I generally agree with the article, but what I don’t know is what “should” be done with Ukraine and Russia?
For Israel and the West Bank, the answer is much easier. But for Russia/Ukraine, Russia is clearly the aggressor, despite the history of NATO propping up Ukraine and antagonizing Russia. What is the “correct” response? Where correct is obviously a loaded term.
Unrelated to the fact that giving money to corporations never results in what the money is allocated for, bills can be marked as being immune to government shutdowns. The military, for example, never “shuts down.” There is no reason that any other agency would need to either. Just add the provision in your funding bill that the agency is to be automatically funded at a the previous budget + inflation, in the case no appropriations have been passed.
The election is coming up right? And Democrats are going to run in that election. So if the “talking point” is that Trump didn’t pardon the rioters when he had the chance, therefore he is lying to them, how is it that the democrats promises they broke re:abortion and the environment when they had the chance, not relevant to the topic at hand?
They are lying to you about what you think you are voting for.
I ask the same about Obama when he sat his hands in 2009 instead of codifying roe v wade, or when he compromised on bodily autonomy for his Heritage Foundation insurance handout.
The courts are intended to be neutral arbiters of law itself
Which in Trumps case has nothing to do with the original intent of the law (insurrection clause, since no insurrection has taken place.)
As for my original assertion. The General Public is absolutely the folks the justice system should be accountable to, after-all government is supposed to be FOR the people. And if The People want to vote for someone who wants to overthrow the government, the courts have no business saying they can’t.
So if you think the court shouldn’t care about the general public, then the insurrection clause doesn’t apply. If you think the court should care about the general public, then they have to let the voters decide.
In either case Trump belongs on the ballot.
Well the original intent of the insurrection clause was to prevent the same senators/congressmen who seceded and started the civil war from being eligible for federal office. This obviously doesn’t apply in Trumps case since there was no civil war and Trump was the lawfully elected president of the US at the time.
The law is open to interpretation since language is imprecise. Thinking that the law is some kind of rigid holy truth is extremely naive at best. Or at worst is fascist.
Actually yes. If our democracy is so broken that not voting for a piece of shit is considered bad, then anyone who defends it should be banned for life from voting.