Lindsey Graham’s Idiot Sister Can’t Stop Embarrassing Herself

Uh, um, Senator, are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States? If so, why? >> Um, I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? >> are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States and if so, why or how? >> I'm just going to be honest here. I'm not on national security that I'm not that informed on national security, so but I do support the military. My brother was in the Air Force for 33 years. So, I will do everything I can to support the military. My My dad was in the army. I'm not a polished politician up here. I'm National Security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military. >> You just watched a clip from US Senate candidate Darlene Graham's debate and it's going viral for obvious reasons because it demonstrates that she is very clearly unqualified to be a United States Senator, yet presumably feels entitled to her dead brother's seat. But nobody asked for a Graham political dynasty. Her brother was hated by most Americans and even viewed unfavorably by the people in his own state. So, simply touting the fact that you're his sister over and over and over again is a negative, not a positive, yet she thinks that that's all it takes. My closeted homosexual brother was a senator, therefore I should be one, too. Um, no, thank you. Now, having said that, I'll admit that I don't hate her answer necessarily. I understand why the media is turning her into a lol cow because of it, but there's nothing inherently wrong with admitting that you don't know enough about something to have an opinion about it. Of course, we should have higher standards for people who want to be US Senators, but that doesn't mean that they're going to have a polished answer for every issue ever, especially when it comes to complex geopolitical issues. It doesn't mean that you're inherently stupid or vapid if like you can't answer that particular question. So, I don't have a problem with her admitting that she doesn't know. I do, however, take issue with everything that she said after that because it demonstrated that she kind of is a dumbass low-key. She actually said, you know, uh that she doesn't know, but she supports the military and her brother and father were in the military. And that makes her look stupid because it's like how exactly how exactly is that relevant at all? It's like if somebody asked me, "Hey Mike, what's a good recipe for risotto?" And I was like, "You know, I'll be honest, I don't know, but I do love food and my brother was a chef." That doesn't matter. It doesn't get us closer to answering the original question. It's a total non sequitur. And she also said other [ __ ] that made a lot of people do a double take during that same debate. >> 50 million people in like uh South Carolina. >> There are not 50 million people who live in South Carolina. Her state's population is 5.6 million or so. But I will say that it's probably likely that she misspoke or mixed up that number with a different number because she went on to talk about how, you know, half the people in her state live paycheck to paycheck. So, that tells me that she at least bothered to look up some basic stats about her state, which is good, darling. That was That was a smart thing to do. But if she actually didn't even have a ballpark estimate of the population of the state that she wants to represent, if she genuinely thought 50 million people lived in South Carolina, I mean, [snorts] that is actually disqualifying. To be fair, we don't know if it's a genuine flub or just ignorance, but whether or not she's knowledgeable enough to be a US senator isn't really debatable. She's not. Although her brother was also a dumbass and that didn't stop him, clearly. But that doesn't mean that you have to give the US Senate seat that's open to another dumbass. You can actually pick somebody who's not a dumbass and possibly even somebody who's intelligent. But, whenever you listen to her speak, it's so clear that she has only the most superficial, surface-level understanding of American politics. It'd be like if you listened to me try to talk about sports. I can tell you that the Knicks won some basketball championship or something, and that Spain won the World Cup. But, if you try to get me to dive just a little bit beneath the surface and start talking about individual players and scores, I'm going to sound like a complete dumbass because I don't know what the [ __ ] I'm talking about, and it's clear. That is how Darlene sounds when she talks about politics. Now, in the spin room after that debate, she made an admittedly savvy pivot when she was asked about her fuck-up and said, "South Carolinians are more worried about their pocketbooks more than they're worried about the South China Sea, quite honestly." And you know what? That's honestly not a bad response. The problem, however, is that if you try to dive beneath the surface just a little bit, you'll hit your head because there's clearly nothing there. There's zero substance to her campaign. She knows that affordability is a huge issue. That's good. She's She's in tune with the poors a little bit. But, she has precisely zero policy solutions to address the affordability crisis. If you go to her campaign website, she doesn't even have a policy page. But, of course, she mentions that Donald Trump endorsed her, and she reminds you that she is Lindsey Graham's sister, just in case you forgot. And in a follow-up with Sean Hannity, she demonstrated that she really is struggling to warp as a politician, and probably only started watching Fox News like a week ago because it's clear she did not give a [ __ ] before she was anointed the Senate seat. But, just listen. >> You know, I I'm I tripped up on one question last night regarding Taiwan. But, you know, I've said many times I'm I'm not a politician, certainly not a career politician. I don't speak politician. You know, I was just honest, and I think that's kind of a foreign concept, but I talked to several people today. I traveled around the state and they said, you know, we appreciated the fact that you were honest. And I did say several times that, you know, China is our our enemy, our military and economic threat to the United States. Of course, Taiwan is our friend, but I think people in South Carolina are more worried about making ends meet. They're concerned about boys and girls sports. One lady talked to me extensively about that today. They're concerned about the second amendment. Um they're concerned about the Save America Act. Uh illegal illegal immigration. So, they're concerned about a lot of other things other than Taiwan. >> Bro. She's saying that they're more concerned about trans athletes. And I have to ask Darlene, I know you're watching the Humanist Report because you're a big political head. I've got to pop ones for you, Darlene. How many trans athletes are in your state? I'll give you a hint. It's not 50 million. But just take a guess. The number is literally zero. And she should know this because the governor of the state that she wants to represent signed a law banning trans athletes back in 2022. So, maybe if she knew this, she could have given this information to the [ __ ] that she was talking to. Now, when it comes to the second amendment, apparently she didn't get the memo that this is only something that Republicans talk about when Democrats are running for president or in the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting. Otherwise, there's no need to bring it up. Now, as for the Save America Act, I honestly would like to hear her explain to me what that legislation is and what it would do. Does she even have the basic Republican talking points down? Because if I had to guess, I'd say probably not. So, she sounds like a dumbass not because I think she's actually unintelligent, but because it's so obvious that she doesn't know what the [ __ ] she's talking about. But even though she's clearly unqualified, the entire Republican media establishment has bent over backwards to defend her. I guess because her brother died, so we're obligated to give her a seat in the US Senate, so she's less sad or something. I don't know, but it doesn't work that way, okay? At least it's not supposed to work that way, but Sean Hannity went out of his way to make excuses for her when he would never do the same for Democrats, and the excuses that he made were downright [ __ ] laughable. >> Yeah. You know, and I and to be fair, um people want to judge you on on the South China Sea and Taiwan. Okay, I think that's fair, but I bet based on all your time with your brother that you know probably everything about the Middle East cuz he went on one trip after another to every country in the Middle East, and I know you know a lot about Europe and Ukraine-Russia situation cuz he went to Ukraine more than any other senator, and you even said in our interview that you were going to focus more on domestic issues than your brother did. I mean, you were very clear. I wonder how many people around the country if I gave them a map could pick pick out Taiwan. I don't think many, and not just as I mean, the whole country, never mind South Carolina. >> First of all, the only reason why most Americans probably couldn't identify Taiwan on a map is because your party defunded public education, so thank yourself for that. Second of all, the Americans who probably couldn't identify Taiwan on a map aren't running to be US senators, okay? But according to Sean Hannity, she's probably good at foreign policy because I can't believe he actually insinuated this because her brother was Lindsey Graham. What the [ __ ] man? What are we even doing? I guess that's how it works. If you know somebody or you're related to somebody, they telepathically transmit all of their knowledge to you. Lindsey Graham's knowledge was apparently so OP that he had an aura buff that raised the knowledge stat of anybody in his proximity. Like, what are we saying here? And I'm sorry, are we supposed to pretend like Lindsey Graham was some sort of oracle of wisdom when it came to foreign policy? He's intelligent because he wanted to bomb every country on Earth? Like, he had the most simplistic foreign policy of anyone in Congress. His entire philosophy could be reduced to two words, war good. That's it. You're not sophisticated if you think that bombing people is good. You're a barbarian. But apparently he's a genius because he cared about wars only. This is ridiculous, but if you're wondering how charitable, you know, uh Sean Hannity was to AOC, well, uh you'll be surprised to learn that when she had a bad answer on Taiwan, you know, he uh he was not too kind to her. >> Wow. Even worse than Hillary, though, radical squad leader, AOC simply could not answer basic questions about global affairs. >> Shocker. It's almost like he's an NPC hack who's exclusively programmed to attack Democrats and defend Republicans. And it's not like AOC's answer was good, it wasn't. But it's just ironic that the people who cared the least about honesty are pretending to value honesty so highly. And since Darlene admitted that she has a lack of knowledge in this particular area, we should like give her an award for that? I don't even know what the expectation is. But another reason why Darlene's campaign is so off-putting is because, you know, the conservative pundit class, they're treating her like a [ __ ] baby. I mean, nepotism aside, the kid gloves being given to this one individual is kind of weird to see. Even the debate moderator who asked that question to her came to her defense. >> That answer is all the media seems to be running or tweeting about today. Really? The media thinks that this one question is so important to only talk about that and ignore the other 19 questions, which are 40 answers, the ad nauseam repeating and replaying today of that one answer by Senator Darling Graham makes the media look bad. One answer was 2.5% of all the answers at the debate last night. My guess is that you have not heard of the 97.5% of the other candidates' answers unless, of course, you watched the debate. >> It is downright hilarious to me that when the media does the same thing that Republican media does to Democrats all the [ __ ] time, they suddenly want to have a nuanced conversation about sensationalism and media bias. Interesting timing, isn't it? So, let me get this straight. After months and months and months of insinuating that Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and Zoran Mamdani are literal terrorists, and after years of genocide denial and false claims of anti-Semitism of anybody who opposes the genocide, and after decades of McCarthyism and class warfare on the poor at the behest of the wealthy, now you want to ask what's wrong with the media? How about you go [ __ ] yourself, okay? You shouldn't have needed a taste of your own medicine to see the harm partisan media causes, but to her credit, she at least did what Sean Hannity wouldn't do because she presumably has enough self-awareness to recognize that this partisan double standard does make her side look like a bunch of [ __ ] hypocrites. >> would and should the US actually commit US troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move? >> Um, you know, I think that uh this is such a uh you know, I I think that this is a um this is of course a uh a very long-standing um policy of the United States, uh and I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point and we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic, research, and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise. >> Okay, she got mocked mocked for that and looking back now I think about it. I heard that AOC sound bite over and over and over again and yes, I bet I heard it too. This is not to say these answers, bad answers by politicians are not newsworthy. They are. Last night my question about the China Sea was important or at least I thought it was at the time or I wouldn't have bothered to ask it. But consider this. Yes, Senator Darlene Graham said she could not give me an answer, but in hindsight she's not alone. Our U.S. government has been struggling with how we deal with and what to do about the South China Sea and China since 1979. And do you know what the U.S. policy is about this? Well, you better sit down for this. It is described as strategic ambiguity. Whatever that is. Do you even know what that means? I don't. I actually think it's code for our nation has no idea what to do. >> And I happen to agree with her. So, credit where it's due I guess. Having said that though, her introspection is only motivated by her desire to get Darlene Graham elected to a seat that she's very clearly not qualified for. The problem however is that we live in a kakistocracy for all intents and purposes. So, Darlene being unqualified isn't disqualifying in American politics in 2026. Our entire government is made up of unqualified [ __ ] and nepo babies who failed their way to the top. The president of the United States literally wanted to nuke hurricanes. So, in 2026 America, there's very few people who are actually qualified to have the positions that they do have. And the ones who are qualified get accused by the unqualified ones of only getting the positions that they have due to DEI or affirmative action. So, I say all this to say that America is not a meritocracy. The richest man in the world happens to be one of the biggest dumbasses. The most powerful man on the planet has a neck [ __ ] and shits his pants. So, I guess in a weird way Darling Graham's lack of qualifications makes her uniquely suited for a seat in the US Senate because she'll fit right in with the rest of the dumbasses who also aren't qualified to be there. So, I don't think that her being unqualified is going to stop her from winning that seat even though it's obvious that like you probably could find somebody better, but what do I know? >> Like everywhere [music] there's blood. You see them all the time. I mean, it's constant. My children are not mama. >> [music] >> I turn on the TV there's blood in the background. Every TV show, news media, what >> [music] >> They're everywhere. >> [music]