reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@DoniTheMisfit - Doni 🤓🏴🏴☠️
@LindseyGrahamSC You're a liar. Go fight your own battles and pay for it out of your pocket. Here are US Senators Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar, and John McCain in Ukraine meddling in Ukraine's political affairs and provoking a war with Russia. https://t.co/gFSHz3Wv3K
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 states that 2017 will be the year of offense, and they will push the case against Russia, asserting it is time for Russia to pay a heavier price for its aggression.
Speaker 1 expresses belief in the speaker's victory and pledges to provide whatever is needed to win.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your fight is our fight. 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.
Speaker 1: I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win, and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win.
@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong
“…and the Russians are dying. That’s the best money we’ve ever spent.” — Lindsey Graham. https://t.co/mzM5DUOd25
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Free or die?
Speaker 1: Free or die.
Speaker 0: Now you are free.
Speaker 1: Yes. And we will be. And the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Thank you so much.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Free or die?
Speaker 1: Free or die.
Speaker 0: Now you are free.
Speaker 1: Yes. And we will be. And the Russians are dying. It's the best money we've ever spent. Thank you so much.
That was
reSee.it AI Summary
Zelensky, Biden, and others are misusing our tax money in Ukraine. They even spend it on lavish dinners with celebrities. I'm not taking sides, but let's stop sending our hard-earned money abroad. Who agrees?
@w_terrence - Terrence K. Williams
I HATE TO BREAK THE NEWS! We are being Pimped out by Zelensky, Biden and everyone else sending Ukraine our MONEY! We work hard and they use our Taxes to launder money and Zelensky is using our money to have dinner with celebrities I’m not Pro Putin or Pro Zelensky, I’m Pro not sending our money to another country! Who’s with me
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're being pimped by Zelensky and the US government. Our hard-earned money is being sent to Ukraine, and when Zelensky gets it, he says it's not enough. We can't even afford basic necessities here, yet we're sending billions to Ukraine. Zelensky is having steak dinners with celebrities while our veterans sleep on the streets and children go hungry. It's infuriating and makes no sense. If people want Ukraine to have money, they should send their own. We need to take care of our own problems first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Y'all, listen up. I hate to break the news, but we get pimped. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Zelensky is a PIMP. We are getting pimped around here. Okay?
I'm sorry to let you know, but I'm getting pimped. You are getting pimped out. Okay? Because we working hard, paying taxes, and they are using our money To send to another country, to send to another man in a whole another country. And then when he get the money, he said it ain't enough, mother.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What the it ain't enough. It no.
It's too much, partner. Run that money back. Send us our money back. And Gillespie ain't the only one pimping around here. We getting pimped by the United States government.
We getting pimped by Joe Biden. They they over here making us think that this money is helping is helping the Ukrainians and Helping Zelensky and somehow is helping us. How in the hell Is hold on. I'm I'm not it sounds so stupid. I'm trying to figure this out.
So sending our money to a whole another country is somehow helping us. That don't make no sense because right now in this country, people can't even afford to buy eggs. People can't even afford to buy chicken wings. And we sending 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Ukraine? And then Zelenskyy over here having steak dinners with celebrities?
We getting pimped around here. And then we got stupid excuse my stupid ass Americans They are happy are happy with with Biden sending Ukraine money. What? If you if you want Ukraine to have money, go to your bank. Okay?
Withdraw all your money. Withdraw all your money. Take it all out. Cash out on your money. Okay?
And then send it to Ukraine. Okay? Send them your money because they don't no. I don't want them to have mine. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. We got veterans sleep on the streets right now. We got veterans that go hungry every day.
Children in America who need help. And we sending them money? And what they doing with the money? What are they doing with the money? Not a damn thing.
Zelensky flying all over the damn world, having a good old time. Why is he meeting with celebrities During a war. Russia supposed to be taking your country, but you over here inviting celebrities down to Ukraine. I this is the this is the most yeah. You know what?
I shouldn't get riled up like this. I shouldn't get riled up like this, but it's pissing me off because it don't make no damn sense at all.
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
Rand Paul finally SNAPS on Ukraine approved narrative: "Ukraine banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests, so no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime."
Video Transcript AI Summary
American journalist Gonzalo Mira has reportedly approved $113 billion for Ukraine, yet he hasn't tried to secure the release of an imprisoned American journalist there. Moreover, Ukraine has canceled elections, raising questions about its democracy. President Zelensky claims it would be inconvenient and costly to hold elections during the ongoing war. However, supporting a non-democratic country without elections seems contradictory. Political parties have been banned, churches invaded, and priests arrested, revealing a corrupt regime. While the Russians are worse, it's not necessary to take sides. The main concern is the financial aspect, as borrowing more money leads to inflation, recession, and unsustainable practices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's there's also this incredible story about an American journalist, Gonzalo Mira. He's reportedly right now now could approve a $113,000,000,000 of money to Ukraine and yet he has not tried to get this American journalist out of prison there. How is that possible.
Speaker 1: It's even worse than that, Maria. They've canceled the elections. What kind of democracy has no election? So next year, Zelensky said he's not going to have an election because it would be inconvenient during the war and would be expensive. Well, the thing is, if you don't have elections, why in the world will be supporting a Country that's not a democracy.
They've banned the political parties. They've invaded churches. They've arrested priests. So, no, it isn't The democracy is the corrupt regime. And are the Russians any better?
No. The Russians are worse. But at the same time, we don't always have to pick some side to be on, but the ultimate reason I'm against this is we don't have the money. And when we borrow more money that leads to more inflation, leads to more likelihood of recession in our country, and so we just can't keep doing it.
reSee.it AI Summary
The US deficit surpassing $1.5 trillion, we lack funds for Ukraine. Borrowing from China seems illogical. Rand Paul questions the ongoing $113 billion expenditure. Urgent attention needed for pressing issues in the USA.
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
"It's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send Ukraine" "Our deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion" "Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense" Rand Paul … $113 billion and counting. Will it ever end? We have a lot issues in the USA that need attention.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We don't have any extra money to send to Ukraine, considering our massive deficit of over $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to support Ukraine doesn't make sense. We don't have a rainy day fund with trillions of dollars just sitting around. Instead, we would have to borrow the money, which leads to inflation. Since Russia's war in Ukraine began, American taxpayers have already provided $113 billion to Ukraine. We have many issues in our own country that need attention before we borrow more money to fuel a war in another nation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to Ukraine. Our deficit this year will exceed $1,500,000,000,000. Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense. It's not as if we have some sort of rainy day fund sitting around Trillions of dollars at a pot of money. We're just going to send that to Ukraine.
We're going to borrow it. When we borrow it and create new money to pay for that borrowing, We create the inflation that is plaguing our economy. Since the beginning of Russia's war in Ukraine, The American taxpayers provided Ukraine with $113,000,000,000. There's a lot of things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try to perpetuate a war in another country.
@ChuckCallesto - Chuck Callesto
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Providing assistance to the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians, that's the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for the United States right now, according to most Republicans." WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The top priority for the United States currently is to help Ukraine defeat Russia, as stated by most Republicans.
Full Transcript
Providing assistance for the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians, that's the number one priority for the United States right now according to most republic
@Kanthan2030 - S.L. Kanthan
Lindsey Graham went to Ukraine in 2016 and gave a pep speech to Ukrainian military to fight Russia. After rooting for 7 years and claiming that it’s the “best money spent,” now he discovers US border. Goodbye Zelensky. https://t.co/AGA2GCYngr
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2017, the speaker pledged to fight alongside others and push the case against Russia in Washington, expressing confidence in their victory and promising to provide necessary support.
Later, the speaker declared they would not vote for any aid until the U.S. border is secured and asylum/parole are reformed, claiming Democrats are unwilling to act while all Republicans are in favor. The speaker stated they will not help Ukraine until the U.S. helps itself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Your fight is our fight. 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington, and we will push the case against Russia. I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win, and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win.
A few moments later. I will not vote for any aid until we secure our own border. Reform asylum, reform reform parole is possible to do. Democrats don't wanna do it. All Republicans wanna do it.
I'm not helping Ukraine until we help ourselves.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Rand Paul gets it: "Borrowing money from China to send it to Ukraine makes no sense. It makes us weaker, not stronger." https://t.co/VX0WKMVdfd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Borrowing more money to send to Ukraine is irresponsible and weakens us. Congress doesn't care about the debt because it's not their money. Milton Friedman's statement holds true: nobody spends someone else's money as wisely as their own. The big spenders in Congress won't use their own money. Americans should take notice and blame these wasteful spenders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But it's irresponsible to simply borrow more money. To borrow the money from China simply to send it to Ukraine makes no sense and makes us weaker, not stronger. But let's be honest, most of Congress doesn't seem to care about the debt, doesn't seem to care how much money we shovel out the door and out of the country. Why? Because it's not their money.
Every day, Milton Friedman statement is proven correct that nobody spends somebody else's money as wisely as their own. I doubt the big spenders in Congress will ever consider spending any of their own money, but Americans across the land should sit up and notice and attach blame to these profligate spenders.
@EndWokeness - End Wokeness
Biden just invited Zelensky to the Oval Office to give another $200,000,000 Meanwhile on OUR border: https://t.co/JbHprzqCCz
@hodgetwins - Hodgetwins
Y’all realize how crazy it is that Biden just sent another $200 mil to Ukraine? We’re $33 trillion in debt 🤡 https://t.co/nafAsdflMH
Video Transcript AI Summary
I just signed a $200,000,000 drawdown from the Department of Defense for Ukraine. It will be coming quickly. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. And before the press Before the press Before the press Woah. Woah. Hush up a second. Okay?
Got one more thing to say. I just signed another $200,000,000 drawdown from the Department of Defense for Ukraine, And that'll be coming quickly. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
When US senators get together in private, do any of them ever admit that sending half a trillion dollars to Ukrainian oligarchs is a bad idea? As it turns out, no they don’t. JD Vance explains. https://t.co/4GCORwdGVc
Video Transcript AI Summary
The war in Ukraine is in a destructive phase, with Russia having the advantage. The Biden administration is now reducing military funding for Ukraine, aiming for the country to eventually stand on its own. However, the idea of Ukraine rebuilding its industrial base seems unrealistic. JD Vance, a US senator, pointed out Ukraine's corruption and questioned the massive financial support it receives. He estimated that the war could cost the US around $500 billion, with no significant progress made. Ukraine's population has decreased, and the country relies on welfare from the US and NATO. Vance criticized the notion that NATO would cover the expenses, as it is unlikely.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The war in Ukraine has officially entered its pointlessly destructive phase. And, of course, anything that is pointlessly destructive is by definition evil, but that's where we are. Ukraine can't win. Russia has a much larger population and much deeper industrial capacity. That was obvious within hours of the outbreak of the war, And it's undeniable now.
That leaves the Biden administration in a very strange place because, of course, Joe Biden has pledged Your support, your money, potentially your children, to Zelensky for quote as long as it takes. But that doesn't make any sense. United States has no more money to give Ukraine or anyone else. And so That promise has to be walked back and slowly it is being walked back. So the State Department spokesman the other day was asked, How long do we support Ukraine, and what does that support look like?
And he said, well, actually, we're gonna start giving Zelensky less money. Here it is.
Speaker 1: We have always made clear that we want Ukraine to be an independent country, and that means that can stand on, that can stand on its own 2 feet. We will continue to support Ukraine. It is the policy of the United States as it takes? As long as it takes. That does not mean that we are gonna continue to Support them at the same level of military funding that we did in, 2022 and 2023.
We don't think that should be necessary because the goal is To ultimately transition Ukraine, to use the language that you, repeated back, to to stand on its own feet and to help Ukraine build its own industrial base and its own military industrial base so it can both finance and build and acquire, munitions, on its own. But we are not there yet. And that is why it is so critical that Congress passed the supplemental funding bill because we are not yet at the point where Ukraine can defend itself just based on its own.
Speaker 0: Do you see that? It's almost worth watching that twice. Notice that he looks down, which is what you do when you're lying, which of course he is. Here's what's not a lie. And Crane's gonna rebuild its industrial base.
Really? An entire generation has been slaughtered. The country is a wreck. How is that going to happen? Oh well BlackRock will rebuild its industrial debates and lots of other donors to the Democratic Party that's the real point of course.
So this is super obvious to anyone who's watching. The weird thing is no one in Washington is saying it out loud, except really for 1 US senator from the state of Ohio called JD Vance. And recently he pointed out what has been again obvious for 2 years now that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe, nobody denies That except in this country and that Zelensky whatever his merits is probably not the guy you should send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to. Well his colleagues went crazy. They love Zelensky.
They love him on a personal level. These are people with very weird sex lives who are transferring in some cases some of their Personal desires on to Zelensky that adorable little bear. So they got mad at JD Vance for saying that. Watch this clip and ask yourself does JD Vance deserve that rage or was he telling the truth?
Speaker 2: We're getting easily a half a $1,000,000,000 in the whole for the Ukraine conflict by the time this is done and Steve at the very same time you have people in this town saying we need to cut Social Security. There are people who would cut Social Security throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of the Zelensky's ministers can buy a bigger yacht. Kiss my ass Steve it's not happening.
Speaker 0: So they hated when he said that. In fact one of his colleagues who gets along with apparently pretty well immediately denounced that as bullshit, But of course didn't in any way rebut it and of course when they get mad it's usually because you're telling the truth. We thought we would ask J. D. Vance directly.
Senator Vance Joins us now. We're happy he is. Senator, thanks so much for coming on. So the most striking thing about that exchange you had Was the number that you put the price tag that you threw out there. Can you just slowly explain what you think this war will cost the United States all in?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, of course, Tucker, it's impossible to say because every single day this goes on, we we spend more money. Not just the money that's obvious and and meets the headlines, But also the stuff that we're putting ourselves all in for for rebuilding costs and so forth. So let me just give you a sense of of what I mean here. The headline number of what we spent on Ukraine is a $120,000,000,000.
The Biden administration is asking for another $61,000,000,000, and a lot of senate, even Republicans seem hell bent On giving him that money, that's a $180,000,000,000 just right there. Now what that doesn't include is if this thing goes on for a year or 2 beyond that, It also doesn't include what's called presidential drawdown authority, where let's say, Joe Biden gives weapons that were manufactured in the United States or somewhere else, Gives them to to to Zelensky. They can use weird accounting gimmicks to understate how many resources have actually been given. So If we've given a $120,000,000,000 at a headline number thus far, it's probably closer to a 150 or even a $160,000,000,000. That is partially a guess, but it's an informed guess.
The other thing, Tucker, is that we we're gonna we we've already told people in no uncertain terms that we're gonna rebuild this Country, you hear things like a Marshall Plan for Ukraine, whether it's implemented by BlackRock or overseen by BlackRock. We're talking about an an Additional 200, 300, maybe $400,000,000,000, to rebuild this country. Already, Tucker, the Ukrainians are unable to pay their pensioners. They're critical Parts of the Ukrainian state, you know, things like fixing the roads, ambulance services, pension provisions that the Ukrainians can't provide for themselves at this point. So When you when you take this all in, Tucker, I I really think that even if the war ended, let's say, 6 months from now, the all in cost of the American tax spare is gonna be about a half a $1,000,000,000,000.
Again, that it is that is a guess, but it's an informed guess based on what we've already spent and what we might be expected to spend in the future. It's a catastrophic sum of money. When you think about Tucker, what it's accomplished, which is that we basically turned Ukraine into a rump And this can't be overstated. The goal here was always to turn Ukraine into an independent ally They could stand against the Russian. Now set to the side whether, this is this is a goal worth spending $500,000,000,000 for.
I don't think that it is, but but even if you assume that goal as the policy of the United States of America, we have not accomplished anything close to it. The country has gone from about 40,000,000 people to 28,000,000 people. A ton of prime age men. I mean, men in the in the prime of their lives here, have been killed or wounded or maimed. They'll never be functional people ever again, and that is what we have accomplished It has become a rough state that will become a permanent welfare client of the United States of America and of NATO, but but I I I I I joke almost when I say that NATO is gonna pick up the tab here because we all know they won't.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report Schumer threatens to send U.S. troops to fight Russia unless Republicans back a $100B Ukraine aid bill, warning: if we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will walk all over Ukraine, we’ll lose the war, and we could be fighting in eastern Europe and a NATO ally in a few years.
@tomselliott - Tom Elliott
.@SenSchumer threatens to send U.S. troops to fight Russia unless Republicans agree to his $100 billion world-aid bill: "If we don’t aid Ukraine, Putin will be walk all over Ukraine, we will lose the war & we could be fighting in eastern Europe & a NATO ally in a few years. Americans won’t like that."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 describes four months of arduous negotiations to produce a bipartisan bill, noting there were many times negotiations derailed and that he stayed on the phone at midnight to keep them moving. He argues the bill is crucial and a turning point for America, outlining the stakes across several flashpoints.
First, he asserts that if the U.S. does not aid Ukraine, Putin will walk over Ukraine, the war could be lost, and the U.S. could find itself fighting in Eastern Europe as a NATO ally in a few years, a scenario Americans would not like. Second, he says if the U.S. does not help Israel defend itself against Hamas, the perpetual war will continue. Third, he claims humanitarian aid to starving Palestinians in Gaza is essential to prevent hundreds of thousands from starving. Fourth, he mentions the border crisis, referencing statements from Speaker Johnson that it is chaos, and asserts legislative action is needed.
Speaker 1 credits Mitch McConnell for his contributions, but contrasts him with others, including Speaker Johnson, who he says are "scared to death of Donald Trump." He contends Trump has called for chaos and suggested that if he becomes president, Ukraine could be gone, the border could worsen, and war in the Middle East could escalate. He argues Trump’s stance is political rather than policy-driven and asserts that the majority of Republican senators recognize the bill as the right thing to do.
He emphasizes the bill as a compromise—describing it as something he does not like in full, nor does McConnell, but necessary to accomplish important outcomes in the Senate. He recalls bipartisan legislation from two years prior as proof such collaboration is possible. The core question he poses is whether senators will drown out the political noise from Trump and his allies and do the right thing for America.
Speaker 1 frames the bill as a turning point in American policy and history, asking whether history will look back and see that they rose to the occasion. He asserts that the majority of Republican senators understand the bill’s necessity, despite political headwinds, and he casts passage as essential to addressing Ukraine, Israel, Gaza humanitarian needs, and border stability. Speaker 1 ends by reiterating that history is watching their decisions at this moment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've said that you worked very closely with leader McConnell on this. This bill, now that we see what's in it, seems to be as bipartisan as it gets. Why wouldn't this why wouldn't both sides really want this to go through?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a great question, Mika. Look. It took a long time, four months of arduous negotiations. They fell off the tracks a whole bunch of times. I had to be on the phone even at midnight saying we gotta keep going.
Why? We're the turning point in America. This bill is crucial, and history will look back on it and say, did America fail itself? Why is it crucial? Well, if we don't aid, Ukraine, Putin will be walk all over Ukraine.
We will lose the war, and we could be fighting in Eastern Europe and a NATO ally in a few years. Americans won't like that. If we don't help Israel defend itself against Hamas, that perpetual war will go on and on and on. If we don't help humanitarian aid to the starving Palestinians in Gaza, hundreds of thousands could starve. And the border, everyone has said it's chaos.
A speaker you just saw speaker Johnson. He said it's chaos. We have to do something legislative a few months ago. But what has happened in answer your to your question. So this is crucial for America.
It's a turning point. History is gonna look over our shoulders and say, we rise to the occasion? To his credit, Mitch McConnell did. But too many Republicans, including speaker Johnson, are just scared to death of Donald Trump. Donald Trump has said he wants chaos.
Donald Trump has said, well, wait till I become president. That'll take at least a year. Ukraine could be gone. The border will get much worse. War in The Middle East will get worse, maybe bring bringing bringing us into it.
He's doing it all for political reasons. And let me just say, will senators the crucial question, the $64,000 question, the majority of Republican senators know this bill is the right thing to do. It's a compromise. I don't like everything in it, neither does McConnell, but it's a compromise. That's the only way you get things important done in the senate.
We proved that two years ago in our bipartisan legislation. And will the senators drown out the political noise from Trump and his minions and do the right thing for America? It's a crucial question. History will is looking down on every one of us right now.
@RochelleAz - Rochellemaryn 🌹🕊️
Tucker Carlson on X Ep. Just dropped. JD Vance is trying to stop another $60 BILLION of American Tax payer dollars from going to Ukraine. Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell should hang there heads in shame for trying to deceive Americans. Listen 👇🏻👇🏻 https://t.co/k3mNOvHfyn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia, even with extensive Western support. The situation is dire, with a significant loss of life among Ukrainians. Recently, the U.S. Senate proposed sending an additional $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt government and ongoing issues. There's a chance to stop this legislation in the Senate, but if it passes, the House could potentially improve or reject it. This funding not only supports Ukraine for 2024 but also ties future presidents' hands, limiting their diplomatic options. Many senators seem to believe prolonging the war serves Ukraine's interests, ignoring the reality that it leads to further destruction and suffering. Ultimately, the motivations appear to align more with military contractors than the well-being of Ukrainians.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It became very clear to anyone paying attention several months ago that Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia. The Ukrainian military will not be able, even with western backing 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of it, to expel the Russian military from parts of Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have the industrial capacity, neither does NATO or the United States, and it doesn't have the people. Russia has a 100,000,000 more in population than Ukraine does. And that means that further support from the West for the Ukrainian military only means more dead Ukrainians and a further degraded Western economy in the US and in Germany, particularly.
So it's not simply a fool's errand. It's self destruction. It's insane. It's cruel. It's abetting the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians.
This is very obvious. No honest person at this point will deny it. And yet somehow the United States Senate, which is always several years behind reality and its perception just a few weeks ago decided to send another $60,000,000,000 to the Ukrainian government, which is both corrupt and authoritarian. They've canceled elections. They banned an entire Christian denomination, and then they killed an American journalist for noting any of this.
And yet, the United States Senate proposed under Mitch McConnell a plan to send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine. Well, imagine the surprise. Well, all rational people around the world to wake up this morning and discover this could actually happen. And so with that in mind, we thought it'd be worth talking to one of the very few Republican senators who's bothered to make the counter case, and that would be JD Vance of Ohio who joins us now from the United States. Senator, thanks so much for coming on.
If you wouldn't mind telling us where this legislation is right now, what you expect to happen, and what you think should happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tucker. So there are 2 big things that will happen here. So tonight, we will clear a major procedural vote or we won't. So this is really the best opportunity tonight to kill this legislation. Encourage everybody to do everything that they can, contact everyone they can to ensure that we actually do kill the legislation.
It is very close. The Democrats have banded together with 17 Republicans. We only need 8 of those Republicans to flip their vote to kill this thing, and I think that we'll get at least 1, who will in fact flip their votes. So that that that's where it sits in the Senate. The second thing and frankly, the best opportunity we have to kill this is in the house, and that's part of what I'm trying to do is notify people about how bad this legislation is, so that after it clears the Senate, if it does, then it goes to the House and the House has a real opportunity to at least make it better, but hopefully kill it.
And I I wanna say just just a couple of things here, Tucker, that are extremely important to know about this legislation. Number 1, is that it sends $61,000,000,000 to Ukraine to fund, as you said, a hopeless war in Eastern Europe that will decimate the Ukrainian population even more than it's already been decimated. So it's a terrible terrible piece of legislation on the policy. The second thing I wanna say, Tucker, though, is that it doesn't just fund Ukraine in 2024, and this is the most important point. It actually funds Ukraine in 25 and 26.
Now, what's the problem with that? Say, for example, that we have a new president in 2025, that president would be handcuffed by the promises that we are making in law to Ukraine today. If you go back to to 2019, Tucker, to sort of give you a sense of why this matters. In 2019, the US House impeached then President Donald Trump on the theory that they had appropriated money to Ukraine and Donald Trump refused to send it to Ukraine. So if Trump is elected President again and become President on January of 2025, he will conduct diplomacy and if that diplomacy does not include sending additional 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine, there is a theoretical argument, a predicate, if you will, for impeaching Donald Trump because they have tried to tie his hands.
And the final point I'll make on this, Tucker, is that the Washington Post has already has already said, based on leaks from inside the intel community, the purpose of this legislation is to tie a future President Trump's hands. We're not just sending 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine in 2024, we're trying to make it impossible for the next president to conduct diplomacy on his terms. It's anti democratic and it will lead to endless war in the all over the world.
Speaker 0: So the political calculation behind this seems incredibly dark, so does the humanitarian effect. I noticed that no one on Capitol Hill seems interested in finding out how many have died in this war. Reliable estimates in the area, these are not partisan, are that about 400,000 Ukrainians have died. That's about as many Americans has died in the entire second World War over the entire duration, and it's, of course, a much smaller country. So how do senators, Republican senators, get away with saying we're doing this on behalf of Ukrainian people, on behalf of democracy when it's destroying an entire generation and it's not a democracy?
Like, what's the thinking here?
Speaker 1: Well, Tucker, they bought into the propaganda that what is in the best interest of Ukraine is to prolong this war. And so Zelensky comes to Washington. You know, he's tougher than a lot of them are, and I think they get, you know, a a little bit of excitement from that. And Zelensky tells them a story that his war is in the best interest of the whole of Ukraine. Now never mind that there are people within Ukraine protesting the draft, never mind that the average age of a soldier there is pushing 45 years old, and never mind that the 650,000 wealthiest Ukrainians left the country at the beginning of the war, they didn't stay and fight.
So the idea that this is unanimously supported by the Ukrainian population is, of course, preposterous and absurd. No one believes it. But but here's here's the really crazy and I and I think ultimately the very cynical thing that's going on, Tucker, is that everyone knows that this war will lead to the destruction of Ukraine. I've had conversations with democratic colleagues where they get this sort of dark look in their eyes and they say, effectively, that they wanna fight Russia to the last Ukrainian drop of blood. I I I think if you really ask these guys, they recognize that this is not in the best interest of Ukraine.
This is fundamentally in the interest of military contractors and people who think that America's most pressing challenge is to defeat the Russians. Of course, that's not a preoccupation that I share. I don't think Russia should have invaded, Tucker, but I also think that we gotta be much more focused on more pressing problems, like the demographic collapse of the United States, like the open borders, and like what's going on in East Asia. So it's a massive campaign, Tucker, to distract people from the real problems in the world and the real problems that exist in this country.
Speaker 0: And underlying it all, as you just said, is is an impulse that's that's indefensible and I think deeply immoral. So I I'm so grateful for you having the courage to talk about this in public, and I and I hope common sense in your position prevails. Senator, JD Vance of Ohio. Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not permit. Local blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@sues86453 - Sue Knows Best
No more money to Ukraine! These focking losers want to send another 8 billion with zero oversight! https://t.co/B0Tksp2lUX
Video Transcript AI Summary
We have an abundance of money for funding war machinery and foreign aid, like $8 billion to Ukraine. We also support Ukrainian businesses and banks with taxpayer funds. Humanitarian aid often ends up in corrupt hands due to lack of oversight.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good lord. When it comes to funding the machinery of war, we have money. We have money. We have money that we couldn't possibly dream of. We can run the presses indefinitely if it's going to go overseas.
If we're going to be paying foreign governments, Why? We've got enough money apparently to send $8,000,000,000 direct to the Treasury of Ukraine. My goodness, we have enough money to make 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars of our taxpayer funds available to the private sector in Ukraine. We are now literally funding their businesses, their banks, Lord knows what. Pensions.
We've got enough money for so called humanitarian aid that gets funneled away from, siphoned off into any manner of corrupt uses. We won't know because we don't have a special inspector general to oversee this money, but that's a different story. Oh, no. We've got plenty of money.
@amuse - @amuse
Ukrainian whistleblower is claiming that McConnell and Schumer both got massive kickbacks from Zelensky. h/t @JDunlap1974 https://t.co/9oD96x4Glu
@JoeyMannarinoUS - Joey Mannarino
Zelenskyy just essentially endorsed Kamala in Pennsylvania while with Josh Shapiro autographing ammunition. He called Trump and Vance “radical”. He also said Trump has no idea how to end the war. How is this not some sort of violation from a man who we are funding? https://t.co/HTfM9VkPsz
@atensnut - Juanita Broaddrick
This old hag, Yellen, is announcing another $20 Billion of your tax dollars will be going to Ukraine. FCK her and FCK This SHT!!! https://t.co/yHI2x4aEsq
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
5 days before Christmas as Hurricane Victims are suffering…they’re sending another $1,200,000,000.00 to Ukraine. https://t.co/tcPzW7QLv6
@27khv - Brian McDonald
US Republican Roger Wicker, head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just casually suggested Putin should be "executed." Meanwhile, the U.S. is supposedly engaging in diplomacy with Russia. https://t.co/ozVdV1TtAY
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
Lisa Murkowski, who has some REALLY shady ties to Ukraine, says that Trump is wrong about Zelenskyy and that he's not a dictator. I cannot wait for @DOGE to audit the funds sent to Ukraine. Lisa has voted EVERY TIME to fund them without auditing. https://t.co/AJFuIhBjYN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Regarding the President's recent comments about Ukraine, I need to see the full context. I would never refer to President Zelensky as a dictator. If I called him a dictator, it was in reference to not holding elections. I need to review the direct quote to be certain of the context.
Furthermore, I would never say that Zelensky started the war. It was Russia, under Putin's direction, that initiated the conflict. There should be no confusion about who is responsible for starting the war in Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Questions before I came in. Just quickly on Ukraine, and the president's comments on that. He just called Felicity a dictator. Do you what do you think of those comments? Do you think that it's I would like to see that in context because, I would certainly never refer to, President Zelensky as a dictator.
I called him a dictator for not holding elections. Dictator without elections was the Well, I will look at the direct quote quote, but I certainly would not call. I think it's almost a dictator. Last night, he was kind of blaming Zelensky for the start of this war rather than Putin. Do you think that that was too far?
I absolutely would not say that Zelensky started the war. It is quite clear who started the war. It was absolutely Russia that Putin's directive. I don't think that there should be any confusion with that.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
The Senate Budget Committee, led by Lindsey Graham has a new proposal of $48 BILLION for Ukraine You may be asking, why does the GOP still want to send money to Ukraine? Remember FTX? Both the GOP Senate Majority Leader fund and GOP House leader RECEIVED MILLIONS in kickbacks https://t.co/qTE7BC1HP5
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨🔥 @RandPaul is ON FIRE on the Senate Floor right now “Why are the decisions of this body so awful? Because there’s a printing press!” “Which comes first? Ukraine or America You can’t do both! WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY!” https://t.co/p1i6prHVfR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Why are the decisions of Congress so bad? It's because of the printing press. I was talking to one of my Democrat colleagues and I told him that we have to decide if we want to help the poor in our country or Ukraine. He responded by saying that we shouldn't have to make a choice.
But we do have to make a choice. The reason we are $36 trillion in debt is because you think we can do it all. Which comes first, Ukraine or America? We can't do both because we don't have the money. The taxes that come in only cover Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. Everything else is borrowed. Maybe able-bodied people need to go back to work. Maybe there needs to be a work requirement and food stamps shouldn't buy junk food.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why are the decisions of this body so awful? Because there's a printing press. I had a conversation with my one of my Democrat colleagues, and he said I said, we have to make a choice. You gotta decide whether you wanna help the poor in our country or you wanna help the poor in Ukraine or help whoever you're paying in Ukraine. He says, we shouldn't have to make a choice.
I was like, you do have to make a choice. The fact that you think you don't have to make a choice is why we're 36,000,000,000,000 in the hole. You have to make choices. Which comes first? Ukraine or America?
You can't do both because we don't have enough money. We only have enough taxes coming in to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. Everything else is borrowed. So maybe able-bodied people need to go back to work. Maybe there needs to be a work requirement.
Maybe for goodness sakes, food stamps shouldn't buy sugar drinks, chips, ding dongs, and Twinkies.
reSee.it AI Summary
I expressed my concerns about U.S. taxpayer money being spent in Ukraine, specifically the $4.8 million allocated for social media influencers. I questioned the rationale behind funding a leader like Zelensky, whom I compared to other authoritarian figures, such as the general in Egypt, where elections are absent. I highlighted the inconsistency in supporting leaders who do not face electoral accountability, emphasizing the need to reconsider financial aid to what I view as dictatorial regimes.
@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg
Rand Paul says U.S. taxpayers have spent $4.8 million in Ukraine for "social media influencers," says the U.S. should not be funding a "dictator" like Zelensky. "$4.8 million [has been] spent in Ukraine for social media influencers." "Over the years, we've given Egypt nearly $60 billion. Who runs Egypt? A general where there are no elections..." "Kind of like Ukraine where it's a 'president' but he doesn't have to run for re-election because he has canceled the elections." "Why in the world would we give money hand over fist to dictators?" 🔥
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump's administration is uncovering wasteful spending, like millions on sex changes in Guatemala, girl-centric climate change in Brazil, and social media influencers in Ukraine. Even worse, hundreds of thousands were spent on sending designers to a Paris fashion show.
Instead of funding these crazy projects, let's redirect that money to secure our border. Fiscal conservatives are proposing to increase spending, but there's a way to cut it. It's called rescission. The administration can bundle savings and send it to us for a simple majority vote, no Democrats needed.
There's a debate about whether our biggest threats are internal or external. I believe they're internal. We don't need unlimited military spending or to be everywhere in the world. If we want more money for the military, take it from overseas spending like climate change initiatives. We're giving billions to dictatorships without elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump came to town, a new way of thinking. They're shuttering agencies. They're shutting people down. They're finding things like $2,000,000 spent in Guatemala for sex changes, $3,000,000 spent in Brazil for a girl centric climate change, $4,800,000 spent in Ukraine for social media influencers. While you're at it, we spent not we, but the people who vote for this.
I voted against all of this. But the members of the senate who voted for this spent several hundred thousand dollars sending designers in Ukraine to the fashion show in Paris. It goes on and on. Thousands of dollars for a trans opera in Colombia, more thousands of dollars for a trans comic book in Peru, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars spent studying rats to see if lonely rats use more cocaine than well socialized rats. Guess what?
Lonely rats love the cocaine. You spent hundreds of thousand dollars of your money on this craziness. Why not take that crazy spending that Doge and Elon Musk are finding and move it over to securing the border? Instead, fiscal conservatives are faced with a bill they're putting forward to just simply increase the spending. I'm all for moving it around.
I'm all for saving it from the craziness and pushing it over into something more valuable. There is a procedure for doing this. It's a special procedure, doesn't require any Democrat vote. It can happen through simple majority, and it has a fancy name. It's called rescission.
So all the administration would have to do is bundle together several hundred billion dollars of savings, which it appears they're finding, bundle it together in one bill, send it back to us, and by simple majority, without any help from the Democrats, Republicans can cut spending. Instead, things aren't what they appear to be. You see all this great work being done to cut spending, to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, and then you see the senate acting. We're gonna vote all night long to set up a bill to increase spending by $340,000,000,000. There is a true philosophical debate within the Republican Party and really within both parties about what the biggest threats to our country are.
Are the gravest threats to America from within or from without. I would argue that they're from within. I don't lay awake at night fearing foreign invasion, that invaders are coming to our shores any moment. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, that we shouldn't defend ourselves, but it does mean that we don't have to have unlimited spending on our military. Look, many of my family have served, soldiers have to be paid, and we should take care of them.
But at the same time, we shouldn't be everywhere around the world all the time. We spent close to $300,000,000,000 in Ukraine. We got soldiers all over Africa. We got soldiers in Syria. We got soldiers everywhere.
We don't need to be doing that. If you wanna put our military's money and spending in perspective, we spend more than the next nine countries combined. It's not that we're spending too little, we're spending a lot. But if you decide that you want more money for the military, take it from the climate change, the girl centric climate change in Brazil. Quit spending your money overseas.
Over the years, we've given Egypt nearly $60,000,000,000. Who runs Egypt? A general where there are no elections, kinda like Ukraine, whether it's a president, but he doesn't have to run for reelection because he's canceled the elections. Why in the world will we giving money hand over fist to dictators and people who don't stand for election? In Egypt, we gave it to one family, the Mubarak family.
When he was finally ousted from power, he had $20,000,000,000 on him.
@LibertyLockPod - Clint Russell
Zelensky just got kicked out of the White House. When someone hands you 200 billion dollars maybe don't come take a shit on our floor. https://t.co/jWUZFTkEm1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Okay, let's check out this SUV. You're going to see the SUV on the left side of the screen. Let's watch it in action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is really pretty incredible. We we see the, SUV. On with this. So let's get SUV. To your left, you're gonna see him.
Let's watch.
@IanJaeger29 - Ian Jaeger
Lindsey Graham is attempting to sabotage peace talks with Russia in Kiev. This man is an embarrassment to the United States, and will lose his Senate seat this upcoming election. https://t.co/i78E6zXPQi
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump said Ukraine doesn't have good cards because Russia is bigger. However, the world has cards against Russia, and one is about to be played in the U.S. Senate. In America, multiple parties are at the table, including the House and Senate, which are poised to act. The speaker asks what would change their mind if Russia agreed to a ceasefire.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump said that Ukraine doesn't have good cards. Well, Russia's much bigger and has a lot more people. I get that. But the world has a lot of cards against Russia. And one of those cards that we have is about to be played in the United States Senate.
In America, you have more than one person at the card table. We have three branches of government, and the house and the senate are poised to act. What would change our mind if Russia came to the table, agreed to cease fire, and earnestly