War

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member

Senate to stay in session to pass House’s Ukraine, Israel package
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned Senate colleagues Friday they should be prepared to stay in session through the weekend to finish work on a long-stalled package to fund the war in Ukraine, Israel and other emergency security needs.

Schumer pointed out that senators may have to stick around the Capitol to also finish work on legislation to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act’s warrantless surveillance program, which expires at 11:59 p.m. Friday.

“For the information of my colleagues, members should plan to be here over the weekend if necessary to work on both FISA and the supplemental,” he announced.

The Democratic leader then said the House is expected to pass the emergency foreign aid package, which has been broken into four separate bills, on Saturday.

“The House is scheduled to take up the supplemental tomorrow,” he said. “It would at last deliver critical aid to Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific and humanitarian assistance. We will see how things go int eh lower chamber over the next day or so, and I hope the House gets this legislation passed without further delay.”

House advances Ukraine, Israel aid as Dems help Speaker Johnson, GOP
Schumer made his comments after the House voted overwhelmingly, 316-94, to advance a rule to begin floor debate on four bills that would provide military aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, along with humanitarian assistance to Gaza and other war zones.

House Democrats stepped in to help Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to pass the rule and offset the opposition of 55 conservative Republicans who voted no.

Given the strong bipartisan vote to pass the rule governing debate on the foreign aid bills, Senate leaders expect the legislation to pass on Saturday.

Schumer has predicted for months that the $95 billion emergency foreign aid package the Senate passed in February would get a large bipartisan vote if it came up on the House floor.

The Democratic leader announced his goal is to pass the reauthorization of FISA’s expiring Section 702 authority by the midnight deadline but said he has yet to reach a deal with colleagues such as Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on considering amendments to the bill.

“We’re still trying to see if there’s a path to get through this quickly. The work is not done so we’re going to keep at it. We want to get FISA done as soon as we can because it’s very important for our national security,” Schumer said.

He noted that getting a deal to speed up the debate on the FISA bill needs the consent of all 100 senators.

“As everyone knows, any one member can halt progress in this chamber so both side need to fully cooperate if we want to get FISA done,” he said.
come on Johnson have some balls get these passed.....
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member


all i can say is, it's about time.......sheesh
The description is a good example of what I really do not trust the Hill for doing.

What has passed out of this Republican house that has not had to have the help of the Democrats to get through? The Democrats have been nonstop trying to work with the GQP to keep our nation running, and the propaganda message the Hill is pushing there is somehow like they are not.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
The description is a good example of what I really do not trust the Hill for doing.

What has passed out of this Republican house that has not had to have the help of the Democrats to get through? The Democrats have been nonstop trying to work with the GQP to keep our nation running, and the propaganda message the Hill is pushing there is somehow like they are not.
Really? Lot of articles on how the Democrats are the sane party trying to get things done. How are others rating the Hill?




 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Really? Lot of articles on how the Democrats are the sane party trying to get things done. How are others rating the Hill?




Perhaps it makes sense by looking at to what “least biased” reduces in this age of sharply different approaches to governance by party.

The Republicans have purged their ranks of moderates and centrists. The center now makes up the moderate wing of the Democrats, with a sprinkling of social democrats on their left flank. If we take this as true, a fact-centered (national) media outlet automatically leans left. The “least biased” politically give an unearned advantage to the Republicans. So it is prudent to vet the “least biased” corporate journalism outlets for stories that sneak in a corrosive “parallax view” once in a while.

I contend that these notionally least-biased but politically right-of-center news services that subtly present viewpoints at the margins of the big lie are more dangerous than the blatant alt-factories like Fox.

By mixing occasional propaganda in with a largely uncontroversial body of content, that propaganda is less likely to trigger a critical alarm in a reader, with the possible consequence that the reader unawarely internalizes the concealed false premise.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Perhaps it makes sense by looking at to what “least biased” reduces in this age of sharply different approaches to governance by party.

The Republicans have purged their ranks of moderates and centrists. The center now makes up the moderate wing of the Democrats, with a sprinkling of social democrats on their left flank. If we take this as true, a fact-centered (national) media outlet automatically leans left. The “least biased” politically give an unearned advantage to the Republicans. So it is prudent to vet the “least biased” corporate journalism outlets for stories that sneak in a corrosive “parallax view” once in a while.

I contend that these notionally least-biased but politically right-of-center news services that subtly present viewpoints at the margins of the big lie are more dangerous than the blatant alt-factories like Fox.

By mixing occasional propaganda in with a largely uncontroversial body of content, that propaganda is less likely to trigger a critical alarm in a reader, with the possible consequence that the reader unawarely internalizes the concealed false premise.
I see articles that I agree with at The Hill, I see the odd ones where I do not. Looking at who is writing the article does show the bias at times. They still put the odd one out by Jonathan Turley (turned right wing scholar). It is easy to determine his by the tone of the writing. They do give some time to people I disagree with as they do print articles coming out of the Democrat left of center. In the end it is up to the reader to decide if the news source is credible or not. Over the last eight years I have found that they are a quick and decent news source for US politics. This does not say that the reader is to absolve himself from questioning what he is reading and accept everything as true. If I am unsure of any point in an article I start doing some fact checking.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Warner: Military equipment will be ‘in transit’ to Ukraine by next week if Biden signs bill
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Sunday said U.S. shipments of long-range missiles “will be in transit” to Ukraine next week as long as President Biden signs the foreign aid bill.

“I hope once the President signs, we’ve been told that there is it is the President signature, making sure Congress does its job that these materials will be in transit by the end of the week,” Warner said Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”

“And on that schedule, what it will do is it’s clearly been the case that the Ukrainians morale has been great, but it’s been undermined over the last couple of months, when they have been literally given out rationed bullets, eight to 10 bullets a day,” he added. “And on artillery shells, Russians ten to one, you can’t underestimate that Ukrainians’ grit, determination, but if they don’t have the materials, they can’t carry this fight to the Russians.”

Warner noted it is written in the legislation that long-range ATACMS missiles will be given to Kyiv should the bill pass in the Senate and head to Biden’s desk.

“The ATACMS- I believe the administration was prepared over the last couple of months to prepare or to provide ATACMS. It is written into this legislation,” Warner said.

The House on Saturday passed a long-sought foreign aid package that includes about $61 billion for Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for allies in the Indo-Pacific. It also includes a package of other national security measures, among those a potential ban on the TikTok app.

The package now heads to the Senate, which is expected to pass it in the middle of next week.

The package comes after months of warnings from the Biden administration that Ukraine will struggle against Russian forces without any supplemental aid passed by Congress. Sharp divisions among lawmakers have stalled aid from passing for more than a year, with mostly far-right lawmakers expressing concern about continuing to fund Ukraine.

Congress has not passed a Ukraine aid package since the end of 2022, and all available funds dried up around the end of 2023, leaving Kyiv in a perilous position with depleting air defenses and artillery, both crucial in the war.

Russia has advanced on the battlefield across eastern Ukraine, seizing the town of Avdiivka in February and threatening to seize Chasiv Yar in the Donetsk region.

Warner on Sunday argued the U.S. needs to be “prepared” for its own national security interests and pointed to Russia’s links to China, Iran, and potentially North Korea.

“I know the terminology used to be Axis of Evil, this may be the 2024 Axis of Evil combination of nations,” he said.

Fawning over the GOP.

Greene response to bi-partisan criticism: ‘The American people agree with me’
Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo confronted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, questioning her actions’ impact on the GOP’s ability to govern and reelect President Trump.

In a Sunday interview on Fox’s Sunday Morning Futures, Bartiromo pressed Greene over the criticism she has received over her repeated threats to oust Speaker Mike Johnson.

“You’re getting criticized on the left on the right, in the media, a lot of people are criticizing you. And the reason that they are is because they’re saying that you’re creating drama during this election year,” Bartiromo said. “How is this leading to reelecting President Trump? How is this leading to the American people believing that the Republicans can govern? People are saying Look, she’s creating chaos. She’s making the entire party look like it’s disrupted your reaction and response to those criticisms?”

Greene refuted the claims stating that, “Those that are calling this drama are the very people that are responsible for the drama that the American people are having to live through every single day.”

She continued, “The people criticizing me are not the American people. The American people agree with me, and I’ve talked to them, and I’ve seen it all over. They are outraged and what they’re saying is they don’t want to vote for Republicans anymore… The Republican Party in charge right now it’s no different than the Democrat party.”

Bartiromo also questioned Greene over why she did not file a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair after the House passed an additional $95 billion in new foreign aid, $60 billion of which is going to Ukraine on Saturday.

“I’ve been responsible with this the entire time. I support our majority, and I support having the majority in 2025,” Green said.

However, Greene clearly stated her disapproval of the bill.

“And then once this bill was passed, the American people saw on their television screens and social media all over where Congress was waving the Ukrainian flag on the United States House of Representatives floor. All of this was possible because of the betrayals of Mike Johnson,” she said.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I see articles that I agree with at The Hill, I see the odd ones where I do not. Looking at who is writing the article does show the bias at times. They still put the odd one out by Jonathan Turley (turned right wing scholar). It is easy to determine his by the tone of the writing. They do give some time to people I disagree with as they do print articles coming out of the Democrat left of center. In the end it is up to the reader to decide if the news source is credible or not. Over the last eight years I have found that they are a quick and decent news source for US politics. This does not say that the reader is to absolve himself from questioning what he is reading and accept everything as true. If I am unsure of any point in an article I start doing some fact checking.
Do you see how “… with rare help from Democrats” implies the Democrats are the obstructors?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Really? Lot of articles on how the Democrats are the sane party trying to get things done. How are others rating the Hill?




I think you might have moved the goalposts from what I said. I called the Hill left troll propaganda because they said 'the rare' time the Democrats bailed out the shithead GQP in the house. When they have been every single time that anything from what im aware of has been passed.

But for 'the Hill' actual production of stories I figure it is about the same as most propaganda, mostly true, with selected inserts to push to the people more radicalized into believing whatever it is that they are sold based on the personality that they have shone to have with their online activity.

Screen Shot 2024-04-21 at 2.44.30 PM.png

How are others rating websites like the Nation which if memory is correct published shit by John Solomon who was feeding Americans straight up Russian propaganda rated? I don't know how they rate, what does bait have to do with them being propaganda trolls? They come in every flavor, from democrats drink the blood of babies so be sure to vote for those pious Republicans' to 'both sides are bad so don't vote/vote for this crazy dickhead third party'.



It's been a while but lets see how their YouTube page lines up to what I remember.

lmao yeah man, they are just trolling from the left still. Fuck they have a post about a Joe Rogan take, nonstop anti-Biden and culture war propaganda bullshit that is identical to the shit being pushed by the right wing propaganda sites.
Screen Shot 2024-04-21 at 3.41.33 PM.pngScreen Shot 2024-04-21 at 3.41.56 PM.png
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Do you see how “… with rare help from Democrats” implies the Democrats are the obstructors?
They are the opposition, it is their job. But the real change has been the amount of non-partisan votes the bill got, basically forgoing party politics and doing the right thing. But everyone knew how the majority of the Democrats would line up (do not forget, both sides have people voting against the bill). This was a Republican bill, the Republicans would not have been able to get it over the line without the Democrats, yes the Democrats helped them do the right thing.

I think you might have moved the goalposts from what I said. I called the Hill left troll propaganda because they said 'the rare' time the Democrats bailed out the shithead GQP in the house. When they have been every single time that anything from what im aware of has been passed.

But for 'the Hill' actual production of stories I figure it is about the same as most propaganda, mostly true, with selected inserts to push to the people more radicalized into believing whatever it is that they are sold based on the personality that they have shone to have with their online activity.

View attachment 5387709

How are others rating websites like the Nation which if memory is correct published shit by John Solomon who was feeding Americans straight up Russian propaganda rated? I don't know how they rate, what does bait have to do with them being propaganda trolls? They come in every flavor, from democrats drink the blood of babies so be sure to vote for those pious Republicans' to 'both sides are bad so don't vote/vote for this crazy dickhead third party'.

It's been a while but lets see how their YouTube page lines up to what I remember.

lmao yeah man, they are just trolling from the left still. Fuck they have a post about a Joe Rogan take, nonstop anti-Biden and culture war propaganda bullshit that is identical to the shit being pushed by the right wing propaganda sites.
View attachment 5387716View attachment 5387717
You can phrase things how you like, I can add context to what I think is the situation. I would think no less of you if you did the same. Anyone can frame things a certain way and within narrow confines it might be true but not when other things are taken into account. I can not remember if it was you or who it was years ago saying that The Hill is a biased rag that should not be quoted here. Then after a while (you or the person I can not recall) said on reflection the Hill was not so bad.

The Hill had Solomon as a columnist before everyone found out he was a Russian shill. They put retractions on all of Solomon's articles and gave him the boot once it was known he wasn't reporting from sources and just making stuff up. On the 'Rising' broadcasts, you might be right but I do not know as I tend to skip over the opinion pieces like you have posted, I tend to read the daily news reports instead. I might have caught one of the Hill Youtube vids once, no idea what how they are leaning in that arena.

I post a lot of stories from The Hill due to their faster reporting (in general) on politics in the US. The reporting is mostly factual and each reporter may slant the story to push the narrative the want to push. If they are overly slanted I skip over the article if it does not line up with other news sources. If you do not like my posts from them you can kindly skip over them. I think our little group as interested in knowing what is going on in the world and the stories we bring to share with the others is a way of expanding our scope of information. Is every bit of news as relevant or factual as others? Maybe not. But I (maybe mistakenly) have the idea that most of us can tease out the nuggets of information from the spin that comes with them. I rarely tell the readers what they should think of in the article and leave it for each to decide whether the article has anything to add to the reader's view of events.

Or I could just skip, posting from them. It would save some valuable time in my life.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
They are the opposition, it is their job. But the real change has been the amount of non-partisan votes the bill got, basically forgoing party politics and doing the right thing. But everyone knew how the majority of the Democrats would line up (do not forget, both sides have people voting against the bill). This was a Republican bill, the Republicans would not have been able to get it over the line without the Democrats, yes the Democrats helped them do the right thing.


You can phrase things how you like, I can add context to what I think is the situation. I would think no less of you if you did the same. Anyone can frame things a certain way and within narrow confines it might be true but not when other things are taken into account. I can not remember if it was you or who it was years ago saying that The Hill is a biased rag that should not be quoted here. Then after a while (you or the person I can not recall) said on reflection the Hill was not so bad.

The Hill had Solomon as a columnist before everyone found out he was a Russian shill. They put retractions on all of Solomon's articles and gave him the boot once it was known he wasn't reporting from sources and just making stuff up. On the 'Rising' broadcasts, you might be right but I do not know as I tend to skip over the opinion pieces like you have posted, I tend to read the daily news reports instead. I might have caught one of the Hill Youtube vids once, no idea what how they are leaning in that arena.

I post a lot of stories from The Hill due to their faster reporting (in general) on politics in the US. The reporting is mostly factual and each reporter may slant the story to push the narrative the want to push. If they are overly slanted I skip over the article if it does not line up with other news sources. If you do not like my posts from them you can kindly skip over them. I think our little group as interested in knowing what is going on in the world and the stories we bring to share with the others is a way of expanding our scope of information. Is every bit of news as relevant or factual as others? Maybe not. But I (maybe mistakenly) have the idea that most of us can tease out the nuggets of information from the spin that comes with them. I rarely tell the readers what they should think of in the article and leave it for each to decide whether the article has anything to add to the reader's view of events.

Or I could just skip, posting from them. It would save some valuable time in my life.
Mostly factual is partially full of shit. The hill has shown that the partial is very important piece being used by the same trolls pushing Russian propaganda just from the anti-Trump/gqp angle.

And it was me that has been calling out the hill for being what they are for years, and have to you a few times, and never said they are not that bad as far as I can remember, unless you are thinking of a partial sentence like 'the hill is not so bad as to be on the level of breitbart or something. I think they are a garbage website that is conning Americans by using well intentioned writers to camouflage the poison that they are inserting into the national information stream like you can clearly see in their YouTube page.

As for skipping over them, I generally go to the end and see it is the hill and move on, no offense to you at all, I just know we treaded that water before. I only posted on this because it was not you that posted it, and was a pretty interesting troll that they inserted into their post about the Democratic Party 'rarely' helping passing stuff. Which when looked through their 'both sides' trolling makes more sense.
 
Top