ASL Veteran

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

This is a bad take my friend.  I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse.  The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills.  It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande.  It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask?  That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there.  ASL is gong completely off the rails.  Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population.  Guess what?  It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census.  Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment.  As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district.  If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress.  Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go?  Sanctuary cities.  Guess where the sanctuary cities are?  Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census?  Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens?  In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses.  Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote.  The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others.  Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held.  One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen?  Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws.  Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States?  A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends).  New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.

5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts.  How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans.  However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy.  Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
 

Not trying to move the thread off topic any more than it already has, but apparently US, UK, and French forces (ships I suppose) as well as Saudi and Jordanian forces are assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles.  I just thought that was interesting.  I also saw something about 'stuff' happening inside Iran, but I haven't watched or read enough about it to know what's going on exactly.

Not trying to move the thread off topic any more than it already has, but apparently US, UK, and French forces (ships I suppose) as well as Saudi and Jordanian forces are assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles.  I just thought that was interesting.  I also saw something about 'stuff' happening inside Iran, but I haven't watched or read enough about it to know what's going on exactly.

I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
 

I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
 

I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
 

I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
 

Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind.  Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind.  The goals of Hamas are not comparable to the goals of ISIS and there is no possible reconciliation between Israel and Hamas.  Hamas doesn't need to create acts of terrorism in order to gain Palestinian recruits.  Polls, for what they are worth, show that Hamas has somewhere upwards of 70 percent favorability to the citizens of Gaza so they don't need to convince anyone.  Everyone in their neighborhood is already signed up.  No, the only people Hamas needs to recruit are non Palestinians to buy what they are selling so that they can continue to attack Israel and convince the international community to condemn Israel for defending itself.  Therefore the goal of Hamas is to attack Israel, claim that Israel is filled with genocidal Nazi colonizers who rape and pillage for entertainment, and hope that eventually either they can remove Israel from the face of the earth themselves, or that the international community will do it for them.  The only way Israel can end the cycle is to completely destroy Hamas and replace them with a government structure that's more amenable to compromise, because if they don't Hamas will just attack again as soon as they are able and we'll be right back where we are again today.  ISIS isn't concerned so much with Israel.  Their goals are more comprehensive.   How does an attack inside Russia advance the goal of the restoration of the caliphate I'm not really sure, but they have launched attacks in Iran recently too and Russia has / had troops in Syria so maybe it's not all that complicated.  I don't want to get this thread sidetracked though and I know how badly this topic can spin out of control so I think I'll just leave it there. 
3. What are Hamas’ aims?
What Hamas plainly seeks is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Where there is doubt is over the territory in which it envisages the establishment of the state, since it initially called for a Palestinian state occupying the West Bank, Gaza and the space now occupied by the state of Israel. In fact, they violently opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords between the Palestine National Liberation Organisation and the State of Israel. Accordingly, they initially refused to form part of the Palestinian National Authority, which was beginning to gain international –though not unanimous– recognition as the legitimate Palestinian authority and the blueprint for the future Palestinian state.
4. Does Hamas recognise Israel?
Although public statements by Hamas leaders vary, its denial of the legitimacy of the state of Israel has been a constant point of friction in the region.
 
Important doctrines of ISIL include its belief that it represents the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam, and that all Muslims are required to pledge allegiance to it;[9] that a "defiled" Islam must be purged of apostasy, often with bloody sectarian killings,[10] that the final Day of Judgment by God is near and will follow the defeat of the army of "Rome" by IS;[2] that a strict adherence to following the precepts "established by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers" is necessary, surpassing even that of other Salafi-Jihadi groups.[2]

Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind.  Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind.  The goals of Hamas are not comparable to the goals of ISIS and there is no possible reconciliation between Israel and Hamas.  Hamas doesn't need to create acts of terrorism in order to gain Palestinian recruits.  Polls, for what they are worth, show that Hamas has somewhere upwards of 70 percent favorability to the citizens of Gaza so they don't need to convince anyone.  Everyone in their neighborhood is already signed up.  No, the only people Hamas needs to recruit are non Palestinians to buy what they are selling so that they can continue to attack Israel and convince the international community to condemn Israel for defending itself.  Therefore the goal of Hamas is to attack Israel, claim that Israel is filled with genocidal Nazi colonizers who rape and pillage for entertainment, and hope that eventually either they can remove Israel from the face of the earth themselves, or that the international community will do it for them.  The only way Israel can end the cycle is to completely destroy Hamas and replace them with a government structure that's more amenable to compromise, because if they don't Hamas will just attack again as soon as they are able and we'll be right back where we are again today.  ISIS isn't concerned so much with Israel.  Their goals are more comprehensive.   How does an attack inside Russia advance the goal of the restoration of the caliphate I'm not really sure, but they have launched attacks in Iran recently too and Russia has / had troops in Syria so maybe it's not all that complicated.  I don't want to get this thread sidetracked though and I know how badly this topic can spin out of control so I think I'll just leave it there. 
3. What are Hamas’ aims?
What Hamas plainly seeks is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Where there is doubt is over the territory in which it envisages the establishment of the state, since it initially called for a Palestinian state occupying the West Bank, Gaza and the space now occupied by the state of Israel. In fact, they violently opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords between the Palestine National Liberation Organisation and the State of Israel. Accordingly, they initially refused to form part of the Palestinian National Authority, which was beginning to gain international –though not unanimous– recognition as the legitimate Palestinian authority and the blueprint for the future Palestinian state.
4. Does Hamas recognise Israel?
Although public statements by Hamas leaders vary, its denial of the legitimacy of the state of Israel has been a constant point of friction in the region.
 
Important doctrines of ISIL include its belief that it represents the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam, and that all Muslims are required to pledge allegiance to it;[9] that a "defiled" Islam must be purged of apostasy, often with bloody sectarian killings,[10] that the final Day of Judgment by God is near and will follow the defeat of the army of "Rome" by IS;[2] that a strict adherence to following the precepts "established by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers" is necessary, surpassing even that of other Salafi-Jihadi groups.[2]

Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind.  Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind.  The goals of Hamas are not comparable to the goals of ISIS and there is no possible reconciliation between Israel and Hamas.  Hamas doesn't need to create acts of terrorism in order to gain Palestinian recruits.  Polls, for what they are worth, show that Hamas has somewhere upwards of 70 percent favorability to the citizens of Gaza so they don't need to convince anyone.  Everyone in their neighborhood is already signed up.  No, the only people Hamas needs to recruit are non Palestinians to buy what they are selling so that they can continue to attack Israel and convince the international community to condemn Israel for defending itself.  Therefore the goal of Hamas is to attack Israel, claim that Israel is filled with genocidal Nazi colonizers who rape and pillage for entertainment, and hope that eventually either they can remove Israel from the face of the earth themselves, or that the international community will do it for them.  The only way Israel can end the cycle is to completely destroy Hamas and replace them with a government structure that's more amenable to compromise, because if they don't Hamas will just attack again as soon as they are able and we'll be right back where we are again today.  ISIS isn't concerned so much with Israel.  Their goals are more comprehensive.   How does an attack inside Russia advance the goal of the restoration of the caliphate I'm not really sure, but they have launched attacks in Iran recently too and Russia has / had troops in Syria so maybe it's not all that complicated.  I don't want to get this thread sidetracked though and I know how badly this topic can spin out of control so I think I'll just leave it there. 
3. What are Hamas’ aims?
What Hamas plainly seeks is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Where there is doubt is over the territory in which it envisages the establishment of the state, since it initially called for a Palestinian state occupying the West Bank, Gaza and the space now occupied by the state of Israel. In fact, they violently opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords between the Palestine National Liberation Organisation and the State of Israel. Accordingly, they initially refused to form part of the Palestinian National Authority, which was beginning to gain international –though not unanimous– recognition as the legitimate Palestinian authority and the blueprint for the future Palestinian state.
4. Does Hamas recognise Israel?
Although public statements by Hamas leaders vary, its denial of the legitimacy of the state of Israel has been a constant point of friction in the region.
 
Important doctrines of ISIL include its belief that it represents the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam, and that all Muslims are required to pledge allegiance to it;[9] that a "defiled" Islam must be purged of apostasy, often with bloody sectarian killings,[10] that the final Day of Judgment by God is near and will follow the defeat of the army of "Rome" by IS;[2] that a strict adherence to following the precepts "established by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers" is necessary, surpassing even that of other Salafi-Jihadi groups.[2]

Solving the manpower crisis
 

Solving the manpower crisis
 

Solving the manpower crisis
 

Solving the manpower crisis
 

Solving the manpower crisis
 

Who is sponsoring the discharge petition?  If it's a Democrat I wouldn't put too much into that - it's possible it could go through, but every Republican who pushes this forward is basically torpedoing the speaker's authority and he would then become ineffective at moving future legislation going forward (the Speaker of the House must be able to get his caucus to agree to different things to pass legislation and if his authority is undermined then he would be ineffective).  So that basically means the Republicans would need to find a new Speaker.  I'm not sure how many Republicans want to go through that again just to pass this (as important as this is to some here, the US has a lot of big issues to tackle).  Besides, none of us on this board know what's going on within the Republican caucus - the leadership likely already has a plan / agreement on what to do.
There are a lot of Democrats who will refuse to vote for this as well simply because they don't want to agree to anything that sends money to Israel.  I haven't seen anyone talking / writing about this Discharge Petition and if nobody is talking about it then I doubt it has any legs - but we'll see.  The votes might be there to pass it if the Speaker brings it to the floor, but just because the votes might there for regular order that doesn't mean that a Discharge Petition will succeed.  Even if every Democrat signed it (and not every one will) you would basically have to get enough Republicans to sign on and then look for a new Speaker of the House. 

Who is sponsoring the discharge petition?  If it's a Democrat I wouldn't put too much into that - it's possible it could go through, but every Republican who pushes this forward is basically torpedoing the speaker's authority and he would then become ineffective at moving future legislation going forward (the Speaker of the House must be able to get his caucus to agree to different things to pass legislation and if his authority is undermined then he would be ineffective).  So that basically means the Republicans would need to find a new Speaker.  I'm not sure how many Republicans want to go through that again just to pass this (as important as this is to some here, the US has a lot of big issues to tackle).  Besides, none of us on this board know what's going on within the Republican caucus - the leadership likely already has a plan / agreement on what to do.
There are a lot of Democrats who will refuse to vote for this as well simply because they don't want to agree to anything that sends money to Israel.  I haven't seen anyone talking / writing about this Discharge Petition and if nobody is talking about it then I doubt it has any legs - but we'll see.  The votes might be there to pass it if the Speaker brings it to the floor, but just because the votes might there for regular order that doesn't mean that a Discharge Petition will succeed.  Even if every Democrat signed it (and not every one will) you would basically have to get enough Republicans to sign on and then look for a new Speaker of the House. 

Who is sponsoring the discharge petition?  If it's a Democrat I wouldn't put too much into that - it's possible it could go through, but every Republican who pushes this forward is basically torpedoing the speaker's authority and he would then become ineffective at moving future legislation going forward (the Speaker of the House must be able to get his caucus to agree to different things to pass legislation and if his authority is undermined then he would be ineffective).  So that basically means the Republicans would need to find a new Speaker.  I'm not sure how many Republicans want to go through that again just to pass this (as important as this is to some here, the US has a lot of big issues to tackle).  Besides, none of us on this board know what's going on within the Republican caucus - the leadership likely already has a plan / agreement on what to do.
There are a lot of Democrats who will refuse to vote for this as well simply because they don't want to agree to anything that sends money to Israel.  I haven't seen anyone talking / writing about this Discharge Petition and if nobody is talking about it then I doubt it has any legs - but we'll see.  The votes might be there to pass it if the Speaker brings it to the floor, but just because the votes might there for regular order that doesn't mean that a Discharge Petition will succeed.  Even if every Democrat signed it (and not every one will) you would basically have to get enough Republicans to sign on and then look for a new Speaker of the House. 

The Pentagon's budget will need a continuing resolution passed sometime around March 22 if a regular budget can't be agreed upon (which is doubtful so they have to keep passing continuing resolutions to keep last year's budget going).  More than likely the Ukraine / Israel / random other stuff aide package will be resolved around that time since it's likely going to be folded into all the other defense spending (that's what I've read anyway and it makes sense).

I read somewhere that Ukrainian males aged between 18 and 26 can't be mobilized / aren't draftable or something although they can choose to enlist if they want to.  I've also read / heard that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is something like 44 years old - which is nuts.  You can't even enlist in the US army if you are older than 35.  If true, it sure seems like the individuals that you want most are the ones that can't be had for some unknown reason.  I'm with The Capt though - nobody has more at stake than Ukraine and if Ukraine can't even get enough recruits into the service then that's a big issue.  There are plenty of fingers that are getting pointed at various political parties, countries, and 'issues', but if Ukraine doesn't even have the willpower to get their 18 to 26 year olds into military service then I would think the biggest finger has to be pointed right at Ukraine.  Assuming that information is accurate.

Don't know if anyone already posted this but I thought it was interesting