https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/world/europe/tillerson-putin-lavrov-russia-syria.html?_r=0
interesting that China abstained from it's usual veto. hmmm.
yip yip yip go the democrats at the passing caravan. irrelevancy suits them.
Sec State Tillerson meets with Sauron himself
- Thread starter sean miguel
- Start date
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/world/europe/tillerson-putin-lavrov-russia-syria.html?_r=0
interesting that China abstained from it's usual veto. hmmm.
yip yip yip go the democrats at the passing caravan. irrelevancy suits them.
He bombed Libya without congress' approval.
and that's not why Obama didn't bomb Syria because the GOP would eviscerate him (like he would give a shit). It's because he was subservient, i.e., the bitch, in the Obama/Putin relationship.
so it's the percentage of overall forces that makes the difference? I don't believe that's a factor when it comes to a President's authority to use military force.
my last hemorrhoid > your logic
My point was that if Obama went in Libya beccause he's Putin's bitch, then, looking at the forces that Obama sent there, Obama wasn't a very good bitch...
In Libya, the US did mostly logistic and assistance, almost no combat missions. If that was the best Putin could get from his bitch, I'm not impressed.
In Libya, the US did mostly logistic and assistance, almost no combat missions. If that was the best Putin could get from his bitch, I'm not impressed.
FFS, Obama not bombing Syria is because he's Putin's bitch. I point out Libya because he authorized military strikes without congress' approval which was his excuse for not enforcing his own red line with Syria.
Collusion! Putin's puppet!Secret backroom deals!
[/TrumpPresidency]
[/TrumpPresidency]
The supreme court vacancy has been filled. The next 2 justices will likely be appointed by Trump or in the case of [/Trump Presidency] the actual conservative Mike Pence.
No wonder they've lost their gotdamn minds.
7-2
There are only 2 rock ribbed conservatives on the court. Alito and Thomas.
Kennedy and Roberts are moderates. It's too early to evaluate Gorsuch.
At best the court is 4-3 liberal with two moderate swing votes.
We are gonna need at least 2 more solid conservatives seated that replace liberals before I am comfortable with the make up of this SCOTUS.
Kennedy and Roberts are moderates. It's too early to evaluate Gorsuch.
At best the court is 4-3 liberal with two moderate swing votes.
We are gonna need at least 2 more solid conservatives seated that replace liberals before I am comfortable with the make up of this SCOTUS.
can we frame it as being between those who interpret the constitution as it was written as opposed to what it they think it should mean, you know, being a "living, breathing" document and all, and also taking into account international law (notice they Sharia isn't in the equation when it comes to women's rights, gay marriage or abortion)? But I guess that still comes down to conservative/liberal. Potato/Potatoh.
Roberts showed that he thought the constitution is a "living breathing document" with the jurist gymnastics he performed to reach the conclusion that the individual mandate was a lawful tax.
One ring to rule them all.
I can't find the quote from the late Justice Scalia concerning favoring the "big guy/big business over the little guy" which was a line of attack against Judge Gorsuch by the democrats during confirmation hearings.
But basically Scalia said, if the law favors the big guy over the little guy then he will rule for the big guy. Don't like it? change the law.
But basically Scalia said, if the law favors the big guy over the little guy then he will rule for the big guy. Don't like it? change the law.
Scalia wrote an opinion that was against my best interests personally but I knew how he would come down before the case was heard. He was consistent and that's all we can ask for.
He was fond of the saying"angels dancing on the head of a pin".
He was fond of the saying"angels dancing on the head of a pin".
The circumstances are not such concrete parallels. As we all know the Libyan intervention was an internationally led one. I'm not a mind reader, but it seems to me Obama viewed the two situations differently based on that criteria. Or perhaps he learned from his Libyan decision, which he has stated he regrets having made, and therefore ended up pursuing a different course of action (congressional approval) later on re Syria.
And I guess I can post this again re Obama being Putin's bitch https://www.forbes.com/sites/timdai...-russia-causing-angst-for-putin/#d26dc9239e59
Here's a chart of Russia's annual GDP growth since the sanctions were put in place. Not that they account for all of this mess, but they certainly contributed.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp-growth-annual
when it comes to a president's authority to put U.S. military personnel in harm's way and kill people, this is an apt comparison.
Yes, those sanctions certainly sting but what has that done to curb Russia's belligerence or Iran's for that matter when there's no credible military threat to back it up? The sanctions are international as well. Iran has continued it's pursuit of nuclear weapons under sanctions, Russia still has Crimea and it's forces in eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, Obama's MREs pour in.
#NewSheriffInTown
Oh, and Syria was supposed to have gotten rid of their chemical weapon stockpile via Russia. The Obama Administration touted that agreement at the time and former SecState Kerry did as recently as a few months ago. So Obama got duped. But it's not his problem anymore.
So what about all the congressional republicans who refused to allow the kind of strike that you're currently celebrating, are they Putin's bitches too? Because if they had said yes Obama would have had literally nowhere to go.
Seems like your big criticism of Obama is that he didn't go around congressional republicans to bomb Syria. But presumably you hold those republicans blameless?
Dance monkey, dance!
