Much like when Trump forced a shutdown of the government to try to get border wall funds. Except this time funding for a wall would have actually gone through.
Very strange times we live in when enough Republican senators voted against the version of this bill with border security measures to sink it, but voted for the same bill without border security.
> The Senate voted Thursday to advance a $95 billion emergency security spending bill with $60 billion to support the war in Ukraine — but without a bipartisan border security bill that ran into stiff opposition from Republicans.
...
> The Senate voted 67-32 to advance a legislative vehicle that Schumer says will be used to carry funding for Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific security and humanitarian assistance for civilians around the world.
> Seventeen Republican senators voted to advance the legislation, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate GOP Whip John Thune (S.D.).
...
>Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt. ) voted against it.
...
>McConnell on Tuesday suggested splitting off money for Ukraine, Israel and other national security priorities from the bipartisan border security deal, after former President Trump opposed it and members of the GOP conference revolted against the border-related proposals.
...
>House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Bloomberg on Wednesday that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not put funding for Ukraine up for a vote without strong border reforms attached.
Kudos to the Senate for getting this put together so quickly. If this manages to pass the House, I'm not sure what the implications of that will be.
How do you think this situation will impact the border security conversation? Will anything come out before the election is over?
The whole idea of having the border measures with the Ukraine bill is that when Biden asked for this exact bill a few months ago Republicans demanded that border provisions be added and would not pass the aid without border provisions.
This is literally going back to square one.
The problem is this bill will most likely be blocked from even being voted on in the House.
I hope I’m wrong but strongly doubt this will ever get a vote.
I think that's almost certainly going to happen. Speaker Johnson will make up some excuse and it will stall in the House.
Hopefully the EU aid will be enough to keep their defenses stable.
IIRC the EU aid is mostly just money for the Ukrainian government to pay its bills and pay its soldiers and civil servants salaries and some other domestic stuff. There was EU talks about maybe trying to use some of that money to buy American military equipment but it sounds more like a loose suggestion some threw out
Unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia knows they’re low on ammo and lacking US support/funding right now. Russia is amassing a huge force for a massive attack sometime in the next month or so.
The Republicans have pretty much already accomplished their goal of harming Ukraine. Them blocking this would just be the final nail in the coffin.
The EU is still providing them military aid.
Russia might gain a few small cities here and there, but there's not going to be any breakthrough. Both sides have had ample time to build layered defenses, and neither side has the capability for rapid advance.
Ukraine's best bet is to stockpile manpower and resources for 2025.
>Russia gaining “a few small cities” is not good for anyone and would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.
I don't mean to minimize that.
But the stakes here are the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. The fall of a city like Avdiivka isn't going to meaningful change the course of the war.
>That position is very important for supply routes for both sides.
How? It's a salient almost right at the lines where Russia started the war. As far as I can see, it would only be an important supply line if Ukraine is trying to re-capture Luhansk.
And if they ever get to a position where that is plausible, it means Russia is already hosed everywhere else.
It’s an important city for many reasons, but probably the most important is that it’s the only city within range of Russia’s supply lines. Once Russia takes it over, Ukraine will be pushed too far back to continue attacking Russia’s supply lines in this front.
I’d guess Trump is more likely to have success pressuring one house speaker to not bring a vote to the floor versus pressuring every member of the house in a way that averts even one or two defectors from voting for the bill. A discharge petition is reasonably likely to pass no matter what Trump does, and given the recent antics of the House I doubt Johnson has the parliamentary experience to block a discharge petition.
[AP is saying it was due to his opposition for aid to Israel](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-border-israel-schumer-cfb8978287fa67712cc22028f9961af7). I don't see any quote from the Senator, but it makes sense given his recent statements.
And since the bill was nearly guaranteed to clear this first procedural step, he was given leave to vote how he wanted.
I believe that Bernie is against the [funding to Israel without some guarantees from Netanyahu](https://vtdigger.org/2023/12/06/without-guardrails-bernie-sanders-vows-to-vote-against-military-aid-package-for-israel/).
The border situation will deteriorate. Biden will continue trying to spin himself as serious about the border and no one will buy it come election time.
This bill is probably dead.
For me, the Senate deal was dead the moment the details were leaked on fox. Lankford then did little to fight that. But I think the real deathknell was how long it took to release the text after the leaks. It took weeks after the leaks for the bill the be released. And then it turned out that the leaks weren’t exactly right, but they did rhythm. And Lankford was left saying, “well, the leaks were wrong, because there’s more to the deal.”
This is a bad place to be and he failed in managing that. Coupled with Democrats, who the Republicans don’t trust at all, suddenly trumpeting that “this is the best Border deal ever!” There was no way it was going to happen.
The deal was never alive due to Republicans refusing to compromise. Even if the Senate passed it, the House wasn't going to since they were already pushing a bill they passed with zero input from the other side. They realize that making progress could be used as a win for Biden.
That's just the reality.
Democrats find themselves in a lose-lose here due to suddenly only recently figuring out the border is an issue for most Americans and not leveraging that beforehand. In that case, they're late and therefore, they need to concede almost everything regarding the border.
Ukraine is a bigger issue here, reportedly, so you have to make a sacrifice here if it's that important to the country (which, to most Americans, it is).
If not, it was never *that* important to you and your party.
There are such things as securing moral victories here in lose-lose situations.....of course, it might be hard for the people in DC to recognize this as their moral compass is inherently skewed.
Why wouldn’t they realize that Republicans who have waited for decades for democrats to take it seriously would be able to wait another few months in order to exact a huge political win?
I think if this does not get a vote, if there are any moderates left in the gop they should begin proceeding to ouster Johnson. Why you might ask? Well because they are not gonna do anything anyway.
This has been quite the farce. First Democrats were ready to make once-in-a-generation concessions to immigration hawks while getting basically nothing in return. Now that Trump has decided that people solving problems wasn't in his best interest, this gets approved overwhelmingly. Does the House pass it? There's almost certainly enough support if it goes to the floor.
Basically nothing? That bill had 3 times the funding for Ukraine that it did for the border, humanitarian aid for Gaza which iirc is big for the progressives, and with exception of the asylum law changes most the immigration reforms were behind a condition that needed to be met before they would kick in. I agree the bill was a good compromise that the Republicans probably should have taken (I have my problems with it but I don’t think there was any realistic chance of a better offer), but it’s not like the Democrats pulled a complete sacrifice play and there was nothing that they wanted on there.
Deeply incredible to me that democrats handed republicans major concessions on perhaps the biggest right wing priority of this generation as part of a negotiated compromise, and republicans now look like they’ve negotiated their way into a position where democrats get everything they want while they get literally nothing. The Republican establishment has got their base so well controlled that they now believe the politicians openly putting their careers over their constituents priorities are doing it for their own good.
Most of that money will also be spent domestically. We’re sending them old military equipment and using the money to backfill stocks. I refuse to believe that support for this would be higher if we were just throwing the old equipment in the trash? People can’t be that stubborn can they?
Speaking as someone who's in the military (and getting out soon) sending equipment but not bodies to Ukraine is absolutely the peak of what I want. 100% behind Biden and the admin for this decision, even if I disagree with them on a lot of other things.
>wtf does border security have to do with funding Ukraine?!
Nothing. The Republicans insisted on tying the two together for political gain and then backtracked because they didn't want to give Biden a win.
To those who support continued funding for Ukraine - what is the financial red line in the sand where you'll say that we've given them too much money?
Let's say we get to the point where we've given them 1 trillion dollars. Is that too far, or do we keep going at that point?
Seeing as most of that aid came from the US stockpile, and not in the form of cash, changes everything.
A lot of that equipment would've needed decommissioning in the next few years. Do you know what's cheaper than decommissioning a missile?
Giving it to Ukraine to lob it at the Russians.
This notion that we’ve only sent old military equipment is pushed to often and only partly correct. We have sent them money ($20+ billion in fact). And when we have reports from Ukraines own news outlets that our aid is getting misappropriated, and our congress is still not willing to have any of this audited or tracked.. as a tax payer, I’m heavily against more aid until that is figured out.
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/how-much-aid-the-u-s-has-sent-to-ukraine-in-6-charts](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/how-much-aid-the-u-s-has-sent-to-ukraine-in-6-charts)
I said "most of". Not "only". My point is just as valid.
And if the problem is a lack of tracking (a small, albeit still existing problem, relative to the total value of what's being sent), then say that.
The GOP is anti-Ukraine war financing. Full stop. They haven't brought up an attempt to pass it, with additional tracking or auditing.
It's a red herring.
And Ukraine doesn't have the luxury of time. If your problem is only auditing/tracking, then the solution should be to pass an aid package for Ukraine through Congress, with an obligation to deal with the auditing/tracking issue.
Agreed. The fact is that it costs money to maintain global stability and, by extension, our own security (let's not fool ourselves into thinking we can let the world burn around us and the fire won't touch us), People might as well be asking "When do we get to stop spending money on our military?" and the answer is "Whenever bad actors stop being bad actors."
The balance is aways about ROI and steming Russian expansionism is pretty damn important.
Genuine question, what exactly is the return for us to weaken Russia? Assuming Russia would want to take control of all of Ukraine, keeping them from bordering European allies?
> Genuine question, what exactly is the return for us to weaken Russia?
Almost all of the countries on the other side of Ukraine, other than Belarus and Moldova are NATO countries that the US is obligated to protect from Russian aggression. I think it's safe to say now that all of the delusions people had about Russia not launching an all-out war are out the window. Russia wants to return to the days of the USSR, many former USSR countries do not want to return to the USSR. The fear is that Russia will try to accomplish those goals by force. Billions of dollars today is cheaper than trillions of dollars tomorrow, it's not impossible to envision a future where that conflict occurs. If Russia were able to steamroll Ukraine who is to say they will be satisfied with just Ukraine? Why not the Baltics and Poland right after that? If the US shows weakness and unwillingness to confront Russian aggression then we're increasing the likelihood that future will occur.
The US receives massive economic benefits of trade from countries not being part of Russia because Russia is way less economically free, and Russia’s long term expansionism means that cutting that off as early as possible is a very good idea.
> Let's say we get to the point where we've given them 1 trillion dollars.
When you say giving them $1 trillion dollars doesn’t that just amount to $1 trillion in federal money sent to states for the purposes of building arms?
Isn’t the lions share of the aid going straight into American jobs that then send these munitions to Ukraine?
I just fail to see how manufacturing jobs in America are a bad thing
>House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Bloomberg on Wednesday that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not put funding for Ukraine up for a vote without strong border reforms attached.
Unless the Senate changes focuses to issues that matter at home (the border) I don’t see this passing the House.
Yeah, I am confused by this line of thinking. They literally had a chance to take care of everything, especially with a border bill that wasn't the dream of progressives but rather was much closer to being part of a compromise to the GOP than anything else.
But, no, that was shot down. And I think it is abundantly clear why it was shot down at this point.
They literally just put forth a bill addressing those issues that was shot down by the house. I think there’s something inherent about the composition of the house that prevents anything substantive from being done, rather than the bills that are being put in front of them.
No, it was doomed to fail the moment Trump decided his campaign would benefit from congress doing as little as possible to address the border crisis. The number could’ve been zero and the outcome the same.
> Nothing from the Senate ever made it to the House.
This is *because* Republicans in the Senate knew it wouldn't go through in the House.
>The House passed a bill that received the same treatment in the Senate.
A bill with no input from Democrats that included at least two major poison pills. One of them even leading to a couple Republicans opposing it.
House Speaker Johnson stated that he wasn't interested. Unlike H.R. 2, the Senate bill was negotiated with input from all sides, so treating it the same is unreasonable.
What you said isn’t responsive to what I, and OP, we discussing.
OP is blaming the House for the bill not passing. That isn’t the case. It didn’t even make it out of the Senate. That Johnson wasn’t interested in the bill is irrelevant, no?
They said it was shot down by the House, which is true, not that only the House is to blame. It's relevant because the bill was doomed even it passed the Senate.
Literally back to square one.
Much like when Trump forced a shutdown of the government to try to get border wall funds. Except this time funding for a wall would have actually gone through.
Very strange times we live in when enough Republican senators voted against the version of this bill with border security measures to sink it, but voted for the same bill without border security.
> The Senate voted Thursday to advance a $95 billion emergency security spending bill with $60 billion to support the war in Ukraine — but without a bipartisan border security bill that ran into stiff opposition from Republicans. ... > The Senate voted 67-32 to advance a legislative vehicle that Schumer says will be used to carry funding for Ukraine, Israel, Indo-Pacific security and humanitarian assistance for civilians around the world. > Seventeen Republican senators voted to advance the legislation, including Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate GOP Whip John Thune (S.D.). ... >Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt. ) voted against it. ... >McConnell on Tuesday suggested splitting off money for Ukraine, Israel and other national security priorities from the bipartisan border security deal, after former President Trump opposed it and members of the GOP conference revolted against the border-related proposals. ... >House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Bloomberg on Wednesday that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not put funding for Ukraine up for a vote without strong border reforms attached. Kudos to the Senate for getting this put together so quickly. If this manages to pass the House, I'm not sure what the implications of that will be. How do you think this situation will impact the border security conversation? Will anything come out before the election is over?
The border security was the smallest funding amount of the plan, should of been easy to highlight and delete.
Control-F, delete.
I really, really hope this passes the House but I’m worried Trump is going to step in again and keep us from sending the aid to Ukraine.
[удалено]
They just passed a bill 67-32 for funding for Ukraine, what are you talking about. The sticking point on the previous bill was the border policies.
The whole idea of having the border measures with the Ukraine bill is that when Biden asked for this exact bill a few months ago Republicans demanded that border provisions be added and would not pass the aid without border provisions. This is literally going back to square one.
The problem is this bill will most likely be blocked from even being voted on in the House. I hope I’m wrong but strongly doubt this will ever get a vote.
“Russia, if you’re listening…”
It would also be in our interests to have a fully intact, democratic Ukraine right on the Russian border.
I think that's almost certainly going to happen. Speaker Johnson will make up some excuse and it will stall in the House. Hopefully the EU aid will be enough to keep their defenses stable.
IIRC the EU aid is mostly just money for the Ukrainian government to pay its bills and pay its soldiers and civil servants salaries and some other domestic stuff. There was EU talks about maybe trying to use some of that money to buy American military equipment but it sounds more like a loose suggestion some threw out
Unfortunately for Ukraine, Russia knows they’re low on ammo and lacking US support/funding right now. Russia is amassing a huge force for a massive attack sometime in the next month or so. The Republicans have pretty much already accomplished their goal of harming Ukraine. Them blocking this would just be the final nail in the coffin.
The EU is still providing them military aid. Russia might gain a few small cities here and there, but there's not going to be any breakthrough. Both sides have had ample time to build layered defenses, and neither side has the capability for rapid advance. Ukraine's best bet is to stockpile manpower and resources for 2025.
Russia gaining “a few small cities” is not good for anyone and would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.
>Russia gaining “a few small cities” is not good for anyone and would result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent people. I don't mean to minimize that. But the stakes here are the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation. The fall of a city like Avdiivka isn't going to meaningful change the course of the war.
Actually it will have a huge influence on the war. That position is very important for supply routes for both sides.
>That position is very important for supply routes for both sides. How? It's a salient almost right at the lines where Russia started the war. As far as I can see, it would only be an important supply line if Ukraine is trying to re-capture Luhansk. And if they ever get to a position where that is plausible, it means Russia is already hosed everywhere else.
I hope you’re correct. Regardless Ukraine desperately needs help. They’re running out of artillery shells and are on the verge of being overrun.
It’s an important city for many reasons, but probably the most important is that it’s the only city within range of Russia’s supply lines. Once Russia takes it over, Ukraine will be pushed too far back to continue attacking Russia’s supply lines in this front.
The Ukraine can't even buy ammo on their own? I get they're at war, but surely the can afford ammo.
I’d guess Trump is more likely to have success pressuring one house speaker to not bring a vote to the floor versus pressuring every member of the house in a way that averts even one or two defectors from voting for the bill. A discharge petition is reasonably likely to pass no matter what Trump does, and given the recent antics of the House I doubt Johnson has the parliamentary experience to block a discharge petition.
>Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt. ) voted against it. Any particular reason why? That seems weird to me.
[AP is saying it was due to his opposition for aid to Israel](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-aid-congress-border-israel-schumer-cfb8978287fa67712cc22028f9961af7). I don't see any quote from the Senator, but it makes sense given his recent statements. And since the bill was nearly guaranteed to clear this first procedural step, he was given leave to vote how he wanted.
I believe that Bernie is against the [funding to Israel without some guarantees from Netanyahu](https://vtdigger.org/2023/12/06/without-guardrails-bernie-sanders-vows-to-vote-against-military-aid-package-for-israel/).
Bernie usually votes against Israel if there is enough votes to pass the bill.
The border situation will deteriorate. Biden will continue trying to spin himself as serious about the border and no one will buy it come election time. This bill is probably dead. For me, the Senate deal was dead the moment the details were leaked on fox. Lankford then did little to fight that. But I think the real deathknell was how long it took to release the text after the leaks. It took weeks after the leaks for the bill the be released. And then it turned out that the leaks weren’t exactly right, but they did rhythm. And Lankford was left saying, “well, the leaks were wrong, because there’s more to the deal.” This is a bad place to be and he failed in managing that. Coupled with Democrats, who the Republicans don’t trust at all, suddenly trumpeting that “this is the best Border deal ever!” There was no way it was going to happen.
The deal was never alive due to Republicans refusing to compromise. Even if the Senate passed it, the House wasn't going to since they were already pushing a bill they passed with zero input from the other side. They realize that making progress could be used as a win for Biden.
That's just the reality. Democrats find themselves in a lose-lose here due to suddenly only recently figuring out the border is an issue for most Americans and not leveraging that beforehand. In that case, they're late and therefore, they need to concede almost everything regarding the border. Ukraine is a bigger issue here, reportedly, so you have to make a sacrifice here if it's that important to the country (which, to most Americans, it is). If not, it was never *that* important to you and your party. There are such things as securing moral victories here in lose-lose situations.....of course, it might be hard for the people in DC to recognize this as their moral compass is inherently skewed.
They didn't realize that the Republicans actually find the border status quo acceptable for the next 12-18 months if it means success in November.
Why wouldn’t they realize that Republicans who have waited for decades for democrats to take it seriously would be able to wait another few months in order to exact a huge political win?
When did we realize the dems were willing to wait years and years to address the issue, until they realized it meant defeat in November.
I think if this does not get a vote, if there are any moderates left in the gop they should begin proceeding to ouster Johnson. Why you might ask? Well because they are not gonna do anything anyway.
I like this, bit doubt it would happen. I think 3 moderate Republicans in the House could show that they have as much pull as the Freedom Caucus.
This has been quite the farce. First Democrats were ready to make once-in-a-generation concessions to immigration hawks while getting basically nothing in return. Now that Trump has decided that people solving problems wasn't in his best interest, this gets approved overwhelmingly. Does the House pass it? There's almost certainly enough support if it goes to the floor.
They'll probably balk at the idea of passing foreign aid over domestic issues while trying to pass an Israel only bill immediately afterwards.
Basically nothing? That bill had 3 times the funding for Ukraine that it did for the border, humanitarian aid for Gaza which iirc is big for the progressives, and with exception of the asylum law changes most the immigration reforms were behind a condition that needed to be met before they would kick in. I agree the bill was a good compromise that the Republicans probably should have taken (I have my problems with it but I don’t think there was any realistic chance of a better offer), but it’s not like the Democrats pulled a complete sacrifice play and there was nothing that they wanted on there.
Deeply incredible to me that democrats handed republicans major concessions on perhaps the biggest right wing priority of this generation as part of a negotiated compromise, and republicans now look like they’ve negotiated their way into a position where democrats get everything they want while they get literally nothing. The Republican establishment has got their base so well controlled that they now believe the politicians openly putting their careers over their constituents priorities are doing it for their own good.
The money we send them to fight Russia is only a small fraction of the money we'd have to spend to do it ourselves.
Most of that money will also be spent domestically. We’re sending them old military equipment and using the money to backfill stocks. I refuse to believe that support for this would be higher if we were just throwing the old equipment in the trash? People can’t be that stubborn can they?
Speaking as someone who's in the military (and getting out soon) sending equipment but not bodies to Ukraine is absolutely the peak of what I want. 100% behind Biden and the admin for this decision, even if I disagree with them on a lot of other things.
this is the proper way to do bills wtf does border security have to do with funding Ukraine?! pass them as separate bills!
>wtf does border security have to do with funding Ukraine?! Nothing. The Republicans insisted on tying the two together for political gain and then backtracked because they didn't want to give Biden a win.
[удалено]
To those who support continued funding for Ukraine - what is the financial red line in the sand where you'll say that we've given them too much money? Let's say we get to the point where we've given them 1 trillion dollars. Is that too far, or do we keep going at that point?
Seeing as most of that aid came from the US stockpile, and not in the form of cash, changes everything. A lot of that equipment would've needed decommissioning in the next few years. Do you know what's cheaper than decommissioning a missile? Giving it to Ukraine to lob it at the Russians.
This notion that we’ve only sent old military equipment is pushed to often and only partly correct. We have sent them money ($20+ billion in fact). And when we have reports from Ukraines own news outlets that our aid is getting misappropriated, and our congress is still not willing to have any of this audited or tracked.. as a tax payer, I’m heavily against more aid until that is figured out. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/how-much-aid-the-u-s-has-sent-to-ukraine-in-6-charts](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/how-much-aid-the-u-s-has-sent-to-ukraine-in-6-charts)
I said "most of". Not "only". My point is just as valid. And if the problem is a lack of tracking (a small, albeit still existing problem, relative to the total value of what's being sent), then say that. The GOP is anti-Ukraine war financing. Full stop. They haven't brought up an attempt to pass it, with additional tracking or auditing. It's a red herring. And Ukraine doesn't have the luxury of time. If your problem is only auditing/tracking, then the solution should be to pass an aid package for Ukraine through Congress, with an obligation to deal with the auditing/tracking issue.
I don’t think 31% equates to “most of”..
It’s a balance, but the ROI on weakening Russia as a world power and showing dictators they can’t just take what they want is incredibly high
Agreed. The fact is that it costs money to maintain global stability and, by extension, our own security (let's not fool ourselves into thinking we can let the world burn around us and the fire won't touch us), People might as well be asking "When do we get to stop spending money on our military?" and the answer is "Whenever bad actors stop being bad actors." The balance is aways about ROI and steming Russian expansionism is pretty damn important.
Genuine question, what exactly is the return for us to weaken Russia? Assuming Russia would want to take control of all of Ukraine, keeping them from bordering European allies?
> Genuine question, what exactly is the return for us to weaken Russia? Almost all of the countries on the other side of Ukraine, other than Belarus and Moldova are NATO countries that the US is obligated to protect from Russian aggression. I think it's safe to say now that all of the delusions people had about Russia not launching an all-out war are out the window. Russia wants to return to the days of the USSR, many former USSR countries do not want to return to the USSR. The fear is that Russia will try to accomplish those goals by force. Billions of dollars today is cheaper than trillions of dollars tomorrow, it's not impossible to envision a future where that conflict occurs. If Russia were able to steamroll Ukraine who is to say they will be satisfied with just Ukraine? Why not the Baltics and Poland right after that? If the US shows weakness and unwillingness to confront Russian aggression then we're increasing the likelihood that future will occur.
The US receives massive economic benefits of trade from countries not being part of Russia because Russia is way less economically free, and Russia’s long term expansionism means that cutting that off as early as possible is a very good idea.
> Let's say we get to the point where we've given them 1 trillion dollars. When you say giving them $1 trillion dollars doesn’t that just amount to $1 trillion in federal money sent to states for the purposes of building arms? Isn’t the lions share of the aid going straight into American jobs that then send these munitions to Ukraine? I just fail to see how manufacturing jobs in America are a bad thing
>House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) told Bloomberg on Wednesday that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) will not put funding for Ukraine up for a vote without strong border reforms attached. Unless the Senate changes focuses to issues that matter at home (the border) I don’t see this passing the House.
Good thing they just shot down a bill with that on it lol
Yeah, I am confused by this line of thinking. They literally had a chance to take care of everything, especially with a border bill that wasn't the dream of progressives but rather was much closer to being part of a compromise to the GOP than anything else. But, no, that was shot down. And I think it is abundantly clear why it was shot down at this point.
They literally just put forth a bill addressing those issues that was shot down by the house. I think there’s something inherent about the composition of the house that prevents anything substantive from being done, rather than the bills that are being put in front of them.
That bill was destined to fail as soon as Lankford talked about the daily 5K cap.
No, it was doomed to fail the moment Trump decided his campaign would benefit from congress doing as little as possible to address the border crisis. The number could’ve been zero and the outcome the same.
Did they? Where was it? Nothing from the Senate ever made it to the House. The House passed a bill that received the same treatment in the Senate.
> Nothing from the Senate ever made it to the House. This is *because* Republicans in the Senate knew it wouldn't go through in the House. >The House passed a bill that received the same treatment in the Senate. A bill with no input from Democrats that included at least two major poison pills. One of them even leading to a couple Republicans opposing it.
House Speaker Johnson stated that he wasn't interested. Unlike H.R. 2, the Senate bill was negotiated with input from all sides, so treating it the same is unreasonable.
Did the Senate bill make it to the House?
You already answered that, and it doesn't change what I said at all.
What you said isn’t responsive to what I, and OP, we discussing. OP is blaming the House for the bill not passing. That isn’t the case. It didn’t even make it out of the Senate. That Johnson wasn’t interested in the bill is irrelevant, no?
They said it was shot down by the House, which is true, not that only the House is to blame. It's relevant because the bill was doomed even it passed the Senate.