Democrats gave us a soft landing from a worldwide recession and the best performing economy in the world, among other things, and they were voted out. Is that what they deserve shame for? Delivering as much as could be hoped despite only having a majority for 2 years? That?
EL PASO — a family says ICE showed up at their house looking for migrants and shot and KILLED THEIR DOG, then didn’t help them as the agent ran away and was not identified.
You’re a loudmouth know-nothing blithering idiot. And it’s not because of your content-less shitting on Jeffries, or “big R” racist-adjacent ranting about how blacks voted, those are just symptoms of your obvious condition of being a self centered jagoff.
The azov battalion was an opportunity to “one simple trick” the situation, i.e. blame “capitalism” or US “imperialism.” In this case the azov battalion (there’s more Nazis in the Portland PD) gave them the moral excuse to not care about Ukraine, which allowed them to indulge in “proxy war, aktualy.”
No, you don’t understand. You use the word “invoke” to mean it should have been implemented with all parties arriving at the conclusion you agree with. That is not how that law, or any law, works, but especially this law which fully rests on all parties making the same conclusion.
And have you been alive the last 9 months? Your argument boils down to “Biden should have sent all arms at all times with no conditions and shouldn’t have concerned himself with aid at all” bc that’s what the Trump admin did. It’s not my fault you blew your moral outrage wad 3 years back.
There’s literally no evidence to support what you’re saying. And I’m sorry but “invoke?” Do you think there’s a leahy button? It’s a tool and a process and it operates according to its implementation by the state dept and interpretation by them and others. Grow up.
Yes. As someone who justified my decision to not vote for Harris bc “gaza” I herein submit this potential ceasefire which is no different from the one Biden negotiated in February as justification for my lack of support. The last 9 months you say? What? What’s a month? What’s 9? No habla English.
These keep popping up. It’s very, very important to these people that Biden was the biggest monster. It’s been the foundation of their entire identity for the last 3 years.
This week has confirmed my suspicion that Biden’s Middle East policies will look worse, and will be even more embarrassing for Democrats, with the passage of time.
It’s the only “Trump will outflank the democrats on the left” opportunity that has presented itself so far this admin. I think a lot of “progressives” are relieved bc without this there would be no way to rehabilitate Trump this term, w/o which it is very difficult to argue Dems are just as bad.
That doesn’t support any claim you’ve made. Btw, I’m still waiting to hear how the Trump admin’s approach of not giving a shit about aid, restarting the flow of 2k lbs bombs and not making any effort to constrain bibi was superior to the Biden admin’s approach. You seem happy with the last 9 months.
Yes I would say it for literally any branch of government if the context is someone claiming the state dept “formally submitted” a certain recommendation to the White House when in fact nothing like that at all ever occurred.
Are you talking about Biden or Trump? It doesn’t matter because “some people below the Secretary of State recommended this” is not “the state department submitted a report which said this.” How do you not get that?
I haven’t seen you explain anything. We’re talking about arms transfers that are approved by Congress. My understanding is the President can’t block those unilaterally like anything else allocated by Congress. As far as leahy stuff he did suspend a number of weapons which Trump had reinstated.
How does an administration “bury” a “recommendation” from an agency it controls? The buck stops with the Secretary of State as far as recommendations from the state dept goes. Ppl inside the state department saw it a different way than the decisions made, is what you’re saying.
whatever the trump admins does, legal. For an admin committed to that rule of law that does implement it you have several bodies making interpretations in order to reach a decision, which might not result in the actions some rando on the internet thinks it should.
How do you think it’s supposed to work? All law is implemented and enforced by the state. The leahy laws are implemented by the state dept. If they don’t implement it, it’s not done. If no one brings suit there’s no check on that. Or, with the situation now, bringing suit allows scotus to make
I think a fundamental problem here is that people cannot recognize (or aren't emotionally mature enough to distinguish between) "This horrible thing is going to happen and we can't exert the political capital necessary to stop it so we may as well salvage what we can" and "This thing is good."
