We're not sure when Democrats became the party of permanent war, but we're pretty sure it has something to do with the mean orange man who lives rent-free inside their heads 24/7. And, of course, wherever the Democrat Party goes, the legacy media is right there nipping at their heels and licking their boots.
The fallout continues today from President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio tossing Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the White House for submarining the planned announcement of a mineral deals agreement between the United States and Ukraine to help end the war with Russia.
The media called it an 'ambush' and, for once, they were correct, just not in the way they intended. Details have emerged that many members of Barack Obama's foreign policy team, including Susan Rice, TOLD Zelenskyy to act out and deny the deal.
Afterwards, the legacy media had all the ammunition they needed to (to coin a phrase) 'pounce' on Trump.
And we can't talk about media apparatchiks without mentioning the founder of Vox -- and infamous parking snitch -- Matt Yglesias.
Yesterday, Yglesias posted an excerpt from The New York Times' Ross Douthat, who correctly assessed that the United States cannot continue to fund nations across the world indefinitely. Yglesias, foreign policy and defense expert that he is NOT, naturally disagreed and said there's no limit to the support we can provide to Ukraine.
I agree with @DouthatNYT that the United States should not fight a war for the sake of Ukraine, but the actual issue at hand is whether we should continue to send military equipment to Ukraine which is something we can clearly sustain indefinitely. pic.twitter.com/VGvRiyY8MM
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 1, 2025
Recommended
Did you catch the way that tweet ended? Vice President Vance sure did.
He responded this morning in perfect Vance fashion.
“Which we can clearly sustain indefinitely.” https://t.co/aQJaRb3uDZ
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 2, 2025
If using the quotation marks wasn't a clear enough signal that Vance thought Yglesias' assertion was insane, he made himself clear in a reply.
Actually, we can’t.
— JD Vance (@JDVance) March 2, 2025
This is the entire point of Trump and Vance wanting to bring peace. The war is not sustainable, and there are no realistic metrics for victory.
Also, there's the pesky fact that prolonging this war will continue to cost hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives.
Yglesias doesn't care about that, though. Or the fact that continuing to fund the war to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars is a pointless strain on the U.S. economy.
He has no skin in this game. He just hates Trump and wants to hurt him.
“Which we can clearly sustain indefinitely.”
— Amygator 🐊 *not an actual alligator (@AmyA1A) March 2, 2025
Someone introduce him to Stein’s Law: “If Something Cannot Go on Forever, It Will Stop.”
Arguing for forever war -- against a country that has more nuclear weapons than anyone else in the world -- is patently crazy.
But since Trump wants peace, that is the position leftists in the media are forced to defend.
What are reasonable objectives for the Russo-Ukrainian War? At what cost? On what timeline? How much risk would America be willing to take?
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) March 2, 2025
This administration’s critics don’t want to answer any of these questions.
This administration’s critics don’t want to grapple with any of…
The tweet continues:
This administration’s critics don’t want to grapple with any of the realities about the present state of the conflict, our drawn down weapons stockpiles and the threats that poses vis-a-vis China et al,. the unaccounted for billions, nor the broader potential benefit to a resolution beyond all the obvious ones: A chance — however remote — to work towards effectuating a new Sino-Soviet split.
Zelensky may have torpedoed the best possible alternative of a series of bad ones.
Yglesias cannot address any of these questions or issues. His position is simply, 'Trump bad, war good.'
Of course, he has always been this way.
— Coddled affluent professional (@feelsdesperate) March 2, 2025
HA.
If you can't read the subhead in the screenshot above, it says that Yglesias 'produces smug pseudo-analysis that cannot be considered serious thought. He ought to be permanently disregarded.'
That is great advice. But we'll still mock him when he deserves it, which is only ... always.
I'm always happy when I see Yglesias get put in his place. https://t.co/UR0aQNQ0Iu
— Meese, Many Moose (@Maximillia79990) March 2, 2025
To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, Vance could put Yglesias in his place with half his brain tied behind his back.
JD Vance claims another midwit's scalp https://t.co/VGLONaGXlI pic.twitter.com/Hfth9qNEKn
— The Klendathu Cap (@KlendathuCap) March 2, 2025
If Vance could give Zelenskyy a public spanking in front of the entire world, the 'journalist' didn't stand a chance.
Hilariously, Yglesias limply tried to fire back by claiming that Vance had 'no evidence' to support his assertion that we can't keep sending billions in money and equipment to Ukraine indefinitely.
The Vice President is one of the smarter and more articulate people in politics — he's written some very good articles and a pretty good book over the years — so I have to say I find the quality and quantity of the evidence he has produced here to be pretty disappointing. pic.twitter.com/oEp4tx7jxb
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) March 2, 2025
LOL. 'Source, bro?'
He literally did the meme.
Your contention requires Americans to want fund a meat grinder in Ukraine for eternity. It’s your position that needs to provide evidence.
— blankalltheclowns (@blankallclowns) March 2, 2025
He won't. Because he can't.
Is it not self evident? He is not “making a case”, rather he is pointing out the absurd
— Jason Hikes (@jasonhikes1) March 2, 2025
Yglesias is laboring under the self-important, delusional belief that Vance thinks he is worthy of argument or conversation.
No, sir. Vance was just mocking you because your position of 'indefinite support' is ridiculous on its face.
A Vice President taking on a midwit like Yglesias, is the best thing about the social media age. https://t.co/YHAiQevK69
— Richard 🐎 (@Richx183) March 2, 2025
It wasn't really a fair fight. Vance knocked Yglesias out with a single punch.
But we love that the vice president is willing -- and more than able -- to do so.
Journos like Yglesias aren't used to politicians (who are far smarter than they are) smacking them down in public.
It's going to be a long four years or longer for him. We may need to buy more popcorn.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member