Biden's right to say this. It is.
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
473 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3883 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'd call it treason.
Trump is a traitor.
And a muckmouth
“No other president in our history has ever bowed down to a Russian dictator”
Remember when the republicans regularly accused the democrats as being soft on defense and the party of “cut and run?”
I remember when Republicans regularly accused Democrats of being in league with the Soviets.
This is what I was thinking, you don't even need to go back more than a few good decades while the ussr is still around and you've got repubs saying Dems are traitors and in bed with the ussr. Reagan is rolling in his grave right now watching these Republicans.
Nah, they're carrying on Regan's legacy: say whatever will get you what you want, morals be damned.
“AIDING AND COMFORTING OUR ENEMIES” was what they cried out when a Democrat question Iraq. Somehow, Republicans have convinced hordes of Americans that’s it’s the Dems who uphold neoconservatism when all that Democrats want to do is stop a valuable and trustworthy ally from collapsing.
Magats don't care
As well he should. Backing out of our agreements makes us weak and unreliable. Maybe if we stopped going about things with a military first approach spending an absurd amount on maintaining a military that out spends the next several countries combined it wouldn't look like we're shouldering such an outsized measure of the costs.
We spend enough on some single piece of hardware that we could house the population of a small city and complain that others don't do the same. Protecting the population means more than funneling money into the pockets of contractors.
We don't even need to spend that much money to have the military we have. So much military spending just goes through a daisy chain of unnecessary middlemen. Scrape away all that extra corruption residue and we would be spending a fraction of what we are now.
Does anyone have a link showing what actual American conservatives are saying about Trump's quote? How are they trying to defend this? (Not the media - actual people, on the street, as it were)
They will likely never even know about this. Right wing media is incredibly insulated. They live in a different reality most of the time. They're programmed to shut out and discount any and all information that doesn't fit with their worldview.
They will just repeat what Trump said with a shit-eating grin. There is no original thought going on there.
I am more than a little bit doubtful that they've heard anything about it. On the Fox News website, I can find exactly two articles about it:
-
One titled "Trump’s NATO comments trigger fierce media and European opposition: How serious is he?," which focuses more on European response to the message (and in fairness does have some pretty strong words for Trump's statement), but was written by Howard Kurtz, who is generally considered a "RINO" or worse by rank & file MAGAts. That article currently has about 500 comments.
-
And one titled "White House responds to Trump encouraging Russia to do 'whatever' they want to some NATO members: 'Unhinged'," which focuses (as suggested by the headline) more on the White House's response to Trump's statement than on the statement itself, before going on to provide an apologia for Trump's remarks in the form of a weird, pseudo-self-righteous paraphrase of a section of the NATO charter. That article currently has about 4,500 comments.
The big comments on both articles are either regurgitations of Trump's statement itself, regurgitations of the apologia in the second article, or a spectrum from "he was just using a rhetorical device to make a point" up to "I support him, countries that don't pay should be punished."
Gift link you can edit into the post so that everybody with Javascript enabled can read the article seamlessly
There is a lot more unamerican in Trump than just this.
I mean… everthing Trump does is un-American, so… this is kinda’ low hanging fruit to be honest.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a televised statement, Mr. Biden said a $95 billion spending package passed earlier in the day on a bipartisan vote in the Senate was imperative to help defeat the “vicious onslaught” of President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia against Ukraine.
Mr. Biden’s statement on Tuesday came hours after the Senate passed the security aid legislation on a 70-to-29 vote, with 22 Republicans joining nearly all Democrats in supporting the financing.
“In the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters,” he said on Monday night.
But Mr. Johnson, under pressure from Mr. Trump, who said he does not want to give Mr. Biden the political win, has already rejected a bipartisan border bill negotiated by a conservative Republican senator with Democratic and independent counterparts.
The legislation also includes nearly $5 billion for Taiwan and other Indo-Pacific allies worried about China’s aggressive foreign policy, a priority for both parties.
Mr. Johnson last week tried to pass a bill providing only the Israel aid, but fell short of the two-thirds vote he needed for the parliamentary maneuver amid a veto threat by Mr. Biden, who objected to separating the package and leaving Ukraine out.
The original article contains 585 words, the summary contains 211 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!