Trump the Dove? Or Trump the Neocon? (w/ Curt Mills)
Added 2024-11-21 19:48:09 +0000 UTCThe second Trump administration hasn't started, but it's already proving chaotic, disturbing, and downright bewildering. (Not unlike the first!) Trump's picks for key staff and cabinet positions display a discordant, if not altogether surprising, mix of ideologies, experience, and scandalous baggage. (Indeed, one of his picks, Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, withdrew from consideration between the time we recorded our interview and when we recorded the intro.)
For this episode, we're focused on Trump's national security team, which is shaping up to be divided against itself: neoconservatives like Marco Rubio (State) alongside quasi-isolationists like Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence) alongside bellicose TV personalities like Pete Hegseth (Defense). To make sense of it all, we're joined by Curt Mills, a longtime foreign policy reporter and executive director of The American Conservative. A semi-enemy, Curt hails from the paleoconservative school of foreign affairs, which prioritizes realism and restraint. (That is to say, he's not thrilled about Rubio...) Based on Trump's appointments thus far, we ask Curt to assess, from his perspective, the relative strength of various factions of the Trump coalition: Will Trump listen to the warmongers in his midst? Will he side with the America Firsters? Or will he ignore everyone and just make some deals? Listen to find out.
Further Reading:
Curt Mills, "What a Trump Cabinet Might Look Like," The American Conservative, Oct 18, 2024.
— "What Trump Could Do in Foreign Policy Might Surprise the World," NYTimes, May 13, 2024.
Patrick Smith & Peter Alexander, "Police report details alleged sexual assault by Trump's defense pick Pete Hegseth," NBC News, Nov 21, 2024.
Baker, Haberman, Swan, "Gaetz’s withdrawal follows revelations in a sex-trafficking inquiry." NYTimes, Nov 21, 2024.
Dave Phillips and Carol Rosenberg, "The Metamorphosis of Pete Hegseth: From Critic of War Crimes to Defender of the Accused," NYTimes, Nov 21, 2024.
David Frum, "Unpatriotic Conservatives," National Review, Mar 25, 2003.
Comments
I was curious as well so I scrolled through his Twitter feed, a few choice posts: https://x.com/CurtMills/status/1876848068026310765 https://x.com/CurtMills/status/1876806948252721285 You will be shocked to learn that the person who claims he will "lead the charge" against a hawkish Trump thinks they are cool and based. The question remains whether Mills is just being a good lapdog to Trump, whether he was always bullshitting about being anti-war, or if he simply carves out a special exception for Latin America. I noted in my comment that Mexico was not mentioned, which now feels like a more serious problem with the interview. Regardless, the KYE curse rolls on, every young smart principled conservative they interview turns out the same.
Charlie
2025-01-10 23:40:37 +0000 UTCWondering how this guy's views hold up in light of recent Panama/Greenland comments
Subodh Kafle
2025-01-08 18:53:00 +0000 UTCWhy would the initial clusters appear around the market and not around the lab, or around the residence of a lab worker?
Subodh Kafle
2024-12-11 08:55:58 +0000 UTCAre you going to volunteer to carry a rifle and pack in the next war caused by us not withdrawing from the world?
J Kepler
2024-12-04 10:36:35 +0000 UTCI’ve had that same thought, but I’m not surprised or disappointed by it. I think there’s a difference—a gulf—between the sort of “conservative” who gets elected to Congress, comes up as a staffer or think tank creature, and the pseudo-intellectuals who write the books the hosts discuss. (I reckon the hosts wouldn’t call the authors pseudo-intellectual. But many years before reading Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind I had already concluded the attitudes and beliefs called “conservative” are just resentment or a desire for dominance wrapped in bullshit and lies.) I suggest you read Robin’s book, if you haven’t already, and Albert O. Hirschman’s The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. They’ll give you a good frame to put around the discussions on the podcast.
J Kepler
2024-12-04 10:33:03 +0000 UTCAt some point I would love to hear a right wing guest earnestly defend and explain the more noxious elements of the right today: climate change denial, vaccine skepticism, January 6, willingly electing a convicted criminal to the White House, etc. I joined this Patreon to try to understand what the hell they’re thinking, and to this day I do not know.
Rob
2024-12-01 14:47:42 +0000 UTCActually, I think the article is particularly credible. What I find incredible is that by pure coincidence a never-before-seen SARS-like virus with a newly introduced furin cleavage site, a virus that matched the precise description of a proposed research project at the Wuhan institute (where they were literally designing and expermenting these viruses) would just spontenously appear a mile away in a market (and nowhere else!). Good thing that the Chinese government has been extremely transparent and released all the relevant records! They certainly have no stake or reason to cover anything up. Oh wait...
Adam
2024-11-30 02:29:28 +0000 UTCFWIW I really enjoyed this enemy. For this second term I’m much less interested in deranged Trump bashing and more interested in what does he do well (from a leftist pov) and how can we package that into a more equitable politics more broadly
Tim Combes
2024-11-27 14:14:50 +0000 UTCYeah it was kind of a bizarrely credulous conversation. I wasn’t looking for fighting but I’m just not sure what the value add here was. I already can just read TAC! It’s great there will actually be more conservatives on, but especially with the benefit of hindsight with Gaetz among other things, Curt comes off a bit naive and less informative about the actual state of our political reality.
Eric Statz
2024-11-26 16:03:11 +0000 UTCI mean that’s a nicely made opinion piece, but is making huge, not particularly credible leaps of logic and being selective with evidence I presents. FAIR did a nice breakdown of that article, including pointing out the author is not an epidemiologist, and there is a large conflation of events with multiple explanations as conspiracy
Jeff Pruyne
2024-11-25 19:50:04 +0000 UTCJeff, if you haven't seen this article making a case for the lab leak theory, you might find it interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html It's no longer a fringe theory, despite the lengths many prominent liberals went to early in the pandemic to make it taboo.
Nick
2024-11-25 19:08:11 +0000 UTCThe way Curt pronounced "milieu" at 54:20 tells me everything I need to know.
Ken Lavey
2024-11-25 17:29:52 +0000 UTCThey had on an anti war isolationist conservative and mined his intel on Trump. What is this politics as performance art people are craving from them? Folks are getting lost in affect. That’s not politics.
Benjamin Pletcher
2024-11-25 08:54:52 +0000 UTCWe’re the closest we’ve been since the Cold War.
Benjamin Pletcher
2024-11-25 08:50:14 +0000 UTCCouldn’t disagree more. The problem is liberals are self-enclosed in a prefab totality, lost in a mirror that does not reflect reality.
Benjamin Pletcher
2024-11-25 08:46:15 +0000 UTCYeah exactly, that's pretty much why I asked. If there's any kernel of truth like a report from a government or nonprofit, if it was remotely serious then I'm sure they gave a whole bunch of qualifiers. But I kind of doubt any serious organization would slap such an objective number on this, which is why I want to see it lol. So many questions. I also think it's kind of laughable to suggest that Trump will actually reduce those odds but I digress...
Ben Harloe
2024-11-25 07:42:07 +0000 UTCAh, ok, now I feel stupid, lol
Alaina
2024-11-25 05:03:55 +0000 UTCThe return to isolationism, as far as I can tell, is not about the US as a whole. What Matt/Curt are referring to is the nationalism of pre-Cold War conservatives like Robert Taft or political parties like the Whigs.
Zach
2024-11-25 03:16:09 +0000 UTCGaetz the wonk? Man, you can knock me over with a hummingbird feather.
Kent Miller
2024-11-24 23:41:14 +0000 UTCWhen people put any outcome like this in percentages I roll my eyes a bit cause it’s not really something that can be measured in that way, the most you could really say is that at any given moment something like nuclear Armageddon is a possibility ranging from lower to higher maybe
GF
2024-11-24 23:00:30 +0000 UTCI would have liked to push the guest and the hosts to what it means to have the war in Ukraine end.: The eastern third to Russia? All to Russia? The US out of NATO? The ‘ no more wars philosophy’ sounds like cover for let’s watch the world burn from behind the walls of fortress America. Even a transactional foreign policy approach has short and long term trade offs. We can’t withdraw from the world without consequences. To borrow from trotsky: ‘ you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you.
Christopher Lawson
2024-11-24 21:39:26 +0000 UTCSomething that strikes me, that relates also to other people's comments, is this idea that the US was isolationist and the cold war was an aberration. I'm not sure what the framework is for thinking this exactly. How do you make sense of the Spanish-American War and keeping Spain's colonies, going to war against the Philippines to stop it from gaining its independence, invading Haiti, and generally bullying much of Latin America? How do you fit in the antics of the United Fruit Company, the whole Banana Republics situation? I'm sure if you're looking at the British Empire at that time, yeah, I guess you're thinking you're isolationist in comparison but that's not saying much, and yes, interfering with other countries' sovereignty was ratcheted up during the Cold War, but I see a lot of continuity and over a century's worth of screwing with the countries south of the border. How this relates to the present day is the America First people are speaking about it in the same terms. They're calling themselves isolationists because they think there's no winning a competition with China, it's better to find ways to cooperate, but they also want to focus back on Latin America and very much in bullying terms, as far as I can tell. They seem to imagine all the Americas belong to them, because how else can you call yourself an isolationist while also wanting to interfere with their politics, etc.?
Alaina
2024-11-24 20:51:08 +0000 UTCKind of incredible to listen to this and not hear even a passing mention of the western hemisphere given that Trump has publicly mused about violating Mexican sovereignty to go after drug cartels or the reports from his first term that he repeatedly brought up the idea of invading Venezuela (in addition to the sweeping sanctions his administration imposed).
Timoteo Cobertizo
2024-11-24 18:13:17 +0000 UTCAs a whole, thought the episode was good. This wasn’t a debate, but I felt like the guest’s perspective was clear, and when I disagreed, I could still gain some empathy for why he thought the way he did.
Jeff Pruyne
2024-11-24 03:40:44 +0000 UTCWas honestly pretty surprised to hear an offhand support of lab leak, which just seems straight up xenophobic and pretty behind the scientific reporting on the issue.
Jeff Pruyne
2024-11-24 03:39:25 +0000 UTCThis ep (and the one with Ian Ward) made me feel much less doomer than internet discourse broadly. Obviously the people who believe in a restrained Trump could end up being wrong, but nice to feel a bit curious instead of just terrified while we wait to find out.
Addison
2024-11-24 02:07:09 +0000 UTCThe conservative guests on this show (who by the way I'm glad that Matt and Sam take the time to interview) always come across as urbane, tactful, and well-spoken. They know how to speak to liberal and left-leaning audiences. I'm interested in what they're saying to each other in discord logs and behind closed doors. I would have enjoyed some discussion of Trump's trade policy, such as the 25% blanket tariff and its consequences in the area of foreign affairs. There could've been some challenges and a more adversarial tone taken regarding Trump's more obviously disastrous policies such as invading Mexico with special forces to 'defeat' the cartels or the tariff proposals. It's economically ruinous to declare war on one of your largest trading partners and start trade wars that lead to beggar thy neighbor policies. The bottom line being that Trump's domestic policies have severe consequences with regard to foreign affairs.
John Woodbridge
2024-11-23 19:40:45 +0000 UTCIt’s all good and thank you for being human and looking into it! The thrust of the outrage remains: They are vile, it still remains he edited a paper with some… extreme views. (To my reading the text itself has to do with the legal definition in the authors home state and more about the absurdity of sexual assault training which, for anyone who’s been through such trainings, know that it’s absurdly obvious material and easy butt of a joke)
Jonathan Hung
2024-11-23 16:35:15 +0000 UTCMan, Matt Gaetz is such a fascinating character. It says a lot that his deviancy was so brazen, even for this bunch, that his total Trump sycophancy couldn’t even save him. He made such a spectacle of himself with his subservience to the Don and his barely concealed perversions that I would guess 99% of the public (very much including me) has had no idea where he actually stands on any substantive issues… and where he stands is pretty fucking interesting, to say the least, and would actually provide a lot of openings for working with the left wing of the Dems in the House. Now he just seems destined for some rightwing media grift. Also, his wife is named Ginger Luckey?! That’s a Pynchon/Amis level handle
Reggie Debris
2024-11-23 16:28:58 +0000 UTCI would have liked some questions about the various proposals for domestic deployment of the military, and enactment of the insurrection act. It’s all fine and well to have a civil conversation with a putative opponent, but failing to contest the framing of Trump as a good faith actor with civically motivated policy positions is delusional. I don’t think it would have been out of place to have asked if Trump qualifies as totalitarian, kleptocrat, or fascist, and what bearing — if any — that would have on his cabinet choices and the public good.
Randy Weinstein
2024-11-23 07:25:49 +0000 UTCReally great conversation. This felt like a rare beacon of possibly-healthier political discourse. The Left’s capacity to have any beneficial impact is currently kneecapped by the hysterics of the public discourse. Yes, there’s lots of scary stuff on the horizon - but insisting that the only acceptable antidote is a stance of unbridled everything-is-on-fire (which is what I infer from some of the other comments) can only disempower us and limit our ability to persuade and grow.
JimJim5122
2024-11-23 00:10:56 +0000 UTCAnd if they did it would be an exhaustive combatitive experience as well as discouraging people coming on who aren't trying to pick up a debate win (and the already serious problem of imparting them with a vague imprimatur would be exacerbated for those stray comments that through volume managed to pass by without challenge.) It is just a bad _medium_ for this. Write an article responding to someone's output instead, that is the suitable tool for the job.
Shinanoki
2024-11-22 23:27:48 +0000 UTCThat I agree with. I know that’s been something constantly being challenged, is the fact that they often don’t pushback or fact check guests.
Montez
2024-11-22 22:27:11 +0000 UTCI unironically think that this can be cut off by if Matt and Sam remembered the podcast is named Know Your Enemy, not Know Your Friend You Intellectually Disagree With
Byron Lopez
2024-11-22 19:47:38 +0000 UTCI liked this episode it was interesting to here a nuanced take on Matt Gaetz and for someone to discuss republican governance without hyperbole, dramatizing, performing fury, disgust etc . That being said this entire idea of “know your enemy “ and the that this guy is your enemy and Sam acting like he’s gonna be tough on him and debate him and then just listen to his ideas and be curious and the self flagellation and promises “we’ll be tougher next time”. It’s all kind of silly. You guys are genuinely curious about conservative view points, your more of a bridge between opposing idea groups than you are and an eduction in the mind of the enemy. Your creating a nuanced discussion, but that’s not allowed (according to leftist twitter) so your framing it as a weapon in ideological war (the only thing that’s ok). You either need to do more contrasting of your ideas (what are your ideas besides love and kindness anyways???) or just admit that you think it’s okay to listen to people that you disagree and lean into being a smart more analytical version of many podcasts where they just bring on interesting guests . “Yes we’re leftists and we listen to what conservatives have to say” and “yes we’re leftists but let’s bring in even more extreme leftists and have them debate each other while we nod along” . It seems the thing you guys really value is well thought out opinions, and good analysis. Not just ideas that align with your political aspirations for the world.
Sam
2024-11-22 19:13:10 +0000 UTCThis was a really interesting episode and I think it's going to be essential, simply as a matter of good reporting, to interview more "enemies" in the next four years (please God no longer). Since you mentioned bringing Mills back for future episodes one thing I'd like to see more of with him or other future RW FoPo focused "enemies" is a little bit of "following the money." For example, Roger Wicker, who's probably going to be the next chair of Senate Armed Services, wants the defense budget to grow to 5% of GDP (i.e. just about doubling where it is now). There are plenty of GOP legislators who are very friendly with the defense industry (Dems too, ofc) and that will surely militate (haha) in favor growing defense spending. Even with the turn towards an "America First" foreign policy a boosted defense budget is also clearly popular in the conservative NatSec think tank world. Trump himself has a notorious fetish for at least the appearance of a super-strong military and didn't balk once at growing defense budgets during his first term. I don't think that can be solely chalked up to the influence of hawks who have now been sidelined—it's a genuine desire of his to have the strongest military in the world. If we assume that a high defense budget might play some role in making war *more* not *less* likely (because it alarms adversaries or gives the government room to extend even greater commitments to partners, or something similar), what do the paleocons have to say about that? Totally understand why it didn't come up this episode since the cabinet nominations are what's happening now and we have yet to see a defense appropriation bill under Trump II but just a thought for you guys to ask Mills or someone else about in the future. This seems even more important since given the state of the debt and deficit one imagines that hundreds of billions of dollars more in spending every year on weapons will be balanced by cuts elsewhere, and that kind of money really only is going to come from entitlements as long as the GOP is at the helm.
Harry Clennon
2024-11-22 18:32:35 +0000 UTCThis was an interesting conversation, though I think the restrainer-Trump crowd is pretty credulous after the record of his first term. It's telling that no one here mentioned the one country Trump has repeatedly threatened to invade once back in office - Mexico. And his schemes for "going to war" with the cartels with air strikes and special forces are all currently within his power under the AUMF. It would be a disaster for everyone involved, but the idea's very popular with the GOP base and I think some sort of violent spectacle south of the border would likely be paired with deportation raids within the US. Our discourse on foreign policy does not take Latin America seriously as more than an imperial playground, and in that way the paleocons are no different than Reagan or Bush, or Clinton. There won't be a solution to the "migration crisis" until the US learns to deal with the rest of the hemisphere as sovereign nations.
drizzly_november
2024-11-22 18:21:59 +0000 UTCFunnily enough Iran was semi-covertly attempting to help Kamala. But I think the answer is that if a foreign state becomes a partisan actor in domestic politics it needs to be treated as such by domestic politics. There are some tricky coalition politics around this for the Democrats and Israel--which is what we are talking about after all--and I am not sure this will be solved by anything but gravediggers. I certainly hope I am wrong though!
Charlie
2024-11-22 16:01:18 +0000 UTCThinking on this a bit more, I guess you can say I leave this conversation with a better understanding of Mills' and the America First perspective, but also generally unconvinced, which is more or less the KYE mission statement.
Charlie
2024-11-22 15:33:48 +0000 UTCThis was an interesting conversation and I am glad you had it and I listened to it, it is good to get this sort of perspective that oftentimes is a bit harder for me to hear. Which I am adding as a preface because I know this is going to sound like an annoying lib comment. A lot of times when Mills talked I couldn't help seeing the keys jangling before his eyes. There were some obvious ways, like the way he talked down Rubio and talked up Gaetz (a great case of getting tripped by the news cycle). The downplaying of Mike Waltz's entire career prior to, as far I can tell, him giving a not very hawkish interview a week ago. I also was struck by a very tossed off aside that most Americans view the years 2017-2020 as "remarkably peaceful" and like maybe they do, people have a bad memory. Do YOU, though, that is the question? Because it feels like this conversation could have easily been taking place in 2016 when we had no reference point for how Trump might govern in office, and somebody like Curtis Mills might come on a show and say how Rex Tillerson at State was a pretty good sign about Trump's commitment to building relations with Russia. Like Mills' parting joke about how maybe in six months time they will be talking about Rubio spearheading an invasion of Venezuela--the only mention Latin America got which I think was a bit of a miss what with all the talk of invading Mexico during the campaign. This joke lands because Trump literally did engineer an attempted coup there. Too recently, in my opinion, to get memory holed. I don't think this is a failure of Matt and Sam as interviewers, they did a good job of holding a cordial and interesting conversation. I do think it is a failure of Mills' analysis that in order to hold to "Trump the dove" he has to ignore the way that Trump escalated US support of Ukraine, ignore the way his Abraham Accords led directly to the current Gaza War, ignore his ending the Iran Deal and increase of military activity in the middle east, ignore his nuclear brinksmanship with North Korea, ignore his savaging relations with China. We either have to revert into a false world in which those years were "remarkably peaceful" or we treat the whole first term as a mulligan. Maybe it was. I don't think that is a good basis of understanding Trump though.
Charlie
2024-11-22 15:02:51 +0000 UTCYeah if conservatives can just make whatever claims they want here without the slightest pushback. (Or at least without any pushback until the last 5-6 minutes of the show). What is the intelectual value of this program over the average Fox News talking head bullshit. The thing I really don’t understand is the hosts’ the obsession with shoving their heads in the sand and tacitly agreeing with the guest that “we don’t know what Trump will do” whether about Israel, China, Iran, or whatever. When not only do we have his record as president, but we know who his advisors (and the folks who hold the purse strings) are, as well their views. Sorry to burst your bubble but the dude taking millions of Miriam Adelson’s cash isn’t likely to make peace in Gaza on any terms other than complete destruction.
Dylan Stephens
2024-11-22 10:51:02 +0000 UTCIf I heard correctly this guest mentioned something about us being at 50% odds of nuclear armageddon in 2023? Does anyone know what report/story/whatever he was referring to? He seemed to be treating it as a discrete fact and I'm confused about it.
Ben Harloe
2024-11-22 07:39:41 +0000 UTCIt’s tempting and maybe even correct to just be incredulous at claims of trump being “different” on Gaza whether from the left or the right, to righteously shit on anyone who carries water for him and his flunkies under false pretenses, and I’m sure we all will have plenty of time to do that in the coming years, but I really felt like I understood and sympathized with sams ending message of “hey I hope these people end up being right!” I don’t think they will be, but there is real earnestness in that.
Ethan Stern
2024-11-22 04:51:25 +0000 UTCDid this guy just say Rubio is telegenic? Wow.
Son of El Topo
2024-11-22 04:42:53 +0000 UTCW/ regards to Trump’s Lebanese son in law, does anyone have an up-to-date power rankings of the Trump family? I assume based on some campaign reporting that Don Jr and Lara sit closest to the king at banquet. Lmk. Interesting ep!
Broadhead
2024-11-22 02:39:21 +0000 UTCThe podcast is only meaningful insofar as it doesn't. You could always read their books, their articles, their own podcasts. People don't want to because it is grotesque and has no value besides the pragmatic function of tactical advantage from better intelligence and because time is precious and they have lots of other things to do with their time. Thus KYE. Even insofar as you're interested in listening to them, its simply stupid to listen to them _here_. People don't come onto a platform like this to tell the truth, and a basic level of restraint in who gets picked as a guest works against selecting the perspectives that actually matter inside the right.
Shinanoki
2024-11-22 02:35:00 +0000 UTCSometimes knowing ur enemy means listening to em.
Vincent
2024-11-22 02:21:20 +0000 UTCI'm really not sure what the left can do with regards to foreign policy when foreign countries will literally prolong wars to hurt Democrats and offer peace deals to bolster Republicans.
Jacob Hollnagel
2024-11-21 23:50:06 +0000 UTCWe've had this conversation. There's no point in listening to a version of this podcast with conservative guests, if we wanted that there are lots of ways to get that. Why bother with the podcast instead of just directly consuming the primary materials of conservatism unless one wanted a perspective from outside of it.
Shinanoki
2024-11-21 23:39:10 +0000 UTCInteresting episode. I think if the Gaetz withdrawal has proven anything though, it’s that even if Trump is at the height of his power, he’s still not totally in control and will be susceptible to pressures from the party, the public, and reality.
Ryeman
2024-11-21 23:36:24 +0000 UTCI've learned nothing from this conversation.
Andrew
2024-11-21 23:33:15 +0000 UTCoh that's unfortunate. we'll and acknowledge and correct it.
Know Your Enemy
2024-11-21 23:13:14 +0000 UTCI guess it’d be great if left media did a little better with this (instead of x-posting headlines) but I recognize everyone’s on high alert, now’s not the time for subtlety. amygdala high jack is just the vibe we’re in.
Jonathan Hung
2024-11-21 22:22:48 +0000 UTCNot to defends Hegs as I’m sure he’s as vile as he sounds. but the original source material of Princeton Tory isn’t written by him, published as by him as an editor yes. And if you read the context of the paragraph, the text is not as black and white as it is communicated. https://www.theprincetontory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/2002-Freshman.pdf
Jonathan Hung
2024-11-21 22:20:52 +0000 UTCAt that point we may have to ask whether going on KYE is the right-winger’s penultimate step before full Nazification 😂
Axel Herrera
2024-11-21 21:30:35 +0000 UTCThe podcast “QAA” (formerly QAnon Anymous) made a great two episode series about Gabbard.
Isaac Suárez
2024-11-21 21:18:00 +0000 UTCAn account from an SIF ex member https://medium.com/@lalitamann/an-insiders-perspective-on-tulsi-gabbard-and-her-guru-e2650f0d09
Isaac Suárez
2024-11-21 21:16:47 +0000 UTCGood interview! I like AmCon when it comes to foreign policy. That being said, I wish y’all had brought up Tulsi Gabbard’s well documented connection to a creepy cult- the “Science of Identity Foundation” (SIF). She also has super shady ties (through the cult) to the BJP of India. If anyone’s curious https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbards-ties-to-cult-could-cost-her-intel-job/
Isaac Suárez
2024-11-21 21:14:51 +0000 UTChow long do we think it'll be before this guest is caught posting Nazi imagery? over/under 2 years?
Helena Latimer
2024-11-21 21:11:22 +0000 UTCNope. Still a boiling frog over here. None of this is normal. I've been out of words since 2015. None.
mark o'hare
2024-11-21 20:46:59 +0000 UTCNot to be all” you’re interviewing a guy who is a supporter of the literal fascist politician” - but I’m surprised Mexico didn’t come up at all. The Trump / GOP proposed “solution” to the southern border is to, effectively, invade Mexico. How is that at all dovish?
Matthew Maddock
2024-11-21 20:36:08 +0000 UTCAnything for access! White Supremacist scum too?!
Edmundo Saballos
2024-11-21 20:27:00 +0000 UTCAnd now the Respectable Racist scum! bye.
Edmundo Saballos
2024-11-21 20:25:43 +0000 UTCTrump’s foreign policy will be shaped by the people who will 1. Be slavishly loyal to him 2. Not upstage him 3. Fight his enemies in the “Deep State”, the media, etc. 4. Spend much of their time knifing each other for Trump’s amusement and to ensure that he alone is in charge 5. Be willing to endure the humiliation of their policy efforts being undermined by Trump’s friends and/or donors or Trump himself
Allen
2024-11-21 20:20:36 +0000 UTCSo funny to see someone from my college dorm guest
GF
2024-11-21 20:14:37 +0000 UTCFinally another enemy guest, I'll re-subscribe.
Avery
2024-11-21 20:06:17 +0000 UTCcmon man
Evan Nordgren
2024-11-21 19:57:21 +0000 UTC
