Last month I attended a AFCEA.org contractor meeting with the SDVOSB (Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses) many think this is a very dangerous time for the Democrats and us, they will fight to stay in power with any and all means. They cannot allow Trump to win in 2024 they may lose everything...Power and Money.

They may not be able to rig enough p**********l v**es this time so, they will either focus on Congressional seats and Senate seats to make sure Trump can get little done, or we may expect a type of false f**g to get our USA Military directly in a war/s and claim you cannot change the Commander in Chief in the middle of a war prior to e******n. Try to pull off a Roosevelt scenario.

That's how bad the mood and thoughts are - the Democrats with some Republicans will do anything to protect the Military and Security Industrial Complex $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ as self-serving basturds.

“We talk about the erosion for Biden and now you start to see it,” Kornacki said in response to the most recent survey, adding with surprise, “Look at these numbers.” When questioned about a variety of important characteristics and topics, such as handling inflation and the economy, 52 percent of respondents chose former President Trump, indicating that Trump had an advantage. Only 40% of respondents chose President Biden, which is a 22-point swing in favor of Trump.

https://republic-brief.com/all-hell-breaks-loose-live-on-nbc-when-shocking-news-about-biden-surfaces/

Border Security Trumps Ukraine Funding: Swing V**ers Reveal Priorities in New Poll
Rob Bluey April 15, 2024

An overwhelming 75% of swing v**ers say they oppose allocating more U.S. funds for Ukraine before the border crisis is addressed, reveals a new survey conducted by pollster Scott Rasmussen across six battleground states.

The poll, conducted on behalf of The Heritage Foundation, was released Monday amid the latest debate over U.S. aid playing out in Congress. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.)


House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is preparing to unveil a funding package for Ukraine that faces an uncertain future due to a backlash from conservatives.

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, last week challenged the Washington establishment, arguing it was a matter of practical constraints and limitations in U.S. capacity to provide more aid.

“Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math,” Vance wrote for The New York Times. “Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.”

Over the past two years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States has allocated $113 billion in funding to Ukraine, averaging approximately $900 per American household. The Biden administration is seeking an additional $60 billion for Ukraine from U.S. taxpayers to sustain efforts in the Russia-Ukraine war.

“The United States has already sent more than $113 billion in aid to Ukraine with no debate, no clear strategy, no spending offsets, and no real accountability. Alarmingly, two separate Pentagon audits reveal that large tranches of this funding are mostly unaccounted for. That’s unacceptable,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said.

“Not a single U.S. taxpayer dollar should be going to Ukraine until our own borders are secure, [President Joe] Biden proposes a coherent strategy for ending the conflict, and full accountability for past and future funding secured,” Roberts added. “The American people know they deserve better and expect policies—and leaders—that put their country first. Congress would be wise to listen to them.”

>>> Majority of GOP, Independent V**ers Want to End US Aid to Ukraine

The survey, conducted by Rasmussen and RMG Research Inc., polled 1,000 swing v**ers across the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on behalf of The Heritage Foundation. Swing v**ers aren’t strongly aligned with either political party but have an outsized impact on e******ns.

“Swing v**ers are sending a resounding message: Prioritize border security before further commitments abroad,” Rasmussen told The Daily Signal. “The overwhelming opposition to allocating additional funds to Ukraine without addressing our own border concerns underscores the urgent need for policymakers to listen to the e*****rate’s priorities.”

In response to what holds greater importance, 50% of respondents said they prioritize border security, while only 11% said they prioritize Ukraine funding. Additionally, 29% said they believe both issues hold equal significance, with only 6% stating that neither is a priority and 5% expressing uncertainty.


A majority of respondents, 54%, said they believe directing funds to secure the border outweighs financing the war effort in Ukraine. Conversely, 23% advocate equal allocation of funds to both causes, while a mere 10% support allocating more money to Ukraine than to border security.

Upon learning about the $113 billion in U.S. funds already allocated to Ukraine, 56% of swing v**ers said they believe America has provided excessive funding. Only 12% said the U.S. has provided insufficient aid.

Those surveyed represent a mix of undecided v**ers and those expressing differences between p**********l and congressional races. A majority, 54%, identify as politically independent while 25% are Republicans and 20% are Democrats.

RMG Research Inc. conducted the survey April 2-4. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points.

=======================

A great post in counter to mine that few have read and fewer understood, I guess. No matter.

I remain convinced that the following are true:
1. Russia is not the sweetness and light country some depict. The conduct of their troops in this and prior wars is abominable. They show no regard for Ukraine citizens by missiling them for two years. I believe they would massacre a million Ukraine citizens given the chance.

2. Russia is an imperialistic nation, and it is expansionist by definition, a faith that Putin has shown continually in Russia. I believe he wants to expand the borders to the old Soviet extent and is willing to use nuclear threats to gobble the Balkans up one by one.

3. The US will be unwilling to start a nuclear war to save either Estonia or Latvia, or Lithuania.

4. It is time to cut off considering the who-shot-John events of the past and over-thinking the problem, over blaming, over crediting, etc. Russia invaded the Ukraine and also took the Crimea from a sovereign nation.

5. NATO nations see this more the way I do, and are ramping up to help. They do not want the Bear to go any further into Europe, and they believe Putin would.

6.NATO and the US are about 18 months away from having armament production and rearming themselves. peaking, The Ukraine needs to be sustained for that period. They need all the weapons and munitions to help.

7. I believe Russia plans to attack in the Baltic, all NATO nations, We will not be able to defend them. But we can derail it by fighting in Ukraine to win using Ukraine troops. With our help, the grinder can be reversed, putting Russian back into its cage, and saving the citizens of Ukraine, and the Balkans.

8. Corruption in Ukraine can either be minimized or not. We have the leverage to do a lot to stop it if we want. Z can have his yacht sold and the funds recovered or sunk, his choice.

This posture of mine will not prevail, it seems clear, I believe mainly because of: 1. the k*****g; and 2, the belief that Russia has become a benign citizen of the world, despite its track record of 14 wars/interventions/etc. since 1945, and 9 of which are Putin wars, some still in progress.
I believe even more k*****g will ensue from a Russian victory, the Balkans will be next, with more k*****g, and we need to worry about Poland. It is a domino pact we face, and it ought to be stopped now in Ukraine.

An aside: Over 80,000 captive German soldiers were sent to Russia in 1944-45. They haven't been heard from since.

So, we have Give it Up Ritter calling for surrender. We are in Plan A now, not any so-called Plan B or surrender.
The west needs time to reach high volume production of shells and all the other war weapons the Ukraine needs. I'd say about 18 months. We must see them through this cycle with all we can send them to stem the Russian tide. I say to condemn the Ukrainian people to a Russian occupation is to commit genocide for a million Ukranians under Russian rule. We cannot stand by and let this happen as it surely will if you examine the acts of the Russian army over the past years since 1945 in their some 14 wars or interventions. They have proven their total disregard for the lives of Ukrainians be raining missiles on them continuously, taking out people, buildings, homes, and infrastructure. Mr. Ritter wants us to withdraw and sue for peace, I say that is absolutely the worst possible step we might take on at least two counts: 1. humanitarian needs of the people; and, 2. the geopolitical disaster to the west if the Ukraine falls.
In my post "TheRussian Situation I propose the ultimate Plan A, so I will not repeat it here. Tell Ritter to go pound sand, he doesn't even know the power of NATO today!