"TRUMP used CLOROX."
"IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE!
"TRUMP used CLOROX."
And from where I come, stopping funds or redirecting them when they have already been agreed by congress is illegal.And yes he was asking for a political favor, which was to find dirt on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Essentially, you get no money, money that congress agreed on (aka went through house and senate), unless you dig up dirt on my political opponent was what Trump was doing.I have no political views on this, I am not American. Just stating my opinion on the matter, which where I come from is perfectly allowed. As for the whole "political favours" is concerned, please, not like he got a box of chocolates in return.
And from where I come, stopping funds or redirecting them when they have already been agreed by congress is illegal.And yes he was asking for a political favor, which was to find dirt on Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. Essentially, you get no money, money that congress agreed on (aka went through house and senate), unless you dig up dirt on my political opponent was what Trump was doing.
How is it a bizarre tangent when you mentioned justification initially. I've been pretty clear, I think you may be confused because what you're saying is reading like a college assignment. Lots of citations out of left field and phrases such as "motivating and whatnot such things is known and their part in such acts is accepted by just about everybody".
You seem like an intelligent person but why feign confusion? Also, intelligent people do not resort to technicalities to prove their point. Its feeble. If not for the Obama administration supporting the coalition against Yemen, Trump, as his successor would not have had to follow through. Yet when Trump did, the Obama camp suddenly decided the matter was ill-advised.
Its the same as the whole "children in cage" debacle. Obama set up those facilities in the first place.
Need I remind you of the horrific human rights breaches in guantanamo the Obama administration is responsible for?
I am not a trump supporter and neither an obama fan - they're equally as bad. I just said Trump, in my personal opinion is the lesser of two evils. Now I know you're probably baffled, or befuddled, or perplexed or nonplussed (not confused because that's too simple a word, dear me) by what I just said but remember, we don't all need to be at the altar of saint barack to be good.
to get remove from office. His actions severely violated what a United States president is supposed to do. He got impeached ,but the senate decided to say "oh well, he learned his lesson" and give a free pass, and then he started doing more illegal shit. Like for example, diverting funds that should of gone to the pentagon to his wall. In the executive branch you don't have the power to do that, and the courts agreed on that fact he couldn't do that. And this is just one example.I know what trump did. He also got impeached. What do you think the proper punishment would have been?
to get remove from office. His actions severely violated what a United States president is supposed to do. He got impeached ,but the senate decided to say "oh well, he learned his lesson" and give a free pass, and then he started doing more illegal shit. Like for example, diverting funds that should of gone to the pentagon to his wall. In the executive branch you don't have the power to do that, and the courts agreed on that fact he couldn't do that. And this is just one example.
Just checked, wow, yeah they did. Welp, looks like separations of powers really don't exist anymore.The Supreme Court said he could do that.
to get remove from office. His actions severely violated what a United States president is supposed to do. He got impeached ,but the senate decided to say "oh well, he learned his lesson" and give a free pass, and then he started doing more illegal shit. Like for example, diverting funds that should of gone to the pentagon to his wall. In the executive branch you don't have the power to do that, and the courts agreed on that fact he couldn't do that. And this is just one example.
I don't know if you started off misinterpreting me and caused a whole chain of confusion.
Still from where I sit.
You made a simple statement that he had not lobbed any bombs onto a middle eastern country.
This was untrue. The first citations were for that.
I don't know if you saw the word justification and assumed something (the initial phrase was about not discussing justification at this point). Either way you then went off about the 11th of September 2001 attacks and what if the people responsible attempted to justify it. They did, I linked said attempt at justification.
Cause and effect is a fun one. I did marginally broach the concept there but from where I sit it was not just a leave office and take office affair whilst it was all going on. Definite demarcation there and options to cease hostilities if it was deemed prudent.
If we do play the cause and effect game though where do we stop? Sykes-picot?
This is also ignoring the non middle eastern countries that had such fun and games too. Plus if Yemen is somehow not enough then earlier this yeah in Baghdad there was the whole killing of that general
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463
That was a standalone act as far as I can tell. One made years after any previous efforts or not as a continuation of anything in particular.
Lobbing bombs is not inherently immoral either. There are reasons to be doing it under most takes on morality, certainly those in common play in most of the world (pure pacifism does not) and used by the US, the UN, NATO and allies thereof, as well as various places in the middle east (though this can get murkier).
Whether it was or was not here, or was forced, was as yet undiscussed. I am less familiar with all this but can do a bit of reading to get properly up to speed if you really want to go there.
Guantanamo you say. Can't say I was a fan of the methods, results or justifications. For one that decried whataboutism in a previous post it is amusing that you would bring it up however.
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal.About the Impeachment - There's nothing wrong with a President renegotiating a trade deal.
Same reason why its wrong to have Covid parties.I don't see why it would be okay for tens of thousands of people to go protest without masks, but it's wrong for consenting adults wearing masks to be in the same car.
https://www.npr.org/sections/latest...mp-waves-to-supporters-outside-of-walter-reedDr. James Phillips, an attending physician at Walter Reed who is also chief of disaster medicine at George Washington University, lambasted the move as being made for "political theater."
"That Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed against chemical attack. The risk of COVID-19 transmission inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The irresponsibility is astounding. My thoughts are with the Secret Service forced to play," he wrote on Twitter.
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal.
Trade deals are negotiated on the administration level, in this case bilaterally, for months and years, by mid level diplomatic grunts going back and forth, then when everything is ready - you have the PR part (signing...).
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal. This is not how trade negotiations work.There's nothing stopping a President to renegotiate a trade deal
A president doesnt negotiate a trade deal. This is not how trade negotiations work.
If its wrong or not, doesnt matter - it doesnt happen.
It 'easy speak, max condensed down' for - 'the administration that came into place, when a new president was voted in'.
Reason: Highly complex stuff, very nitty gritty, not at all for the guy that has to keep an eye on the bigger picture, und in general too complex for one guy to handle. I think (not sure) it wouldnt even be common for a president to set 'red lines' (until there and no further) here.
Trade negotiations with the US have slowed partly because of the imminent November Presidential elections. It will not be simple. Agriculture is much more sensitive and the Farm Bureau (NFUS equivalent but bigger!) hold a lot of influence over the Senate. If farmers and ranchers are not listened to, there will not be a deal nor votes. The US ambassador in the UK, Woody Johnson made this very clear to me in discussions I had with him.
Recently the Farm Bureau set a series of questions for the two presidential candidates on international trade. Biden never gave any direct comment on UK/US trade negotiations and Trump said he was eager to finalise a new US/UK trade agreement that includes significant agricultural access and will pave the way for progress with the EU, which he described as “one of the most unfair markets to many of our America farmers”. This came at the tail end of all his other trade comments and does not feel like a US priority.
https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/blog/talking-trade-deals--presidential-blog--16-september-2020Nevertheless, negotiations are ongoing and entering round four. The current thinking is we will be lucky if talks are concluded by next summer and it may be further away if Senator Biden gets elected as he has stated he wants a review of all current trade deals.