Be careful. He's going to show you by voting in a unhinged idiot to manage the world's largest bureaucracy.
And? What portion of that interest paid is our defense budget? Having Iran agree to hault their enrichment of uranium to weapons grade levels and allow snap intentional nuclear weapons inspections is a massive step in the right direction towards diplomacy especially considering the deal opened up Western investment into Iran which would benefit the Iranian citizen and expose them to more Western culture which eventually would lead to Iranians voting in more moderate politicans. What do you think the Trump administration would have done if Kim agreed to international nuclear weapons inspections?
I wish we would get the hell out of the Middle East yesterday. In the past 40yrs we have just kept an unstable region even more unstable and haven't we lost enough American Soldiers and not to mention all the trillions flushed down the toilet for no reason at all.
Wow... They called for an assasination that was from 17 years ago... just upsurd... Now the Trump base is turning on Paul... T_Man
I was simply correcting misinformation that was being spread that I noticed. Funny that you react abrasively to that. Obviously you only care about correcting misinformation when it suits your agenda.
here you go: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2020/01/i-didnt-roast-hollywood-for-being-bunch.html January 9, 2020 "I didn't roast Hollywood for being a bunch of liberals. I myself am a liberal. Nothing wrong with that. I roasted them for wearing their liberalism like a medal." "I'm such a snowflake, liberal, I can't even really hate them for it. But my job is to take the piss. I did that." Tweeted Ricky Gervais (after some people criticized his comic performance as host of the Golden Globes). On Fox News ("The Five"), Greg Gutfeld analyzed the politics and guessed at the structure of Gervais's emotions: I don't know if that explains Gervais, but I understand the dynamic. What Gutfeld said would work as a key to explaining what I've been doing on this blog these past 16 years. Suddenly, I think Gutfeld is talking about himself. I read Gutfeld's Wikipedia page, which links to this 2009 interview in Reason, where he says: Posted by Ann Althouse at 4:59 AM
Rand Paul and Mike Lee are absolutely right that the Constitution does put war making powers under the Legislative branch. I'm glad they're speaking up now but if they haven't noticed that this is just another part of a pattern from this Administration of weakening and violating Constitutional principles. I would ask where these Senators where when Trump did an end around on funding for the wall by declaring an emergency or more timely regarding delaying Congressional approved funds to Ukraine. I guess it's better late than never.
just figure a pic of a ballot cast for Trump would shock and awe the denizens of the D&D and give them something to talk about. That and it would make a nice match to go with my primary vote for Cynthia Nixon:
I believe this article was cited by another poster earlier who is arguing that the Iran payment was made by US taxpayers. I apologize for not finding the specific post. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...nald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/ This article does state that the cash was sent on pallets. From my own recollection of why that was done was that because of sanctions Iran wasn't fully linked into the international banking system and this was the best way to get the money to them. That this was actually covered by the news shows that it wasn't some sort of coverup. The article doesn't say this money was US taxpayer money. It says, "It’s important to know that little of that money was under the control of the United States or any U.S. bank. Most of it, Habibi said, was in central and commercial banks overseas. Furthermore, it was Iran’s money to begin with, not a payment from any government to buy Iran’s cooperation." Now if you want to extrapolate that the interest payments were from US taxpayers that is possible but that isn't a payoff to Iran as the US government is still bound by interest payments otherwise US bonds would be completely worthless. This article just confirms that the payment to Iran wasn't a bribe as others have made it out to be but a payment of debt owed with interest. Further the money that Iran received was far less than the $150 billion figure thrown out by Trump and others.
I'm glad that Trump and Iran are both appearing to back down from further conflict. While I didn't think Trump's speech was good, it was par for the course of rambling mishmash filled with half-truths and outright lies, but the general message was positive. I'm still not confident at all that this is the end of conflict. Anyone who has followed Iran knows they rarely engage in direct confrontation and my own feeling is that we're just at the beginning of whatever retaliation they have in mind. In fact on the news right now they are reporting that some in Iran are already saying there will be more retaliation.
Exclusive: Americans say Soleimani's killing made US less safe, Trump 'reckless' on Iran https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ess-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/
Nothing quite like showing up on FORREST GUMP and Friends to air your disinformation. Since its audience is almost exclusively older Caucasians, they eat this up with a spoon. I saw a breakdown by percentage of Trump's supporters. Literally, the older and whiter you get, the more you support Trump (especially if you don't have a college degree and reading was never your thing [the last part about reading being my addition]). I made the mistake of finally unburdening my anger about Trump over the phone to my dad. You just can't reach Trump's supporters. It's amazing. I love my dad, he's a good father, but, good Lord. One Reich, one Fuhrer.
related . . . "Is ‘Most of Government’ Unconstitutional? The fight over the ‘nondelegation doctrine’ ": https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...e-debate-is-most-government-unconstitutional/ Is ‘Most of Government’ Unconstitutional? By Robert VerBruggen January 9, 2020 6:30 AM t’s one of the most exciting possibilities in constitutional law right now: Many conservatives are clamoring to revive the long-dormant “nondelegation” doctrine, which liberal Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan has warned could invalidate “most of [the federal] Government.” In essence, the doctrine holds that since the Constitution vests “all legislative Powers” in Congress, it is unconstitutional for Congress to turn those powers over to the executive branch. Congress may not, in other words, simply direct federal agencies to make major policy decisions themselves, the way it does now for a host of economic and environmental regulations. The courts must step in, police the separation of powers, and stop such abuses. Last year, in Gundy v. United States, the conservative justices strongly suggested that they’d be willing to revive the doctrine in a future case, with Justice Neil Gorsuch spelling out the argument for such a move in detail. But a new paper from law professors Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley tries to slam on the brakes, offering an originalist argument against nondelegation. Let’s take a look at each side’s evidence. more at the link
Never called you a right wing nut, that is something I would never call anybody. To be honest I don't now what your political leanings are and to be honest I was lumping you in with O's fo that I apologize. You don't seem to be trying to find a middle ground but I can see you are not in lockstep with the Trump cult. You also don't seem to want healthy conversations and that is the reason I lashed out but I will check myself and respond accordingly.
Do you think the money was just sitting on pallets in a warehouse? Of course the money was in a bank. Being provocative is not conducive to having a healthy conversation FYI.
These people? You don't seem to understand the relationship between Shi'ites an Sunnies. Them putting religion before everything is the reason they will never unite.
