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.

  • SilverserenOP
    2•6 months ago

    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.

    • Snot FlickermanEnglish
      11•6 months ago

      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 and knew they couldn’t prove otherwise in court.

      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.