April 21Apr 21 25 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.LOL - you think it matters that it's documented? So was USMCA, which is basically just NAFTA, and they all believed it was a massive improvement.Helps when your base is illiterate.
April 21Apr 21 37 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:Also, this one's so cut and dry for his base. They see everything in very football-like terms. You either score more than the other team (Obama in this case [notice the enemy's always the Democrats, never our actual enemies]) or you lose. Period. And Obama's score is already on the board. So now he has to beat that score.He can do his favorite thing and lie about it, but that's not going to work because it has to be on paper and signed by both parties. So he has to actually beat Obama's score. And there's just no way to do that without sending troops in. But then he'll lose the narrative. It's really a no win for him.Which is why you see him melting down and yelling all caps that he is winning against Iran. Not the United states, not the armed forces, it's HIM. His score vs Obama's.
April 21Apr 21 2 hours ago, toolg said:Syria can be argued it was an extension of ongoing war on terror against ISIS/ISIL. Libya was a coordinated NATO response.There was no congressional approval for a war against ISISI/ISIL. Congressional approval was provided for 2 wars. The 2001 AUMF, which gave the president the authority to use military force against those who planned and aided the 9/11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF which gave the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. Isis in Syria does not fall under either of those congressional approvals.The fact that Libya was a coordinated NATO response is irrelevant. The president must get congressional approval to go to war. So if Obama wanted the US to get involved in the war in Libya, then he was supposed to get congressional approval.
April 21Apr 21 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:There was no congressional approval for a war against ISISI/ISIL. Congressional approval was provided for 2 wars. The 2001 AUMF, which gave the president the authority to use military force against those who planned and aided the 9/11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF which gave the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. Isis in Syria does not fall under either of those congressional approvals.The fact that Libya was a coordinated NATO response is irrelevant. The president must get congressional approval to go to war. So if Obama wanted the US to get involved in the war in Libya, then he was supposed to get congressional approval.yeah if Obama wiped his nose with that, this dude will wipe his arse.
April 21Apr 21 Just now, dawkins4prez said:yeah if Obama wiped his nose with that, this dude will wipe his arse.Obama wiped his a s s with it too, the only difference is he's articulate so his base doesn't think it's as bad when he does it because he doesn't tweet inarticulate junk on twitter while doing it.
April 21Apr 21 4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:Obama wiped his a s s with it too, the only difference is he's articulate so his base doesn't think it's as bad when he does it because he doesn't tweet inarticulate junk on twitter while doing it.The scale in Iran has already dwarfed Obama's nefarious drone campaigns, and that scale is about to increase dramatically
April 21Apr 21 13 minutes ago, Lambo said:Hopefully those kids know who the Geico Gecko is.True or false?"Flo was part of the 2028 blanket pardons issued by Trump."
April 21Apr 21 21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:There was no congressional approval for a war against ISISI/ISIL. Congressional approval was provided for 2 wars. The 2001 AUMF, which gave the president the authority to use military force against those who planned and aided the 9/11 attacks, and the 2002 AUMF which gave the president the authority to go to war with Iraq. Isis in Syria does not fall under either of those congressional approvals.Actually it kinda does. Because the Islamic State went to war with Iraq, and Syria was unable or unwilling to stop them.
April 21Apr 21 1 hour ago, vikas83 said:LOL - you think it matters that it's documented? So was USMCA, which is basically just NAFTA, and they all believed it was a massive improvement.Helps when your base is illiterate.Yea, if these uneducated rubes are too stupid to understand who pays for tariffs or why they're counterproductive for our economy, then there's not a snowball's chance in hell they're gonna understand what was in the JCPOA or how uranium enrichment works.
April 21Apr 21 8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:Yea, if these uneducated rubes are too stupid to understand who pays for tariffs or why they're counterproductive for our economy, then there's not a snowball's chance in hell they're gonna understand what was in the JCPOA or how uranium enrichment works.I actually saw some dude on socials the other day who thought the refund from the SC was Chinese money that would now go into us business pockets....
April 21Apr 21 26 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:The fact that Libya was a coordinated NATO response is irrelevant. The president must get congressional approval to go to war. So if Obama wanted the US to get involved in the war in Libya, then he was supposed to get congressional approval.Libya was military intervention in support of UN resolution, backed by NATO. So on a point I agree, Obama should have gotten Congressional approval to continue the mission beyond 60 days. But NATO was given full control beyond 60 days. You can go back to pretty much any conflict since WWII, it has been fought on murky resolution from Congress.Now do Trump attacking Iran. Who gave Trump authority to act?
April 21Apr 21 6 minutes ago, toolg said:Libya was military intervention in support of UN resolution, backed by NATO. So on a point I agree, Obama should have gotten Congressional approval to continue the mission beyond 60 days. But NATO was given full control beyond 60 days. You can go back to pretty much any conflict since WWII, it has been fought on murky resolution from Congress.Now do Trump attacking Iran. Who gave Trump authority to act?We were days if not minutes away from being nuked by Iran!!!!!!!11!!!1!
April 21Apr 21 6 minutes ago, Gannan said:We were days if not minutes away from being nuked by Iran!!!!!!!11!!!1!I'm pretty sure we were aktchwally nuked by Iran. Trump, Kegsbreath and Vance jumped into a time machine and prevented it.
April 21Apr 21 9 minutes ago, Gannan said:We were days if not minutes away from being nuked by Iran!!!!!!!11!!!1!Who tore up JCPOA?
April 21Apr 21 37 minutes ago, toolg said:Actually it kinda does. Because the Islamic State went to war with Iraq, and Syria was unable or unwilling to stop them.The 2002 AUMF gave the president the authority to defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. It did not give the president the authority to go into Syria and wage war against a new terrorist organization that wasn't even a thing in 2002. Obama exercised military force in Syria and Libya that he did not obtain congressional approval for. Just because he's not a total buffoon like Trump doesn't make it ok that he also abused his power in exercising military force.
April 21Apr 21 29 minutes ago, toolg said:Libya was military intervention in support of UN resolution, backed by NATO. So on a point I agree, Obama should have gotten Congressional approval to continue the mission beyond 60 days. But NATO was given full control beyond 60 days. You can go back to pretty much any conflict since WWII, it has been fought on murky resolution from Congress.Now do Trump attacking Iran. Who gave Trump authority to act?What do you mean "now do Trump attacking Iran"? I've been saying since day 1 of this "excursion" that he's violating the law by waging war without congressional approval.
April 21Apr 21 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:The 2002 AUMF gave the president the authority to defend the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. It did not give the president the authority to go into Syria and wage war against a new terrorist organization that wasn't even a thing in 2002. Obama exercised military force in Syria and Libya that he did not obtain congressional approval for. Just because he's not a total buffoon like Trump doesn't make it ok that he also abused his power in exercising military force.Yes, but he also got away with it because the scale of troops was small and the drone campaigns were largely kept out of the headlines and public eye. You do have to count for scale when you compare all of Trump's transgressions versus his predecessors. I think where you are pulling back is people acting like Obama ran a yellow light. He didn't, he ran 5 straight red lights. But Trump is absolutely going to be worse, because he's about to run those red lights in an 18 wheeler at 150mph.
April 21Apr 21 5 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:What do you mean "now do Trump attacking Iran"? I've been saying since day 1 of this "excursion" that he's violating the law by waging war without congressional approval.Getting us back on topic. (This is not the Syria or Libya thread after all.) Realize every conflict since Congress last formally declared war in WWII has been fought with murky approval and resolutions. We never declared war in Korea. Or Vietnam.... POTUS is commander-in-chief so he has authority to deploy troops. So it is up to us as Americans to decide how much we are going to take. We select POTUS.I guess my point is two wrongs don't make it right. Or a wrong and being even more wrong.... "But Obama!" isn't an excuse.
April 21Apr 21 22 minutes ago, toolg said:Getting us back on topic. (This is not the Syria or Libya thread after all.) Realize every conflict since Congress last formally declared war in WWII has been fought with murky approval and resolutions. We never declared war in Korea. Or Vietnam.... POTUS is commander-in-chief so he has authority to deploy troops. So it is up to us as Americans to decide how much we are going to take. We select POTUS.I guess my point is two wrongs don't make it right. Or a wrong and being even more wrong.... "But Obama!" isn't an excuse.I agree "but Obama” isn’t an excuse. I am not excusing Trump at all. As I’ve said, been saying since day 1 that he’s violating the constitution with this war that he did not get congressional approval for. My initial response was to your post stating "This is how we lose democracy to apathy.”. Just pointing out we’ve been down this road for well over a decade now as Obama also used military force for years without congressional approval. But in response to that, you tried defending his actions. So I get the feeling that back when Obama was exercising military force without approval, you weren’t saying that this is how we lose democracy to apathy.
April 21Apr 21 1 minute ago, barho said:Worst. President. Ever.What are you talking about?!?!?! He's brokering peace. Your TDS has you rooting against America. Midol!
Create an account or sign in to comment