Most Republicans support the United States’ military assistance to Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Contrary to what many believe, most Republicans support our role in the Ukraine war:

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/shock-poll-gop-voters-overwhelmingly-say-u-s-doing-too-little-in-ukraine/

Sure, we are all aware of that turn-coat Tucker Carlson’s talking points. Those points are so early identical to Kremlin propaganda that the only conclusion is he has been compromised. But he’s only one little cuck with increasingly irrelevant views and a shrinking audience.

Most of America supports our efforts to help Ukraine free itself of Putin’s illegal war of aggression.

[Anonymous]

Would be nice for the actual patriots to take on their traitorous bretheran.

[Anonymous]

I mean why not. It’s not them fighting, and they might even profit off of it. And they get brownie points!

[Anonymous]

So if both parties are pro-war, where do the peaceniks go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean why not. It’s not them fighting, and they might even profit off of it. And they get brownie points!

PP: you oppose support for Ukraine? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

NP. Something is very very wrong re: Ukraine and the amount of money were are funneling into the nation. We are currently in deep hot water financially. Someone is profiting bigtime and it’s not the American or Ukrainian people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if both parties are pro-war, where do the peaceniks go?

I think the bigger question is, if the peaceniks want to avoid eating Borscht for the rest of their lives, why do they oppose containing Russian agressession where it is happening?

[Anonymous]

There is no consensus in the GOP about supporting Ukraine. And if most agree with some assistance, there is little to no support for sending support indefinitely. Most Republicans think there should be an endgame and that we should know what our goals are. There is almost no support for Biden's position that the US should give support and money but leave the endgame entirely up to Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if both parties are pro-war, where do the peaceniks go?

I think the bigger question is, if the peaceniks want to avoid eating Borscht for the rest of their lives, why do they oppose containing Russian agressession where it is happening?

We didn't contain Russian aggression when they invaded Ukraine during the Obama era and everything worked out fine. There is a case to support Ukraine, but you're not making a realistic case. The Russians are not waging this so Americans will buy their soup.

[Anonymous]

MediaLite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if both parties are pro-war, where do the peaceniks go?

I think the bigger question is, if the peaceniks want to avoid eating Borscht for the rest of their lives, why do they oppose containing Russian agressession where it is happening?

We didn't contain Russian aggression when they invaded Ukraine during the Obama era and everything worked out fine. There is a case to support Ukraine, but you're not making a realistic case. The Russians are not waging this so Americans will buy their soup.

Sure, it worked out fine if you don't mind a country's soverignty being compromised, with Ukrainian children being kidnapped and sent to russian colonies for re-patriation etc.



Just wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Something is very very wrong re: Ukraine and the amount of money were are funneling into the nation. We are currently in deep hot water financially. Someone is profiting bigtime and it’s not the American or Ukrainian people.

Your view is extremely myopic.

“We?” True - the US is a founding member of NATO and the largest single member, but the EU is 500 million people with and economy comparable to our own.

The other NATO countries (in total) contribute as much as we do, because they understand Putin’s regime is THE major threat to European stability today. Russia is also the main enemy of the US, after our other enemy: China.

And the aid? IT IS MOSLTY OBSOLETE. We literally use M-113 armored personnel carriers for: target practice and dumping in the ocean as reefs (google it).

The “Hawk” guided missile system? ITS FROM THE 1960s! We literally deployed the Hawk during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s completely obsolete.

But, the DOD is required to assign an artificial dollar-value to every single item we send, whether it makes sense or not.

Point is, the US is hardly “spending” the $$ one might think from the DOD reports alone.

Also: to replace the relatively small amount of modern weapons sent, who profits?

AMERICANS. American jobs are created, and American companies profit. YOUR retirement account profits.

Stop listening to that turncoat Tucker Carlson. He has obviously been compromised.