legions of disrupters and agitators, let alone their spies. Hell, we just busted two of them who were in our Navy!
“We can’t even have honest elections here, and you’re worried about threats from overseas?? Hello!!!”
Yeah; we can deal with the corruption and fraud ourselves, and dismantle it; but it is another thing entirely if that same threat is also orchestrated by foreign governments that wish to subdue us — on top of the threat of kinetic destruction.
“But for Russia NATO in those countries mean insecurity. And insecurity will bring the war closer. SO joining to NATO you just bring the war closer.”
You have no one to blame for that but Russia. If Russia were such a good neighbor all those countries that had formerly been under the Russian boot would not have clamored to join NATO: They would, instead, have joined with Russia; or, at the very least, been non-aligned. But, of course, they didn’t join with Russia, and they did not choose non-alignment. Because they very much knew what Russia was all about, and they wanted no part of it.
How many people — let alone countries — are now rushing or have in the past have rushed across the borders of Russia to immigrate to Russia? Hell, people have been FLEEING Russia ever since the 1990s, such that Russia has a population problem (i.e., not enough population to sustain itself).
“But, I’ll tell you: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Poland are damn glad they are part of NATO”
And now all the children in those nations will get the mandatory NATO imposed transsexual propaganda and genital removal surgeries
“No, what I think he is saying is that Trump would have never pushed Russia into a war the way Ukraine did.”
No, that is NOT what he said. Here are his exact words: “If Zelensky had been another Trump and Putin had been allied with Biden and his fellow leftist nations, the Ukraine would be gone by now, and nobody would care about its sovereignty.”
Now, you show me how that can be construed as anything BUT the erasure of Ukraine. His exact words were, if there were a Zelensky-Trump, Ukraine would be gone by now. Gone. No longer existent. Erased.
“And now all the children in those nations will get the mandatory NATO imposed transsexual propaganda and genital removal surgeries.”
Only in your fantasies.
I guess official NATO accounts and websites are now “fantasies” LOL
https://twitter.com/Gottemoeller/status/864874129597640704
https://twitter.com/BelgiumNATO/status/1526527463572049922
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_182424.htm?selectedLocale=en
Yeah, and they were labeled dykes. Back in the 60's, if you were a female and joined the military you were a lesbian, and if you were a guy who became a beautician, you were queer. I know that for a fact, because one of the girls I graduated with in 1965 joined the military, and the scoop back then was she was a dyke. Please don't try to change the cultural stereotypes from that time. You know they existed. I chose to get married and have kids when I was 18. The majority of women did, because basically that was about their only option. Then years later, after I'd already won my battle of the sexes working in NY State's prison system, the FemNazis took control, turned this country around, not for the best, and now look where we are. Men are women, and women are men.
"Yeah; we can deal with the corruption and fraud ourselves, and dismantle it; but it is another thing entirely if that same threat is also orchestrated by foreign governments that wish to subdue us"
WTF do you think happened in 2020? Why do you think they claimed Russia interfered in 2016, and pursued it to use against Trump? To take the eye off the ball when the Democrats, with the help of the Chi-coms, stole the next election. I firmly believe that China was highly involved in the theft of 2020. Who had the most to gain from getting rid of Trump, and putting compromised Biden in place? The Democrats, yes, the globalists, yes, but the Chi-coms as well. They hated Trump for holding their feet to the fire on trade issues, and they reluctantly agreed to a trade deal. When Covid was first reported in China, and that it was spreading from there, my first thought was that it had been deliberately released by China so they wouldn't have to adhere to their trade agreement with the U.S. The lockdowns here helped the Chi-coms, and Trump was labeled a zealot for banning travel from China. The Chi-coms even lied about when the virus first showed up there, and they've been lying ever since, and once Covid took over here, the plans to get rid of Trump took top priority, and it worked like a top. Just look how happy XI has been since election night 2020, because Joe's given him everything he 's asked for.
In closing, just recently, an illegal Chinese-linked biomedical lab in Central California filled with unlicensed mice, medical waste, refrigerators, and other infectious agents was accidentally discovered. CDC detected coronavirus, HIV, hepatitis and herpes at the unlicensed California lab:
The Illegal Chinese Bio-Lab in California is Worse Than You Think
That's only one lab. I'm sure there are others scattered across this country. Guaranteed, some of the people involved in establishing that lab and the others that are hidden here, came across the southern border. Are you that naive to think that the crap you fear, the corruption that we're supposed to be alert to, "orchestrated by foreign governments that wish to subdue us," isn't already on your doorstep? But, let's keep sending money to Ukraine, that nobody is being held accountable for, because the big threat is over there...it isn't here, right?
It sure does.
Nailed it. Bravo!
Gee Willikers...thanks!!
“Lets be friends. 💗💙💚💛”
Friends have the element of trust, which is a trait you have shown yourself to lack.
So, I’ll pass.
Nice try, kid.
Your links say nothing about your wild claim that, “now all the children in those nations will get the mandatory NATO imposed transsexual propaganda and genital removal surgeries.”
You see, kid, when you make such hyperbolic statements you own them. You have literally said that in the new NATO countries ALL the children in those countries will get MANDATORY sex-change surgery. You own that, kid.
YEAH, that’s tellin’ em!
“Yeah, and they were labeled dykes.”
Well, aren’t YOU broadbrushing!
“Back in the 60’s, if you were a female and joined the military you were a lesbian...”
Again, you jump to conclusions and rush to judgment, critical failures for one who claims to be a historian.
“I know that for a fact, because one of the girls I graduated with in 1965 joined the military, and the scoop back then was she was a dyke.”
Anecdotal. And if you were any kind of historian you’d know that anecdotes are merely isolated illustrations, and are not descriptive of the whole.
“Please don’t try to change the cultural stereotypes from that time.”
You just sank your own argument, because anecdote is the foundation of stereotype.
“You know they existed.”
Of course they existed; they have always existed. But they were and are the exception when compared to the whole.
As for your comment about the Chinese lab in California, that is very much a threat from a foreign country: A hostile foreign government has infiltrated our own country and is doing all kinds of nefarious things. In other words, that is the result of a threat from abroad. That the threat is now here does not make it a home-grown threat.
You are too emotional to be an objective student of history; your emotionalism condemns your scholarship. But I’m glad you at least study the subject.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4173068/posts
If Iran and Belarus can mass produce drones t use AGAINST Ukraine I’m sure we can make something in prodigious large numbers to compensate and indeed overwhelm these. Can be “dumb” V-1 V2 buzz bombs if necessary. Send them indiscriminately across the border into Russia and let their entire population worry about the war for a nice change. Thoughts?
As a so-called historian, you're pretty judgmental, and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Show me my quote where I said I, personally believed that all women who joined the military in the '60's were dykes. I said it was the culture of the time.
“Please don’t try to change the cultural stereotypes from that time.”
Did you grow up in the inner-city of Rochester, New York? If not, then you have no idea what the stereotypes were there, or in the high schools in the 50's and 60's. And as a so-called historian, you are making a statement based on your own experience, wherever it was that you lived. A real person interested in history would study the various regions of the country, and research the materials available from those periods...newspapers on microfilm, documents, crime statistics, death rates, interview actual people who lived in those times, straight, gay, black, white, etc...not just base their opinion on their own small, little world as you have.
"Of course they existed; they have always existed."
There were four of us kids in our family. My second oldest sister who was five years older than me was gay, and it was never a problem between us. She was very self-conscious of her sexuality, and had a bigger problem with it, than any of us. And that's because of the stereotyping back then. She went out of her way to make sure she didn't look gay, wore feminine clothing all the time, dresses, high heels, etc. Always looked like a lady. And she hated the way the gay culture had turned into a side show...didn't believe in gay marriage. The one thing she said to me as she was dying of cancer was that she was sorry she had never had any kids. I was with her when she drew her last breath, and made sure she got the burial she asked for. But gee, what would I know about how a gay person feels, because ought-six says it didn't happen that way in the 50's and 60's
"A hostile foreign government has infiltrated our own country..."
No $hit Sherlock. It didn't just happen. They've been here for a long time, even before the Clintons took office, and exchanged money for missile secrets. The question is, what has been done about it? Nothing. Biden's DOJ has been lenient on Chinese Nationalists found conducting espionage here. So how is fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine preventing that hostile foreign government from infiltrating here, over and over? It obviously isn't since they pop up all the time. The Chi-coms have been caught here helping themselves to our classified secrets, and our technology, repeatedly, yet it continues, and is allowed to continue, and even granted immunity from the DOJ. LOL!! The Chi-coms are controlling The White House and everything that happens here, and you're screaming: Russia, Russia, Russia. That's hilarious.
"That the threat is now here does not make it a home-grown threat."
Your use of the term "home-grown threat" makes you sound like Christopher Wray, who claimed white supremacists are the biggest home grown threat to this country. Sorry, but the biggest home grown threat are the politicians who are compromising the security of this country, and the safety of the American people through their negligence, their stupidity, and their nefarious deals with our enemies. Our southern border is wide open. We have no idea who is coming over the border, what diseases they have, what crimes they have committed in the countries they came from, or along the way. You sound very naive when it comes to that. It is home grown when you allow it to be home grown, by opening your borders to anyone and everything. When you give Chinese nationals the ability to come here, organize, set up labs, steal intelligence, and continue to let them get away with it. That's home grown, because you provide the means for it to happen, over and over. You are an aider and abettor. I think you have blinders on.
"You are too emotional to be an objective student of history"
LOL!! That's a pretty arrogant, and ignorant comment. Obviously you aren't emotional, or astute enough to be an objective student of history. You need emotion to study history, otherwise, how can you understand it, analyze it, and realize that the past applies to today? When you fail to look at past history, and see it being repeated in this day and time, then you're not an historian. I'd prefer an author, or a professor who was passionate about history, because then you'd know they've fully immersed themselves into the subject they are teaching you, and would go to any length necessary to find as much as they could on the topic. History isn't just about reading books. You can't just turn a page and experience history as it was and is. It takes more than that. It takes physical research. Historians find trails to pursue as their research grows. They will turn over one stone of history only to have it lead them to another and another. And a real historian follows those stones wherever it leads them. It sounds to me like you got to one stone, and never bothered to turn over any of the rest.
Bravo. Starts at age 7 I read somewhere.
❗️Basic greetings at the border of Belarus:
Our children can tell the difference between mother and father
Our “dictatorship” does for the people more than your “democracy”
Two Majors
https://t.me/two_majors/10108?single
“As a so-called historian, you’re pretty judgmental, and putting words in my mouth that I never said. “
Oh, but you did.
Are you denying you said the following: “’Yeah, and they were labeled dykes. Back in the 60’s, if you were a female and joined the military you were a lesbian, and if you were a guy who became a beautician, you were queer.’”? Because you did, in your post #127. I’m citing your very own words; so how is that judgmental? On the other hand, your words are VERY judgmental, in that you jumped to conclusions and rushed to judgment; and branded the whole because of a few. That is judgmental; and that is stereotyping.
“Show me my quote where I said I, personally believed that all women who joined the military in the ‘60’s were dykes. I said it was the culture of the time.”
You believed it, because you said so. You said, “I know that for a fact, because one of the girls I graduated with in 1965 joined the military, and the scoop back then was she was a dyke.” So, you are either saying that it was the “culture of the time” that only lesbians went into the service; or you are saying YOU and YOUR culture of the time labeled women in the military “dykes,” which, either way, it is YOU calling them “dykes.” You and I are about the same age; and it was NOT the general culture that women serving in the military were lesbians. YOU and YOUR “culture” defamed a great many women who served their country honorably.
I was in high school in the 60s, as you were; and I know what the stereotypes were. And, rather than lesbians, the most common stereotype where I lived was that women who went into the military were nymphomaniacs or desperate for a husband or some combination thereof. And that was an unjust stereotype, as well; and we knew it.
So, don’t try to weasel out of your libel by blaming it on “the culture,” or on “society.”
“Your use of the term ‘home-grown threat’ makes you sound like Christopher Wray…”
Nice try. “Home-grown” means Americans in America; it is not “home-grown” if foreigners originated the threat.
“When you give Chinese nationals the ability to come here, organize, set up labs, steal intelligence, and continue to let them get away with it. That’s home grown…”
No, that’s a bunch of Chinese nationals (i.e., not American citizens; thus there is no “home” associated with them – unless it is China).
“…because you provide the means for it to happen, over and over. You are an aider and abettor.”
Try that argument in a court of law. You are not an aider and abettor unless you KNOW you are aiding and abetting. As an example: A bank robber robs a bank, and exits the building. He hails a passing cab and asks to be taken to the train station. The cabbie takes the robber to the train station, accepts payment for the ride, and lets the guy out. Then, the cabbie goes on to another fare down the street. The cabbie was involved in the robber’s escape, but not knowingly. And unless the prosecutor can introduce evidence of the cabbie’s knowledge of the robbery, and his fare’s involvement in it, and willingly – i.e., not under threat or duress — takes the robber to the train station to make good his escape; that prosecutor is not going to bring charges against the cabbie. And even if the prosecutor did bring charges, it is not likely he will get an indictment against the cabbie; and, even if he DID get an indictment, chances of a jury convicting him would be remote.
“LOL!! That’s a pretty arrogant, and ignorant comment. Obviously you aren’t emotional, or astute enough to be an objective student of history.”
That’s a contradictory statement, because objectivity is the absence of any influence due to emotion. If you want emotion from history, read it as a novel; not as history. Can reading history have some emotional impact? Of course it can; as we are only human. But, a true student of history should not let that emotion prejudice his or her study of the history in which he or she is engaged. Emotion can block one’s search for the WHY of something more than anything else can.
“I’d prefer an author, or a professor who was passionate about history, because then you’d know they’ve fully immersed themselves into the subject they are teaching you, and would go to any length necessary to find as much as they could on the topic.”
Oh, one can be passionate about the SUBJECT; but passion should be put in a drawer for the STUDY. A good physician can be very passionate about the science of medicine; but when he or she is dealing with a patient and the patient’s specific case that physician MUST be dispassionate and objective.”
“You need emotion to study history, otherwise, how can you understand it, analyze it, and realize that the past applies to today?”
Absolutely wrong. What you have described is judging the past by today’s standards and mores. Such an approach is fatal to the study of history, and unfair to the subjects of the history. In order to understand history, one must try to put him- or herself in the shoes of the people in that history, and understand what THEY were about, and what motivated THEIR actions. Because, by studying history you are passing judgment on the actors of the past; you owe it to them to understand their case, and be fair in your deliberation; just as a judge and jury in a trial should. You can have emotion to read history as a novel; but not as a study, unless you can shelve that emotion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.