Yes, the comment that started this was, “If Democrats don’t stop this [invasion of Cuba], they should never run for anything again.” (or something, the comment’s behind this pop up editting window.
I think the problem with that criticism isn’t that it is criticism. It’s obviously phrased as an IF-THEN thing… my problem with it is it’s punishing Democrats for not effectively stopping an authoritarian president on a power congress has spent 50 years abdicating to the executive… that’s kinda a high bar. My edit would be “If Democrats don’t make significant attempts to stop this …”
At the same time, I think cutting the military budget to the bone is absolutely the only way they can stop the war in Iran, and you can bet there will emaciated troops on Fox news every day explaining the Democrats are starving them … but it is what people overwhelmingly voted for, so if you want to stop a war, guys, this is the only way to do it, and that’s gonna take some chutzpah.
Fair enough. Although you could also take money from the pentagon, and back-door in a program through a different department to support the soldiers. Maybe send them big checks with “Democrats support the troops” on them.
I’m also kind confused how misappropriation of funds isn’t a crime. If Congress explicitly tells you not to do something, and you do it, how is that not breaking the law?
This is what impeachment is for. In fact, impeachment for withholding funds was already successful but the votes weren’t there in the Senate for removal the first time round.
The problem is with reps having blind loyalty to a party and not to their oath of upholding the Constitution or providing a check on executive overreach.
Yes, the comment that started this was, “If Democrats don’t stop this [invasion of Cuba], they should never run for anything again.” (or something, the comment’s behind this pop up editting window.
I think the problem with that criticism isn’t that it is criticism. It’s obviously phrased as an IF-THEN thing… my problem with it is it’s punishing Democrats for not effectively stopping an authoritarian president on a power congress has spent 50 years abdicating to the executive… that’s kinda a high bar. My edit would be “If Democrats don’t make significant attempts to stop this …”
At the same time, I think cutting the military budget to the bone is absolutely the only way they can stop the war in Iran, and you can bet there will emaciated troops on Fox news every day explaining the Democrats are starving them … but it is what people overwhelmingly voted for, so if you want to stop a war, guys, this is the only way to do it, and that’s gonna take some chutzpah.
Fair enough. Although you could also take money from the pentagon, and back-door in a program through a different department to support the soldiers. Maybe send them big checks with “Democrats support the troops” on them.
Good solution!
I’m also kind confused how misappropriation of funds isn’t a crime. If Congress explicitly tells you not to do something, and you do it, how is that not breaking the law?
This is what impeachment is for. In fact, impeachment for withholding funds was already successful but the votes weren’t there in the Senate for removal the first time round.
The problem is with reps having blind loyalty to a party and not to their oath of upholding the Constitution or providing a check on executive overreach.