1y ago

The Biden administration once again bypasses Congress on an emergency weapons sale to Israel

www.pbs.org The Biden administration once again bypasses Congress on an emergency weapons sale to Israel

Such determinations are rare, but not unprecedented, when administrations see an urgent need for weapons to be delivered without waiting for lawmakers' approval.

For the second time this month the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel as Israel continues to prosecute its war against Hamas in Gaza under increasing international criticism.

politics @lemmy.world

The Biden administration once again bypasses Congress on an emergency weapons sale to Israel

www.pbs.org /newshour/politics/the-biden-administration-once-again-bypasses-congress-on-an-emergency-weapons-sale-to-israel

243 45

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

141 comments

We were talking about 2020. What does any of the block of text you've wrote have to do with voting conspiracies?
- The original statement made by me referenced that this happened twice and this was the first of those two times that I referenced. Just because you decided to only talk about 2020 doesn't mean that's the only one I was referring to. I wonder if you didn't want to talk about the other because of the literal mountains of fucking evidence behind it?
  If you want to do a run-around and act like previous behavior from a major political party shouldn't be used to judge their current behavior, you're just not arguing in good faith.
  
  I mean, if we're going to pivot to conspiracies from the 2016 vote, we can bring up the coin toss thing. Brought up repeatedly as a conspiracy by Bernie supporters, they always seemed to leave out that there were multiple coin tosses across counties in that state and...Bernie won more of them than Hillary did. He just lost the vote so badly in total in that state that that didn't give him enough delegates to win the state as a whole.
  But, for some reason, Bernie and his supporters only talk about a single one of those coin tosses.
  
  Cool, so when I bring things with documented evidence your response is to bring up things that were a joke when it was happening?
  What next, the Cisco Wireless White Noise Generators?
  Address the evidence presented, not the conspiracies you want to shut down and I am not personally bringing up.
  
  Nothing of what you posted was even a claim one way or the other. Yes, Clinton's campaign did try and prop up Trump over the other Republican candidates because they thought he would be an easier opponent because of how insane he is. They were wrong on how insane the general public is as well.
  Those are just known facts.
  
  So when people point out that Trump isn't even arguing that he didn't do an insurrection and coup in court, rather that it was legal for him to do it, people point out how absolutely fucked up it is that he argues that.
  When I point out that the Democrats didn't even bother to argue that they didn't put their finger on the scale for Hillary Clinton, but rather argued in court that it was legal for them to do it, it's fucking crickets and people acting like those are materially different things.
  They are both political operatives arguing in bad faith because they can't actually prove they didn't do those things.
  Trump doesn't claim he didn't do an insurrection or coup in court for the same fucking reasons the Democrats don't claim that they didn't put their finger on the scale for Clinton, rather arguing that it was legal for them to do that.
  The reason is neither has proof. Trump has no proof he didn't try to pull off a coup, and the DNC has no proof they didn't tip the scales for Clinton.
  The one difference is that, yes, technically it is legal for a private organization to write their own rules. However, it's still the issue of: If they could have proved in court they didn't do that for Clinton: Why didn't they? Why did they opt to just be like "Nah, it's legal for us to do that, actually?" Because they aren't actually interested in representing US citizens opinions, they're interested in the continuation of the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party. They couldn't prove they didn't put their finger on the scale for Clinton, so they turned to this argument in court, which is plainly arguing in bad faith and arguing that it's totally okay for the DNC to ignore the will of the people and choose their own candidate. That's fucked up and not what any rational political party that wasn't up to scummy shit would argue.
  You make that kind of legal argument when you cannot actually defend the facts, like the fact that the DNC essentially chose Clinton, choosing to ignore public opinion. They never made the legal argument that they did not do that for Clinton, because they fucking did.
  If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
  Once again, when Trump does it, we know it's clear he's making shit up and throwing whatever he can at the wall to see if anything sticks, but when Democrats do it... fucking crickets from y'all.
  
  I totally thought you guys were talking about whenever they gave her all of the questions before hand
  
  The questions they also gave to Bernie? His own senior advisor admitted when asked that they were also given the questions about Flint, ect.
  
  Do you have a source for that? I can't find one. I found plenty of sources saying she gave the questions to the Clinton campaign in advance, apologized for it, and then resigned. But none of them mention giving them to the Sanders campaign.
  
  Here's one example: https://www.nbcnews.com/card/top-sanders-aide-defends-dnc-chair-wikileaks-controversy-n664831
  
  That's not her saying she gave questions to both campaigns. That's her saying she contacted both campaigns for guidance. Even in there she denied giving debate questions, and that senior aide is saying he agreed that she probably didn't give any debate questions, and that her defense about giving both campaigns guidance is true, so the leak is probably mixing those two things up. You can tell because they say she probably didn't even know the debate questions, and he's agreeing. It's admirable of that guy, but with hindsight he was wrong.
  It later turned out she lied and admitted she did do that. Your article is from before she admitted it, during the time she was denying it for while.
  Also, Happy New Year! I won't be able to resume this debate much because I'll be switching instances in the new year to a bigger one. But I hope you and everyone reading this has a great 2024!
  
  You got a link for that?
  
  Here's an example: https://www.nbcnews.com/card/top-sanders-aide-defends-dnc-chair-wikileaks-controversy-n664831

141 comments