[foldr]

The US Congress could pass the Ukraine funding package. That's one obvious thing.

[ethanbond]

You can and should blame the Republicans. Congress isn’t the problem. Republicans are.

[foldr]

I didn't say anything about who was or wasn't to blame. My point is just that it's weird to say "there's not much more we can do" when that funding package is still in limbo.

[jacquesm]

You didn't say it, but it is the Republicans that are to blame. They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government. And the weirdest thing is that their supporters seem to believe this is true.

[foldr]

I agree, but the person I was responding to seemed to think that I was somehow blaming Congress in general rather than the Republicans, which is reading something into my comment that simply wasn't there.

[jacquesm]

I saw it more as a confirmation and expansion on your point than a contradiction.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government.

It may come as something of a shock to some, but US constitution effectively guarantees gridlock if the various blocks are unable to agree. It is a feature and not a bug.

In other words, obstruction, such as it is -- last time I checked there were still talks about aid package slowly making it through house with pieces being cut out -- is a valid form of political expression.

[jacquesm]

Those people should open a history book or two, it might help them to see what their future image will be.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

History is not a set of if/then statements. It is not written in stone. My most charitable interpretation of the post is that history can be a useful heuristic, but to blindly assert 'future will be' x is inaccurate at best.

I think I understand where you am coming from, but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom. It may be worthwhile to take a step back and consider whether those contributions are useful to the community. Frankly, it may be detracting people from the message you intend to spread.

edit: second paragraph spelling errors

[brookst]

But there isn’t much we can do, given the reality that a major US party is increasingly pro-Putin. That’s a constraint on what we can do.

We might eventually get to a place where we can dramatically increase support for Ukraine, but there’s a lot that has to happen first.

[foldr]

The question that kicked off this discussion was "What do you want [the] world to do?" In that context it's pretty obvious what it means to say that the US Congress could approve more aid to Ukraine. Of course some people don't want to do that. That's why it remains something that we could do rather than something that we're doing.

[brookst]

But the US Congress can no more approve significant aid to Ukraine than it can make pi == 3.

In a platonic ideal world, sure. But in the world as it stands, this is not possible. The constraints on the system prohibit it as surely as if the Constitution specifically forbade it.

[foldr]

That's an odd take. It's quite possible that the bill will eventually get through the House.