Backing Slowly Away From the Blight!

Does this mean we will see less whining from the usual suspects?
A. No
B. No
C. Never

 

When you have a legion of left wing haters and deep staters willing to ruin anyone in their grasp for power would you volunteer to be ruined?

 

Not having fun today I can tell ya

 

Of course nobody wants to work for Trump. Anybody who does is going to be viciously attacked by the feral mob. Mueller's neverending investigation will have to hire a bakers dozen more lawyers and they'll end up having their lives turned upside down, and possibly sent to prison.

Trump has allowed this farce to continue, so it's really his own doing. If he does plan on running in 2020, he'll probably have to do it on his own.

 

Your anecdotes have no bearing on your beloved BLOTUS's cut and run SURRENDER in the Middle East. FTR I agree that the troops should be withdrawn but not in a way that BETRAYS the sacrifices made by troops.

Putin PRAISED your beloved BLOTUS for surrendering.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pu...oops-from-syria-while-allies-condemn-decision

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/shepard-smith-trump-putin-syria_us_5c1d70e5e4b05c88b6f8b6f7

So the sane Conservatives like Mattis and all of our Allies are CONDEMNING your BLOTUS's cowardice and abject surrender while Putin and the BLOTUS supporters are praising it.

That says volumes.

 

Rasmussen is one of the least accurate pollsters with the highest RW BIAS and is ranked near BOTTOM amongst all pollsters.

 

Your beloved BLOTUS is running ON EMPTY now! Making it to 2020 is going to require a miracle at this point. Perhaps he is trying to trigger another major war in the Middle East so that he can pretend to be a "war potus" instead.

 

I admit that he's made many mistakes. I don't think he realized just how much hatred there is for him. Prior to Trump, the left basically pretended to hate neocons, but that was always a ruse. The left loves government, and here comes this guy who says he wants to reduce government, and both parties flipped out!

He's had a hard time of it, no doubt, and I don't know if he is willing to go the distance.

Don't worry. You'll get another big government type in there in 2020, and then you can continue to march against our negative freedoms. Just ride it out and then you'll be able to start passing enough legislation to choke a hippo once you get your ginormous government way.

 

from Today News

McConnell will not use the nuclear option to break the shutdown.

1. Mitch McConnell Rejects Trump Call for 'Nuclear Option' to ...
   www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/21/mitch...
   1 day ago · President Trump called on McConnell to use the “nuclear option,” or switch to a simple majority vote in the Senate, to pass the continuing resolution (CR) that would partially fund the border wall.
   
   
2. McConnell Breaks With Trump, Opposes Nuclear Option To End ...
   www.newsweek.com/mcconnell-breaks-trump-opposes...
   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sunday said he is opposed to using the “nuclearoption” to end the government shutdown, breaking with President Donald Trump.

There is November 18. There is

Monday, November 19
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
President Trump Job Approval Gallup Approve 43, Disapprove 53 Disapprove +10

 

By what legal authority, constitutional or otherwise, is the US in Syria?

 

Eleuthera by what authority or otherwise is the US not legally in Syria?

 

In other words you cannot PROVE that the US is not legally in Syria!

Got it!

 

And neither can you or anybody else prove that we are there legally. Indeed, your situation is so desperate that you cannot enunciate the legal authority for our presence there. All you can do, LOL, is say that I can't prove the negative of we're not legally there.

Gooness DT, you've painted yourself in the corner with no way out.

I suppose I'm really wasting my time to ask you to explain what role the War Powers Act of 1973 plays in this fiasco. Should Congress obey its own laws? Or maybe only if it wants to, eh?

 

Projection AGAIN?

Ever since Bush/Cheney invaded Iraq under the Congressional pretext granting them the "power" to do so (AKA the Iraq Resolution) it has become the blanket cover for ALL activities in the ME from that point forward.

If you are going to invoke the War Powers Act of 1973 then you are going to have to call Bush and Cheney War Criminals.

Not my problem if that is what you trying to achieve with this nonsense.

 

Indeed sir, Bush & Co ARE war criminals, and thanks to the efforts of Francis Boyle the law professor from Illinois, Bush & Co were convicted of war crimes in a tribunal held in Malaysia in accordance with international criminal procedures, from which the US has exempted itself.

Under your specious reasoning, the US can invade and destroy anywhere on the planet, and it's all OK. Desperate is as desperate does.

It appears you like the Neocon notion of The Unitary Executive more than Barack did. LOL

 

Derideo-Te sweeps the field. Anyone who accepts The Unitary Executive is an enemy of America and its liberties.

 

What exactly does that mean? Withdraw more slowly? Not withdraw at all?

This policy is absolute genius by Trump, who would have thought in 2006 that the Dems would be demanding continued war in the ME?

 

What prevents you from being able to stop projecting your own shortcomings onto others?

When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Furthermore when you have the biggest baddest military in the world there are those who are going to want to use it for nefarious purposes. The British navy and army were little more than subsidiaries of the British East India Company during the days of the Empire. Today the US military plays a similar role. Everyone knows that Leaky Dick Cheney personally made out like a bandit because of the invasion of Iraq.

It is worth noting that neither Bush jr nor Cheney dare set foot outside of US jurisdiction for fear of being hauled into an International Criminal Court.

But within our borders they are NEVER going to be held accountable by Congress because Congress is COMPLICIT in their crimes. That complicity is ONGOING and as such it offers what is considered to legal cover for all actions in the ME.

You can continue to dig this hole for yourself but don't expect me to fall into it.

 

Does the concept of PLANNING not exist "dununda"?

 

What shortcomings of mine am I projecting onto others?

I am merely asking for the legal authority (if you're into such things) for US presence in Syria? The question apparently makes you so uncomfortable that you wax incoherent. Can you simply cite the legal authority?

We happen to agree regarding the crimes of Bush & Cheney, though you may disagree when I say that their successor was just as guilty of war crimes, and thoroughly enjoyed his playtime in the sandbox of the Unitary Executive.

We have no business in Syria. No matter where we lay the blame, we have no business there. We agree that Congress is very much complicit in allowing those crimes. It has abdicated its authority and responsibility. Our entire government consists of war criminals, on both sides of the aisle.

We agree on more than we think perhaps.

If there were a legal basis for our presence there, somebody would have presented it. There is none, and as much as I hate to say it, Trump is right about this.

 

You were already provided you with the legal pretext. It was called the Iraq Resolution.

 

The right answer would be AUMF, which is nothing but legal artifice created by the immoral dunces that sit in Congress. It is sophistry, and very dangerous sophistry.

The Iraq Resolution is also sophistry, so your bad choice means nothing. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, and neither did Syria, but you have somehow convinced yourself they have, and therefore you say we have a right to be in Syria. Yes Virginia, it's the end of 2018, the Age of The Know Nothings.

 

Yet more puerile projection!

The AUMF is the SAME THING as the Iraq Resolution!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Doing your inane little "victory dance" duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons!

 

Pure Sophistry, DT.

Under Article II of USC, POTUS already has the power supposedly "granted" by Congress. Pure sophistry, and you have your house built on it. You are not the Lone Ranger in that regard, only a typical gullible US citizen.