US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Dr J]

US and Ukraine's relationship is very similar to a cuck and bull's relationship.

Question is: which one is which?

 

[LUNEKO]

Question is: which one is which?

They are not picky about roles

 

[Trust Me I Know]

 

[HTTP Error 404]

So who exactly is supporting sending billions to Ukraine while denuding the military of their equipment? Anyone? This can't be a popular move.

Sure it is. Remember, the niggercattle shoved Ukraine flags all over everything a month ago after being commanded to by their masters. Besides, the US Military is a conservative and patriotic institution (that's why they're doing their best to wokefuck it into the ground right now) and are like, close enough to cops to warrant destruction, right?

The fact that the Biden admin is openly fleecing us like this is one of the more maddening things I've ever seen in politics. And the best thing? He got the niggrecattle to cheer him doing it -- or at the very least, scream bloody murder if anyone questioned him.

And he did so while being functionally brain dead.

 

[The Last Stand]

View attachment 3643086
I hate RINOs

Why does she look like a man with that pent up facial expression?

 

[Bored Gamer]

A sophomore should have figured it out? Or a senior in high-school where everyone is telling them this is the only way to be succesful in life? We don't let people under 21 get a beer but it's A-OK to sign them into financial rapings for life before some of them are 17 and they should be punished for that?

Zoomer shits are the most insufferable generation to have ever existed so yes

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Byeaaa we’re done if we actually go to war.

That can only be a good thing if the tyrannical government goes to war against the people.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

@Gehenna My current theory as to the other shoe that's bout to drop? The one that they seem to be prepping for?

Vaccines. I'm guessing that there's about to be a report that the vax has some pretty major side effects they can't hide anymore, and they're trying to push Trump out in front of that bus all of a sudden. Literally trying to gaslight the country into thinking Trump forced the lockdowns and forced everyone to get the vax.

Youtube just removed, without any public statement, their rule on anti-Vax videos. Twitter has had various "Trump forced us to get the jab" hashtags trending this week, in between Keffals having his public tantrum. Several cathedral connected outlets have ran "AKSHUALLY the Vaccine was rushed and that was Trump's fault" articles.

It all feels like they're getting ready to suddenly flip the official NPC programming on the vaccines and weaponize the reaction against the GOP and Trump.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

@Gehenna My current theory as to the other shoe that's bout to drop? The one that they seem to be prepping for?

Vaccines. I'm guessing that there's about to be a report that the vax has some pretty major side effects they can't hide anymore, and they're trying to push Trump out in front of that bus all of a sudden. Literally trying to gaslight the country into thinking Trump forced the lockdowns and forced everyone to get the vax.

Youtube just removed, without any public statement, their rule on anti-Vax videos. Twitter has had various "Trump forced us to get the jab" hashtags trending this week, in between Keffals having his public tantrum. It all feels like they're getting ready to suddenly flip the official NPC programming on the vaccines and weaponize the reaction against the GOP and Trump.

....which anyone with two brain cells to rub together will see right through. Though Trump did finance the jabs' development, and encouraged people to get it (one of his big blunders, IMO), the important thing is that he didn't force them on us in exchange for steady employment. THAT was Brandon and company. So, if that IS the angle they're going for, then, like all of their other stunts thus far, it is going to backfire. HARD.

 

[tehpope]

....which anyone with two brain cells to rub together will see right through. Though Trump did finance the jabs' development, and encouraged people to get it (one of his big blunders, IMO), the important thing is that he didn't force them on us in exchange for steady employment. THAT was Brandon and company. So, if that IS the angle they're going for, then, like all of their other stunts thus far, it is going to backfire. HARD.

Also, if Biden and co knew how bad the vax was, why push it on everyone? Why have the DNC do a 180 on the vax? Cause there were tons of politicians and shills saying they were never gonna take the "Trump vax" but ended up doing so anyways.

It doesn't matter since they'll move the goalposts and ban people for daring to ask questions. And in the end it won't accomplish their goals: honestly winning midterms. Their failure proceeds them and its pretty normal for the ruling party to lose the midterms. But I'm guessing they'll win it in some areas and people will get pissy. Normies won't riot and protest until they can't afford heat and food.

 

[AnotherPleb]

Also, if Biden and co knew how bad the vax was, why push it on everyone? Why have the DNC do a 180 on the vax? Cause there were tons of politicians and shills saying they were never gonna take the "Trump vax" but ended up doing so anyways.

It doesn't matter since they'll move the goalposts and ban people for daring to ask questions. And in the end it won't accomplish their goals: honestly winning midterms. Their failure proceeds them and its pretty normal for the ruling party to lose the midterms. But I'm guessing they'll win it in some areas and people will get pissy. Normies won't riot and protest until they can't afford heat and food.

This winter is going to be rough.

 

[Curly_]

https://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1/status/1562853950092881920

>the diary is real

 

[MrJokerRager]

So who exactly is supporting sending billions to Ukraine while denuding the military of their equipment? Anyone? This can't be a popular move.

I know this sounds silly but I now kind of understand that Fallout 3 guy who forces the wastelanders to work in the Pittsburgh factories, if just to make sure those skills aren't lost forever. I still remember Ross Perot warning about outsourcing our manufacturing and what it would do, and every single thing he said is true.

Who is supporting sending billions to Jewcraine and stripping us of our weaponry? I don't know, take a guess.

Maybe Micheal Tracey has the answer.

Democrats and Republicans Pretend They Have Massive, Unbridgeable Differences So They Can Unite Seamlessly on War

After endless rounds of Hamlet-style legislative tedium, Congressional Democrats finally muscled through a $430 billion spending bill this month which deals with a smattering of their domestic policy priorities. Because Republicans opposed the bill en masse, and Democrats supported it en masse, one might look at this development and conclude that standard-fare partisanship is just as indelible a feature of US politics as it’s ever been. After all, the partisan affiliation of Senators and House members was perfectly predictive of their voting behavior vis-a-vis the “Inflation Reduction Act.” When the rubber hits the road, it turns out Republicans and Democrats really do have competing, irreconcilable interests — right?

Thanks to these occasional instances of classically polarized partisan sausage-making, elected officials and media operatives can claim at least some basis for their frantic insistence that some titanic gulf separates the two parties. The ever-presence of bi-directional Culture War agitation can heighten this impression — upon which it always becomes existentially crucial that one or the other party gets put into power at the next election. Make sure to vote in the upcoming Midterms, because these Midterms just happen to be the most consequential Midterms of all time, at least since the 2018 Midterms. The fate of humanity hinges on whether Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell controls the Senate, didn’t you know?

On the other hand, if you’re one of the vanishingly few Americans who’d like to think that your vote this year could meaningfully alter the course of US foreign policy, you’re bound for disappointment. Because even as both parties tried to make it seem like the “Inflation Reduction Act” vividly demonstrated the intractable differences between them, they were simultaneously demonstrating the exact opposite: that at least in regards to another set of issues which genuinely are “existential,” in that they impinge on such matters as whether you’re likely to get incinerated in a large radiation blast anytime soon, there is almost no meaningful distance at all between Democrats and the GOP. Over time, if anything, whatever distance might have previously existed has meaningfully shrunk. Because with limited and marginalized exceptions, both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly functioning as a unified bloc on the questions which most centrally bear on America’s posture as a global military and economic hegemon. As that posture becomes more fraught and antagonistic across multiple theaters, the two parties have become more and more ardent in constricting the range of acceptable debate. Democrats may spend the bulk of their time on social media or in front of TV cameras piously shrieking that the empowerment of Republicans would guarantee the implosion of “democracy,” and Republicans may make funhouse-mirror versions of the same argument. But this phony baloney two-way theater obscures just how much their worldviews have converged.

Earlier this month, the Senate approved the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO by a vote of 95-1 — formalizing the process by which those two countries have opted to repudiate their historic doctrines of military neutrality. (Finland is abandoning the precedent it adhered to throughout the entirety of the Cold War, while Sweden is abandoning the precedent it has adhered to since the reign of Napoleon.) Speaking from the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) joyously declared how “glad” he was that NATO enlargement is something “we can all pretty much agree on.” In a touching moment, Carper noted that he had both the “same initials” and the “same views” on the subject as his colleague Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) — perhaps the most ideologically zealous interventionist in the Senate. Cotton also happens to be one of the few remaining US political figures of any notoriety who’s still refused to budge in his conviction that it was a really great idea for George W. Bush to invade Iraq. And unless he just happens to have an unusually specific fondness for Iowa and New Hampshire, Cotton is clearly preparing to run for president — so it should bring Democrats great pleasure that someone they’re in such fundamental agreement with is gearing up to throw his hat in the ring.

“Probably one of the easiest votes I’ll ever make in the United States Senate,” announced Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), who seemed particularly appreciative that he barely had to give the Finland/Sweden issue more than a moment’s thought. “John McCain, I wish you were alive today to celebrate,” chimed in Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). And indeed, there’s little doubt that McCain would have reason to celebrate from beyond the grave: the US political class, whatever their surface-level partisan or factional disagreements, is barreling toward unshakable “unity” on the expansion of US hegemonic power, now arrayed with growing fervor against the reviled tandem of Russia and China. One of McCain’s favorite themes was always “unity,” but a peculiar kind of “unity” whose purpose was mainly to facilitate wars.

Even the lone senator who did vote against the accession of Finland and Sweden this month, Josh Hawley (R-MO), did so on grounds that made abundantly clear he had no objection on principle to the expansion of NATO — much less to the accelerated deployment of coercive US power around the world. What he objected to was simply that expanding NATO at this juncture reflected ineffectual resource allocation, as Hawley preferred that whatever the US may now be obliged to expend in Scandinavia should instead be expended in East Asia, to prepare for an allegedly looming war with China. Hawley stressed that he opposed bringing Finland and Sweden into NATO only insofar as it would be a hindrance to the US implementing “a coherent strategy for stopping China’s dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan.”

Hawley explained, “Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be,” whether because “we don’t have enough advanced munitions” or because the current fleet of US attack submarines is “sinking.” Fundamentally, Hawley argued, the US is “simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts.” And his objection to NATO expansion boils down to a preference for “handling” a conflict in the Pacific over one in Europe — not, it should be noted, a preference for mitigating conflict in the first place. But even going by his own stated rationale, it’s unclear what the operating principle is for Hawley: in 2019, he voted for the accession of well-known military powerhouse North Macedonia to NATO. All that’s seemingly changed in the interim is that Hawley has taken to framing his views more in terms of opposing what he calls a “globalist foreign policy” — which somehow coincides with his advocacy for dramatically ramping up US militarization on the other side of the globe in East Asia.

Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), among the dwindling group of national politicians one might expect to raise at least a perfunctory objection to NATO expansion, conceded during the Senate debate this month: “In this new world I am less adamant about preventing NATO’s expansion.”

It wasn’t always this way. In 1998, 19 senators voted against the accession to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — not enough to prevent the proposal from obtaining the required two-thirds majority, but enough to at least prompt a reasonably robust debate, one which far exceeded the pittance that accompanied this month’s vote. Figures as high-profile as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Hillary Clinton’s predecessor, argued against NATO expansion on the floor of the Senate in extremely stark terms: Moynihan declared his opposition stemmed from a keen wariness about “the dangers of nuclear war in the years ahead,” and said NATO expansion needlessly “put ourselves at risk of getting into a nuclear engagement, a nuclear war, with Russia — wholly unanticipated, for which we are not prepared, about which we are not thinking.”

Moynihan’s primary sparring partner during that 1998 debate was none other than Joe Biden, then the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who appointed himself point-person for the entire process of shepherding NATO expansion through the necessary procedural formalities. In fact, Biden’s conviction in the eternal virtue of NATO expansion seems to be one of the few positions he’s held consistently over the course of his comically long, decades-spanning career. That first round of expansion in 1998, Biden declared at the time, would mark “the beginning of another 50 years of peace” — a prophecy that today some might quibble with.

Though he didn’t succeed, Moynihan’s opposition showed it wasn’t an automatic career-ender to be associated with skepticism of this particular strand of US military expansionism — nor was raising concerns about the specter of nuclear war considered contemptibly “cringe.” Moynihan remained a highly revered figure among his colleagues; a new expansion of Penn Station in NYC was even just named after him last year. With a hot war raging today in Ukraine, in which the US is effectively the leading co-combatant against Russia, the risk of nuclear war is much more acute than when Moynihan warned about it 24 years ago. But almost no political figure of any prominence even appears to be “thinking” about the matter anymore. Indulge in such “thinking,” and you’re liable to be denounced as a Putin agent for your trouble, and/or field a barrage of angry accusations that you’re somehow in league with right-wing “insurrectionists.”

A few who voted against NATO expansion in 1998 are still in the Senate, like Pat Leahy (D-VT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK) — all of whom just supported Finland/Sweden accession this month, apparently without a second thought. (Leahy, at age 82, was technically absent for the vote due to hip problems.) Even Harry Reid (D-NV), who’d later become the Senate Majority Leader and therefore presumably could not be dismissed as some fringe agitator, voted against NATO expansion in 1998. There were weeks of formal debate back then — Senators actually engaged one another directly with arguments and counter-arguments, an extreme rarity in an otherwise stultified environment. And while Biden’s side prevailed, there was at least some notional sense that another “side” existed. Today, there is functionally just one “side,” with politicians flocking in unison to install another 830 miles of NATO “security umbrella” (by way of Finland) right smack dab on the border with Russia. This would’ve been almost unthinkable in 1998, even for the most ardent NATO expansion advocates — but today the move was swiftly ratified with hardly a critical word uttered.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was in the House at the time, not the Senate, and therefore did not specifically vote on the provision to amend the NATO treaty. But in 1997 he made a point to put some observations on the record concerning a concurrent measure that set the groundwork for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join NATO (which ultimately happened in 2004, thanks to the friendly bipartisan cooperation of Biden and George W. Bush). Sanders asked on the floor of the House: “First of all, Russia clearly perceives that the expansion of NATO into the Baltics would be an aggressive, wholly unjustifiable move by the United States… since the Cold War is over, why are we militarily provoking Russia?”

Today, Bernie is essentially mute on the subject — except when he votes unfalteringly in favor of the latest NATO-related initiative, such as the Finland/Sweden measure this month, or the $40 billion Ukraine war funding bill in May. And for the most part, he can’t even be bothered to explain his reasoning — which in a way is understandable, since it’s not like there’s some steady drumbeat of “progressive” activists/media holding his feet to the fire on these issues. Could figures who opposed NATO expansion in 1998 theoretically argue that conditions in 2022 have changed so radically that they’ve in turn changed their position? Yes, they could theoretically argue that. But they’re barely even asked to justify their positions, as the near-total eradication of any dissension on the matter has given way to an impenetrable consensus, such that no justification need be given.

The Washington Post was candid in 1998 about the reasons “approval was virtually assured” for NATO expansion, notwithstanding the minority of opposition led by Moynihan. “Pressure from ethnic constituencies and the prospect of new markets for the American defense industry at a time of shrinking US demand,” the newspaper reported, had already sealed the deal. Try mentioning either of those factors in polite company today with regard to the current posture of US foreign policy in Eastern Europe. You’ll probably find you’d prefer to stick with more standard-fare squabbling about things like the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

"America First" Hawks Admit US Weapons in Ukraine are Plunging Down a "Black Hole"

If you ever try to define what the concept of “America First” means in contemporary political vernacular, you can expect to be promptly deluged with a succession of “No true scotsman”-style fallacies. For example, let’s say a prominent Republican official proudly declares himself a faithful steward of the “America First” agenda, and avows enthusiastic support for the figure generally agreed to have popularized “America First” in recent years — Donald Trump. Perhaps this hypothetical official even served in the Trump Administration, and continues to sing the praises of all he says the Administration accomplished. Despite these credentials, the official can and probably will be dismissed as not truly representing “America First.” Because, objectors will say, he favors X, Y, or Z policy — and no true “America First” adherent could ever favor X, Y, or Z. Repeat this process on loop, and it becomes exceedingly unclear who the hell could ever be said to legitimately represent “America First,” which has devolved into an increasingly inscrutable ideological category. If you follow these definitional debates online, you'll know it’s sometimes even claimed that the category no longer includes Donald Trump himself. Or may have never included him in the first place!

So it will probably likewise be claimed that the first inaugural Summit last week of the “America First Policy Institute” in Washington DC, which I attended, could in no way legitimately represent an authentic expression of “America First” — whatever that means exactly. Even though the Institute was founded by former Trump Administration officials, is populated by scores of ardently pro-Trump conservatives, and overtly brands itself as carrying forth the policy legacy of Donald Trump. Not to mention that the group is personally endorsed by Trump, who delivered a speech at the Summit for his first appearance back in DC since leaving office. (Trump has also given the group at least $1 million.) So if even the “America First Policy Institute” can be claimed to fall short of whatever criteria now determines the “true” meaning of America First, then the term is best understood to be bereft of any intelligible meaning — or at least the definitional debate has become so abstract that it’s kind of like debating the “true meaning of Christmas.”

And therein lies what may ultimately be the best way to resolve this quandary: whatever its origins, and whatever ideological constructs people may want to project upon it, “America First” in practice basically means next-to-nothing nowadays except “mainline Republican who remains positively disposed toward the previous Republican administration.” Which would help explain why everyone from Kevin McCarthy to Lindsey Graham comfortably showed up to this Summit, with no sign that their presence was met by any particular tension or dissonance.

The event was invite-only, so it wasn’t open to the general public as any kind of mass-mobilizing event. Instead it was attended by members of the Republican Party professional class who had the requisite connections to get invited. There may have been a time when “Republican Party professional class” and “America First” were assumed to be non-overlapping categories, or when the juxtaposition of those two categories implied some kind of “establishment versus outsider” friction. That is clearly no longer the case (if it ever was). Many attendees of the Summit previously worked for one or more of the Trump presidential campaigns in some capacity, and looked forward to doing that again. Or they worked for the federal government in some capacity under Trump, and wish to do that again. One guy even introduced himself to me half-jokingly as a DC “swamp creature,” citing his past employment in one of the federal Departments during the Trump Administration. In short, this was the consummate “America First” professional networking event.

“America First Policy Institute” mainly purports to be in the business of “thought leadership” — and yes, it really did use that precise term on promotional material displayed throughout the hotel conference venue. If you assumed that stimulating and inspiring “thought leadership” could only ever be found at idealistic liberal nonprofits or whatever, you assumed incorrectly. I honestly don’t know how anyone can declare themselves a “thought leader” and not want to immediately commit seppuku, but I guess that’s the sensibility one would have to expect from an outfit whose board is chaired by Linda McMahon and Larry Kudlow.

All this “thought leadership” being busily produced will eventually comprise the policy repertoire of the next Republican presidential administration, the thinking goes, and based on the “Four More Years” chant that broke out during Trump’s closing speech, there’s not much mystery about who they’re anticipating will steer the ship. (Yes, he’s running again, according to all the murmurings relayed to me.) Newt Gingrich proclaimed the America First Policy Institute occupies the same sort of vanguard position today as the Heritage Foundation did in 1979-1980, when it was busily incubating the forthcoming policy agenda of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan took office, he immediately hired tons of Heritage Foundation personnel. So at least according to Gingrich, this particular America First operation would be largely running the government in 2025, if everything goes according to plan.

Which is why I took particular interest in the foreign policy positions being espoused at this event. Because for all the adamant insistences one always hears about how “true” America First is non-negotiably predicated on some flavor of “non-interventionist” foreign policy, I did not hear a single word uttered which would be consistent with anything that resembles “non-interventionism” — or, god forbid, “isolationism.” Really it was the exact opposite.

For instance, the big marquee foreign policy panel was moderated by John Ratcliffe, the former Director of National Intelligence under Trump. If you recall, Ratcliffe was routinely pilloried by the media as an intolerable Trump lackey — so presumably he’s not seen as some kind of “establishment” anti-Trump saboteur. Ratcliffe introduced fellow panelist Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) as a person who has valiantly “lived by America First principles,” and predicted Waltz would be “one of our leading voices… setting our policy agenda from a foreign policy perspective” if Republicans take control of the House in the midterms.

Waltz announced he was fresh off his latest trip to Ukraine, which at this point may rival Mecca as the number one destination for international pilgrimages. At least by fever-brained elected officials. And the primary takeaway Waltz wanted to make sure he shared was that Joe Biden is really screwing up with respect to Ukraine. Not that the underlying policy was screwed up, of course — but that Biden is insufficiently aggressive in waging the war effort. Instead of “going for the kill,” Waltz complained, Biden has chosen to just “fiddle fart around.” All those long-range missile systems and heavy artillery pieces are apparently just “fiddle farts” — quite the vivid imagery. Waltz reported that notwithstanding the US effectively subsidizing the Ukraine military at this stage, Zelensky conveyed to him that he is “frustrated with this kind of piecemeal support from the administration.” The solution, Waltz proposed, is to send US military “advisors” physically into Ukraine to integrate themselves directly into the conflict. “Let’s win this damn war!” he demanded, perfectly content with the unavoidable implication that the US is an outright co-combatant in the war.

I caught up with Waltz afterwards and asked him to expand on what precisely his proposal would entail, and he seemed to preemptively anticipate the first and most natural objection: that he wants to send US forces into combat against Russia. “Let me tell you what it doesn’t look like,” Waltz assured me. “I’m not advocating for American troops on the front-lines in Ukraine. Absolutely not. But what the British are doing is they’re helping with planning. They’re helping with logistics. They’re helping Ukrainians use the equipment that we’re funding — at a headquarters level, in their supply depots. And the thing that I most want to happen is to provide oversight of all these billions that we’re providing. Where’s it going, who’s using it? How is it being used? We just can’t send this stuff into a black hole.”

I asked if this plan of his would require Congressional authorization, and he did not reply, instead ducking swiftly into an elevator. But think about what Waltz did manage to say. Like the vast majority of his Republican colleagues, he voted for the latest round of $40 billion in war funding back in May. Now, two months later, he’s publicly admitting the “billions that we’re providing” to Ukraine are going down a “black hole.” But rather that acknowledge this as an astronomical flaw in the measure he voted for — and therefore in the wider policy approach the US is taking to the conflict — Waltz now says the solution is to escalate the US war effort dramatically further, by sending US military “advisors” to physically integrate into the actual war. Which according to Waltz is what British forces are already doing. (By the way, does this mean the UK is at war with Russia? Wouldn’t the UK military personnel currently operating inside Ukraine be legitimate military targets? In the event they get blown up by a Russian missile strike, what is the US/NATO response supposed to be? Furthermore, why doesn’t anyone in the UK media seem to be asking these glaringly pertinent questions? There’s currently a Conservative Party leadership contest underway, and the UK press corps has all-but ignored the issue. But I digress.)

The blunt admission that all this much-heralded US weaponry is simply plunging into a “black hole” — from one of the most dedicated pro-Ukraine hawks in Congress, no less — really deserves to be dwelled upon for a moment. Not just in the insanity of the admission, but in how it’s now being used to justify even greater US military commitments. “I’d like to know where in the hell that equipment is too, Mike,” Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) said to Waltz at one point. In order to fix the mess he created by voting for a bill with no actionable monitoring provisions, Waltz is now proposing to entangle the US even more deeply into the war. And according to Waltz — who’s apparently on track to be a top foreign policy sage for the next GOP House majority — this is a totally sensible remedy, because he doesn’t envision the troops technically deploying to the “front-lines.” Which sounds very reassuring. You don’t have to be a scholar of the Vietnam War to know that the incremental buildup of so-called “advisors” was how the US ended up in all-out war by 1965.

Spurred by Waltz’s “black hole” comment, I asked Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) if he viewed the current monitoring provisions for US weapons in Ukraine to be adequate. “It’s a war,” Lankford said. “And we don’t have eyes on it. So no, we can’t tell every weapon, every place. But we do get regular accounting of it. Can you go back and verify all that? No, it’s a war. And so you can’t go back and verify all those things as well.”

I’ll take that as a “no.”

All that Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) would say (before his staff hustled him into an elevator) was: “It’s very important that the dollars that Congress has appropriated are carefully tracked and accounted for.” Both Lankford and Daines voted for the $40 billion “black hole” spending package in May.

Do figures like Ratcliffe, Waltz, Lankford, and Daines represent some authentic vision of “America First”? I’m sure there will be avalanches of right-wing commenters who scornfully deny this. But what’s perhaps more significant in terms of actual governance is that a key faction of the Republican Party professional class (in DC and nationwide) certainly seems to think so. As does Donald Trump. The emotional climax of Waltz’s panel discussion was a declaration by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) “that we absolutely annihilate the Russian forces, and we get them to crawl back into Russia so bloody and bruised that they can’t come back.” This was received by great applause from the assembled crowd. I tried to track down Ernst, but she appeared to scurry out a back entrance.

Finally, I came upon Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). If there’s anyone who would seem to represent the polar opposite of what most “America First” proponents say their foreign policy worldview is, it would have to be Graham. And yet, Graham is also the most prominent unabashed advocate of another Trump presidential campaign. “I hope he runs again,” Graham declared to the Summit gathering, to cheers. “I’m trying to move toward a strong America, and he’s the vehicle to get us there.”

Given that Graham apparently sees Trump as the “vehicle” for his preferred policy vision, does this make Graham an “America First” guy? Who knows. But here’s the exchange I had with him:

MT: When you say that Donald Trump is a vehicle for your preferred vision, does that include foreign policy? Because a lot of people don’t associate you with the “America First” agenda, which they view as a little bit more isolationist or non-interventionist. Is Trump still a vehicle for you in that regard?

Graham: I just don’t think America First is isolationism.

MT: How about non-interventionist?

Graham: Yeah, but it believes in alliances, but you got to pay your fair share. It’s not looking for a fight, but it wants folks—

MT: Because a lot of “America First” Republicans I talk to don’t regard the Ukraine issue as within the American national interest.

Graham: Well I do. Big time... If you want to make sure Taiwan goes, lose in Ukraine.

MT: Do you think most Republican voters agree with you?

Graham: Yes. In my state they do, overwhelmingly.

I’d love to see the detailed polling data that shows Republicans in South Carolina are in overwhelming agreement with Lindsey Graham on the issue of Ukraine, but that’s neither here nor there.

Graham dashed right from the America First summit to polish off his latest initiative calling on the State Department to officially designate Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Amazingly, it passed by unanimous consent. Not a single member of the US Senate saw fit to raise objections that making such a designation could obliterate any hope of a US-brokered settlement to the war.

Are these the fruits of “America First” in 2022? Carry on with the frenzied definitional debate, I guess.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

https://twitter.com/MikeBalsamo1/status/1562853950092881920

View attachment 3645535
>the diary is real

For those who don't remember, Biden's daughter detailed being sexually abused by him in this diary, or somesuch. Basically him forcing her to take showers with her so he could rub her down or whatnot.

Also, for those keeping track:

Raid on President Trump's home to remove documents the Biden Admin might find embarrassing? Legal, somehow.

Give an abandoned diary that embarrasses the Biden admin to a journalist? Illegal, somehow.

Both enforced by the same group of armed thugs.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

If I hear more American politicians like MTG misunderstand what Kiwi Farms is all about, I fear it will grow mainstream just like how 4chan did when Donald Trump was running for President.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Question is: which one is which?

I guess any one of these memes could be true at the same time.

Spoiler: NSFW in the presence of shitlibs.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

Give an abandoned diary that embarrasses the Biden admin

EMBARRASSES?! No no no no no. Joe shitting himself in front of the Pope is embarrassing. Reaching out to shake a non-existent hand is embarrassing. Stuttering more than Porky Pig on Quaaludes is embarrassing.

Sexually abusing your underage daughter is evil of the purest kind.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

EMBARRASSES?! No no no no no. Joe shitting himself in front of the Pope is embarrassing. Reaching out to shake a non-existent hand is embarrassing. Stuttering more than Porky Pig on Quaaludes is embarrassing.

Sexually abusing your underage daughter is evil of the purest kind.

Yes, and allowing the plebs to have evidence of that is a mild embarrassment, nothing more.

He will die and never face a single minute of punishment.

Just some mild embarrassment.

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

He will die and never face a single minute of punishment.

You could argue his dementia IS his punishment. He's the leader of the free world, and he can't revel in the power he wields due to his brain being mush. And if that isn't enough, an even worse punishment will come after he dies.

 

[GuntPunt]

I don't want to derail, but with the concurrent targeting of this site by the hordes of trannies, if this is it, goodbye Thunderdomers. Its been on honor shitposting with you all.

And Joe Biden obviously stole the 2020 election. Fuck him with a hot iron.