I am glad these people no longer control the narrative.
Joe Scarborough: I’m gonna say, I’m curious what your thoughts are about a proposed 500 billion dollar, uh I don’t know exactly what you would call it, payoff from Ukraine to the United States of America. It seems to me like we’re getting into Treaty of Versailles material there that would, first of all, it doesn’t line up with how much the United States has loaned Ukraine, and secondly, it would be crippling to an economy that has to get rebuilt after this war finally ends.
MSNBC Talker: Yeah, in more ways than one, it’s a pre-1914 maneuver, it’s a kind of imperialism, basically Zelensky’s renting us, or we’re renting ourselves to them for a certain amount of money and asset. The thing that I go back to again and again, and I have never heard a very good answer, so we’ll just frame the question one more time: how did the party of the Reagan Republican Cold War, “tear down this wall” of George H.W. Bush, “this aggression will not stand” this ethos of protecting the interests of democracies against autocracies, when did that just suddenly change? Uh not when but why? Why did that suddenly change? And to me, it’s one of the central questions of the era, because the reorientation of American foreign policy, from a particularly from the center-right and over, from “we will stand for freedom” (not universally, not saying we were somehow perfect before 2017 and now we’re not), but what is it in the Trump canon that has put us more on the side of aggressors as opposed to those who ordinarily, for decades, would receive our support and sympathy?
Willie Geist: It’s fascinating, it really is. I mean, I think everyone on this panel right now would tell you when they talk privately to Republicans, they say, of course Putin is the aggressor, of course Zelensky is not a dictator, of course that Ukraine is the victim here, but then won’t go out and say it publicly because of one man, the president.