Congress has not approved more funding for the Iran war. They have not approved initial funding for the Iran war. These "supplies" are very expensive.

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that a big reason for the shortage of these "supplies" is that there is not money allocated for them to be replaced. And no money allocated for ramping up production.

Republicans are a big fan of the "starve the beast" strategy. Just don't collect taxes and the government "has to" get smaller. (Which seems to have just resulted in a big government deeply in debt, but I digress.) This seems to be the Democrat version of it. They cannot stop Trump from going to war. But if they do not allocate money to the military, then eventually he will have no more weapons to go to war WITH.

Which, as I have been pointing out, makes the weapons stockpiles a political and policy question, much more than a national security one.

And, I say again, that if Republicans are concerned about the national security aspects of it all they gave to do is declare war, and allocate money to fight it. That handles the political/policy questions and maintaining national security can be the priority.

Honestly, you seem to be arguing that Republicans should be allowed to force the political/policy questions in their favor by claiming national security concerns. Which I am completely opposed to. I do not like the president bring able to unilaterally start a war. I definitely believe that there should continue to be checks on him being able to fight it, that there should continue to be enforced transparency (a probably even more checks and transparency) IF he is fighting it unilaterally.

#32 | Posted by eberly

I also want to point out that this report was mandated by law... BECAUSE Trump did not get a declaration of war.

The law only applies to military operations that go longer than 60 days without a formal declaration.

I agree with this law. If Trump does not want to be held accountable to the public, to be required to provide transparency about the operation, all he had to do was convince Congress to support his war.

But if he wants to go it alone without Congressional approval, I have no problem with him being "hamstrung". In that case, with Trump acting like a dictator (not getting Congressional approval as intended by the Constitution) I think public accountability is much more important than any defense considerations. Because if the defense consideration were actually valid, Congress would declare war and he would no longer be hamstrung.

To be clear, I believe the president should NOT be allowed to lie to the public if we are not in a declared war.

During World War II I would imagine we were running low on munitions, weapons, etc........did we announce to Germany and Japan we were running low?
We ramped up production of a lot of stuff during that short time and it wasn't likely a secret.
But specifically, what were low on.....did we announce that to our enemies?
Is it possible we may have deliberately misinformed our enemies of our supplies?

#8 | Posted by eberly

During WWII Congress declared war. Which grants the president emergency powers. During a declared state of war, I believe the public would expect, or at least be understanding of, the president manufacturing or withholding information in order to mislead the enemies we have declared war on.

But we have not declared war.

So, as far as I am concerned, your comparison is apples to oranges.

I have answered your question, so I think you owe me the same courtesy.

It seems like you believe the president should be allowed to lie during war, which I feel I also agree with somewhat (though, if you do not, please correct me). But, do you ALSO believe that the president should be allowed to lie to Congress and the American people if we have not declared war against anyone?

California has rejoined the first world. Welcome, don't get cocky.

#15 | Posted by visitor_

Has Texas rejoined the first world as well?

There are sometimes I click on a link and say to myself "this has to be an onion article".

And then I realize that these are MAGA Republicans and that they actually said and believe this ridiculous thing. And other Republicans just don't care.

Republicans... You Built That. All on your own.

who wants criminals to stay in US? Lumpers

#4 | Posted by oneironaut

I would be fine with all convicted criminals being deported. I just have a problem targeting only immigrants. Especially since immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than US citizens.

It is very clear that you have no problem with criminals in this country. In fact, you support and defend criminals. You just have a problem with immigrants. Bringing "criminals" into it is just a strawman for you.

Consider the fact that many Americans do not view this as Trump giving them anything. But rather letting them keep more of their own money.
If I'm paying $60,000 a year in federal income taxes and you let me keep $5000 of it ... ... . I never viewed that $5000 as being someone else's in the first place. It was mine.

#3 | Posted by eberly

That may be true, except for the fact that this would only apply to a MINORITY of individuals in the US. According to our AI overlords, less than 38% of adults in the US pay more than $5000 in federal income taxes per year.

So while they may feel like they are just reducing their own tax bill, they would also realize that the rest of their taxes that they do pay are being used to pay the 62%+ that DO NOT pay more than $5k per year.

Fuggun' clown's got no fuggun' clue what goes on at the tens of thousands independent auto service providers servicing millions of customers...and charging accordingly.

#3 | Posted by Angrydad

I also thought his comment was pretty naive. No one is going to be unable to find any motor oil for their car. But if Costco is rationing, that is a pretty strong sign that prices are going to be increasing.

He got us out of Afghanistan. Which was more than Republicans were capable of.

but I guess it's too much to expect people to quote his "lie" accurately.
it's necessary to embellish, much like Trump.
That just makes them similar to Trump....which is quite funny really.

#19 | Posted by eberly

I agree with you completely. And feel you are completely justified calling out the exaggeration.

His story sounds to me like it is full of crap and he is trying to steal some valor. That should be enough in itself.

I know I have said before, responding to Trumpers, that if you have to lie it means you know your argument is weak.

Eb, it seems to me that a lot of people are piling into you just because they generally disagree with you, and don't like you because you have the temerity to disagree with them.

But, to me, they are making themselves look like idiots, are really no better than Trump himself.

The American government is an honor system, King Dotard has no honor.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

It really isn't. It was built with checks and balances, meant to be able to survive people like Donald Trump.

But it assumed that the branches would check each other's power. What they did not anticipate was the spinelessness of today's conservatives, and Republican party.

The American government is an honor system, King Dotard has no honor.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

It really isn't. It was built with checks and balances, meant to be able to survive people like Donald Trump.

But it assumed that the branches would check each other's power. What they did not anticipate was the spinelessness of today's conservatives, and Republican party.

The American government is an honor system, King Dotard has no honor.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

It really isn't. It was built with checks and balances, meant to be able to survive people like Donald Trump.

But it assumed that the branches would check each other's power. What they did not anticipate was the spinelessness of today's conservatives, and Republican party.

The American government is an honor system, King Dotard has no honor.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

It really isn't. It was built with checks and balances, meant to be able to survive people like Donald Trump.

But it assumed that the branches would check each other's power. What they did not anticipate was the spinelessness of today's conservatives, and Republican party.

Honestly, I would be more surprised from a MAGA person not being abusive to women.

But how many here supported Obama when US took 60% of GM?
Did anyone here call Obama a fascist?
I doubt it. That being said government getting involved in private business is never a good thing

#4 | Posted by oneironaut

How much of GM does the US government now own?

I was mostly fine with how they handled the bailouts under the circumstances at the time, though I also agree there were valid criticisms and concerns. At that point, with the state of the economy that Bush left him, there were just bad options all around.

But he also unwound the government ownership of businesses that he initiated. Which made me feel a lot better about it.

Now you do Trump. What emergency was he addressing that you feel justifies the socialist/communist/fascist government ownership of the means of production?

What is his plan for unwinding the socialism/communism/fascism that he put in place? Or is his socialism/communism/fascism intended to be permanent?

"Markwayne Mullin says officers could be deployed if there is a threat to that polling place or we're serving a warrant'"

This is "Immigration and Customs Enforcement", right? So what "threats" are they concerned about? Immigration "threats" to the safety of the polling place? Customs threats to the safety of the polling place?

I would love for ANY Republican here to explain to me what immigrations or customs threats there might be directed at polling places that are not just as easily handled by local law enforcement.

Because if no one here can give an answer, then the only other reason ICE would be at a polling place is intimidation.

NO ONE who violates immigration law is innocent.

#16 | Posted by lfthndthrds

They are innocent until proven guilty, at least if you have American values. Were these people proven guilty of violating immigration law by a jury of their peers? Because I do not see where any of the people mentioned here were CONVICTED of a crime.

I'm criticizing how the reporting for this was conducted. It was half-ass. The allegations might be true. They also might be fabricated. NYT simply ran with the allegations.

#6 | Posted by BellRinger

How would it be corroborated?

ICE has refused to allow our elected representatives access to their facilities. I don't see you being outraged over that.

So your criticisms just seem like deflections. "This story has not been corroborated" at the same time as you support ICE making it impossible for accusations like this to be corroborated.

Their lack of transparency and history of coverups is the reason why I lean towards believing accusations against them. They could solve that problem by being transparent, like any honest government organizations should be. They CHOOSE not to be transparent. And, in fact, the CHOOSE to be as opaque as possible.

The fact that you support them from a position of ignorance really just makes you look like a sycophant.

So we are deporting immigrants in order to bring in different immigrants (or maybe even the same ones) and pay them a lower wage?

Competing in the land of old brick ovens? Must be good pizza.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg

And in NYC. I love going to NYC because the food is so good. Because it has to be. You can probably find another 20 places to eat just by walking another block. Capitalism (or, at least, competitive markets) at its finest. If your food is not good, you don't last long.

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull
Beverley's a fuggin moron...

#27 | Posted by Angrydad

Not helpful. And he offered a mea culpa, which is more than you would get from 99% of posters on here, liberal or conservative.

Which is why I respect him, even if we may disagree on politics.

To be clear, I am completely opposed to the US government owning private companies. That it should only be done during an emergency, and then should be wound down like Obama did. While I think "socialism" like paid family leave is good for our society, I think the "socialism" where the government owns private businesses is bad for our society.

Can the "conservatives" here say the same thing? Because I have an inkling that they are all closet socialists.