Current Events > Democrats respond to Trump's strikes

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
whitewimmin 04/06/17 11:41:13 PM #1:	https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/850176129176662016 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/850184926934835200 https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/850169405107523584 https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/850166360499998720 https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/850187318820564996 --- Liberte, egalite, fraternite <cite>whitewimmin posted [p:876702781] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/850176129176662016 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/850184926934835200 https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/850169405107523584 https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/850166360499998720 https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/850187318820564996</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Drasilor 04/06/17 11:41:53 PM #2:	Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? --- #mypresidentistrump <cite>Drasilor posted [p:876702822] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WaffIeElite 04/06/17 11:42:49 PM #3:	Drasilor posted... Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? Cuckservatives get triggered too easily and cry like it's /r/the_donald --- I have a signature. Apparently this is important, but I still don't have my secret cool kid decoder ring yet. <cite>WaffIeElite posted [p:876702865] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Drasilor posted...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> Cuckservatives get triggered too easily and cry like it's /r/the_donald</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pizzaboss 04/06/17 11:43:11 PM #4:	Sad that both parties want war. <cite>pizzaboss posted [p:876702886] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
whitewimmin 04/06/17 11:43:21 PM #5:	Drasilor posted... Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? Lol, this is the first I've seen it. Guessing that one guy's pic of Trump as a Jewish stereotype was deemed offensive, which, yeah, fair enough. --- Liberte, egalite, fraternite <cite>whitewimmin posted [p:876702896] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Drasilor posted...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> Lol, this is the first I've seen it. Guessing that one guy's pic of Trump as a Jewish stereotype was deemed offensive, which, yeah, fair enough.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foreveraIone 04/06/17 11:43:22 PM #6:	Drasilor posted... Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? Probably because of the first pic had a Trump version of the racist jew meme./ --- http://i.imgtc.com/qieELu9.jpg <cite>foreveraIone posted [p:876702898] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Drasilor posted...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> Probably because of the first pic had a Trump version of the racist jew meme./</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Liherals 04/06/17 11:43:42 PM #7:	Donald Trump (D) Can presidents switch political parties during office? He also mentioned earlier he was going to switch to a Dem healthcare plan too <_< He was Democrat in the mid-2000s too. <cite>Liherals posted [p:876702916] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Donald Trump (D) Can presidents switch political parties during office? He also mentioned earlier he was going to switch to a Dem healthcare plan too <_< He was Democrat in the mid-2000s too.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 04/06/17 11:44:04 PM #8:	pizzaboss posted... Sad that both parties want war. neocons and neolibs love war --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:876702939] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>pizzaboss posted...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> neocons and neolibs love war</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Drasilor 04/06/17 11:45:17 PM #9:	WaffIeElite posted... Drasilor posted... Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? Cuckservatives get triggered too easily and cry like it's /r/the_donald literally wasnt happening whitewimmin posted... Drasilor posted... Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted? Lol, this is the first I've seen it. Guessing that one guy's pic of Trump as a Jewish stereotype was deemed offensive, which, yeah, fair enough. ah --- #mypresidentistrump <cite>Drasilor posted [p:876703020] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>WaffIeElite posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Drasilor posted...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> Cuckservatives get triggered too easily and cry like it's /r/the_donald</quote> literally wasnt happening <cite>whitewimmin posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Drasilor posted...</cite> <quote>Why was the "The alt-right is not happy with this" topic deleted?</quote> Lol, this is the first I've seen it. Guessing that one guy's pic of Trump as a Jewish stereotype was deemed offensive, which, yeah, fair enough.</quote> ah</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/06/17 11:46:31 PM #10:	pizzaboss posted... Sad that both parties want war. Very --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876703077] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>pizzaboss posted...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> Very</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 04/06/17 11:47:41 PM #11:	Antifar posted... pizzaboss posted... Sad that both parties want war. Very its scary. <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:876703132] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pizzaboss posted...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> Very</quote> its scary.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Milkman5 04/06/17 11:51:42 PM #12:	you know how many countries do horrible things to their people? why are we attacking Assad specifically. smfh <cite>Milkman5 posted [p:876703335] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>you know how many countries do horrible things to their people? why are we attacking Assad specifically. smfh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EggplantParm 04/06/17 11:53:58 PM #13:	Prolly fake but whatever. --- http://i.imgur.com/vStAH0d.jpg say amen or u heartless <cite>EggplantParm posted [p:876703452] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Prolly fake but whatever. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/06/17 11:56:07 PM #14:	Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876703573] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JuanCarlos1 04/07/17 12:01:53 AM #15:	Politics. After the videos of the attack, I'm pretty sure most of America feels its justified. --- Mas dicen, que en las dimensiones de nuestro ser... hay muchos detalles por conocer... <cite>JuanCarlos1 posted [p:876703894] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Politics. After the videos of the attack, I'm pretty sure most of America feels its justified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheVipaGTS 04/07/17 12:05:02 AM #16:	Antifar posted... Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" i don't see a problem with that. <cite>TheVipaGTS posted [p:876704048] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> i don't see a problem with that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CruelBuffalo 04/07/17 12:05:57 AM #17:	Antifar posted... Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" There really is no good solution though. We can also sit back and let children get attacked by chemical weapons. We can also just bomb them and be like k mission accomplished. No idea what Trump Admin's plans are for Syria <cite>CruelBuffalo posted [p:876704098] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> There really is no good solution though. We can also sit back and let children get attacked by chemical weapons. We can also just bomb them and be like k mission accomplished. No idea what Trump Admin's plans are for Syria</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RebelElite791 04/07/17 12:07:24 AM #18:	TheVipaGTS posted... Antifar posted... Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" i don't see a problem with that. Neither do I, particularly. There's probably a very good argument to be made against intervention of any kind given the sticky situation there regarding Russia and ISIS and all the various fronts of that conflict, but punishing Assad for once again using chemical weapons isn't necessarily a bad thing and if Obama had done the same I think a lot of this anger wouldn't be there (though from Antifar it probably would've been, he's consistent on this issue) --- http://i.imgur.com/MS5SvzN.gif https://i.imgur.com/ahQpG57.jpg <cite>RebelElite791 posted [p:876704176] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheVipaGTS posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> i don't see a problem with that.</quote> Neither do I, particularly. There's probably a very good argument to be made against intervention of any kind given the sticky situation there regarding Russia and ISIS and all the various fronts of that conflict, but punishing Assad for once again using chemical weapons isn't necessarily a bad thing and if Obama had done the same I think a lot of this anger wouldn't be there (though from Antifar it probably would've been, he's consistent on this issue)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RebelElite791 04/07/17 12:07:59 AM #19:	CruelBuffalo posted... No idea what Trump Admin's plans are for Syria I think is really the biggest issue here (aside from the whole Russia and ISIS thing). --- http://i.imgur.com/MS5SvzN.gif https://i.imgur.com/ahQpG57.jpg <cite>RebelElite791 posted [p:876704214] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>CruelBuffalo posted...</cite> <quote>No idea what Trump Admin's plans are for Syria</quote> I think is really the biggest issue here (aside from the whole Russia and ISIS thing).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 12:10:46 AM #20:	whitewimmin posted... https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/850176129176662016 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/850184926934835200 https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/850169405107523584 https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/850166360499998720 https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/850187318820564996 Not surprised at the response. This is the only good thing he's done so far. Let's see if he can avoid fucking it up. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876704372] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>whitewimmin posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/850176129176662016 https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/850184926934835200 https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/850169405107523584 https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/850166360499998720 https://twitter.com/timkaine/status/850187318820564996</quote> Not surprised at the response. This is the only good thing he's done so far. Let's see if he can avoid fucking it up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 04/07/17 12:12:20 AM #21:	The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now? --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:876704452] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Drasilor 04/07/17 12:13:45 AM #22:	ChromaticAngel posted... The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now? rekt --- #mypresidentistrump <cite>Drasilor posted [p:876704530] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote>The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now?</quote> rekt</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 12:13:51 AM #23:	ChromaticAngel posted... The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now? It's 60 days without the 30 day extension period. So 90 days with that under the War Powers Resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876704535] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote>The president is allowed to engage in military action without approval if the entire conflict will last less than 80 days. Both democrats and republicans have done so Many times in the past. Why demand legislation now?</quote> It's 60 days without the 30 day extension period. So 90 days with that under the War Powers Resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 12:34:08 AM #24:	CruelBuffalo posted... We can also sit back and let children get attacked by chemical weapons. It seems to be that there are options other than "do nothing" (which isn't exactly what we were doing before) and "fire the missiles." Increased intake of refugees, for one. Also, the "must do something" crowd only ever seems to show up when that something is "blow stuff up." There are children starving in Yemen as a result of a Saudi-led war we've backed at every step. There's a famine in Somalia (another country we're bombing.) At the end of the day, I've yet to see an instance where U.S. "humanitarian intervention" has brought about the positive results. I'm extra skeptical about intervention as done by an idiot TV game show host and his son-in-law. --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876705628] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>CruelBuffalo posted...</cite> <quote>We can also sit back and let children get attacked by chemical weapons.</quote> It seems to be that there are options other than "do nothing" (which isn't exactly what we were doing before) and "fire the missiles." Increased intake of refugees, for one. Also, the "must do something" crowd only ever seems to show up when that something is "blow stuff up." There are children starving in Yemen as a result of a Saudi-led war we've backed at every step. There's a famine in Somalia (another country we're bombing.) At the end of the day, I've yet to see an instance where U.S. "humanitarian intervention" has brought about the positive results. I'm extra skeptical about intervention as done by an idiot TV game show host and his son-in-law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 12:43:04 AM #25:	Chris Murphy seems to have his head on straight https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876706098] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Chris Murphy seems to have his head on straight https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RebelElite791 04/07/17 12:45:05 AM #26:	To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive. --- http://i.imgur.com/MS5SvzN.gif https://i.imgur.com/ahQpG57.jpg <cite>RebelElite791 posted [p:876706194] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
lilORANG 04/07/17 12:45:15 AM #27:	I like how most of those idiots are fine with him not telling anyone first. --- #FeelTheBern http://i.imgur.com/q5z4CUu.jpg http://i.imgur.com/6B9oFXh.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sy42Dlf.jpg <cite>lilORANG posted [p:876706201] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>I like how most of those idiots are fine with him not telling anyone first.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Garioshi 04/07/17 12:49:49 AM #28:	I saw Tim Kaine and expected to be very upset, but that was a better response than I expected. Better than flat-out supporting it, at least. --- "The only things I can trust right now are myself and this big gun." - Eric from Zero Time Dilemma <cite>Garioshi posted [p:876706446] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>I saw Tim Kaine and expected to be very upset, but that was a better response than I expected. Better than flat-out supporting it, at least.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 12:54:05 AM #29:	RebelElite791 posted... To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive. I think the impulse that has us bombing Syria and arming Saudi Arabia (resulting in Yemen's crisis) is the same. Every problem looks like a nail. --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876706669] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive.</quote> I think the impulse that has us bombing Syria and arming Saudi Arabia (resulting in Yemen's crisis) is the same. Every problem looks like a nail.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 12:54:08 AM #30:	RebelElite791 posted... To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive. Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are also not to the point here. International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. That is the issue at stake here, and for good reason. We reached an agreement with Assad not to use those weapons, and he hid them and did so anyway. You can't let him get away with that unpunished. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876706670] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>RebelElite791 posted...</cite> <quote>To be fair, supporting strikes and supporting famine aid and taking in refugees aren't mutually exclusive.</quote> Not only are they not mutually exclusive, they are also not to the point here. International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. That is the issue at stake here, and for good reason. We reached an agreement with Assad not to use those weapons, and he hid them and did so anyway. You can't let him get away with that unpunished.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DifferentialEquation 04/07/17 12:55:07 AM #31:	It's time for Democrats to fall in line and bend the knee to Trump. --- "If the day does not require an AK, it is good." The Great Warrior Poet, Ice Cube <cite>DifferentialEquation posted [p:876706724] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>It's time for Democrats to fall in line and bend the knee to Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Doom_Art 04/07/17 12:59:04 AM #32:	Durbin and Kaine have the right of it --- Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009 http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png <cite>Doom_Art posted [p:876706889] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Durbin and Kaine have the right of it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 12:59:26 AM #33:	Saloonist posted... International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. Often even these laws have carveouts for the sole purpose of exempting the U.S. Two months ago, it was revealed we were using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and Syria, knowing that it has been blamed for birth defects and cancer among civilians http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/ --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876706904] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. </quote> Often even these laws have carveouts for the sole purpose of exempting the U.S. Two months ago, it was revealed we were using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and Syria, knowing that it has been blamed for birth defects and cancer among civilians http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Manocheese 04/07/17 1:00:34 AM #34:	Trump has made America so great that even Democrats are starting to admit it. --- ()_() Hardcore - We'll probably be modded for this... (o.o) http://manocheese.googlepages.com/manocheesery <cite>Manocheese posted [p:876706969] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Trump has made America so great that even Democrats are starting to admit it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 1:02:16 AM #35:	Doom_Art posted... Durbin and Kaine have the right of it Not according to the War Powers Resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution There are many precedents of the President taking military action without Congressional authorization. Individual Members of Congress can cry about it being unlawful all day, but they have not passed any law overruling these precedents, nor have they ever stopped a President from taking action. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876707056] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Doom_Art posted...</cite> <quote>Durbin and Kaine have the right of it</quote> Not according to the War Powers Resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution There are many precedents of the President taking military action without Congressional authorization. Individual Members of Congress can cry about it being unlawful all day, but they have not passed any law overruling these precedents, nor have they ever stopped a President from taking action.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#36	Post #36 was unavailable or deleted.
AmonAmarth 04/07/17 1:16:02 AM #37:	ThyCorndog posted... pizzaboss posted... Sad that both parties want war. neocons and neolibs love war :\| true. --- i7-4790@ 3.6GHZ \| GA-Z97-HD3 \| ASUS GTX 960 2GB \| Samsung 850 EVO 250GB \| 1TB HDD \| CX750M \| 12GB DDR3 <cite>AmonAmarth posted [p:876707675] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>pizzaboss posted...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> neocons and neolibs love war</quote> :\| true.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 1:19:40 AM #38:	Antifar posted... Saloonist posted... International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. Often even these laws have carveouts for the sole purpose of exempting the U.S. Two months ago, it was revealed we were using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and Syria, knowing that it has been blamed for birth defects and cancer among civilians http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/ The harmful effects of depleted uranium are greatly exaggerated, based on the evidence available from what I understand. Blame and accusations are not the same as evidence, and although there is some evidence that it can cause birth defects, a lot of the other evidence, such as it being carcinogenic is inconclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Gulf_War_syndrome_and_soldier_complaints But there is no convention banning depleted uranium. The rest of the world can come together to sign a treaty banning it if they so desire and create a new international norm, even without US support. There are many international conventions of which the US is not a party. Yet they did not. The US is violating no laws and it is not violating an international norm. Should there be a norm against using depleted uranium? Maybe. But that is irrelevant. There is a norm against using weapons like sarin gas. Assad explicitly made a deal with us that he would not use these weapons in conformity with international law, and in exchange we would leave him alone. He backed out of that deal. Also I would hardly call that a "carveout". Depleted Uranium is nothing like gassing people which can kill hordes in a few minutes. The purpose of depleted uranium is not to cause birth defects.The purpose of sarin gas is to kill masses. Negative side effects are to be avoided, but the comparison is disingenuous. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876707820] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>International law has long recognized a taboo on chemical weapons and other WMDs. </quote> Often even these laws have carveouts for the sole purpose of exempting the U.S. Two months ago, it was revealed we were using depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and Syria, knowing that it has been blamed for birth defects and cancer among civilians http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-depleted-uranium-in-syria/</quote> The harmful effects of depleted uranium are greatly exaggerated, based on the evidence available from what I understand. Blame and accusations are not the same as evidence, and although there is some evidence that it can cause birth defects, a lot of the other evidence, such as it being carcinogenic is inconclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Gulf_War_syndrome_and_soldier_complaints But there is no convention banning depleted uranium. The rest of the world can come together to sign a treaty banning it if they so desire and create a new international norm, even without US support. There are many international conventions of which the US is not a party. Yet they did not. The US is violating no laws and it is not violating an international norm. Should there be a norm against using depleted uranium? Maybe. But that is irrelevant. There is a norm against using weapons like sarin gas. Assad explicitly made a deal with us that he would not use these weapons in conformity with international law, and in exchange we would leave him alone. He backed out of that deal. Also I would hardly call that a "carveout". Depleted Uranium is nothing like gassing people which can kill hordes in a few minutes. The purpose of depleted uranium is not to cause birth defects.The purpose of sarin gas is to kill masses. Negative side effects are to be avoided, but the comparison is disingenuous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/07/17 1:27:22 AM #39:	pizzaboss posted... Sad that both parties want war. Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. Force is necessary in some cases, especially on people who use chemical weapons on their own citizens. --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:876708104] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>pizzaboss posted...</cite> <quote>Sad that both parties want war.</quote> Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. Force is necessary in some cases, especially on people who use chemical weapons on their own citizens.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmonAmarth 04/07/17 1:31:14 AM #40:	MaverickXeo posted... Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. lmfao. --- Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good. -Archbishop Charles J. Chaput <cite>AmonAmarth posted [p:876708248] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities.</quote> lmfao.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/07/17 1:32:29 AM #41:	AmonAmarth posted... MaverickXeo posted... Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. lmfao. Please explain why they would want a war? --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:876708294] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>AmonAmarth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities.</quote> lmfao.</quote> Please explain why they would want a war?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
AmonAmarth 04/07/17 1:33:56 AM #42:	MaverickXeo posted... AmonAmarth posted... MaverickXeo posted... Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. lmfao. Please explain why they would want a war? they use war as a "last resort", but they are still massive interventionists, funding proxy wars. they want to prevent atrocities? thats the joke part. --- Tolerance is not a Christian value. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty--these are Christian values. -Archbishop Chaput <cite>AmonAmarth posted [p:876708353] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AmonAmarth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities.</quote> lmfao.</quote> Please explain why they would want a war?</quote> they use war as a "last resort", but they are still massive interventionists, funding proxy wars. they want to prevent atrocities? thats the joke part.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 04/07/17 1:34:47 AM #43:	MaverickXeo posted... AmonAmarth posted... MaverickXeo posted... Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. lmfao. Please explain why they would want a war? Because it provides a continual reason for inflated military budgets that go towards Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et al. and are returned in the form of campaign donations. --- an aspirin the size of the sun. <cite>Antifar posted [p:876708386] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AmonAmarth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities.</quote> lmfao.</quote> Please explain why they would want a war?</quote> Because it provides a continual reason for inflated military budgets that go towards Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et al. and are returned in the form of campaign donations.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MaverickXeo 04/07/17 1:37:40 AM #44:	Antifar posted... MaverickXeo posted... AmonAmarth posted... MaverickXeo posted... Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities. lmfao. Please explain why they would want a war? Because it provides a continual reason for inflated military budgets that go towards Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et al. and are returned in the form of campaign donations. Then why have they never gone to war against other nations? If they wanted to, they couldve attacked North Korea for that matter. North Korea has been 'threatening' America for years, why is that not enough to justify a 'war' if it can fund them? --- --- MaverickXeo --- <cite>MaverickXeo posted [p:876708495] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote><cite>AmonAmarth posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MaverickXeo posted...</cite> <quote>Neither party wants war, but they want to prevent atrocities.</quote> lmfao.</quote> Please explain why they would want a war?</quote> Because it provides a continual reason for inflated military budgets that go towards Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et al. and are returned in the form of campaign donations.</quote> Then why have they never gone to war against other nations? If they wanted to, they couldve attacked North Korea for that matter. North Korea has been 'threatening' America for years, why is that not enough to justify a 'war' if it can fund them?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HiddenRoar 04/07/17 1:41:31 AM #45:	Antifar posted... Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" Ironic. Considering Bush got authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama's violation of the WPR with his over the 90 days limit drone bombing campaign of Syria, and subsequent attempt of an excuse that Congress funding the program means that they approve of the bombings is conveniently overlooked by the Dems. <cite>HiddenRoar posted [p:876708650] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> Ironic. Considering Bush got authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama's violation of the WPR with his over the 90 days limit drone bombing campaign of Syria, and subsequent attempt of an excuse that Congress funding the program means that they approve of the bombings is conveniently overlooked by the Dems.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 1:43:12 AM #46:	HiddenRoar posted... Antifar posted... Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?" Ironic. Considering Bush got authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama's violation of the WPR with his over the 90 days limit drone bombing campaign of Syria, and subsequent attempt of an excuse that Congress funding the program means that they approve of the bombings is conveniently overlooked by the Dems. You mean Libya. Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876708719] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>HiddenRoar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Antifar posted...</cite> <quote>Here's Warren https://twitter.com/ckmarie/status/850190404695863298 It's all very much in keeping with Democrats' MO that a common theme here is "what he did was fine, but can we make sure it goes through the correct legislative channels next time?"</quote> Ironic. Considering Bush got authorization for both Iraq and Afghanistan, but Obama's violation of the WPR with his over the 90 days limit drone bombing campaign of Syria, and subsequent attempt of an excuse that Congress funding the program means that they approve of the bombings is conveniently overlooked by the Dems.</quote> You mean Libya. Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
eggcorn 04/07/17 1:44:50 AM #47:	Are we so polarized that we are actually offended when we agree on something? <cite>eggcorn posted [p:876708788] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>Are we so polarized that we are actually offended when we agree on something?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HiddenRoar 04/07/17 2:23:46 AM #48:	Saloonist posted... Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq. No, that's the excuse his administration has been giving in an attempt to justify Syria. The Iraq Resolution never mentions al-Qaeda. Only Saddam. The Afghanistan war resolution explicated name those that attacked the US on 9-11. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because ISIS never existed back then, the resolution doesn't apply to them, even if a few members defected to them after AQ got a beating from the US. It's still two different organizations. http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure <cite>HiddenRoar posted [p:876710130] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq.</quote> No, that's the excuse his administration has been giving in an attempt to justify Syria. The Iraq Resolution never mentions al-Qaeda. Only Saddam. The Afghanistan war resolution explicated name those that attacked the US on 9-11. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because ISIS never existed back then, the resolution doesn't apply to them, even if a few members defected to them after AQ got a beating from the US. It's still two different organizations. http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/07/17 2:54:59 AM #49:	HiddenRoar posted... Saloonist posted... Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq. No, that's the excuse his administration has been giving in an attempt to justify Syria. The Iraq Resolution never mentions al-Qaeda. Only Saddam. The Afghanistan war resolution explicated name those that attacked the US on 9-11. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because ISIS never existed back then, the resolution doesn't apply to them, even if a few members defected to them after AQ got a beating from the US. It's still two different organizations. http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure ISIS is just a shoot-off of al-Qaeda, and used to go under the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qaidat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn The AUMF isssued in 2001 is very broad, but was clearly targeted at al-Qaeda from which ISIS emerged and took on their original name, only later changing it to the Islamic State. So ISIS certainly falls within that statute in my opinion. But the text is already broad enough to cover just about any Islamic terrorist group, even if you don't think ISIS is a shoot-off of al-Qaeda (which I think is incorrect), when you take into account the critical language of "prevent[ing] any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or person. But the link enough between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is very easy to make, regardless of all of that because ISIS was a branch pledged to al-Qaeda. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:876711071] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote><cite>HiddenRoar posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote> Obama had authorization to bomb ISIS in Syria under the same authorization used against Al-Qaeda, because ISIS is orginally a branch of al-Qaeda in Iraq.</quote> No, that's the excuse his administration has been giving in an attempt to justify Syria. The Iraq Resolution never mentions al-Qaeda. Only Saddam. The Afghanistan war resolution explicated name those that attacked the US on 9-11. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Because ISIS never existed back then, the resolution doesn't apply to them, even if a few members defected to them after AQ got a beating from the US. It's still two different organizations. http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/09/06/492857888/when-the-u-s-military-strikes-white-house-points-to-a-2001-measure</quote> ISIS is just a shoot-off of al-Qaeda, and used to go under the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzim_Qaidat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn The AUMF isssued in 2001 is very broad, but was clearly targeted at al-Qaeda from which ISIS emerged and took on their original name, only later changing it to the Islamic State. So ISIS certainly falls within that statute in my opinion. But the text is already broad enough to cover just about any Islamic terrorist group, even if you don't think ISIS is a shoot-off of al-Qaeda (which I think is incorrect), when you take into account the critical language of "prevent[ing] any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or person. But the link enough between al-Qaeda and the Islamic State is very easy to make, regardless of all of that because ISIS was a branch pledged to al-Qaeda.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HiddenRoar 04/07/17 3:16:31 AM #50:	>Created in 1999, pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2004. Do I really need to spell out how that doesn't fit the criteria. at all. against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. <cite>HiddenRoar posted [p:876711681] in Democrats ... [t:75207819]...</cite> <quote>>Created in 1999, pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2004. Do I really need to spell out how that doesn't fit the criteria. at all. against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Democrats respond to Trump's strikes (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Democrats respond to Trump's strikes