The House passed a spending bill yesterday.
For the second time, a Republican Speaker pushed through a spending bill with mostly democrat votes. Johnson really had little choice. If he shut down the government out of principle, the Republicans would get all the blame. On the other hand, he seems to have a bit more goodwill from the right than McCarthy had and was able to work with democrats. This bill is only another band aid that keeps the government running through early March while congress deals with 12 spending bills. 107 Republicans backed the bill and 106 opposed it. 207 democrats backed Johnson and 2 others opposed it.
The real fight will come over immigration, which House Republicans have tied to aid for Ukraine. That will be the true test of Johnson's good standing with the right wing of his party as well as the radical left which controls the democrat party. It is also a serious matter for Joe Biden. The open border crisis has plagued his presidential campaign and his unending support for Ukraine is now tossed into the mix.
In other news:
Israel has greatly reduced the intensity of military operations in northern Gaza.
In a Brooklyn classroom there appears to be a map of the middle east devoid the state of Israel.
A Houthi militia leader has vowed to continue attacking merchant ships in the Red Sea. He may have not heard Biden's warning of "don't."
Hunter Biden agreed to be deposed in a private session before congress next month.
Republicans are on the verge of impeaching Alejandro Mayorkas. Yesterday Mayorkas decided not to appear before a congressional hearing, most likely because two mothers, who had lost their children, one to fentanyl and the other to a notorious south American gang member who crossed the border, were present.
Macys will be closing 5 stores and cutting 2,000 jobs.
Karine Jean-Pierre falsely claims, "One thing the president does not do is insult voters or the American people." She said it with a straight face!
Good morning
We shall continue our battle against antisemitism, Marxist propaganda, and the deep state.
We must save democracy from Joe Biden.
And that 3.7% UE rate for the last two years?
Do you realize that the UE has absolutely NOTHING to do with democracy?
That is a good thing- because Brandon can only cook the books on his job creation record. The US isn't back to pre pandemic levels of job creation.
Here is what Democrats really need to know.
Brandon is setting records at being the worst everywhere.
Not even fox fake news can deny it.
Dotard LOST 3 million jobs, he's already Herbert Hover.
Heard of Covid?
Don't bring in facts. They don't like that.
He must be really hoping the economy crashes.
You mean like many democrats would?
No, he is an American to the core.
“No, he is an American to the core.”
No, he is rotten to the core.
The people, you know, the ones who work and pay taxes and make the world go around, would disagree with you.
"I know you are but what am I?"
Seriously? I was talking about Dotard who last I checked, is a republiturd.
The hatred for Trump is pathological.
If only he wasn't the biggest asshole in American history..... he could have avoided all this.
Proof please
What were you saying about you merely being a "liberal?"
You translate opposition to Trump as hatred. While some people certainly do hate Trump (just as some hate Biden), the main reason for the opposition to Trump is his wrongdoing and his utter unfitness for office. IMO.
I, for example, do not hate Trump. I would say I hold him in contempt. I think he is an abysmal individual who is by far the worst potential nominee for PotUS in our history. I also hold that he has set a terrible precedent for this nation with his Big Lie scheme (and classified docs) wrongdoings and that for the good of the nation he must be held accountable.
As for private citizen Trump, I care as much about his various civil lawsuits as I would anyone else. If he engaged in wrongdoing then he should be held liable. And in cases where he is targeted for likely political reasons such as in NY, I am against the targeting but in favor of fairly treating him under the law and be held accountable if found liable.
To wit, my personal concern regarding Trump is about the terrible precedent he set and the likelihood that this irresponsible, vindictive, narcissistic, traitor would gain the power of the presidency. My concern is for the nation; Trump is the individual who is the driving force behind the problem.
I have to disagree.
You see, if there are valid reasons to prosecute a former President, they should be done at once. That way we have trials, possible convictions and appeals all well before an election that was years away at the time these things should have taken place. Not cleverly timed so as to produce a conviction before an election while having the appeals relegated to after the election.
There is also the matter of the nature of the prosecutors. We have people who ran on "getting Trump" and another who trampled all ethics by visiting Joe Biden, who by the way has publicly been calling for the prosecution of his political opponent. Another is trying to speed up the trial to obviously get a conviction in before the election. We have judges to have risked a mistrial by denying the defenses every request.
That leaves reasonable people with the conclusion that this is a very evil plot to interfere in the 2024 election.
Prior to Trump announcing he was running, at Thanksgiving of 2022 , it was well known that he might be indicted at some point. So why the fuck did he run?
He uses his candidacy as a shield against his legal problems.
The POINT was why did they take so long to indict Trump?
That is Pravda talk. It was well known by whom? If there was a problem then it should have been prosecuted then!
So why the fuck did he run?
So why the fuck didn't they prosecute?
If he didn't run again there wouldn't have been any "trials." The calculated timing proves that it is once again, election interference by democrats.
Because Merrick Garland was afraid of being seen as partisan, and the DOJ slow walked the investigations into Trump.
He didnt have to run, when he announced he was already a suspected criminal. He should have stayed in Maralago and golfed and grabbed Melanias pussy all day and leave the rest of us alone.
Well, I'd say he failed miserably on that count.
He didnt have to run
Well John, if the dems hadn't changed the rules in the last election, Trump would be coming to the end of his second term, and you wouldn't have to be going nuts about him running again.
That is hilarious. Just fucking hilarious!
A rule you invented. There clearly are valid reasons. There is no 'if'; the indictments have merit. The evidence is overwhelming. The fact that it took time for the mechanics of justice to act is irrelevant.
The indictments have helped Trump.
Forget about the citizen Trump lawsuits. As I have noted repeatedly to you in particular, what is most important are the wrongdoings by Trump as PotUS. He set a horrible precedent that can only be mitigated by holding him accountable. The rule of law. Right vs. wrong. All those things that the former GoP rightly held dear.
Countering a likely attempt by Trump, if elected, to halt the process by abusing the powers of the presidency.
Reasonable, rational people recognize wrongdoing and rightfully seek to hold Trump accountable. They recognize that Trump is a traitor; the only PotUS in our history who has attempted to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. Who has violated his oath of office by attempting to circumvent the CotUS and attack the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate.
It is delusional to pretend that Trump is merely a victim. He has been indicted for cause. He engaged in serious wrongdoing and the evidence is overwhelming. Denying this reality is what should be defined as "Trump Derangement Syndrome".
He was afraid of being partisan so he timed the indictments so they would have the maximum political impact. Sure
People can only speculate. So asking this question is meaningless.
Do you think the Big Lie indictments are without merit? If not, then the timing is a moot point. If so, let's hear your argument.
Yeah, that shit doesn't fly, does it?
Trump lost because people had seen him in office for four years and wanted an end to it. He lost because tens of thousands of people in the swing states left him off their vote. They left the presidential line on the ballot blank.
Where is that charge ????
LOL.
You are in for a big surprise then when his election fraud trial starts.
One would like to think, with the mountains of evidence claimed, it would have been a quick slam dunk on prosecuting Trump.
Are the people in the JD just incompetent?
Why do you repeat questions?
I doubt anyone who hates Trump has ever considered his policies.
He lost because tens of thousands of people in the swing states left him off their vote.
He got enough votes to win any other presidential election in American history. The man who won didn't even campaign. That man now has a record to defend.
“The hatred for Trump is pathological.”
The understanding of trump…who he is, what he represents, and thus the reason he is called out, is the most important and lasting indictment.
I hate to say it, but they are going to get what they want. These trials are playing out in NYC, DC and Fulton County GA. Those are places where one can get a conviction against Donald Trump for virtually anything. It is the appeals that would vindicate Trump and we won't hear those until after the election.
Whoopdedo.
Tell you the truth, I don't give a fuck about Trump the man, but the whole mess seems squirelly to me, especially the timing.
Seems like many want Trump gone but they just can't stop yapping about him 24/7
Who will smart voters elect?
someone not named Biden or Trump.
Voting for Biden based on his record shows little intelligence
Do you think dumb ass would have won without widespread mail-in voting?
That is ridiculous.
Trump's policies were GOP policies. There are plenty of GOP members who could, as PotUS, support those policies. There is no need for Trump.
Just amazing that you are rooting for Trump because of his policies while dismissing all of his wrongdoings and personal negatives and ignoring the fact that he is not necessary for those policies to manifest.
So if people stopped talking about him he would voluntarily go ? LOL.
A few weeks after Jan 6 Trump announced he would stay involved in politics and the Republicans started lining up to pledge loyalty to him . He never had any intention of leaving, whether Democrats talked about him or not.
Who is that, Texan? In what alternate reality do you see someone other than Biden or Trump getting elected?
I really want to know because I am very keen to elect someone other than one of those.
No one NEEDS Trump, not even the Republicans. Haley, DeSantis, Christie, Pence and others would have all carried on with "Republican" and conservative policies. MAGA wants Trump not despite what he is but because of what he is.
Are you suggesting that the mail-in votes were fraudulent? That they were not actual votes by the electorate and that somehow they were fake votes that falsely elected Biden?
Is THAT what you think I wrote?
indeed.
if you want to discuss it, at least relate your post to something I actually wrote.
Do you hate Biden?
I'll let you figure it out, I already told you someone not named Biden or Trump.
You have already resigned yourself to voting for Biden.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Mail in voting was expanded because of the pandemic. You dont seem to understand that.
I think it is quasi- realistic to bemoan the fact that mail in voting was expanded. those were the breaks.
But the idea that mail in voting means Trump was cheated is insane.
This is the CNN polling information (poll of polls) on Georgia a few days before the election
What on earth do Trump supporters have to complain about? They were behind in the polls in Georgia and they lost. Get over it sometime this century please.
[deleted]
In short, you have no answer.
It is almost certainty that the next PotUS will be Trump or Biden. Assuming this remains true, there is no way a voter can use their vote to elect someone other than Biden or Trump.
Both men have major negatives (Trump's being an order of magnitude worse that Biden's) so legitimate criticism exists either way.
You claimed:
So do you think it is 'intelligent' to vote for a third party or not vote at all (equivalent in 2024)? Do you think it is 'intelligent' to vote for Trump?
What is the intelligent move for 2024 presidential voters?
In truth, you simply won't accept an answer
I asked you a profoundly important question and you refuse to answer.
You stated that it would not be intelligent to vote for Biden. You did not include Trump.
Since we only have Biden and Trump, your comments logically leave the impression that you think the intelligent choice is Trump.
The impression left by your refusal becomes your answer.
Your refusal brings your claim of never voting for Trump into question. Someone who would never vote for Trump would not criticize Biden voters while being silent on Trump voters ... especially after being specifically asked about Trump.
There is no individual other than Biden or Trump who will be elected. Who do the smart voters elect?
Bingo.
Ever consider they are ineligible to vote?
That is the only explanation to explain it!
That, or they're not even a citizen of US...
That is factually incorrect. In post 2.1.32, you ask, and I answered in post 2.1.33., then you asked AGAIN in post 2.1 37. and I answered in post 2.1.42.
It's all right there for you to review.
But don't try to misrepresent the answers or pretend i didn't answer because you didn't like them.
Again, I never claimed i never voted for Trump. I have said I did vote for him but will never again. please stop misrepresenting my comments.
[deleted]
Folks here are prone to bad assumptions.
That is what I meant! That you will never be voting for Trump. You have claimed to be a "never-Trump" voter (and a "never-Biden" voter).
You have stated that intelligent people will not vote for Biden. But you explicitly did not include Trump in that statement.
You then stated that intelligent people will vote for someone other than Biden or Trump.
Given the next PotUS is almost certainly going to be Biden or Trump, there is no "someone" else. It is either Biden or Trump.
So who do the intelligent voters elect?
Assuming is one thing, deliberate misrepresentation another.
Please cease with the same questions which have been answered time and time again.
That is absurd. You are claiming that I deliberately tried to claim that you never voted for Trump. If you had never voted for Trump, that would actually improve your position in this discussion.
Your claim of misrepresentation is thus ridiculous.
What is the answer that you claim to have given?:
Who do the intelligent voters elect given the only possible choice of Biden or Trump?
This is getting completely ridiculous now.
I refer you AGAIN to post 2.1.52.
if you ask again I will consider it trolling
You should have made it clearer in your post, I merely went by what YOU wrote.
You never criticize Trump, other than a vague claim that you dont like him. Yet you attack Biden every day. The logical conclusion is that you may vote for Trump again if you see it as an either/or (which almost everyone will do).
You made your bed and now you have to lie in it.
An actual answer to the question:
is not:
That is evasion.
Your erroneous conclusions are not my problem.
I guess that's all you are going to get, whether you accept it or like it isn't my problem.
Maybe not, but your pointless answers are everyone who reads them problem.
Very simple solution, one so easy to see I am surprised you didn't think of it.
Only a problem to those that don't accept the answers as given. Interesting that it is always the same few that can't seem to understand what is written and continues to troll even after being asked to stop.
It is a sad thing that so many "public servants" think that shutting down the government and its services and support to so many is less important than their political agenda.
We need to remember that no matter which party is in power.
On the other hand, some are willing to die on the hill of fairness against a stacked deck.
I see no "hill of fairness" and no heroes voting for a government shutdown.
Please elucidate the positive aspects for the general public of a government shutdown
I'm not in favor of government shutdowns. I'm even less in favor of the way congress waits until the very last minute to pass budgets that are full of either pork or more recently, ideological spending on things like subsidies for solar companies and the manufacture of EVs that are not selling. The last few budgets were in the trillions of dollars and those who had to vote on them never even had time to read what was in them. In the meantime, we pass these emergency bills to keep it all going until the next deadline.
How about we stand up against all that?
By getting of the party line band wagon and electing public servants (regardless of party affiliation or better yet actual independents) -
We have surrendered government to the crazies on the right and the left and the majority of the America people (who are in the middle) pay the price.
If we continue to elect and support the same clowns on the right and the left then we will continue to reap these same results.
I have an in-law who talks the same way. I take it you might be in favor of the No-Labels party. I believe you already endorsed the idea in one of your blogs. I'm open to that. Where is the independent candidate for the 2024 presidential election?
Do you really believe you are in the "middle" ?
Liz Cheney could still possibility get into it.
There is also talk of drafting Mitt Romney.
Joe Manchin is supporting Biden, again...
Like you are!
Manchin will make an announcement (one way or the other) after super Tuesday.
I am a No Names or other alternative party supporter in principal, I would have to see the candidate before I decided to support him or her.
I would like to see Joe Manchin or someone else center aisle (rather than right or left) oriented in the Whote House
How many people do you think would vote for Manchin?
I would never claim to be in the middle, although there are social issues I am somewhat conservative on.
In order to be a true liberal you have to be liberal on economic issues, which I am, in addition to the social issues.
I think you are being modest. You are a good deal more than a "true liberal."
Yeah Vic , I'm a "communist"
How many people do you think would vote for Manchin?
I have no idea, that is precisely why we have elections.
How many might or might not vote for a third-party candidate should have no bearing on the peoples' right to have that choice to make for themselves.
As usual, I can't argue with logic.
You've convinced me.
Liz is DOA. Her 15 minutes of usefulness to leftists is over. She is back to being Darth Cheney's daughter.
Romney? Leftists would love that- I can see them dragging out all of the "magic underwear" jokes; "he put the family dog in a cage on top of the car"; and he ran a company that did medical testing on animals, destroyed companies, etc. It would be 2012 all over again.
You have proof Manchin is supporting Brandon? It would be news to him.
Isn't this the way minority politics works? Isn't this why Hamas took hostages? Isn't this why minority positions hold the US government hostage?
Party politics means elections are decided by slim margins. The majority of the electorate does not matter because they do tend to follow a conventional wisdom. It's minority factions that skew elections for a tiny fraction of votes. That's how minority politics works. That's who uses hostages to get what they want.
Had you omitted your "Hamas" reference you would have presented a very cogent argument.
That is why we need to more options for the electorate, if we had three, four or more parties with Congressman and Senators at all times, coalitions and compromises would have to be formed and the bet interests of the people would become more of a factor than the best interests of the Democrats or the Republicans.
Allow all voters to vote in all elections, including all primary elections. Doesn't that give voters more options? And it would be easier to put in place than mail-in voting.
Stop requiring voters to affiliate with a party to cast a ballot. It really is that simple.
That is fairly obvious.
We're supposed to believe Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jefferies (representing the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow) only act on behalf of the citizens of the United States.
Yeah, right. So, tell us, do all lives matter or not?
No more than we should believe that the current Republican Party factions dominated by the fringe right and Donald Trump represents the citizens of the U.S.
By the way the lunacy of your descriptors of the Democratic Party is laughable
7 pct of only Republicans chose Donald Trump to represent Iowa in the Presidential election. We're never going to overcome the party hold on government by ignoring how primary elections are used to rig the game. Blue faced complaining about the Republican Party won't accomplish a damned thing as long as the primary process remains unchanged.
The oh-so-woke liberal sermon to the country has been that we must accept an honest, clear-eyed, complete telling of history. The New York Times preached that sermon so it must be so. And a clear-eyed telling of the real history is that the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow. The Democrat Party caused the American Civil War to protect and expand the institution of chattel slavery in the United States. The South may try to hide that history and the North may try to ignore that history but that is a true, clear-eyed telling of the history of the Democrat Party.
Unfortunately, the Israeli military has joined the club:
Israelis debated for years about whether women should fight in the military. Now women are serving on the front lines.
Why not? If they want to, let them.
If they can go through the Marine Corps training the same as the men it might be ok.
I went through Marine Corps boot camp, served with women Marines, they were more than capable.
At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards (marinecorpstimes.com)
Fast forward to 2022, Ukraine,
As evidenced in Mogadishu when Rangers hesitated to shoot at female suicide bombers carrying an infant.
That is the purpose of boot camp.
Don't let the whole picture cloud your preconceptions.
I don't think anyone who survived PI or San Diego gives a damn about your opinion
on boot camp.
You don't think women wouldn't hesitate to shoot in the exact same situation?
Shooting men is one thing. Many women might even enjoy that. Shooting a woman holding and infant is another.
Nothing like comparing apples to bananas to try and prove a point.
If they want to, why not? The female soldiers are just as motivated as the males, if not more so.
Motivation is one thing; physical strength is another.
[deleted]
Two female paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne graduated from RANGER School. They competed in basic training, advanced infantry, jump school and then Ranger school.
Plus a female paratrooper of the 82nd was awarded the Silver Star when in combat she saved 5 fellow troopers.
I wonder if these women serve because of a phony slogan?
Which is what?
Be all that you can be.
Funny how the recruiters don't talk about vets living homeless. Or the suicide rate among vets. Or how good Marines make bad cops.
Thank you for your service! Now fuck off.
And don't forget the neglect that went on in the VA hospitals.
Or how good Marines make bad cops.
As a Marine widow once told me "They perform their duties well, but they become a little twisted!"
Thank you for your service! Now fuck off.
It is sad.
Notice how the politicians ONLY talk about it when it benefits something they want.
Why "unfortunately"?
From Bing AI Chat
According to a report by 24/7 Wall St., women serve in the military of 26 countries worldwide, making up more than 10% of military personnel in each of these countries 1. The report also states that many of these countries have opened combat positions to women in the last 20 years, with the vast majority now having no restrictions on women serving in roles that would put them on the front lines 1.
A fact-checking article by Channel 4 News lists more than 20 nations that allow women to fight in combat roles, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland 2.
I'm ok with women in supporting roles. I don't want them fighting on the front line.
Well I think you will need to get used to the idea, here in the 21st century. Women have proved themselves capable of excelling in combat and leadership roles around the world.
I am as old school as they come and this viewpoint was slow to develop, but it is reality
Three out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards:
At boot camp, 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards (marinecorpstimes.com)
Perhaps if more men enlisted in the service that wouldn't be a problem. Oh wait, there are numerous women in combat roles, 11th Airborne, 82nd Airborne to name a few.
Perhaps if we hadn't smeared them as white supremacists and kicked others out for not getting a vaccine, we wouldn't have such a problem.
Oh wait, there are numerous women in combat roles, 11th Airborne, 82nd Airborne to name a few.
Oh wait, three out of 4 can't meet combat standards!
Nice try but in reality:
In the Marine Corps, are you aware of what the 11th and 82nd Airborne are?
Oh, in the Marines 25% qualify do you want to throw them out?
I cited Marine Corp training. You have heard of that right?
Oh, in the Marines 25% qualify do you want to throw them out?
I don't want them serving on the front lines.
I know you cited the Marines and I acknowledged in my comment and yes I've heard of them. Have numerous relatives who are Marines, including my son. Where you in the Marines?
Too bad because they are and more will be from fighter pilots to air assault to paratroopers.
That's another fail.
Too bad because they are and more will be from fighter pilots to air assault to paratroopers.
So are the men that we have been emasculating.
Only in the eyes of those that have no knowledge of the military.
Could you give me examples of men that ''we'' have been emasculating? If men allow themselves to be emasculated they don't seem to have the backbone to be in the military.
A female armour company in the IFD's Caracal Battalion were heros on 7 Oct. They were one of the first unit to role that mourning to the fight. The left one tank to guard the breech in the fence while racing to a kibbutz. Between the Hamas that they killed on the road, and those at the kibbutz, they took out around 100. Their 120mm loaders were strong enough to put the ammo into the breach. I assume that they can also reset a slipped track.
Insubordination in the military isn't an option.
This reminds me of complaints that certain member judged to be partisans by other members are trying to force their world view on our conservative brethern.
No one forces them to log on
No one forces them to post "storie" or articles.
Certainly no one forces them to argue aimlessly for hours or days at a time.
But they willingly bitch about being victims
forcibly exposed to opposing opinions.
That is the definition of a snowflake.
The My Pillow MAGA Man Self Emasculation Kit
I'm sure there are women who can do the job.
How do you feel about reading about them as casualties or POWs?
This isn't about national security. For the left it is about inclusion.
I guess it comes right back to letting individuals make their own decisions about their bodies.
Some women just don't need big government making those decisions for them.
The same way I feel about females in police or fire protection. They know what they signed up for.
Then, how is Biden responsible for our deficit?
Congress contols the purse strings in the USA!
$Trillion budgets that he proposed.
Presidents don't spend any money at all.. Not one dime. It all has to be approved by congress.
How is he getting away with student loan forgiveness then?
Great question, but I doubt any answer is forthcoming.
That should be all the hints you need.
But GovCo is paying for the forgiveness. That should be all the hints you need.
.
.
I miss the Bushes, they kept sending everyone thousands of dollars every year because they could...
Do you mean the Bush II temporary tax change that Obama made permanent?
Don't forget Obama leveraged that tax cut. He was willing to let it all expire unless the Republicans went along with raising taxes on the upper 10% I believe- in exchange in making them permanent for everyone else.
Republicans should have called his bluff- and laid the blame of them expiring right at Obama's feet. If they were bad for the upper 10%, then they were bad for everyone. Instead they allowed Obama to have his cake and eat it too.
No, the surpluses that were distributed to taxpayers instead of applying them to the National Debt.
The tax cut in 2001 was extended in 2011 hurting the government income while both administrations increased spending for different reasons.
Okay then, why do you always tout how Traitor Joe lowered the deficit if he doesn't have a thing to do with it?
That is illogical.
Seems you want to give Joe credit for something he didn't do when it is convenient, and now it is convenient to say he doesn't have a thing to do with the deficits.
Maybe you should pick one and stick with it.
Seems you want to give Joe credit for something he didn't do when it is convenient, and now it is convenient to say he doesn't have a thing to do with the deficits.
it’s amazing to watch
Even more amazing? Trump initially complained about the economy after biden took office, now he is saying the strong economy is because of him. It's too stupid to make it up.
Besides you deflecting, absolutely no one is talking about Trump here.
Without even bothering to look, I'll bet there is at least one article dealing with Trump.
They both have a role and responsibly. Last February, Biden sent a budget request to the Hill that required a large deficit against projected revenue. Congress then develops the appropriates and sends it back to Biden, he can eith approve it or veto it - Civics 101.
And suddenly supporting Ukraine isn't as important. I guess doing something for the good of the country they represent is a problem with the Democrats.
I'm pretty sure he heard it. And like Hamas, Russia, Yemen and I ran, said fuck it. Sure wish we had a POTUS with a backbone.
I had seen something yesterday a mother is filing a $100 million lawsuit against Traitor Joe, Mayorkas and the rest of the misfit band of idiots claiming the death of her child was a direct result of their incompetence and failures.
That will go absolutely nowhere. Illegals killed Americans while trump was in office too, do you think trump should be sued as well? Of course not.
[deleted]
And you point would be what again? This wasn't filed against the Trump administartion. It was filed against Traitor Joe's administration. Please try to keep up.
That's where we go for common sense, don't ya know!
You are amazing.
Do you have anything of importance to say?
Take the compliment!
I am. Always knew I infatuated him.
Americans have never been to good at geography - thank you public education.
T he White House confirmed U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi insurgents of Yemen, destroying anti-ship missiles the Houthis were preparing to launch.
Despite this, the Houthis managed to hit a Greek-owned cargo ship in the Red Sea.
The U.S. is not seeking war but expects retaliatory strikes. U.S. and allied naval forces have effectively intercepted Houthi attacks, preventing major casualties .
U.S. Conducts More Airstrikes Against Houthi Anti-Ship Missile Launchers (msn.com)
So glad Brandon has 3/4 of our fleet bobbing around in the Red Sea; and off the coast of Israel/Lebanon as target practice for Iranian drones (air and sea); and land to ship missiles. The Iranians couldn't ask for a better testing ground.
He is doing just enough to really piss the Iranians, Houthi, and Hezbollah off w/o doing any real damage to their operations.
Hope everyone enjoys the delay in goods and added costs from international fleets running around the Horn of Africa instead of using the Suez Canal.
It's like tying Marciano's hands behind his back before he enters the ring.
He is doing just enough to really piss the Iranians, Houthi, and Hezbollah off w/o doing any real damage to their operations.
He really expected the word "don't" to be enough.
Hope everyone enjoys the delay in goods and added costs from international fleets running around the Horn of Africa instead of using the Suez Canal.
The globalists elites can afford it. The rest of us can eat cake.