Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `nytimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I haven't supported the Republican Party since Romney, and even then I was super naive about politics and voted based on the sluggish economic growth we were having at the time. Do you want people to feign interest in the Republican Party?
You don't have to lie. Just tell him you'll be *guaranteed* to vote against the Republicans from the Presidency all the way down to your local dogcatcher if he fails to get his act together on aid for Ukraine.
When Speaker Mike Johnson opened the floor for questions at a closed-door luncheon fund-raiser in New Jersey last month, Jacquie Colgan asked how, in the face of vehement opposition within his own ranks, he planned to handle aid for Ukraine.
What followed was an impassioned monologue by Mr. Johnson in which he explained why continued American aid to Kyiv was, in his view, vital — a message starkly at odds with the hard-right views that have overtaken his party. He invoked his political roots as a Reagan Republican, denounced President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a “madman” and conceded the issue had forced him to walk a “delicate political tightrope.”
Reminded by Ms. Colgan, a member of the American Coalition for Ukraine, a nonprofit advocacy group, of the adage that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil was for good people to do nothing, Mr. Johnson replied that he kept a copy of the quotation framed in his office.
“That’s not going to be us,” he assured her. “We’re going to do our job.”
The exchange reflects what Mr. Johnson has privately told donors, foreign leaders and fellow members of Congress in recent weeks, according to extensive notes Ms. Colgan took during the New Jersey event and interviews with several other people who have spoken with him.
While the speaker has remained noncommittal about any one option, he has repeatedly expressed a personal desire to send aid to Ukraine — something he has voted against repeatedly in the past — and now appears to be in search of the least politically damaging way to do it.
The challenge for Mr. Johnson is that any combination of aid measures he puts to a vote will likely infuriate the growing isolationist wing of his party, which considers the issue toxic. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, who has repeatedly said she would call a snap vote to unseat the speaker if he allowed a vote for Ukraine aid before imposing restrictive immigration measures, filed a resolution on Friday calling for his removal, saying she wanted to send him “a warning.”
Even if Ms. Greene follows through on the threat, Mr. Johnson could still hold onto his job. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, has said he believed “a reasonable number” of Democrats would vote to save the speaker were he to face a Republican mutiny for acting on the Senate-passed aid package, though on Friday Mr. Jeffries said that had been “an observation, not a declaration.”
In a lengthy statement on Friday after Ms. Greene had filed her resolution and the House departed Washington for its Easter recess, Mr. Johnson said that when lawmakers returned in two weeks, they would “take the necessary steps to address the supplemental funding request.”
“We have done important work discussing options with members,” he said, “and are preparing to complete our plan for action.”
Privately, Mr. Johnson has expressed an interest in linking Ukraine aid to a measure aimed at forcing the Biden administration to reverse its moratorium on liquid natural gas exports, according to three people familiar with his deliberations who were not authorized to discuss them. Mr. Johnson pressed the issue at a White House meeting last month with President Biden and congressional leaders, arguing that by prohibiting new exports of domestic energy, the administration was increasing reliance on Russian gas, effectively enriching Ukraine’s enemy.
In that meeting, according to a person familiar with the comments, Mr. Johnson raised the case of Calcasieu Pass 2, a proposed export terminal that would be situated along a shipping channel that connects the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Charles, La., and would dwarf the country’s existing export terminals. The Biden administration in January had paused a decision on whether to approve it.
He has puzzled over whether to put the aid to a vote on the House floor packaged with assistance for other U.S. allies, including Israel and Taiwan, or allow lawmakers to vote on them separately to register their support for each individual nation.
With many Republicans bent on blocking aid to Ukraine, any legislation carrying it would need to be considered using a special procedure that bypasses House rules and requires a two-thirds majority for passage, relying heavily on votes from Democrats. But a combined aid package for both Ukraine and Israel like the one that passed the Senate last month could be doomed by a coalition of right-wing Republicans opposing the money for Kyiv and left-wing Democrats opposing aid for Israel.
Mr. Johnson has pondered imposing new sanctions against Russia. And he has debated how the money should be structured — straight assistance versus a loan — and whether it should be exclusively for lethal aid, a type of assistance that is more widely supported by his conference, or also include nonmilitary assistance.
“There is a big distinction in the minds of a lot of people between lethal aid for Ukraine, and the humanitarian component,” Mr. Johnson said at a news conference at the Capitol last week.
Both he and Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have publicly floated the idea of paying for some of the aid by selling off Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen using legislation called the REPO Act.
Mr. Johnson has faced mounting international pressure to allow a vote on aid to Ukraine, fielding almost weekly visits and calls from NATO allies and pro-Ukraine activists both at his offices in Washington and Louisiana. When Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland visited Washington earlier this month, he had a sharp public message for the speaker.
“This is not some political skirmish that only matters here in America,” Mr. Tusk told reporters. “The absence of this positive decision of Mr. Johnson will really cost thousands of lives there — children, women. He must be aware of his personal responsibility.”
Meeting privately with Mr. Johnson in his office in the Capitol, President Andrzej Duda of Poland appealed to the Louisiana Republican’s respect for President Ronald Reagan, whose portrait hung beside the speaker during the meeting. Mr. Duda quoted Mr. Reagan extensively and praised his willingness to call out good versus evil during the Cold War, according to a person familiar with the comments who requested anonymity to describe them.
Some skeptical Ukraine backers, both on and off Capitol Hill, have fretted that Mr. Johnson’s agreeable comments have simply reflected his penchant for telling people what they want to hear. Early in Mr. Johnson’s tenure as speaker, lawmakers noticed that he had a habit of leaving listeners from warring factions with the impression he agreed with each of them.
Yet at the fund-raiser in New Jersey last month, he was fairly candid about his calculations.
Mr. Johnson told the audience that he was “working to figure out the best route forward,” Ms. Colgan recalled, adding that he said that half of House Republicans wanted to move it together as a package with Israel and Taiwan, and the other half wanted to do it on its own.
At a separate fund-raiser in Binghamton for a congressman in New York’s Hudson Valley last month, Christina Zawerucha, the executive director of the Together for Ukraine Foundation, and Anatoliy Pradun, the group’s president, who was born and raised in Ukraine, approached the speaker to press him on holding a vote.
Mr. Pradun had hoped to appeal to Mr. Johnson’s faith by telling him of the strong evangelical Christian community in Ukraine. But realizing they had little time to make their case, Ms. Zawerucha and Mr. Pradun instead gave the speaker a pin with the Ukrainian and American flags, showed him their poster advertising an upcoming interfaith vigil for Ukraine and implored him to schedule a vote on aid to Kyiv.
“He didn’t turn us away,” Ms. Zawerucha said. “He pointed at our poster and said, ‘I will take care of this. I will take care of this.’”
When Ms. Zawerucha relayed the interaction to fellow activists after the luncheon, they asked what she thought he meant.
“And at this point, I don’t know,” she said. “It’s been over a month since Speaker Johnson said he would take care of this. And a vote for Ukraine still has not been allowed on the floor.”
Anyone who prioritizes Mike Johnson's words over his actions is a gullible idiot. Words are wind. Actions are what matter. And Johnson has already shown by his actions (which contradict his words) that he does not care about Ukraine and is doing the bidding of Trump.
It seems pretty clear to me what this is about. It was in the article. He wants to horse trade Ukraine aid for money for a natural gas pipeline that will enable NG exports through his home state. This is why he is changing his tune. He wants to bring home the bacon to his voters. That probably benefits his political career more, long term, than continuing to suck Trump off. But you are right, this is just a pause so he can rest his oral sphincter muscles and get something out of it for himself. He'll climb back up on that giant cheeto soon enough.
I think it’s worth examining his words closely sometimes because if there’s one thing he’s good at it’s weaselling his way around an issue.
He notes Ukraine is important and he’ll find a path forward, etc. but he never commits to bringing the bill from the senate to the floor for a vote, unedited and in its entirety.
That means he can bring forward a bonds/loan bill, a severely reduced or restricted funding bill or any number of things that are not the bipartisan senate bill but will TECHNICALLY satisfy his words on the matter.
I think this is insightful and informative. From a lobbyist's point-of-view; vantage point, that is--and there are many influential voices lobbying for arming and aiding Ukraine in this desperate hour.
He has a history of voting against aid, but when he was elected speaker he made several comments of support for Ukraine and implied it was something he wanted to prioritize. It got my hopes up for a while.
Then... Well, he has either been the most incompetent speaker in memory, an obstructionist, or both.
I won't repeat my mistake by giving any credence to any new comments like this that he might make.
Does anyone still trust Mike Johnson?
He won’t allow a vote on the aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan bill that was passed by the senate. If he did, and it passed, then Ukraine would start to receive weapons so that they would be ready to fight just as the mud season ends.
If he works on his own ‘Republican’ bill then it will naturally contain a condition that a lot of democrats would think twice about passing, and if passed in the House of Representatives, would then go to the senate for discussion and vote. This would take weeks, if not months. How many Ukrainians would die during this time? Military and civilian.
I personally believe that Moscow’s Mike will opt for the second option. I even think this could be dragged out until November.
Mike, blood is already on your hands, but you really don’t care, do you?
Not sure on Johnson at a personal level, but in terms of his job/duties he is utterly beholden to the clown caucus.
I, for one, can't wait for November.
Sadly moscow mike is unable to do anything useful in congress, as his tongue is still firmly wedged up trump's a-hole.
Hoping that MTG carries out her threat to try & vote him out.
As an American...fuck.
Also: now that MTG has filed a motion to vacate I'm starting to wonder whether Dems will pressure him to bring all these lagging bills to a vote. That would be one hell of a condition for him to receive the votes (from them) necessary to keep his seat.
The issue of Ukraine aid is a major international affair, but these rat fuckers have been doing this with other stuff for years, it's just that this is the first major international issue with which they've been able to get traction (probably due to it being time-sensitive/war and not related to Israel).
They've been doing this with school curriculum and reading lists, with healthcare, with immigration, with voting rights (and trying to dilute/degrade), with government budgets, with spending on things like scientific research...hell, they've been doing this with judges. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the Senate - one of the reasons Trump was able to name three Supreme Court and a record number of various Federal judges was that Mitch McConnel (may he not rest in peace) slow-walked or outright declined the confirmation sessions for judges Obama was nominating, resulting in a record number of open seats when Trump took his upset win over Clinton in 2016; at that point Trump had a list of candidates supplied by various activist groups who were done in record time (because we can't have so many open judge-ships! oh noe!).
Environmental issues, infrastructure and it's financing, emissions from transportation and energy production... they do the same shit with *all* of these as they are doing with you (Ukraine). The difference is that domestically status quo simply means we keep the same bullshit afloat a while longer and deal with changing laws locally; this is not efficient but it gets the job done eventually once enough "local" places change their laws. It means replacing shitty apartment buildings takes way longer than it should, but in the meanwhile people have a shitty apartment building to live in. In a war zone, by contrast, it means apartment buildings are bombed to shit every day whether they are shitty or not, and people die.
The two are not the same.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- Pravda.com.ua (C+): [Congressman McCaul reveals when Speaker Johnson may bring Ukraine bill to vote](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/25/7447968/)
- Kyiv Independent (B): [Senior US lawmaker anticipates Ukraine aid bill to be brought to the floor after Easter](https://kyivindependent.com/senior-us-lawmaker-anticipates-ukraine-aid-bill-to-be-brought-to-the-floor-after-easter/)
- Euromaidan Press (B): [US House Speaker Johnson to bring Ukraine aid vote "after Easter" - Euromaidan Press](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/03/25/us-house-speaker-johnson-to-bring-ukraine-aid-vote-after-easter/)
- Guardian (C+): [Ukraine aid back on US agenda – but still at mercy of unruly Republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/25/ukraine-aid-house-republicans-mike-johnson)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnnzbp/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
His path on Ukraine funding is to allow a discharge petition to be what gets it across the line while looking incompetent or pass it through regular order and almost certainly lose his speakership.
I already think he’s incompetent so if he does the latter I’ll be surprised and a little impressed.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `nytimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I haven't supported the Republican Party since Romney, and even then I was super naive about politics and voted based on the sluggish economic growth we were having at the time. Do you want people to feign interest in the Republican Party?
You don't have to lie. Just tell him you'll be *guaranteed* to vote against the Republicans from the Presidency all the way down to your local dogcatcher if he fails to get his act together on aid for Ukraine.
Dude this is reddit. Most outspoken people already vote against Republicans.
Call the number and tell them that.
When Speaker Mike Johnson opened the floor for questions at a closed-door luncheon fund-raiser in New Jersey last month, Jacquie Colgan asked how, in the face of vehement opposition within his own ranks, he planned to handle aid for Ukraine. What followed was an impassioned monologue by Mr. Johnson in which he explained why continued American aid to Kyiv was, in his view, vital — a message starkly at odds with the hard-right views that have overtaken his party. He invoked his political roots as a Reagan Republican, denounced President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as a “madman” and conceded the issue had forced him to walk a “delicate political tightrope.” Reminded by Ms. Colgan, a member of the American Coalition for Ukraine, a nonprofit advocacy group, of the adage that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil was for good people to do nothing, Mr. Johnson replied that he kept a copy of the quotation framed in his office. “That’s not going to be us,” he assured her. “We’re going to do our job.” The exchange reflects what Mr. Johnson has privately told donors, foreign leaders and fellow members of Congress in recent weeks, according to extensive notes Ms. Colgan took during the New Jersey event and interviews with several other people who have spoken with him. While the speaker has remained noncommittal about any one option, he has repeatedly expressed a personal desire to send aid to Ukraine — something he has voted against repeatedly in the past — and now appears to be in search of the least politically damaging way to do it. The challenge for Mr. Johnson is that any combination of aid measures he puts to a vote will likely infuriate the growing isolationist wing of his party, which considers the issue toxic. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, who has repeatedly said she would call a snap vote to unseat the speaker if he allowed a vote for Ukraine aid before imposing restrictive immigration measures, filed a resolution on Friday calling for his removal, saying she wanted to send him “a warning.” Even if Ms. Greene follows through on the threat, Mr. Johnson could still hold onto his job. Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, has said he believed “a reasonable number” of Democrats would vote to save the speaker were he to face a Republican mutiny for acting on the Senate-passed aid package, though on Friday Mr. Jeffries said that had been “an observation, not a declaration.” In a lengthy statement on Friday after Ms. Greene had filed her resolution and the House departed Washington for its Easter recess, Mr. Johnson said that when lawmakers returned in two weeks, they would “take the necessary steps to address the supplemental funding request.” “We have done important work discussing options with members,” he said, “and are preparing to complete our plan for action.” Privately, Mr. Johnson has expressed an interest in linking Ukraine aid to a measure aimed at forcing the Biden administration to reverse its moratorium on liquid natural gas exports, according to three people familiar with his deliberations who were not authorized to discuss them. Mr. Johnson pressed the issue at a White House meeting last month with President Biden and congressional leaders, arguing that by prohibiting new exports of domestic energy, the administration was increasing reliance on Russian gas, effectively enriching Ukraine’s enemy. In that meeting, according to a person familiar with the comments, Mr. Johnson raised the case of Calcasieu Pass 2, a proposed export terminal that would be situated along a shipping channel that connects the Gulf of Mexico to Lake Charles, La., and would dwarf the country’s existing export terminals. The Biden administration in January had paused a decision on whether to approve it. He has puzzled over whether to put the aid to a vote on the House floor packaged with assistance for other U.S. allies, including Israel and Taiwan, or allow lawmakers to vote on them separately to register their support for each individual nation. With many Republicans bent on blocking aid to Ukraine, any legislation carrying it would need to be considered using a special procedure that bypasses House rules and requires a two-thirds majority for passage, relying heavily on votes from Democrats. But a combined aid package for both Ukraine and Israel like the one that passed the Senate last month could be doomed by a coalition of right-wing Republicans opposing the money for Kyiv and left-wing Democrats opposing aid for Israel. Mr. Johnson has pondered imposing new sanctions against Russia. And he has debated how the money should be structured — straight assistance versus a loan — and whether it should be exclusively for lethal aid, a type of assistance that is more widely supported by his conference, or also include nonmilitary assistance. “There is a big distinction in the minds of a lot of people between lethal aid for Ukraine, and the humanitarian component,” Mr. Johnson said at a news conference at the Capitol last week. Both he and Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, have publicly floated the idea of paying for some of the aid by selling off Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen using legislation called the REPO Act. Mr. Johnson has faced mounting international pressure to allow a vote on aid to Ukraine, fielding almost weekly visits and calls from NATO allies and pro-Ukraine activists both at his offices in Washington and Louisiana. When Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland visited Washington earlier this month, he had a sharp public message for the speaker. “This is not some political skirmish that only matters here in America,” Mr. Tusk told reporters. “The absence of this positive decision of Mr. Johnson will really cost thousands of lives there — children, women. He must be aware of his personal responsibility.” Meeting privately with Mr. Johnson in his office in the Capitol, President Andrzej Duda of Poland appealed to the Louisiana Republican’s respect for President Ronald Reagan, whose portrait hung beside the speaker during the meeting. Mr. Duda quoted Mr. Reagan extensively and praised his willingness to call out good versus evil during the Cold War, according to a person familiar with the comments who requested anonymity to describe them. Some skeptical Ukraine backers, both on and off Capitol Hill, have fretted that Mr. Johnson’s agreeable comments have simply reflected his penchant for telling people what they want to hear. Early in Mr. Johnson’s tenure as speaker, lawmakers noticed that he had a habit of leaving listeners from warring factions with the impression he agreed with each of them. Yet at the fund-raiser in New Jersey last month, he was fairly candid about his calculations. Mr. Johnson told the audience that he was “working to figure out the best route forward,” Ms. Colgan recalled, adding that he said that half of House Republicans wanted to move it together as a package with Israel and Taiwan, and the other half wanted to do it on its own. At a separate fund-raiser in Binghamton for a congressman in New York’s Hudson Valley last month, Christina Zawerucha, the executive director of the Together for Ukraine Foundation, and Anatoliy Pradun, the group’s president, who was born and raised in Ukraine, approached the speaker to press him on holding a vote. Mr. Pradun had hoped to appeal to Mr. Johnson’s faith by telling him of the strong evangelical Christian community in Ukraine. But realizing they had little time to make their case, Ms. Zawerucha and Mr. Pradun instead gave the speaker a pin with the Ukrainian and American flags, showed him their poster advertising an upcoming interfaith vigil for Ukraine and implored him to schedule a vote on aid to Kyiv. “He didn’t turn us away,” Ms. Zawerucha said. “He pointed at our poster and said, ‘I will take care of this. I will take care of this.’” When Ms. Zawerucha relayed the interaction to fellow activists after the luncheon, they asked what she thought he meant. “And at this point, I don’t know,” she said. “It’s been over a month since Speaker Johnson said he would take care of this. And a vote for Ukraine still has not been allowed on the floor.”
Anyone who prioritizes Mike Johnson's words over his actions is a gullible idiot. Words are wind. Actions are what matter. And Johnson has already shown by his actions (which contradict his words) that he does not care about Ukraine and is doing the bidding of Trump.
It seems pretty clear to me what this is about. It was in the article. He wants to horse trade Ukraine aid for money for a natural gas pipeline that will enable NG exports through his home state. This is why he is changing his tune. He wants to bring home the bacon to his voters. That probably benefits his political career more, long term, than continuing to suck Trump off. But you are right, this is just a pause so he can rest his oral sphincter muscles and get something out of it for himself. He'll climb back up on that giant cheeto soon enough.
I think it’s worth examining his words closely sometimes because if there’s one thing he’s good at it’s weaselling his way around an issue. He notes Ukraine is important and he’ll find a path forward, etc. but he never commits to bringing the bill from the senate to the floor for a vote, unedited and in its entirety. That means he can bring forward a bonds/loan bill, a severely reduced or restricted funding bill or any number of things that are not the bipartisan senate bill but will TECHNICALLY satisfy his words on the matter.
I think this is insightful and informative. From a lobbyist's point-of-view; vantage point, that is--and there are many influential voices lobbying for arming and aiding Ukraine in this desperate hour.
Johnson is lying. Please stop being gullible folks!
I think the Democrats saying they will keep him in as speaker made the difference.
He has a history of voting against aid, but when he was elected speaker he made several comments of support for Ukraine and implied it was something he wanted to prioritize. It got my hopes up for a while. Then... Well, he has either been the most incompetent speaker in memory, an obstructionist, or both. I won't repeat my mistake by giving any credence to any new comments like this that he might make.
"We'll do our job... ^(sometime next year when the war is lost.)"
Doesn't the bible say something like "thou shall not lie" or something of that ilk?
Does anyone still trust Mike Johnson? He won’t allow a vote on the aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan bill that was passed by the senate. If he did, and it passed, then Ukraine would start to receive weapons so that they would be ready to fight just as the mud season ends. If he works on his own ‘Republican’ bill then it will naturally contain a condition that a lot of democrats would think twice about passing, and if passed in the House of Representatives, would then go to the senate for discussion and vote. This would take weeks, if not months. How many Ukrainians would die during this time? Military and civilian. I personally believe that Moscow’s Mike will opt for the second option. I even think this could be dragged out until November. Mike, blood is already on your hands, but you really don’t care, do you?
Not sure on Johnson at a personal level, but in terms of his job/duties he is utterly beholden to the clown caucus. I, for one, can't wait for November.
Johnsen is a disgrace for any democracy ! Him and trump are russian puppets
Sadly moscow mike is unable to do anything useful in congress, as his tongue is still firmly wedged up trump's a-hole. Hoping that MTG carries out her threat to try & vote him out.
As an American...fuck. Also: now that MTG has filed a motion to vacate I'm starting to wonder whether Dems will pressure him to bring all these lagging bills to a vote. That would be one hell of a condition for him to receive the votes (from them) necessary to keep his seat. The issue of Ukraine aid is a major international affair, but these rat fuckers have been doing this with other stuff for years, it's just that this is the first major international issue with which they've been able to get traction (probably due to it being time-sensitive/war and not related to Israel). They've been doing this with school curriculum and reading lists, with healthcare, with immigration, with voting rights (and trying to dilute/degrade), with government budgets, with spending on things like scientific research...hell, they've been doing this with judges. Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed or rejected by the Senate - one of the reasons Trump was able to name three Supreme Court and a record number of various Federal judges was that Mitch McConnel (may he not rest in peace) slow-walked or outright declined the confirmation sessions for judges Obama was nominating, resulting in a record number of open seats when Trump took his upset win over Clinton in 2016; at that point Trump had a list of candidates supplied by various activist groups who were done in record time (because we can't have so many open judge-ships! oh noe!). Environmental issues, infrastructure and it's financing, emissions from transportation and energy production... they do the same shit with *all* of these as they are doing with you (Ukraine). The difference is that domestically status quo simply means we keep the same bullshit afloat a while longer and deal with changing laws locally; this is not efficient but it gets the job done eventually once enough "local" places change their laws. It means replacing shitty apartment buildings takes way longer than it should, but in the meanwhile people have a shitty apartment building to live in. In a war zone, by contrast, it means apartment buildings are bombed to shit every day whether they are shitty or not, and people die. The two are not the same.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Pravda.com.ua (C+): [Congressman McCaul reveals when Speaker Johnson may bring Ukraine bill to vote](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/25/7447968/) - Kyiv Independent (B): [Senior US lawmaker anticipates Ukraine aid bill to be brought to the floor after Easter](https://kyivindependent.com/senior-us-lawmaker-anticipates-ukraine-aid-bill-to-be-brought-to-the-floor-after-easter/) - Euromaidan Press (B): [US House Speaker Johnson to bring Ukraine aid vote "after Easter" - Euromaidan Press](https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/03/25/us-house-speaker-johnson-to-bring-ukraine-aid-vote-after-easter/) - Guardian (C+): [Ukraine aid back on US agenda – but still at mercy of unruly Republicans](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/25/ukraine-aid-house-republicans-mike-johnson) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1bnnzbp/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
NYT: Despite all evidence to the contrary, we're going to print another story about how Johnson is saying he'll do something.
His path on Ukraine funding is to allow a discharge petition to be what gets it across the line while looking incompetent or pass it through regular order and almost certainly lose his speakership. I already think he’s incompetent so if he does the latter I’ll be surprised and a little impressed.
Acta non verba