Dude's face is getting fat, too. Weird, since he doesn't look to fat elsewhere.
I would love to ask Tucker what he thinks that hundred billion should be spent on, and if he would vote for it as a conservative.
What an absolutely retarded argument. For so many reasons. You don't have to spend it at all. And, even if you did, if you think the Ukraine nonsense is pointless...yeah, even spending it on "the welfare state" would still be better than sending it overseas. It's just so fucking stupid. So, as a conservative, you can't argue against sending money overseas...because it would also be wasted here...so you're not a conservative...unless you're fine with sending money overseas. It's stupid and circular.
I think some people are so caught up in the Ukraine = good and beautiful democracy narrative that they can't imagine that someone would think sending 100 billion there to be embezzled is a bad thing.
It's like that thread about Piers Morgan, where his counterpoint to someone not wanting to send money to Ukraine was just assuming by default that everyone wants to send money to Israel, and thus the person was a hypocrite. Sad.
I recognize it because the same people are doing "fake libertarianism" for all the same points.
You exclusively apply a single conservative/libertarian principle, and then dismiss the whole argument as not real conservative/libertarian.
Dan is demanding we be fiscally conservative on welfare, but not war-whoring.
Libertarian Socialists will demand you join them in condemning censorship when they call for assassinations, but will condemn you for "hate speech" when you say that "there are only two genders".
Dude's face is getting fat, too. Weird, since he doesn't look to fat elsewhere.
What an absolutely retarded argument. For so many reasons. You don't have to spend it at all. And, even if you did, if you think the Ukraine nonsense is pointless...yeah, even spending it on "the welfare state" would still be better than sending it overseas. It's just so fucking stupid. So, as a conservative, you can't argue against sending money overseas...because it would also be wasted here...so you're not a conservative...unless you're fine with sending money overseas. It's stupid and circular.
I agree it's telling that he can't fathom not taking people's money. Well we will lose it if we don't use it.
Huh. "If I don't steal your stuff someone else will steal it."
WHERE, WHERE, WHERE have we heard this before? 🤔🤔🤔
I think some people are so caught up in the Ukraine = good and beautiful democracy narrative that they can't imagine that someone would think sending 100 billion there to be embezzled is a bad thing.
It's like that thread about Piers Morgan, where his counterpoint to someone not wanting to send money to Ukraine was just assuming by default that everyone wants to send money to Israel, and thus the person was a hypocrite. Sad.
"sovereign democratic country"
I just want someone to ask him: do you even know what sovereignty is?
Don't forget a swathe of that money that was embezzled was sent to ShareBlue.
Much conservative. Very republican.
I mean, yeah, cucking to our enemies is a republican as it gets. He's actually spot on with his description.
This is fake conservativism.
I recognize it because the same people are doing "fake libertarianism" for all the same points.
You exclusively apply a single conservative/libertarian principle, and then dismiss the whole argument as not real conservative/libertarian.
Dan is demanding we be fiscally conservative on welfare, but not war-whoring.
Libertarian Socialists will demand you join them in condemning censorship when they call for assassinations, but will condemn you for "hate speech" when you say that "there are only two genders".