this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
112 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10176 readers
200 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would direct President Biden to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. She argues that European countries are not reliable partners and are not paying their fair share of NATO obligations, while the U.S. pays around 4% of its GDP to defend NATO countries. Greene claims that European countries could and should pay more to ensure NATO security instead of relying on U.S. taxpayers. She introduced the amendment on the same day that President Biden expressed the U.S.'s "ironclad commitment" to NATO at a NATO summit in Lithuania, where NATO leaders also declared that Ukraine's future is in NATO

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ravheim@beehaw.org 112 points 1 year ago

If she's not a Russian asset, she's at least parroting their talking points.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.one 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Since we're all asking for various content filters, can I kindly request that all posts about this woman have an NSFW tag so I don't have to see that face in my feed?

[–] UpperBroccoli@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago

"not safe for the world"?

[–] Dalinar@lemmy.nz 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

She doesn't understand the concept of soft power and how much a bit of money will get you what you want.

[–] Scrumpletin@lemmy.fmhy.ml 57 points 1 year ago

she only cares about the money Russia is going to funnel to her.

[–] SomeGuyNamedPaul@beehaw.org 27 points 1 year ago

She does, it's just that she's the one receiving the money.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 45 points 1 year ago

Russian talking points masquerading as maverick Republican moves. Her base won't know the difference, which may be the real issue.

[–] unfnknblvbl@beehaw.org 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm literally on the other side of the world to her and I can see that she's either a blithering idiot, a Russian asset, or a blithering idiot being used by a Russian asset.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago

She's a useful idiot. The issue is that the GOP doesn't want democracy. They want a dictator they agree with. So they always echo fascist talking points because they're also fascists.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was going to say that there isn't a dumber elected official, but then I remembered Boebert. Man, if someone is going to be that dumb, they should at least be nice, and either way they shouldn't be helping to run the country. Such a complete embarrassment.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember when the dumbest ones were Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann?

To be honest, I couldn't remember Bachmann's name so I just Googled "tea party congresswoman idiot" and it was the first hit...

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, God, I'd almost forgotten that name. In those days one of my employees came to work on Halloween dressed as a "Tea party crackpot." His clothes made to look like made out of china with a big crack down from the neck, then big fake tea bags all over and each had a nut job quote from tea party members. I think about a third of them were Bachmann's. Things like ''I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back" and ''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

2016 I mocked up a fake bumpersticker:

Palin/Bachmann 2016! It's a no-brainer!

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Spot on. You could do one for 2024 for MTG and Boebert, but sadly some people would be excited by the prospect.

[–] circularfish@beehaw.org 26 points 1 year ago

There is a rising GOP faction that wants a white ‘Christian’ authoritarian regime so badly that they will adopt one in Russia.

[–] sorchist@beehaw.org 25 points 1 year ago

That's so weird that an extremist Trump republican wants to do something that would be massively helpful to Russia

[–] jay2@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think she could figure out how to roll a bowling ball.

[–] LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

I'm certain she would struggle to find the flat part of a piece of paper.

[–] HQC@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So weird to suggest leaving NATO as the solution to other participants allegedly not contributing their fair share. I guess this is one of those "take the ball and go home" compromises I've heard about?

[–] mnrockclimber@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

This whole "paying their fair share" is sort of a red herring too. I remember when Trump was talking about this and saying NATO was ripping us off. That's not how this works. In 2014 NATO countries agreed to spend 2% of their budget on defense. This was so the countries would have a military deterrence and wouldn't just be relying on the USA on other countries to step in if they got in trouble.

If the other countries don't spend that much, no one is "owed" any money. No one got ripped off. The USA didn't suddenly incur a bill or spend money to make up that shortfall. Those countries simply don't have as large of a defense program as NATO would like.