Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
The same one that’s worse at raising revenue , also spends way more.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
I don't know. DOGE went in to find waste and corruption and came out with goose eggs except to cause further dysfunction in the government. I'm sure you can find some cost saving measures, but you'd have to do it the Clinton administration way, going to the actual departments and seeing from them where the inefficiencies lie instead of releasing Musk's code monkeys to accidentally fire the nuclear nuclear weapons workers and walk out with thumb drives of sensitive information to sell.
And I don't think the true problem is if they raise more revenue, they will just spend more when you can't even pay for what you've already committed to.
The reality is, there probably isn't that much waste and not that many things to cut back, not enough to balance the budget anyways. You are a big country with a big population and the so-called entitlements are going to eat up a lot of the budget no matter how you do it. At some point, revenue must be raised unless you are aiming for some kind of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist future. Because if not, a starting point would be reversing Trump's tax cuts. Also, maybe less wars from the Party of the FIFA Peace Prize with the Department of WAR with manly men who like to fight WARS who were robbed of the Nobel Peace Prize. That might also help the budget. Oh, and stop screwing with trade partners by trying to start tariff wars with the entire world. Business thrives in stable conditions, not the unstable ones Trump creates.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
The same one that’s worse at raising revenue , also spends way more.
I try not to speak in the spending generalities because both parties spend so much, the party "out of power" can still use the filibuster to demand more spending in compromises, and COVID was so unique. Democrats have run higher deficits when they have trifectas in the past 30 years, but Republicans have the biggest single year deficits etc etc. Both parties do not have fiscal discipline. Both parties reject middle class tax raises to fund European-style welfare states with European-style taxes.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
I don't know. DOGE went in to find waste and corruption and came out with goose eggs except to cause further dysfunction in the government. I'm sure you can find some cost saving measures, but you'd have to do it the Clinton administration way, going to the actual departments and seeing from them where the inefficiencies lie instead of releasing Musk's code monkeys to accidentally fire the nuclear nuclear weapons workers and walk out with thumb drives of sensitive information to sell.
And I don't think the true problem is if they raise more revenue, they will just spend more when you can't even pay for what you've already committed to.
The reality is, there probably isn't that much waste and not that many things to cut back, not enough to balance the budget anyways. You are a big country with a big population and the so-called entitlements are going to eat up a lot of the budget no matter how you do it. At some point, revenue must be raised unless you are aiming for some kind of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist future. Because if not, a starting point would be reversing Trump's tax cuts. Also, maybe less wars from the Party of the FIFA Peace Prize with the Department of WAR with manly men who like to fight WARS who were robbed of the Nobel Peace Prize. That might also help the budget.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
To be clear, the underlined words are not correct. The bolded words should be inserted where the underlined words are.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
I don't know. DOGE went in to find waste and corruption and came out with goose eggs except to cause further dysfunction in the government. I'm sure you can find some cost saving measures, but you'd have to do it the Clinton administration way, going to the actual departments and seeing from them where the inefficiencies lie instead of releasing Musk's code monkeys to accidentally fire the nuclear nuclear weapons workers and walk out with thumb drives of sensitive information to sell.
And I don't think the true problem is if they raise more revenue, they will just spend more when you can't even pay for what you've already committed to.
The reality is, there probably isn't that much waste and not that many things to cut back, not enough to balance the budget anyways. You are a big country with a big population and the so-called entitlements are going to eat up a lot of the budget no matter how you do it. At some point, revenue must be raised unless you are aiming for some kind of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist future. Because if not, a starting point would be reversing Trump's tax cuts. Also, maybe less wars from the Party of the FIFA Peace Prize with the Department of WAR with manly men who like to fight WARS who were robbed of the Nobel Peace Prize. That might also help the budget.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
Reminds me of the interview with a DOGE worker who was surprised by how efficient the government actually is.
Turns out chronically underpaying departments for years and years makes them really good at getting the best out of the money they do get.
(he was fired shortly after the interview because fuck transparency).
Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
Yeah, that's a popular step for getting put back on the Hamster Wheel.
1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam.
It's also based on a misunderstanding of US history. The institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth.
In that way Trump is a pinnacle manifestation of the actual US ethos.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
If it wasn't, you could try to articulate what you base that belief on (besides your misunderstanding of US history) instead of petulantly lashing out about cannibalism?
But my general view of revolution is it destroys wealth so everyone (at best) equally shares in poverty (hence cannibalism). But more likely, a new power base arises that centralizes what is left of the wealth all the more and does not share power. So I will never join your revolution though I may die by it.
Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
Yeah, that's a popular step for getting put back on the Hamster Wheel.
1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam.
It's also based on a misunderstanding of US history. The institutions and laws were always "corrupted by money". They were built and written by affluent, genocidal, land stealing, rapist, slavers to protect and expand their wealth.
In that way Trump is a pinnacle manifestation of the actual US ethos.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
If it wasn't, you could try to articulate what you base that belief on (besides your misunderstanding of US history) instead of petulantly lashing out about cannibalism?
It was a play on words, not lashing out, chill
But my general view of revolution is it destroys wealth so everyone (at best) equally shares in poverty (hence cannibalism). But more likely, a new power base arises that centralizes the wealth all the more and does not share power. So I will never join your revolution though I may be killed by it.
While I certainly favor revolutionary socialism as a response to the problems we have, you rejecting revolutionary socialism as a viable response doesn't make the problem/delusion/fatal flaw with your perspective go away.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
I don't know. DOGE went in to find waste and corruption and came out with goose eggs except to cause further dysfunction in the government. I'm sure you can find some cost saving measures, but you'd have to do it the Clinton administration way, going to the actual departments and seeing from them where the inefficiencies lie instead of releasing Musk's code monkeys to accidentally fire the nuclear nuclear weapons workers and walk out with thumb drives of sensitive information to sell.
Actually, the failure of DOGE has no bearing on my post. You can't cut your way out of this large of a budget deficit with that waste, and I only wish it were so small that you could.
The reality is, there probably isn't that much waste and not that many things to cut back, not enough to balance the budget anyways. You are a big country with a big population and the so-called entitlements are going to eat up a lot of the budget no matter how you do it. At some point, revenue must be raised unless you are aiming for some kind of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist future. Because if not, a starting point would be reversing Trump's tax cuts. Also, maybe less wars from the Party of the FIFA Peace Prize with the Department of WAR with manly men who like to fight WARS who were robbed of the Nobel Peace Prize. That might also help the budget.
The US is at around double or 2.5x the OECD average on public and private health care and social security, on per capita or GDP basis (government incentivizes private employer-provided insurance through tax law). Then look at the growth in public spending on entitlements and interest payments on the debt relative to GDP. I don't see any way something remotely resembling "fiscal responsibility" occurs without moderate to heavy cuts in entitlement spending. You'd have to hit America's middle class with sizable tax increases, and the strange bipartisan consensus is that you're only allowed to raise taxes on the wealthy. I look at the growth in entitlement spending, and its large share of the total increase of the debt, and the growth of interest on the debt, and conclude that only a combination of tax increases and spending reductions can be considered fiscal responsibility. The electorate isn't ready to talk about those cuts, so I'm not putting all the blame on both political parties.
On July 12 2026 02:07 Falling wrote: Here's the neat thing, you don't need to blink billionaires out of existence. Let them make their billions, I don't care. But do tax them a bunch. Not as punishment. Not to make them not billionaires. But simply because that's where you will raise a lot of revenue to run your government. Reverse the Trump tax cuts would be a great start to not keep adding to the debt... if a party still wanted to be the party of fiscal responsibility. And then protect the institutions and laws from being corrupted by money.
Because as long as the average citizen can generate wealth, the government is funded and functions, and the laws are just, who really cares about billionaires? The worst of their excesses will be curbed by rule of law. And it is in the interests of billionaires to be taxed more and to have an uncorrupt government/law in the long term. In the short term, sure they won't make as much money, but long term if reform is unavailable and the average citizen cannot make ends meet, and the laws are corrupt and the government is non-functional, if you tell them to eat cake, they might take your head instead.
And while revolution might be the optimum outcome for some and so might wish to accelerate it, I would dread such a hellscape.
I think the more accurate description is that government itself desires to spend more than its means, so even very high taxes on the richest among us would immediately be used to grow the spending to many times the new revenue. It's maybe 1/3 of the goal to raise more revenue; the addition 2/3 is to limit spending. Both parties are bad at limiting spending, one party is worse than the other at raising revenue.
I don't know. DOGE went in to find waste and corruption and came out with goose eggs except to cause further dysfunction in the government. I'm sure you can find some cost saving measures, but you'd have to do it the Clinton administration way, going to the actual departments and seeing from them where the inefficiencies lie instead of releasing Musk's code monkeys to accidentally fire the nuclear nuclear weapons workers and walk out with thumb drives of sensitive information to sell.
And I don't think the true problem is if they raise more revenue, they will just spend more when you can't even pay for what you've already committed to.
The reality is, there probably isn't that much waste and not that many things to cut back, not enough to balance the budget anyways. You are a big country with a big population and the so-called entitlements are going to eat up a lot of the budget no matter how you do it. At some point, revenue must be raised unless you are aiming for some kind of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist future. Because if not, a starting point would be reversing Trump's tax cuts. Also, maybe less wars from the Party of the FIFA Peace Prize with the Department of WAR with manly men who like to fight WARS who were robbed of the Nobel Peace Prize. That might also help the budget. Oh, and stop screwing with trade partners by trying to start tariff wars with the entire world. Business thrives in stable conditions, not the unstable ones Trump creates.
@GH Or we can eat the rich if it truly is a Hamster Wheel. But I do not favour cannibalism though perhaps we shall all be equally dead in the revolution.
Even Republicans can't cut the budgets of the various agencies, their budgets are still way higher than pre-Covid.
GAO routinely estimates billions in waste and improper payments across the federal government each year. Much of it is in state programs that the federal government helps fund but does not directly administer. That was part of the GOP tax bill that people were upset about. They closed a loophole that allowed states to tax some of these programs, give the money back, but claim an increased payout from the federal government because of the increased money spent.
Spending continues to grow higher even as revenue grows. Until a crisis comes spending will just go up with revenue because that's easier than cutting. And I've talked about this before but the problem is not billionaires, if people want the European welfare state they need to pay European level taxes including on the middle class. Not even Dems are going for that as they promise no taxes on families making less than what, $400k? Billionaires are a convenient foil but the American budget problem is structural, not just a matter of rate tweaks. I look at it the same way i look at proposed taxes here in California. California has the *inflation adjusted* state busget increase by 40% over Newsom's tenure. Forty! Do we the citizens see it? Of course not. Meanwhile with all that are still raising taxes this year! Because they are still in the hole billions of dollars. There is no good reason to believe that raising taxes is going to fix our problems.
Republicans be like "the budget is out of control, even taxing the rich isn't going to solve the deficit" then vote for guys that raise military spending by 20%, gut the IRS so less lawful taxes are collected, and still cut tax rates for the rich.
I didn't know that China had so dramatically reduced their imports.
Something didn't quite add up to me, how everyone is being so calm as major economies release reserves to keep the oil prices down, as there is still continuously no resolution in sight in Iran.
I wonder how sustainable this reduction is though, I can't imagine they are doing this out of 'trying to save the world economy'. Are they beyond needing that much oil? Or are they doing this as some kind of under the table deal, and they eventually won't be able to sustain this either, or maybe being probably the best prepared major economy for an oil shock, they just realised they might have even over-prepared and now have the resources to keep themselves really stable for a really long time.
Breaking news. While it is unknown whether Mitch McConnel is actually still alive Lindsey Graham has passed after a brief sudden illness.
WASHINGTON — Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was elected to the Senate in 2003 and was a close political ally of President Donald Trump, has died, his office confirmed early Sunday. He was 71.
On July 12 2026 18:11 Gorsameth wrote: Breaking news. While it is unknown whether Mitch McConnel is actually still alive Lindsey Graham has passed after a brief sudden illness.
WASHINGTON — Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was elected to the Senate in 2003 and was a close political ally of President Donald Trump, has died, his office confirmed early Sunday. He was 71.
On July 12 2026 18:11 Gorsameth wrote: Breaking news. While it is unknown whether Mitch McConnel is actually still alive Lindsey Graham has passed after a brief sudden illness.
WASHINGTON — Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was elected to the Senate in 2003 and was a close political ally of President Donald Trump, has died, his office confirmed early Sunday. He was 71.
On July 12 2026 18:11 Gorsameth wrote: Breaking news. While it is unknown whether Mitch McConnel is actually still alive Lindsey Graham has passed after a brief sudden illness.
WASHINGTON — Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was elected to the Senate in 2003 and was a close political ally of President Donald Trump, has died, his office confirmed early Sunday. He was 71.
Lindsey Graham was the embodiment of what MAGA did to US conservative politics.
His transformation from never-Trumper into one of his biggest cheer leaders and suck ups was incredible to behold, for an adult main in a position of power to humiliate and prostitute himself for what, to be closer to power and have the ear of the petulant toddler king and act as the court jester on Fox news to sell his wars.
My latest impression of him was a sense of horror as he gleefully cheered on Iran, grinning as he said they aren't taking it far enough and happily announcing that Cuba is next.
Just a completely hollow creature with not an ounce of anything that makes people human.
On July 12 2026 19:47 Jankisa wrote: Lindsey Graham was the embodiment of what MAGA did to US conservative politics.
His transformation from never-Trumper into one of his biggest cheer leaders and suck ups was incredible to behold, for an adult main in a position of power to humiliate and prostitute himself for what, to be closer to power and have the ear of the petulant toddler king and act as the court jester on Fox news to sell his wars.
My latest impression of him was a sense of horror as he gleefully cheered on Iran, grinning as he said they aren't taking it far enough and happily announcing that Cuba is next.
Just a completely hollow creature with not an ounce of anything that makes people human.
I think Ted Cruz is a better example in an even more punchable face, but yes, Lindsay Graham was also a hollow man with no values, just a lust for power (and warmongering).
EPT
