Command+F: "Ukraine"

Results: 0

Hmm...

Also I totally agree that we should be sending more people like Cori Bush to Congress. However, there is that pesky detail that Representative Bush votes for Ukraine and against Russian imperialism.

https://bush.house.gov/media/press-releases/bush-statement-on-ukraine-supplemental-funding-vote

2000: Bush and Gore are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Gore.

2016: Clinton and Trump are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Clinton.

2000-now: a shit ton of bad stuff happens thanks to the above.

2022: Smith and Courtney are no different. There's no harm in not voting for Smith.

It's fascinating to watch people ignore the consequences of terrible decisionmaking and ask for more.

@1 This fixation on Ukraine by Gallardo's opponents is impressive in its discipline; if only they could wield that discipline to accomplish any of their political goals in DC, they might not be facing insurgent candidates such as AOC, Cori Bush, and Gallardo. It appears they will attempt to use vague and ominous gestures toward Ukraine as a singular disqualifying issue, which speaks to Gallardo's strengths across the board, as well as Smith's devastating weaknesses.

Based on the hysteria from the establishment, one would think she actively supported Russia's invasion. So I read the "controversial" statement. I found that it not only condemned Russia's illegal invasion, it provided nuance often lacking in American foreign policy.

People will be voting on inflation, jobs, housing, guns, healthcare, and abortion. Beware the moderate who always wants to change the tune to a vague rant on Ukraine. They're showing they'd rather not talk about everyday domestic issues. They want your eyes a thousand miles away, not on everything in front of your face. Vote Gallardo.

This piece said nothing about Gallardo herself and more hysteria about why her opponent in the primary is the wrong choice.

What type of a teacher is she? Is she well liked by her students? Are there any controversies voters should be aware of? Is she a parent?

Socialists love to talk about issues but voters care about people and their silly bullshit. I would never in a million years vote for Tiffany Smiley because fuck all Republicans but her ads are very effective in selling voters on exactly who she is. Stephanie Gallardo? Total enigma. Don't be surprised when she loses big.

@4: Look, I'm just taking Gallardo at her word here:

"If there is any distinction I would like to highlight between my candidacy and platform as compared to my incumbent opponent @RepAdamSmith, look no further than Ukraine and any foreign policy issue."

https://twitter.com/ElectGallardo/status/1498776038976864257

And I assume you're referring to this statement where Call, Parson, and Gallardo state:

"We stand with the 74% of Americans who do not think the U.S. should have a major role in Ukraine. We call on President Biden and Congress not to drag our country into war with Russia."

https://twitter.com/ElectGallardo/status/1497099644890849281

Let's not forget that this was in response to the United States's plans to send aid to Ukraine, including weapons systems. Supplying weapons, etc. to Ukraine is how folks like Rep. Bush support Ukraine and stand against Russian imperialism.

I don't like Smith either. If Gallardo just said 'I'd take the same position as AOC, Bush, etc' on Ukranian aid packages, I'd prefer her over Smith. But she doesn't.

Gallardo has approximately 0 percent chance of coming ahead of Smith in this primary and she will most definitely not be the next Congressperson from that district. Smith is going to hold that office till he retires. Save your breath, people.

Me, I'm voting Smith. Not Tulsi 2.0.

@6 Americans don't want further military involvement in Ukraine. Just 8% of the public believes that Ukraine should be a top priority. Gallardo comfortably holds the majority opinion.

https://cv4a.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CVA-YouGov_ForPol-Poll_June_2022_Toplines.pdf

I must point out that Gallardo's statement is from FEBRUARY 24, 2022 and explicitly refers to a DIRECT WAR between the US and Russia in the text, while Cori Bush's statement is from MAY 10, 2022 and refers to sending arms, food, and medical aid. Quite deceptive to pair the two together. Bush also wrote:

"Additionally, at $40 billion, this is an extraordinary amount of military assistance, a large percentage of which will go directly to private defense contractors. In the last year alone, the United States will have provided Ukraine with more military aid than any country in the last two decades, and twice as much military assistance as the yearly cost of war in Afghanistan, even when American troops were on the ground. The sheer size of the package given an already inflated Pentagon budget should not go without critique. I remain concerned about the increased risks of direct war and the potential for direct military confrontation."

There is no disagreement between Gallardo and Bush on that issue.

US has the power to negotiate an end to the war. It should. But, D.C. wants an extended war to weaken Russia - much like the Afghan-Soviet War of the 1980s - not a settlement. This time Azov will play the Mujahideen. Who knows what the blowback will look like over the 20 years.

There's a brutal contradiction in a country spending unfathomable sums of money to fight proxy wars, while simultaneously putting a generation in debt for their education, blocking universal healthcare, and letting infrastructure degrade because these things "cost too much". We need politicians who will fight that contradiction.

@9: Maybe you have a newer "controversial" statement that we should use as her current stance on this issue then. Or maybe you're just trying to play rhetorical tricks and move the goalposts. Doesn't matter either way to me, tbh.

Rep. Bush is absolutely right to criticize the frankly disgusting amount of money we spend on the military. I think that worrying about the risks of a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia is entirely reasonable too, given the possibility of it spinning out of control into an extinction-level event.

I'd love to see Gallardo issue a crystal-clear statement about whether she supports the US arming Ukranians to defend their right to exist as a nation from Russia. If she was in Congress right now, would she have voted in favor or against these military aid bills for Ukraine? That is the question. Everything she's said indicates the answer is NO, and I think that's disqualifying, even with all of the 'war is a racket' stuff we're talking about here.

@11: You're the only person playing rhetorical games and moving goalposts. If you want to prove that Gallardo supports "Russian Imperialism," it's on you to do so. Bush's criticism wasn't just about military spending, it was specifically about military spending going to Ukraine - exactly your complaint about Gallardo.

The US cannot print enough money to aid Ukraine in perpetuity. At some point, AOC, Bush, and the rest of the elected progressives will stop voting for these measures with criticism, and start voting against them with criticism, just as the progressives slowly stopped supporting our bloody adventures in Afghanistan.

This war hasn't seen legitimate peace talks because of western pressure and western arms. Ukraine cannot win back their former territory without direct engagement from the US and NATO, and it's honestly debatable that Crimea would even want to rejoin Ukraine. This war is already a bloody stalemate pushing us closer to nuclear war every day. Even short of a nuclear conflict, continued fighting will cause global famines and further destabilize Europe.

If we want to introduce morality and the right to exist into this foreign policy argument, you'll note that Adam Smith actively supports the genocide being carried out by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Gallardo's realism wants to prevent a nuclear conflict; Smith's realism wants to keep the Saudi family happy. Who is more moral in the end?

@13 "Who is more moral in the end?" Obviously, it's you, your righteousness.

@14: What a delightful non sequitur! Never once mentioned myself, but I appreciate your kind words :)

@14 Here's something you apparently haven't noticed about life: People say volumes about themselves without using the words I, me or my. Some learnin' for ya!

And in case you didn't get my meaning first time around, you're a pompous twit.

The reason democrats are possibly going to get wiped out in the Nov elections is not that they didn’t go far enough down the progressive rabbit hole it’s that the progressive policy positions are out of line with then majority of voters and just dipping their toes in that toxic water proved disasterous. I worry for the Dems when Pelosi, Schumer et al retire. If Primila, AOC and the squad are the future of the party the Dems will be a minority party despite the crazies running the Republicans right now.

@16: It's funny that a critique of another person's moralistic take on US foreign policy somehow made you think I'm the moralizer. You can't be a foreign policy scold when your preferred candidate has been enabling the Saudi genocide in Yemen because they don't want to upset an oil monarch who butchered a Washington Post journalist with a bone saw.