Why did O'Rourke vote against the Ukraine Support Act?

[Karpatsky]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll148.xml

One of only two Dems to do so. The only source I can find on this is this Wapo article which essentially gave no comment.

Personally, this is disqualifying in the primary if there isn't a very good explanation.


Thread update: did some more digging, and on top of this, he voted against support for independent local language media in Ukraine as well: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll150.xml

This really stretches his excuse that he was just uninterested in 'involving the US in another war'.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Beto tends to be pretty skeptical of anything interventionist and tended to vote against military aid in general, did the same for Israel a lot. But this is something I'd want a good explanation on.

If his reasoning is anything like Alan Grayson's...yeah that's disqualifying for me.

Man I didn't even know Grayson was one of those Putin bootlickers...and I liked him at the time! Disgusting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Beto tends to be pretty skeptical of anything interventionist and tended to vote against military aid in general, did the same for Israel a lot. But this is something I'd want a good explanation on.

If his reasoning is anything like Alan Grayson's...yeah that's disqualifying for me.

Man I didn't even know Grayson was one of those Putin bootlickers...and I liked him at the time! Disgusting.

Only Bernie voted against all 3 of the military increase votes in the last year. Here Beto was not one of the 49 House Democrats to vote nay on this increase.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll379.xml

[😥]

Personally, this is disqualifying in the primary if there isn't a very good explanation.

[Coldstream]

The fact that even people like Tulsi Gabbard and Keith Ellison, who are as anti-interventionist as the Democratic Party gets, voted for this and the only other Democrat to do so was Alan Grayson is prettt damning. Though it was 5 years ago, it’s possible he just misunderstood the conflict.

[SCNCmod]

So is the accusation here that Beto voted to Support Russia over Ukraine?  

1. Beto's vote had nothing to do with supporting Russia.

2. His vote was mainly a symbolic anti-war vote ... given that the measure passed 399-18.

...Not to mention (as the previous post pointed out) that the vote was 4 years ago.  If the vote was taken today, it would take on a bit of a different dynamic....and Beto would prob be less likely to use it as a symbolic vote against getting over involved in too many armed conflicts.  But again, at any rate, the vote had nothing to do with support for Russia.... and certainly would not be a weakness for Beto in the general election- as its not an issue for which Trump can criticize Beto on any level.

---------------
Here is part of an article from SFGate during the Senate election...

“Congressman O’Rourke was one of the fringe on the far left who refused to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, another sovereign nation,” Cruz said.

O’Rourke, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, defends the vote, saying he would not approve sending “lethal” aid to Ukraine and further involving the U.S. in another global conflict.

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”
--------------

As for some of the other issues mentioned above (Israel, Immigration, etc) regarding Beto's votes... his "against the grain" votes were almost always symbolic (when measured were passed almost unanimously) ... and those votes were not aimed at opposition to the main goal of the measure.

[mgop]

because he isn't all that bad

[Karpatsky]

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”

Wow, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the Ukrainian conflict. Abstract pacifism is an incredibly naive position to take, and certainly should not be the position of the person at the head of the most significant player in maintaining the world order.

This is really disappointing. I guess I'd still have to take him over Trump, but hopefully the nominee is someone with the barest understanding of international policy, given that that is the sphere in which the executive branch has the greatest influence.

[SCNCmod]

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”

Wow, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the Ukrainian conflict. Abstract pacifism is an incredibly naive position to take, and certainly should not be the position of the person at the head of the most significant player in maintaining the world order.

This is really disappointing. I guess I'd still have to take him over Trump, but hopefully the nominee is someone with the barest understanding of international policy, given that that is the sphere in which the executive branch has the greatest influence.

Again- I think the timing being 4 years ago... and more importantly- the vote being almost unanimous (leaving room for an anti-war protest vote of sorts) ... should be kept in mind.  His statement was explaining his mindset at the time of the vote... not necessarily his mindset now.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I really don't get the point. Those Ukrainian flags from posters here confuse me too?

[Karpatsky]

“It was us becoming a participant in yet another war,” O’Rourke said listing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus U.S. roles in conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. “I don’t know that deepening U.S. military involvement in Ukraine is going to solve that country's problems. I’m not down with more war for the United States.”

Wow, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the Ukrainian conflict. Abstract pacifism is an incredibly naive position to take, and certainly should not be the position of the person at the head of the most significant player in maintaining the world order.

This is really disappointing. I guess I'd still have to take him over Trump, but hopefully the nominee is someone with the barest understanding of international policy, given that that is the sphere in which the executive branch has the greatest influence.

Again- I think the timing being 4 years ago... and more importantly- the vote being almost unanimous (leaving room for an anti-war protest vote of sorts) ... should be kept in mind.  His statement was explaining his mindset at the time of the vote... not necessarily his mindset now.

This vote was not the thing to protest from his justifications. Sending aid to Ukraine is not the same as sending weapons or advisors into Middle Eastern conflicts; here the aid is going to a friendly, conventional, and accountable state force doing combat with another conventional state force. Conflating this with those conflicts shows a deep misunderstanding of the situation, and the fact that he stood essentially alone on this probably means he ignored the council of his better-informed peers over a pacifist principle, which is a bad quality to have in a world leader.

And respectfully, unless I'm mistaken, he hasn't commented on this since, so arguing that he might have changed his mindset is a really pointless and disingenuous argument, like all the people promising the 'Trump pivot' after his election. I'll consider believing he changed his mind if he shows some indication of that; as now this statement is the most recent information we have on this issue.

[UWS]

Beto tends to be pretty skeptical of anything interventionist and tended to vote against military aid in general, did the same for Israel a lot. But this is something I'd want a good explanation on.

If his reasoning is anything like Alan Grayson's...yeah that's disqualifying for me.

Man I didn't even know Grayson was one of those Putin bootlickers...and I liked him at the time! Disgusting.

No wonder that O’Rourke voted to prohibit combat operations against ISIS in Iraq on June 2014 even during a time ISIS was controlling 70 % of Iraq’s territory and was using it as a base to launch terrorist attacks around the world.

https://votesmart.org/bill/18599/49034/78533/prohibits-united-states-combat-operations-in-iraq#.XEC51hqu-f0

[DavidB.]

Very interesting, didn't know this. Not a good vote.

[Grassroots]

He voted for it as a symbolic gesture for non-interventionism.

And I must be the only person here that supports Russia over Ukraine in this conflict.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

He voted for it as a symbolic gesture for non-interventionism.

And I must be the only person here that supports Russia over Ukraine in this conflict.

I don't side with Russia, but I agree with Grayson for the most part.

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as it's made out to be. 

[Deleted User #4049]

He voted for it as a symbolic gesture for non-interventionism.

And I must be the only person here that supports Russia over Ukraine in this conflict.

I don't side with Russia entirely but it's certainly more complex than people make it out to be. I think that the overthrow of Yanukovych was justified and Russia was wrong to invade the Donbass, but that they were 100% within their rights in taking back Crimea.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

His voting record is idiosyncratic and he has several REALLY bad foreign policy votes. He was the only voter against Iron Dome funding who probably doesn't like the thought of Israel getting hit by rockets, too.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

[courts]

“Congressman O’Rourke was one of the fringe on the far left who refused to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, another sovereign nation,” Cruz said.

rato strikes again

[Karpatsky]

Wise decision by him, Ukraine is run by banderite nazis.

He voted for it as a symbolic gesture for non-interventionism.

And I must be the only person here that supports Russia over Ukraine in this conflict.

I don't side with Russia, but I agree with Grayson for the most part.

This issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as it's made out to be. 

Both of you and Grayson evidently have no understanding of the situation on the ground to feel this way.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

[Cory]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

You circa 1938:

Person: "Protecting the Czechs from German aggression is exactly what we should be doing."

You: "Why?"

*All while thinking you are deep and just Question More*

[Big Abraham]

If you read the provisions of the bill, it's clear that it's more than just a generic support for "Ukraine's territorial integrity". The bill included specific provisions to greatly empower the President, the State Department, and the Defense Department to intervene in the country in order to 'stabilise' their economy and further enhance security operations with NATO, which is about the last thing that needed to be done.

If he doesn't adequately address this sort of nonsense on the campaign trail, IDK if I can vote for him in the primary.  Hashtag isolationism is the last thing America needs right now.

Not exactly sure how this equals isolationism, but I can assure you that non-intervention in the Ukraine is far superior to the belligerence that U.S. foreign policy has demonstrated since the Second World War

Protecting The Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing.

Why?

You circa 1938:

Person: "Protecting the Czechs from German aggression is exactly what we should be doing."

You: "Why?"

*All while thinking you are deep and just Question More*

Bruh, it's not about thinking I am deep. He asserted that protecting the Ukraine from Russian aggression is exactly what we need to be doing, and I asked him to back up that claim. Simple as that, really. Since the post I responded to gave my own reasons for why I would not have voted for the Ukraine Support Act (including that it includes intervenes in the Ukraine's economy and furthers American ties to NATO), and he didn't even attempt to give a rebuttal, I think I am justified in asking him why meddling in the Ukraine is any of our business.

And believe it or not, yeah, we shouldn't have "protected" Czechs from German aggression, either. You don't fight imperialism with more imperialism.