4 ms·

For people wonder how this got there, the blame goes to Rep. Elise Stefanik: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864 https://www.congress.

For people wonder how this got there, the blame goes to Rep. Elise Stefanik: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2864 That bill was tacked onto a big "must pass" defense authorization and may not have survived on its own. Here's an article with some speculation on why Stefanik introduced this bill: https://dronexl.co/2024/06/06/drone-industry-outrage-stefanik-anti-china-legislation/ https://dronexl.co/2024/06/06/drone-industry-outrage-stefani...

TylerE 2y ago
What a shocker. One of the most worthless partisan blowhards in congressional history. She's Dick Cheney to MTG/Boeberts Dubya Bush.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  The sicker thing to me is how she (like many) was actually relatively moderate until she completely hitched her wagon onto the Trump train. Another Profile in Cowardice. An overview: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/01/06/two-takes-on-the-transformation-of-elise-stefanik-00076742 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/01/06/t... All of these politicians who have these completely transactional relationships, I just find utterly gross. I mean, do they have any actual friends? For example, Trump completely disparaged Ted Cruz's wife and father in 2016, Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar" back then, only to do a total 180 and turn into another boot licker.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Politicians have put aside their personal beefs with Trump in response to their constituents. The republican base doesn’t want foreign wars and tax cuts, they want to kick the illegal immigrants out of the country and curtail foreign trade. Remember when Joe Biden told black voters Romney “wants to put them back in chains?” The Republican base wants their version of that guy, and that’s Trump. For Stefanik, Cruz, etc., their job is to put aside their personal preferences and get on board with what their constituents want.
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      I understand that, and I think it's a fair point, but there is also the issue of leadership. E.g. there are tons of Republican "elites" who know that the whole "stop the steal" stuff and falsehoods around Trump winning in 2020 are complete, total, and utter bullshit. We know this because they've said it! My favorite example is when Liz Cheney wrote in her book that Republican Rep Mark Green said, as he was signing electoral vote objection sheets on Jan 6, "The things we do for The Orange Jesus." (In transparency, Green later denied this). My point is its one thing to do what your constituents desire. Its another thing to propagate lies and bullshit because you think that will help you gain power, even if your constituents do love those lies and bullshit. I'd also point out that there have been a number of conservative and Republican leaders (not many, but some) who actually have some honor and have called out these lies, which has usually forced them to retire or leave the party.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        I agree in the abstract, but I think that’s encompassed by my point that the Republican base wants to fight fire with fire: https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=-bSwtvosf-o4PE0z https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=-bSwtvosf-o4PE0z. I think “principled Republicans” don’t know what time it is. Trump’s only mistake was not saying “I formally concede” before spending years saying the election was stolen. That’s the new normal and has been since 2000.
        hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        And yet, with all those examples in that video of Democrats saying those things (some of which I think are valid, e.g. that Russian propaganda did help Trump get elected even if there was no collusion, though I don't agree at all that this makes Trump's presidency "illegitimate"), trying to say that is equivalent to what Trump did in 2020/2021 is plain ridiculous. For one, despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton actually conceded the 2016 election. Obama actually sat down with Trump when he was president-elect in the White House. I don't recall Obama egging on an unruly mob to attack the Capitol to prevent certification of Trump's win. And similarly, I'm having a very difficult time believing that Bush supporters would have conceded as graciously as Gore did in 2000. So spare me with the "both sides"-isms.
  - debacle 2y ago
    Not sure why you are being downmodded. Stefanik touts herself as a MAGA princess, but she's nothing but a grifter.
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      She’s a New York Republican, don’t assign anything to her with strong conviction.
KerrAvon 2y ago
And if you need a backgrounder on Stefanik, she got elected before Trump, decided she preferred staying in DC to her hometown, sold out her previously-stated principles almost immediately when she saw a chance to gain power, and is now doing as much damage to civil liberties as Nixon and McCarthy ever managed: https://theracket.news/p/stop-going-stefanik-committee-fools https://theracket.news/p/stop-going-stefanik-committee-fools She doesn't care about whether the bill does something valid or even whether it survives legal challenges, as long she can use it to score political points. It's a real shame. Congresspeople are supposed to be servants beholden to the public good, not power-hungry sycophants who can't be bothered with the details of governance.
- kotaKat 2y ago
  I'll add more as a NY21 local: I've never seen her. I've never heard from her locally. You can't fucking find Elise. It's all events in the past. There's never been a townhall up in this portion of her region. Bonus: Her husband is a lobbyist for a leading gun industry trade group. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-Keep-gun-industry-free-from-17203670.php https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-K...
  - acdha 2y ago
    I’ll contrast that with people like Jamie Raskin. I’ve met him personally (briefly, but multiple times) because he shows up at random music festivals and civic events. It’s really not hard to tell when a politician is interested in public feedback.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    Her husband has lobbied for NSSF… Why is that bad?
    - mauvehaus 2y ago
      The complaint is typically about access. If you have a policy you'd like your rep to advance, you're stuck going through the same channels nearly everyone is: call, write a letter, etc. If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her. Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, or Alice Armalite? To be clear, I don't think it's a good look for a politician to have personal ties that close with any lobbyist, even ones for the American Foundation for Fluffy and Adorable Kittens. [0] Not real people, one suspects.
questhimay 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway_j12 2y ago
  Doesn't this seem at odds with the facts? China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India. China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country. China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
  - tyree731 2y ago
    > China is neutral. Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable. > Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country. A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant. > The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position. Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
    - FactKnower69 2y ago
      >Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. Overall hysterical post but this line was the best by far
  - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mardifoufs 2y ago
I'd rather blame everyone who voted on this, actually. Every one in Congress is an adult and were free to decide how to vote on this, afaik.

TylerE 2y ago

What a shocker. One of the most worthless partisan blowhards in congressional history. She's Dick Cheney to MTG/Boeberts Dubya Bush.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
The sicker thing to me is how she (like many) was actually relatively moderate until she completely hitched her wagon onto the Trump train. Another Profile in Cowardice. An overview: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/01/06/two-takes-on-the-transformation-of-elise-stefanik-00076742 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/women-rule/2023/01/06/t... All of these politicians who have these completely transactional relationships, I just find utterly gross. I mean, do they have any actual friends? For example, Trump completely disparaged Ted Cruz's wife and father in 2016, Cruz called Trump a "pathological liar" back then, only to do a total 180 and turn into another boot licker.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Politicians have put aside their personal beefs with Trump in response to their constituents. The republican base doesn’t want foreign wars and tax cuts, they want to kick the illegal immigrants out of the country and curtail foreign trade. Remember when Joe Biden told black voters Romney “wants to put them back in chains?” The Republican base wants their version of that guy, and that’s Trump. For Stefanik, Cruz, etc., their job is to put aside their personal preferences and get on board with what their constituents want.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    I understand that, and I think it's a fair point, but there is also the issue of leadership. E.g. there are tons of Republican "elites" who know that the whole "stop the steal" stuff and falsehoods around Trump winning in 2020 are complete, total, and utter bullshit. We know this because they've said it! My favorite example is when Liz Cheney wrote in her book that Republican Rep Mark Green said, as he was signing electoral vote objection sheets on Jan 6, "The things we do for The Orange Jesus." (In transparency, Green later denied this). My point is its one thing to do what your constituents desire. Its another thing to propagate lies and bullshit because you think that will help you gain power, even if your constituents do love those lies and bullshit. I'd also point out that there have been a number of conservative and Republican leaders (not many, but some) who actually have some honor and have called out these lies, which has usually forced them to retire or leave the party.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I agree in the abstract, but I think that’s encompassed by my point that the Republican base wants to fight fire with fire: https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=-bSwtvosf-o4PE0z https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=-bSwtvosf-o4PE0z. I think “principled Republicans” don’t know what time it is. Trump’s only mistake was not saying “I formally concede” before spending years saying the election was stolen. That’s the new normal and has been since 2000.
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        And yet, with all those examples in that video of Democrats saying those things (some of which I think are valid, e.g. that Russian propaganda did help Trump get elected even if there was no collusion, though I don't agree at all that this makes Trump's presidency "illegitimate"), trying to say that is equivalent to what Trump did in 2020/2021 is plain ridiculous. For one, despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton actually conceded the 2016 election. Obama actually sat down with Trump when he was president-elect in the White House. I don't recall Obama egging on an unruly mob to attack the Capitol to prevent certification of Trump's win. And similarly, I'm having a very difficult time believing that Bush supporters would have conceded as graciously as Gore did in 2000. So spare me with the "both sides"-isms.
- debacle 2y ago
  Not sure why you are being downmodded. Stefanik touts herself as a MAGA princess, but she's nothing but a grifter.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    She’s a New York Republican, don’t assign anything to her with strong conviction.

KerrAvon 2y ago

And if you need a backgrounder on Stefanik, she got elected before Trump, decided she preferred staying in DC to her hometown, sold out her previously-stated principles almost immediately when she saw a chance to gain power, and is now doing as much damage to civil liberties as Nixon and McCarthy ever managed: https://theracket.news/p/stop-going-stefanik-committee-fools https://theracket.news/p/stop-going-stefanik-committee-fools She doesn't care about whether the bill does something valid or even whether it survives legal challenges, as long she can use it to score political points. It's a real shame. Congresspeople are supposed to be servants beholden to the public good, not power-hungry sycophants who can't be bothered with the details of governance.

kotaKat 2y ago
I'll add more as a NY21 local: I've never seen her. I've never heard from her locally. You can't fucking find Elise. It's all events in the past. There's never been a townhall up in this portion of her region. Bonus: Her husband is a lobbyist for a leading gun industry trade group. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-Keep-gun-industry-free-from-17203670.php https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Stefanik-s-husband-K...
- acdha 2y ago
  I’ll contrast that with people like Jamie Raskin. I’ve met him personally (briefly, but multiple times) because he shows up at random music festivals and civic events. It’s really not hard to tell when a politician is interested in public feedback.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Her husband has lobbied for NSSF… Why is that bad?
  - mauvehaus 2y ago
    The complaint is typically about access. If you have a policy you'd like your rep to advance, you're stuck going through the same channels nearly everyone is: call, write a letter, etc. If Alice Armalite or Bob Browning[0] wants something advanced, they call their guy who knows not just Stefanik, but probably a bunch of other reps socially through her. Who's more likely to actually get the ear of a politician: you, or Alice Armalite? To be clear, I don't think it's a good look for a politician to have personal ties that close with any lobbyist, even ones for the American Foundation for Fluffy and Adorable Kittens. [0] Not real people, one suspects.

questhimay 2y ago

[flagged]

throwaway_j12 2y ago
Doesn't this seem at odds with the facts? China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India. China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country. China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
- tyree731 2y ago
  > China is neutral. Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable. > Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country. A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant. > The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position. Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
  - FactKnower69 2y ago
    >Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. Overall hysterical post but this line was the best by far
- 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mardifoufs 2y ago

I'd rather blame everyone who voted on this, actually. Every one in Congress is an adult and were free to decide how to vote on this, afaik.