Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png

 

Amidst a turbulent political landscape, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is boldly pushing forward with a comprehensive foreign aid package despite facing fierce opposition from within his own party. The ambitious initiative, aimed at providing critical military support to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, has garnered early Democratic support while igniting a firestorm of dissent among Republicans.

 

Johnson's strategy encompasses a multipronged approach, offering separate votes on military assistance to key allies alongside a broader Republican national security agenda. However, the plan has triggered a backlash from various factions within the GOP, including spending hawks concerned about the national debt, isolationists prioritizing domestic issues, and border security advocates disappointed by the omission of tougher measures.

 

The Speaker's leadership has come under intense scrutiny, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) leading the charge to oust him from power. Greene's resolution to remove Johnson is looming over the upcoming votes on Ukraine, threatening to escalate tensions within the party. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has pledged support for Johnson's removal if Greene's resolution advances, highlighting the growing rift among Republicans.

 

Despite the mounting opposition, Johnson remains steadfast in his commitment to the foreign aid package, dismissing the ouster effort as "absurd" and focusing on fulfilling his duties as Speaker. His recent endorsement by former President Trump at Mar-a-Lago provided a significant boost, offering reassurance amidst the turmoil.

 

While Johnson faces internal challenges, he has found unexpected support from Democrats eager to advance the aid package. However, concerns remain about the inclusion of certain provisions and the exclusion of border security measures, further complicating the legislative process.

 

The GOP's reaction to Johnson's plan has been mixed, with conservatives praising the opportunity for separate votes while criticizing the omission of key priorities. Johnson's decision to prohibit border security amendments has fueled frustration among hard-liners, highlighting the delicate balancing act he faces within his party.

 

Despite the discord, no other Republicans have publicly joined Greene and Massie in their push to remove Johnson. Many are wary of the potential consequences of such a move, opting instead to voice their grievances internally.

 

As tensions escalate within the GOP, Johnson's leadership is put to the test. With the fate of the foreign aid package hanging in the balance, the Speaker navigates a precarious political landscape, seeking to unite his fractured party while advancing key national security objectives.

 

17.04.24

Source

 

image.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, NativeBob said:

Me think same-same war crimals that invaded countries in Middle East [and other places] are being called "veterans".

Don't blame the soldiers that were ordered there Hoss. The war criminals  for example: The Bush , Cheney , Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz cabal that sent the soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan 

Posted
2 minutes ago, morrobay said:

Don't blame the soldiers that were ordered there Hoss. The war criminals  for example: The Bush , Cheney , Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz cabal that sent the soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan 

the only reply: Nuremberg

"We really didn't like to VX and gas chambers, but we were ordered"

  • Confused 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, johng said:

How is a US congressman supporting Ukraine patriotic ? 

surely a US citizen supporting the US is patriotic....what would he be if he supported Russia ?

And It's not like other countries such as Russia and China would consider that it is useful and patriotic to be influent on the world scene,  support allies, and counter the influence of other powers.

Oh wait! 😁

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, johng said:

but no money to secure the southern border

Money that go to military complex and CIA are going into wallets of "fat corrupt cats".

Money for social programs are easy trackable hence less "attractive"  

  • Sad 2
  • Agree 2
Posted

With the bill split in different parts I think Johnson will get democratic support.

  • Love It 1
Posted
14 hours ago, morrobay said:

Don't blame the soldiers that were ordered there Hoss. The war criminals  for example: The Bush , Cheney , Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz cabal that sent the soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan 

You left out obumer... on purpose???

  • Confused 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...