cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/14604927

Conservatives Quickly Turn Against “Idiot” Marjorie Taylor Greene

The Georgia Republican is fast falling out of favor for her opposition to the Ukraine aid bill.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s failed fight to end aid to Ukraine, and her sort-of-serious crusade against House Speaker Mike Johnson, has cost her the support of right-wing media.

The Sunday front page of the New York Post, owned by the conservative Murdoch family, was the latest outlet to attack Greene, invoking the “Moscow Marjorie” nickname coined by former representative Ken Buck.

Fox News, another arm of the Murdoch media empire, had already taken aim at the Georgia Republican last week, with columnist Liz Peek calling her an “idiot” and saying she needs to “turn all that bombastic self-serving showmanship and drama queen energy on Democrats.” This follows an editorial last month from The Wall Street Journal, also in the Murdoch portfolio, that called Greene “Rep. Mayhem Taylor Greene” and accused her and her allies of being “most interested in TV hits and internet donors.”

Even a non-Murdoch outlet is on the attack, as conservative Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Debra Saunders demanded to know “who put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge?”

  • NeuromancerM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    I support Ukraine, but we have to limit what we send. We can’t send things that most likely would be captured, or that would put the United States at risk by depleting our stockpiles. It isn’t our war to fight.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      It isn’t our war to fight? Do you have idea what happens if Ukraine loses, and Putin absorbs that territory? Don’t suffer Trump’s lies, we absolutely do need NATO.

      • NeuromancerM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        If Ukraine falls, as an American how does it change my life? It doesn’t. What treaties do we have with Ukraine for defense? Zero.

        And who mentioned nato? Ukraine isn’t a member of nato

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          If Ukraine falls, it makes Russia more likely to invade other places, and it makes China more likely to invade Taiwan.

          We can either end this war now by punishing Russia enormously, or the war grows to become WW3.

          • NeuromancerM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Maybe our NATO allies should have spent that 2% as was suggested.

            We need to prepare for Taiwan, where we have a verbal agreement.

            I have no issues sending weapons to Ukraine but it can’t be at the expense of Israel and Taiwan.

            I am 100% against sending boots on the ground unless they keep attacking nuclear plants. That is an attack on humanity.

              • NeuromancerM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                According to our government they are not. We also have strong support for Israel. We have to meet our obligations else others won’t take us seriously.

                If you feel our support is unjustified. Write your senator. Israel has a special relationship with America and right or wrong, I don’t see that changing.

                  • NeuromancerM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    That’s such a weird question. No but I don’t see a mass order or genocide and the government validates what I’m perceiving.

        • Mastengwe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And you’ve been allowed to be a moderator?

    • Eh. The US has twice proven that it can ramp up war production enough to go from essentially no war capacity to overwhelming force very quickly. Weapons manufacturers are salivating at the chance to satisfy wartime demand. And who are we holding back in fear of? China? If we get into a tangle with China, weapons reserves are going to be the least of our concerns. Russia? Ukraine - tiny little Ukraine - is showing that the mighty Russian war machine is mostly façade over rusting or entirely missing parts. The only threat Russia presents the US right now is nuclear - and weapon stockpiles aren’t going to protect against that.

      So who are we afraid of? Canada? Honestly, I think Canada is the real threat; I think they’ve been putting on a friendly face and biding their time, waiting until we’ve given all of our ordinance in support of another country, and then they’ll sweep in and take back Old Fort Niagara, Youngstown, and Buffalo, and then they’ll have all the tourists mwahahaha!

      This “holding in reserve” is a cop-out. We’re giving Ukraine stock that was due to be rotated out for newer stuff anyway; they aren’t getting latest-gen anything, and if the US goes into any conflict and burns through enough latest-gen munitions and has to reach into old stockpiles, I think we’re in for a rough ride no matter what.

      • NeuromancerM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Are you talking about ww1 and Ww2? Those were very different times.

        they aren’t getting latest-gen anything

        This is the easiest way to tell someone never served or has any military experience.

        The javelin, patriot, 155mm, stinger, mlrs rockets, etc are all current issue. Isn’t the exact same thing we fight with. It’s the latest generation of fighting weapons.

        • Oh, yeah? Your meter is completely off, then.

          Ordinance gets replaced on the regular. A lot of it gets used during training. When I was in, once a year we’d go to the range and get issued a ton of everything: cans of ammo, grenades of all sorts (but mostly smoke, and no CS, and no LAWs). We’d be there most of the day. More than once Saw gunners from our platoon would would melt barrels trying to go through all the ammo we were issued. One time, there was still a dead tree standing down range and my buddy and I spent about an hour trying to cut it down by shooting it with our M16s. Even the TOW gunners were there doing their thing, and they were usually pretty stingy with the TOWs. I think they left out the CS and LAWs because someone in command decided that was just a little too risky; but otherwise they have us a ton of everything. Like, we would be there all day, trying to find things to shoot at from our trench.

          There was no objective to these exercises except to burn ammo. There were no targets except some rusted out old trucks, like maybe deuce & halfs? They were fairly unrecognizable by the time we saw them. Some long-dead tree trunks. Now that I’ve spent some decades in corporate US, what it reminded me must of was departments wildly trying to spend the rest of their budgets before year’s end.

          It was glorious; just sending destruction downrange with nobody shooting back. Maybe there was some hidden purpose, but there orders were: “here’s ammo. Shoot it all.”

          • NeuromancerM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then you should know we are giving Ukraine very formidable weapons. I get tired of people downplaying the quality of weapons we are sending. We are sending some solid weapons to Ukraine. It’s not old obsolete equipment. It’s the same equipment we use.

            And law? That would date you. I never saw a law only the at-4

            • I’m not downplaying what we’re giving Ukraine; I was taking objection to the idea that the US barely has enough munitions to defend itself from a nebulous enemy and we need to be careful about how much we give out.

              Yup, my service was decades ago.

                • It’s the “without more funds” part that’s misdirection. I still do assume that we could ramp up, quite quickly. These are private companies producing the munitions; if the gvmnt suddenly doubled the contract funding, I would be greatly surprised if we discovered production couldn’t keep up.

                  • NeuromancerM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    Most the plants are not privately owned. They are government owned and contractors work in them.

                    Most of these plants were shutdown as a cost savings measure. That’s been the issue

              • NeuromancerM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                That goes against all the news article. We can’t keep up with the demand from Ukraine unless we deplete our stockpiles. If China acted up, Iran or if we needed to fight Russia we wouldn’t have the supply to do it.