Here are the 11 Republican senators who voted against the $40 billion Ukraine aid pac

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Here are the 11 Republican senators who voted against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package

One idiot senator from Tennessee, is more worried about formula shortage here in the US than genocide, rape and pillage of Ukraine by Russia?!!

I'm just glad Trump is not in office now, Ukraine would have conquered back in February?!!


  • The Senate passed $40 billion in aid to Ukraine for military equipment and humanitarian assistance.
  • But 11 GOP senators — including Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, and Marsha Blackburn — voted against it.
  • They say it's too much money, isn't paid for, and doesn't reflect a "nationalist" foreign policy.
The US Senate passed a bill on Thursday providing $40 billion in military aid and economic support to Ukraine, sending it to President Joe Biden's desk after the House approved the package last week.

The bill includes tens of billions of dollars in funding for lethal aid to the Ukrainian military, billions to the State Department to provide economic-development aid to the war-torn country, and roughly $4 billion for tackling global food shortages caused by the war.

"Today, the Senate will approve more lethal assistance for Ukraine," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a floor speech on Thursday. "And it's going to be a bipartisan landslide."

But passage of the bill had been stalled for a week by McConnell's fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who insisted that an inspector general be appointed to oversee the aid spending.

While the aid package passed the chamber with unanimous Democratic support and the backing of most Republicans, 11 GOP senators bucked their party, citing reasons including the cost of the spending and a lack of oversight into where that money might be spent, as well as broader concerns about US national interest.

"Cost," Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said when Insider asked her why she planned to vote against the measure. "I do support Ukraine's efforts to protect their people and their country, and it's just so tragic what's happening. But inflation is running amok. We are not protecting our own borders."

"Ukrainians are amazing. We were slow to help them out of the gate," Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana told Insider. "But I'm going to always ask a question: How are we paying for it? And when I found out we're borrowing every penny of it, and we're not offsetting anything, that turned it into a no vote for me."

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said that the money spent defending Ukraine from Russia's invasion would be better spent at home, telling Fox News that the bill was an extension of the "unfocused globalism that unfortunately many in my party have embraced in the last couple of decades."

He
https://twitter.com/x/status/1526323885515448321
that his opposition to the aid package was "not isolationism" but "nationalism."

https://www.businessinsider.com/11-republican-senators-vote-against-40-billion-aid-ukraine-2022-5
43WK6WMHOFF5HCCCAE5H4EE2HU.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why couldn't Biden send them $40B from the funds he's got rolling around the WH already?........
Click to expand...

The money is mostly staying in the USA. The weapons and supplies that the money buys are going to Ukraine... Actually some of those are staying in the USA too.

While we have fought several wars, we have not had much use for Stinger Missiles. We always have air supremacy, and never have call to shoot down planes from the ground. The Ukrainians have obvious use for Stinger Missiles, so we have sent them some. The problem is that, because they were not being used up, they were not being produced, for nearly 20 years now. We need to produce more to replace the ones we have given Ukraine, but many of the components are no longer even produced.

Some of the money will go to producing a slightly modernized Stinger Missile for our own stockpiles. This is a good thing, because we would not want our troops depending on 20 to 40 year old Stinger Missiles.
 
Let's assume for a moment that Ukraine falls to Russia in its entirety. How would that outcome impact the United States? How would it impact NATO?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why couldn't Biden send them $40B from the funds he's got rolling around the WH already?........
Click to expand...

Biden was able to send them weapons systems out of our stockpiles, but now key stockpiles are running low. Biden is not allowed to spend money on replenishing our stockpiles (for us), or buying new weapons to send to the Ukraine without Congressional approval. There are no "funds... rolling around" the White House, there are Congressionally approved funds. It would be unconstitutional for Biden to just take funds from one budget item, and give them to another.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Let's assume for a moment that Ukraine falls to Russia in its entirety. How would that outcome impact the United States? How would it impact NATO?
Click to expand...

It would show the world that big nations can defeat small nations. We saw with WWII that causes many big nations to start attacking small nations, which in turn causes big nations to start fighting among themselves.
 
Walt said:
It would show the world that big nations can defeat small nations. We saw with WWII that causes many big nations to start attacking small nations, which in turn causes big nations to start fighting among themselves.
Click to expand...

Everybody already knew that pretty much. What changes if Ukraine is part of Russia for the US and NATO?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Everybody already knew that pretty much. What changes if Ukraine is part of Russia for the US and NATO?
Click to expand...

Putin has said that his end goal is to regain the Russian Empire, which includes four NATO nations, so NATO would have to go. So what changes is that Putin is one step closer to destroying NATO, and his goals.

If Putin gets his end goal, Europe would be either directly or indirectly under Russia. The USA would retreat back to North America. A USA that has retreated back to North America would not be able to give its population one fifth of the world's production. We could expect to be much poorer.
 
Walt said:
Putin has said that his end goal is to regain the Russian Empire, which includes four NATO nations, so NATO would have to go. So what changes is that Putin is one step closer to destroying NATO, and his goals.

If Putin gets his end goal, Europe would be either directly or indirectly under Russia. The USA would retreat back to North America. A USA that has retreated back to North America would not be able to give its population one fifth of the world's production. We could expect to be much poorer.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question. If Russia take Ukraine, what are the consequences for the US? So far, Putin has shown little to no inclination to take NATO on directly.
 
Walt said:
Biden was able to send them weapons systems out of our stockpiles, but now key stockpiles are running low. Biden is not allowed to spend money on replenishing our stockpiles (for us), or buying new weapons to send to the Ukraine without Congressional approval. There are no "funds... rolling around" the White House, there are Congressionally approved funds. It would be unconstitutional for Biden to just take funds from one budget item, and give them to another.
Click to expand...

you poor, naïve, fuckwitted lib'rul......
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That doesn't answer the question. If Russia take Ukraine, what are the consequences for the US? So far, Putin has shown little to no inclination to take NATO on directly.
Click to expand...

If Hitler takes the Sudetenland, what are the consequences to France? Directly, none, but it one step further along the road towards France being destroyed by Hitler.

Putin would definitely gain a greater ability to threaten Europe. China would gain a greater ability to threaten Taiwan. It would all be one step further towards a dozen different wars, that all would mean the USA would be more isolated, and less prosperous.... If not at war itself.

Or we can look at the other furthest extreme. What does it mean for America if Putin is defeated in Ukraine, and his government collapses. We will have less cost, and danger from Russia. Russia and Ukrainian inventiveness will help all of humanity, including us. They will provide a market for our goods, and provide goods for our market. And it will show other countries like China that this is a bad idea, which saves us money and danger.

The better Ukraine does in this war, the better for us.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you poor, naïve, fuckwitted lib'rul......
Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand how our government works. Biden cannot simply authorize spending without Congress. He has a lot more power to move around our stockpiles of weapons, but as that runs low, he has to go to Congress to pay for more weapons.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Here are the 11 Republican senators who voted against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package

One idiot senator from Tennessee, is more worried about formula shortage here in the US than genocide, rape and pillage of Ukraine by Russia?!!

I'm just glad Trump is not in office now, Ukraine would have conquered back in February?!!


  • The Senate passed $40 billion in aid to Ukraine for military equipment and humanitarian assistance.
  • But 11 GOP senators — including Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, and Marsha Blackburn — voted against it.
  • They say it's too much money, isn't paid for, and doesn't reflect a "nationalist" foreign policy.
[FONT=&]The US Senate passed a bill on Thursday providing $40 billion in military aid and economic support to Ukraine, sending it to President Joe Biden's desk after the House approved the package last week.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The bill includes tens of billions of dollars in funding for lethal aid to the Ukrainian military, billions to the State Department to provide economic-development aid to the war-torn country, and roughly $4 billion for tackling global food shortages caused by the war.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"Today, the Senate will approve more lethal assistance for Ukraine," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a floor speech on Thursday. "And it's going to be a bipartisan landslide."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]But passage of the bill had been stalled for a week by McConnell's fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who insisted that an inspector general be appointed to oversee the aid spending.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]While the aid package passed the chamber with unanimous Democratic support and the backing of most Republicans, 11 GOP senators bucked their party, citing reasons including the cost of the spending and a lack of oversight into where that money might be spent, as well as broader concerns about US national interest.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"Cost," Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming said when Insider asked her why she planned to vote against the measure. "I do support Ukraine's efforts to protect their people and their country, and it's just so tragic what's happening. But inflation is running amok. We are not protecting our own borders."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]"Ukrainians are amazing. We were slow to help them out of the gate," Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana told Insider. "But I'm going to always ask a question: How are we paying for it? And when I found out we're borrowing every penny of it, and we're not offsetting anything, that turned it into a no vote for me."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said that the money spent defending Ukraine from Russia's invasion would be better spent at home, telling Fox News that the bill was an extension of the "unfocused globalism that unfortunately many in my party have embraced in the last couple of decades."

He
https://twitter.com/x/status/1526323885515448321
that his opposition to the aid package was "not isolationism" but "nationalism."[/FONT]

https://www.businessinsider.com/11-republican-senators-vote-against-40-billion-aid-ukraine-2022-5

43WK6WMHOFF5HCCCAE5H4EE2HU.jpg
Click to expand...

They care about America first not Ukraine
 
https://thehill.com/news/senate/349...ators-who-voted-against-the-ukraine-aid-bill/
Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) tweeted Monday he was against the bill because it did not serve “American interests.”

“It neglects priorities at home (the border), allows Europe to freeload, short changes critical interests abroad and comes w/ no meaningful oversight,” Hawley said.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) emphasized in his statement that although he supports Ukraine’s efforts against Russia, he can’t support a spending bill this large with issues including “inflation” and “gas prices” in the U.S.

“I can’t support $40 billion of new spending unless it’s offset with cuts or taken from already authorized funds, especially when the European Union isn’t matching what we’re doing to end this conflict in their own backyard,” Braun said.

Eight other GOP senators voted against the package: Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Bill Hagerty (Tenn.)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
Roger Marshall (Kan.)
Tommy Tuberville (Ala.).

~~~~~~

+ in JD Vance when more spending bills come next year
 
McConnell was on Fox interview. the turtle is nauseously Swampish -so a little goes a long way

He reacted to Josh Hawley's Tweet -
against the bill because it did not serve “American interests.”
“It neglects priorities at home (the border), allows Europe to freeload, short changes critical interests abroad and comes w/ no meaningful oversight,” Hawley said.
Click to expand...

McConnell dismissed it as "isolationist" and "beating Russia is the best thing to do to stop China"
( reacting to the Biden Asian trip)

That's it. no reasoning-just get the bad guys- and if you dont you are "isolationist"
sick fvcks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top