119th Congress or Red Wave In Adult Land
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
While I think the resolution they tried to pass regarding Omar’s response to the Kirk shooting is a terrifying thought, the left needs to grapple with the fact that her response isn’t helping anything. Like I promise we will still believe you are progressive even if you just shut the fuck up for a week. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not actually a news cycle you need to control politically, it’s a tragic murder. Just shut the fuck up, let people grieve and stand up against overreach against free speech.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
It will play well with her voters and help the Pubs with Pub voters. The only losers from her shenanigans are the Dem reps from less extreme districts. Republican campaigns should really buy airtime for her, Crockett, Presley, and Waters in the run up to national elections. It would drive their turnout better than anything else they can do.
The real problem isn’t that some Dems didn’t vote for this resolution. It’s that we have established such a wasteful view of the federal government that our representatives think it’s important to officially condemn a murder as opposed to, you know, just doing that individually. It’s a complete waste of time and resources when everybody is already offering their views on social media (and regardless, no purpose is served even if they weren’t).
Yeah, they should have just voted yes. I don’t understand why they don’t just take the obvious route of showing some compassion.
Tapate50
Well-known member
I feel like the obvious answer is obvious.
And apparently it doesn’t bother people morally to Vote for this
Amazing stuff
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/19/trump-venezuela-boats-drugs/
The Supreme Court will soon considerTrump’s claim that a statute that does not mention tariffs gives him the power to impose tariffs as high as he chooses, on any country he chooses, for any reason he chooses, for as long as he chooses. About this claim, congressional Republicans are supine, because of fear or adoration. Congressional Democrats are dumbfounded by the president’s exercise of powers their party was complicit in Congress forfeiting.
So, unsurprisingly, there is tepid congressional questioning of the president’s actions as judge, jury and executioner in the waters off Venezuela. His behavior is predictable.
Given his capacious notion of presidential powers, in domestic and foreign affairs. And given Vance’s disdain for Americans “weeping over the lack of due process” for people swept from U.S. streets and workplaces into Alligator Alcatraz and similar confinements because they are suspected members of criminal gangs. And given the president’s penchant for declaring this and that (e.g., a trade deficit) to be an “emergency.” And given that he learned opportunistic verbal extravagance (e.g., an “invasion” at the southern border) from progressives who tried to disqualify him from the 2024 election because the afternoon riot of Jan. 6, 2021, supposedly qualified as an “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment. Given all this, expect more of this.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is not squeamish about controversial uses of power: As deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, Yoo provided legal justifications for post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” methods against captured al-Qaeda combatants. He says, however:
“There has to be a line between crime and war. We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”
But who will draw that line? Who will enforce it? If you say Congress, you have not been paying attention.
The Supreme Court will soon considerTrump’s claim that a statute that does not mention tariffs gives him the power to impose tariffs as high as he chooses, on any country he chooses, for any reason he chooses, for as long as he chooses. About this claim, congressional Republicans are supine, because of fear or adoration. Congressional Democrats are dumbfounded by the president’s exercise of powers their party was complicit in Congress forfeiting.
So, unsurprisingly, there is tepid congressional questioning of the president’s actions as judge, jury and executioner in the waters off Venezuela. His behavior is predictable.
Given his capacious notion of presidential powers, in domestic and foreign affairs. And given Vance’s disdain for Americans “weeping over the lack of due process” for people swept from U.S. streets and workplaces into Alligator Alcatraz and similar confinements because they are suspected members of criminal gangs. And given the president’s penchant for declaring this and that (e.g., a trade deficit) to be an “emergency.” And given that he learned opportunistic verbal extravagance (e.g., an “invasion” at the southern border) from progressives who tried to disqualify him from the 2024 election because the afternoon riot of Jan. 6, 2021, supposedly qualified as an “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment. Given all this, expect more of this.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is not squeamish about controversial uses of power: As deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, Yoo provided legal justifications for post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” methods against captured al-Qaeda combatants. He says, however:
“There has to be a line between crime and war. We can’t just consider anything that harms the country to be a matter for the military. Because that could potentially include every crime.”
But who will draw that line? Who will enforce it? If you say Congress, you have not been paying attention.
Shit like this right here is why we need term limits. The entire fucking government will cease to operate unless the leaders of two opposing teams agree on terms on how much money we throw at healthcare and defense. You cannot cross the line to compromise on anything or else you might face a primary threat for not toeing the party line. If the Senate had 8-10 Senators on each side not worried about re-election, they could actually make deals that are agreeable to at least 60 Senators and we wouldn’t play a game of chicken every 3-6 months.
It shouldn’t be the responsibility of either the Dems or Republicans to agree to sweeping legislation that their constituents don’t want. But constituencies can overlap across party lines if we deal with individual items that would require Dems in less populous states to vote with Rs and vice versa. I think they’d have more balls to do what’s right if they weren’t sucking at the fundraising teat.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I still think the fix is to require every outlay to be a separate bill. You want extra cash for more secret service? Pass a bill. Need some more tank ammo? Pass a bill. Running low on toilet paper in the Capitol? Pass a bill. This idea of spending packages that are so long that no one actually reads them prior to voting on whether to spend trillions is just insanity.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...=twitter?sref=EROITBzT&embedded-checkout=true
Senator Rand Paul said he plans to cosponsor a measure that would prevent the Trump administration from conducting military strikes against suspected drug boats, adding to his condemnation of recent deadly attacks on alleged narco-traffickers in the Caribbean.
“We can’t have a policy where we just blow up ships where we don’t even know the people’s names,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s Balance of Power on Tuesday. “It can’t be the policy for drug interdiction, either in the country or outside the country.”
Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said that past Coast Guard interdictions have failed to turn up drugs about a quarter of the time. “So they have made an error, but they don’t kill them. But we’ve blown up four boats now, and if the percentages hold true, did one of those four boats not have drug dealers on it?” he said.
—————
So maybe you blow up the wrong boat 25% of the time, big whoop. Captain of team do nothing doesn’t realize that this is (yet another) existential threat??
Senator Rand Paul said he plans to cosponsor a measure that would prevent the Trump administration from conducting military strikes against suspected drug boats, adding to his condemnation of recent deadly attacks on alleged narco-traffickers in the Caribbean.
“We can’t have a policy where we just blow up ships where we don’t even know the people’s names,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s Balance of Power on Tuesday. “It can’t be the policy for drug interdiction, either in the country or outside the country.”
Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said that past Coast Guard interdictions have failed to turn up drugs about a quarter of the time. “So they have made an error, but they don’t kill them. But we’ve blown up four boats now, and if the percentages hold true, did one of those four boats not have drug dealers on it?” he said.
—————
So maybe you blow up the wrong boat 25% of the time, big whoop. Captain of team do nothing doesn’t realize that this is (yet another) existential threat??
You have way more faith in the level of care this administration has for civilian casualties than either their actions or the history of the US military for that matter should lead you to have.
Not particularly helpful for the discussion on how much they care about non-Americans, I’m afraid.