Mike Pompeo, a former U.S. State Secretary in Donald Trump’s administration, said in a comment for New Voice on Nov. 27 that whether his former boss or any other candidate wins the 2024 presidential election, the support for Ukraine will continue.
Mike Pompeo, a former U.S. State Secretary in Donald Trump’s administration, said in a comment for New Voice on Nov. 27 that whether his former boss or any other candidate wins the 2024 presidential election, the support for Ukraine will continue.
I don’t agree with you at all. Why do you think that this is the case?
Because if Trump, DeSantis, or someone equally as extreme manages to win the presidency, they’ve been pretty clear that they’re going fuck Ukraine over. Trump specifically took Zelensky’s refusal to play into his “stolen election” bullshit as a personal slight. That precise mentality of “you didn’t help me do something sketchy to increase my personal power so I’m going to fuck you over” is dismayingly prevalent in GOP circles today.
I realize that that is what you are claiming. I’m asking you to show the evidence for this. Why do you think that the US will end support for Ukraine?
Major figures in both parties have said that support is going to continue. This isn’t a particularly partisan issue.
But Republicans are holding up the current Ukraine aid bill in the House.
Republicans aren’t holding up the Ukraine aid bill in the House because they’re opposed to Ukraine aid. Even the people holding it up have stated that. They’re holding up the Ukraine aid bill because it’s a big, important bill, and they’re trying to use it as leverage to get their border policy – which is a big crowd-pleaser for their voters – through.
Similarly, Democrats aren’t holding up the Israel aid bill in the Senate because they’re opposed to Israel aid. They’re doing it for the same reason.
This stuff happens on a pretty regular basis in the US political system, and it’s part of how the system works. There are three different entities that can affect the legislative process – two legislative houses and the Presidency – and it’s rare for both parties to control all three. In any situation other than that, you’ll see parties blocking legislation to obtain leverage to get what they want.
But Trump said that he would end the war in 24 hours.
Trump also said in his last campaign that he would have Mexico pay for a wall between the US and Mexico. Trump has put numerous short statements out on campaign that aren’t even consistent with his own statements; I remember him saying that he would increase H1-B visas in one campaign stop in his last campaign where that was popular, and decrease them in another. He’s made quite a few one-liners like that, and they don’t wind up translating into policy.
When Trump was in office, he was pretty unremarkable from a policy standpoint. How he presented himself was unusual. But he didn’t represent dramatic change from a policy standpoint. Hell, even the “wall” that was the centerpiece of his last campaign – and some wall was built – was a rehashed form of Bush’s fence that he scored points with voters on.
There are two parties in the US. These parties are centrist, big-tent, and from a policy standpoint, don’t dramatically differ. Most policy stays pretty similar from administration to administration. But even if they did differ, most foreign policy isn’t driven at the political level – the people who are doing that are bureaucrats lower down in the executive branch. They don’t change from election to election. There are rare exceptions, like popular opposition to the Vietnam War, where politics does get seriously involved. But that’s not the norm. The US has had the same parties in place for a long time, and US foreign policy doesn’t whipsaw back and forth election by election. This isn’t our first time around the block on this.
“There are two parties in the US. These parties are centrist, big-tent, and from a policy standpoint, don’t dramatically differ.”
If you think this, then I can see why you disagree. I’d have to ask by what measure do you make this claim? Or compared to what exactly? Personally I think this opinion out of date.
In my view, depending on how you look at it, the US has either 2 or 3 parties. Democrats, Republicans and MAGA. Traditional Republicans are so diminished some, myself included, consider them to not even be relevant. Heck Dems are more like traditional Republicans than Republicans are now.
MAGA is not centrist or big-tent and there are enough of them that can break things or hold hostages or say elect a religious lunny to be speaker of the house. They cling to extremist positions and absurd conspiracy theories, and attempt to force their will on to others. They run impeachment proceeding based on zero evidence with the hope they will turn something up to have to talk about and since there is nothing to find apparently, they literally make stuff up. They do not want to fund Ukraine for, some reason, and presently they are winning on that.
MAGA isn’t even a faction – it’s just a Trump campaign slogan. If you mean that there are nativists who complain about immigration, sure, but those have always been around. This isn’t even a particularly notable time for them; the Know-Nothings or the anti-Chinese riots back around 1870 were considerably stronger.
As to the conspiracy theorist stuff:
Being a big-tent party means that one has to suck in all of the voters from a broad range of areas. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are gonna include groups of voters that have views that are kinda out there. But that doesn’t mean that that’s what winds up being adopted as policy. The conspiracy stuff isn’t new. There’s been a conspiracy theorist crowd going waaay back into US political history. If it were the 1970s, the right-wing form would be something like the John Birch Society.
What you don’t have is terminating Ukraine aid being the centerpiece of any political campaign. Donald Trump’s campaign website doesn’t even mention Ukraine on its issues portion. The only reference to Russia on said page is about how Biden isn’t tough enough on Russia and how Trump would take a harder line on Russia. There’s no overwhelming opposition to supporting Ukraine in Pew or Gallup polls, and foreign policy doesn’t usually rate all that high in importance anyway when it comes to US domestic politics.
I am clear on what MAGA is and in case you didn’t notice there is a sizable enough of a group of R house of rep members who are MAGA zealots. I already mentioned these kooks, if you don’t want to call the extremist Repub T worshippers, MAGA then that’s fine but I think you are missing something fundamental.
"The only reference to Russia on said page is about how Biden isn’t tough enough on Russia and how Trump would take a harder line on Russia. "
So we should just forget about what T actually did while in office and use this absurd claim from his campaign website as “evidence”? The man is a gigantic liar.
Words are wind. If the President isn’t one of those “major figures”, it means fuck all.
Trump is a known liar. McConnell will get behind whoever has power. Most of the #GOP in the House are outright #Ruzzia supporting #fascists.
Anyone going by the GOP’s “words” instead of their past actions, needs their head examined.