• SatanicNotMessianic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    9 months ago

    Remember when the republicans regularly accused the democrats as being soft on defense and the party of “cut and run?”

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • aew360@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      “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.

  • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Protecting the population means more than funneling money into the pockets of contractors.

      I think every country should enforce a mandatory conscription and include universal healthcare with that. This would solve many problems

      • SkippingRelax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        We do pretty well with universal healthcare and no mandatory conscription thanks. If you want to do that in the US be my guest but no kid should be sent to die by a bunch of old people that have nothing to lose and all to gain from useless wars. Look at Russia right now, is that what we really want in the 21st century?

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

  • perishthethought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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)

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

    • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      They will just repeat what Trump said with a shit-eating grin. There is no original thought going on there.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    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!