I have no idea what comments AOC made are similar to mine.
EDIT: To clarify, @McNulty has some AOC comments that match with my opposition to Biden’s Syria bombing. I can’t find what these comments are.
I asked the question because I can’t see AOC calling Biden a "mad king " or saying he has majority disapproval. If she is being consistent, she should certainly condemn the bombings, as should Rand Paul. The difficulty for both is that it puts them into opposition to their party leader (Biden and Trump respectively).
1 Like
Good. He’s consistent.
The White House maintains bombing Syria was an executive decision, like when Trump bombed it, or assassinated Solemani. Most Republicans and Democrats support that stance; some Rs and Ds think such actions require Congressional approval.
Issuing the $1400 checks has to go through Congress by a process known as reconciliation. Those opposed can try various measures to stall or defeat it.
It just passed the House 219-212, with two Democrats and every Republican opposing it. Now it must pass through the Senate.
I assume from the article Spike Cohen (and you) would prefer that such a matter be solely in the President’s power, with Congress not getting a say?
I would prefer the president and congress to focus on helping Americans right now. No one gives a shit about Syria right now.
Well, some Americans are concerned when US soldiers get attacked. Biden and Congress are focussed on helping Americans- that’s why the $1.9 trillion package is moving through right now. If Republicans in the Senate would give up blocking it, just as they slowed it down in the House, it would move slightly quicker, but they would argue under the Constitution it is their right and duty to oppose it.
2 Likes
Some Americans would prefer if we just left. It’s no surprise that Biden wants to continue the conflict there as he criticized Trump for trying to leave. People miss the point saying Biden is a hypocrite for criticizing trump for bombing Syria. He wasn’t coming from a nonintervention POV. Biden’s main criticism was not trying to stay. Now he’s staying. Or shall he say, he’s continuing his work from time as VP.
And didn’t he say he was going to give full transparency on these kinds of strike when he campaigned? So far, info is not clear. I can maybe understand if we got someone like soleimani but it hasn’t been made clear to my knowledge what this even was besides it’s some deterrent for killing Americans. How?
The best and only way to keep U.S. soldiers from being attacked is to keep them off foreign soil unless invited.
Well, I would say killing a enemy top general in charge of killing Americans can be a deterrent in some cases. But is this what Biden did? So far, he hasn’t been transparent to my knowledge. How was this a deterrent?
Fully agree. Of course the attacks were against Iranian-backed militia who had been launching rocket attacks against US forces in Iraq, where they (the US forces) had been invited in by the Iraqi government, so this qualifies as justified- under your standards.
how much do you think a military drone actually costs? also i know you’re being sarcastic, but unfortunately you’re not entirely wrong either.
i thought rand paul was pro-israel? is that not the case or did i miss something?
i get it, but debt isn’t a reason not to bomb someone. the reason whether or not to bomb someone is case-specific. personally, i think this was entirely out of line, but whether the money could have been better spent on pandemic relief is entirely beside the point. in most cases, bombing is wrong because killing is wrong, especially if civilians are around and in danger.
Biden accepts blowing up brown people in retaliation for attacks on US troops/contractors who are in someone else’s country. Just because one receives an invite doesn’t mean one has to accept. Often who invites can be very important.
Whatever. We’re entering into bombbombBiden. Same as it ever was.
Booooooom!
Are pronouns important after someone gets killed by a drone?
Humiliating the weak: