Donate

Did you wake up this morning terrified to see what the idiot president of the United States has been doing in Belgium at the NATO summit? Is he destroying it with a million cuts? Is he going to just pull us out of the decades-old alliance and leave the world hanging? Who knows at this point!

Watch this video of the bilateral breakfast Donald Trump had with the secretary general of NATO and see if you come away horrified. SPOILER, if you come away horrified, that means you have common sense and/or have read a book and/or were not born yesterday:


What was your favorite part? Was it when Trump went off on an absurd tangent complaining about how Germany is bad because Germany did a pipeline deal with Russia, which means now Germany is a "captive of Russia" inside Trump's sniveling snot brain, therefore we shouldn't have to pay for their defense? (Merkel is PISSED.) Was it when Trump got up in NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's face and yelled words about how none of the countries in NATO are paying their fair share, demonstrating yet again that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how NATO funding works? Was it when he suggested that these other countries actually owe the United States money? Was it when he repeated all those things multiple times like a dementia patient who only remembers 100 words? Frankly we're surprised he didn't just start yelling "WALL!"

It was like arguing with an obese orange toddler who demands to know why you park on the driveway and drive on the parkway. It's just INAPPROPRIATE, if you ask him, and you don't even have to ask him, because he's going to tell you right now, and when it's your turn to talk, he's going to interrupt you to say it some more, because on top of being an absolute moron, he's fucking rude.

Everything Trump said echoed this whine tweet he sent before his trip:

As we noted, fuckin' idiot has no fuckin' clue how NATO works. Let's review:

Member nations agree to contribute a certain percentage of their GDP to defense, with a goal for all nations to hit two percent by 2024. The US is way over two percent, because the US has a defense spending erection that has persisted way more than four hours and should definitely call a doctor. The UK has hit the two percent goal. Other countries aren't there yet. As Josh Marshall points out at Talking Points Memo, the United States started to encourage member nations to contribute more -- again to their own defense budgets, as part of NATO -- back in 2014, which, if you'll remember, was during the Obama administration.

And yes, in terms of real numbers, we pay more, because we're MUCH BIGGER. And we're increasing our own defense spending, because WAR TANKS BOMBS PENIS GRRRRRRR! But for Trump to act like member nations somehow owe us money is goddamned stupid on the level of goddamned stupid we've come to expect from President Shit Mouth.

And it's not like we get nothing from NATO! For one thing, NATO is an insurance policy that says that if any of these nations are attacked, if somebody else out there (Russia) decides to start a world war, America and these 28 other nations are a united front. For another thing, you know how we have all those military bases all over Europe? They're not just there for shits and giggles, it turns out! Because of NATO, it means that America's defensive line starts way over there in Europe, as opposed to, you know, at Martha's Vineyard, where Alan Dershowitz is probably currently naked.

NATO doesn't just help us with war either -- back when Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans, NATO was right there helping with literally whatever the United States needed, and the alliance did a HECKUVA JOB, BROWNIE with that. Thanks, NATO! Of course, Hurricane Katrina involved black people losing their homes, so MAGA trash probably doesn't care.

And speaking of MAGA trash! Jonathan Chait has an excellent piece that notes that, while it's true that other member nations in NATO actually are increasing their spending commitments, Trump is strangely not taking credit for it like he usually takes credit for everything. In the video above, you'll note that Secretary General Stoltenberg attempts to kiss Trump's ass and say this is happening because of Trump's "leadership." But a "win" isn't what Trump seems to want here, and the way he's been talking about NATO to his MAGA trash is a clue that what he really wants to do is burn it all down:

At his rally in North Dakota two weeks ago, he said, "Sometimes our worst enemies are our so-called friends or allies, right?" At a subsequent rally in Montana last week, the president declared, "Our allies in many cases were worse than our enemies." Trump understands the power of repetition, and it is notable to see this allies, they're the worst, amirite formulation becoming a staple of his rhetoric.

But Putin? Putin's FINE! He's not KGB, he's people!

Chait notes that Trump's propaganda to his people is working:

According to a recent poll, just 40 percent of Republicans think the U.S. should should stay in NATO, while 56 percent of Republicans consider Trump's relationship with Vladimir Putin good for the United States.

And that's how fascism blossoms, children! You take a cohort of people who don't know fuck-all about anything and you start filling their brains with "details" that make them feel "smart," like how our allies are the worst and owe us all the money, and Putin is fine because he's VERY NICE AND SEXXXY PEOPLE, and before you know it, majorities of Republicans think NATO is shit and Putin is #BeBest.

We don't know if Trump is acting this way at NATO because he's seriously as mindfuckingly stupid as he seems (yes, he definitely is), or whether Vladimir Putin, with whom Trump will be having a secret love meeting later this week, is truly his handler/real dad (yes, he definitely is) and this is what he has instructed his most valuable intelligence asset/best boy ever to do, in order to reorder the world for Russia's benefit. What we know is that he is doing it.

Last night, the Senate took the very rare and bipartisan step of voting 97-2 for a nonbinding resolution (it was the least they could do!) reaffirming America's continued commitment to NATO. Obviously they did this because they were fucking freaked out, like HOLY SHIT WHAT IS THAT MORON GOING TO DO? Truly, nobody could have seen this coming, except for how Trump has acted like this toward our oldest allies since FORFUCKINGEVER.

Of course, whatever damage Trump does at the NATO summit, people -- including our NATO partners -- are even more worried about what's going to happen when he gets under the covers and starts gossiping about boys later this week with Putin. Will he pull American troops out of Germany, like he's been threatening? Will he continue his calls for Russia to be forgiven for invading Crimea, because according to his compromised logic, everybody in Crimea speaks Russian anyway, so it's probably NBD? Will he continue to do literally everything Putin could have ever dreamed of an American leader doing?

Guess we'll just have to stay horrified while we watch and find out!

Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT NOW, DO IT RIGHT NOW!

[New York]

Help Wonkette LIVE FOREVER! Seriously, if you can, please help, by making a donation of MONEY.

Evan Hurst

Evan Hurst is the senior editor of Wonkette, which means he is the boss of you, unless you are Rebecca, who is boss of him. His dog Lula is judging you right now.

Follow him on Twitter RIGHT HERE.

$
Donate with CC

OOH BOY HOWDY, The Federalist is on fire this week! Just this morning we told you about the hilarious Federalist column where one neo-Nazi's mom and dad are Democrats, ipso facto QED NEO-NAZIS ARE THE REAL LIBERALS, FUCKERS! Is America's dumbest woman whose name doesn't rhyme with Cara Snailin' over there being a total fuckin' Mollie Hemingway right now? Sadly, she blocked us on Twitter, so how could we possibly know? The answer is WE DON'T CARE.

But now we have a gem of the Federalist genre, an article written by a whiny-ass gay quisling conservative, who would like to chew on his blankie and whine about how much harder it is out there for a conservative than it is for a gay person. This is a subject we happen to have some knowledge about, because we are super gay! And we know a lot about conservatives, both firsthand -- being subjected to them every single one of our almost four decades of life -- and also from covering extremist right-wing Christians for a very long time. Particularly the kind that tell young, impressionable, vulnerable gay kids that they need to pray away the gay if they want Jesus to exercise some self control and refrain from sending them to a fiery hell for all eternity.

We clicked on the article with high hopes. See if you can spot why:

Keep reading... Show less
$
Donate with CC
pic via Glamour Shots, we mean this dude's old website

The House Education and Workforce Committee was all set to have a hearing today all about the horrors that a higher minimum wage would wreak on the economy. Horrors like rich people being slightly less rich. Horrors like business owners claiming they will have to fire people and charge $15 for a McChicken if forced to pay workers a living wage, which they won't actually do because no one will buy a $15 McChicken and they would go out of business if they tried that, and they already don't hire more people than the bare minimum they can get away with. Horrors like poor people not being "motivated" to work harder and get better jobs that do not pay them an amount no human being could possibly live on.

Alas, as Politico reports, it was not to be, as committee members discovered their big witness for the hearing, San Diego State University economist Joseph Sabia (pictured above in a Glamour Shot from his archived website), was kind of a wacko.

Sabia, as it turns out, once had a blog called "No Shades Of Gray," in which he wrote many columns of an extremely homophobic and sexist persuasion. In one of these columns, in 2002, Sabia was very mad about one man's lawsuit against several fast food giants for contributing to his health and obesity problems by failing to disclose the nutritional information of the food they sold. In retrospect, I think most people are now on board with these chains being required to post calorie counts and other nutritional information, but in 2002, Sabia was convinced that requiring them to do this would be an assault on freedom for all Americans everywhere. His response to this was to try and attempt a Jonathan Swift posture and suggest taxing gay sex, which he claimed leads to "disastrous health consequences."

Because sure, that's the same thing, basically.


In gay sex, we have an activity that is clearly leading to disastrous health consequences. What rational person would engage in this sort of activity? There is only one solution - let's tax it.

"Come on, Sabia," you say, "how are you going to enforce these taxes? Are you going to send government officials to peep into everyone's bedroom?"

Eventually. But first we have to mount the assault on Big Gay (no, I am not talking about Rosie O'Donnell). We can tax gay nightclubs, websites, personal ads, sexual paraphernalia, and so forth. Talk about a sin tax!!! We can cripple gay-related industries and get them right where we want them. All gay clubs will have to feature huge, flashing warning signs like "CAUTION: Entering this nightclub may increase your chance of contracting STDs and dying."

Big Gay clearly lures people into trying their "product" without discussing the risks to mind, body, and soul. The average Joe on the street does not understand all of the possible bad outcomes. I can almost hear him now:

"They said '100 percent hotties.' I thought that meant it was fun. I thought gay sex was OK…Now I have all these diseases. Big Gay has wrecked my life."

In the immoral words of Warren G, "Regulators!! Mount up!"

EXTREME SHUDDER.

In another 2002 article, classily titled "College Girls: Unpaid Whores," Sabia laments that feminists have led college girls to stop trying to be like the Holy Virgin Mary and instead to aspire to be more like that hussy Ally McBeal.

No, really.

As women have strayed from the church, they have replaced what is holy with what is temporally pleasing. For Catholics, the model woman is Mary, the virgin Mother of God. She is beloved by the faithful for her unflappable devotion to and trust in God, her nurturing of the Son of Man, and her deep love for all humanity.

Today's college girl looks to Ally McBeal, the trollops of Sex in the City, and the floozies on Friends to set their moral compasses.

The sad truth is that college girls are so desperate to find love that they are willing to degrade themselves to get it. But true love can only be understood in the context of the Word of God. Any other notion of "love" is secular and, by definition, limited and finite.

Not only that, but instead of going to college to find a husband, they have boyfriends. Boyfriends they have S-E-X with. And sometimes, not even that. Sometimes they have sex with people just because they want to have sex with people, and not even in exchange for Valentine's Day cards or money!


Additionally, other sex-based relationships have become commonplace. In recent years, a new and disturbing arrangement known as "friends with benefits" has emerged. In this arrangement, men are not even forced to perform the normal duties of boyfriends, i.e. flowers, Valentine's Day cards, rides to the abortion clinic, etc. Instead, girls consider these guys "just friends" whom they happen to screw every now and again. No strings, no attachments, no dinners. Just sex when they feel like it.

This type of arrangement is the next logical step in the direction that young women have drifted in the last few decades. These women have become unpaid whores. At least prostitutes made a buck off of their trade. These women just give it away.

How cute! He was like the ur-incel, basically.

Anyway, following the discovery of the posts, the House Education and Workforce Committee's GOP communications director Kelley McNabb told Politico that "members were uncomfortable moving forward on the hearing." A more optimistic person might think this was a step forward, that maybe those committee members actually thought it was bad to suggest that being gay means being a disease-ridden monster or that college girls are whores, but it's probably more to avoid embarrassment than anything else. Guess they'll have to start from scratch and find a crappy economist who will tell them what they want to hear about the minimum wage but who doesn't have an embarrassing Geocities blog in their past. Good luck with that!

[Politico]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

$
Donate with CC
Donate

How often would you like to donate?

Select an amount (USD)

Newsletter

©2018 by Commie Girl Industries, Inc