Displaying 61 To 90 Of 1,008 Comments In the Era of Trump, There’s One Main Question. Why? I never said YOU said our government is hypocritical. I said that MYSELF, because history reflects that. Further, I don’t know what your “research” shows but I do know that a very large segment of Americans in general don’t vote on a consistent basis, and especially some demographics, like young people and minorities, especially low income minorities. These are the demographics who if they did vote, they would vote for Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, are in the minority and their base is declining primarily because old white men are dying. I don’t appreciate how YOU distorted my comment on your post. If you preferred I don’t respond to your post, I am happy to oblige you. However, if and when I respond to a post, it will be MY opinion. GOOD DAY, SIR! » Posted By TOCB On January 27, 2020 @ 5:20 am Why? Because the MAIN element of a government of, for, and by the people, DO NOT show up. The PEOPLE. Trump is one person. The GOP is one political party. GOP voters are a minority of the PEOPLE. IF we actually have a democratic republic or even a representative democratic republic, the majority SHOULD rule, IF the majority shows up to participate in the process. Our “democracy” has been rigged from the beginning, as in the beginning only white males could participate in the “democratic” government. Black people were freed from slavery and given the right to vote in 1870. Actually, the Fifteenth Amendment even gave black women the right to vote, since it extended to citizens, the right to vote without regard to race, color or previous condition of servitude. After reconstruction ended, the right to vote for black people was taken away again. White women were only allowed to participate in “democracy” beginning in 1920. So our “democratic” government prevented the PEOPLE from being able to “show up” for most of our existence. Today, the PEOPLE for the most part choose not to show up. Humans do immoral things because we are imperfect beings. Regardless of how effective and efficient our form of government is, PEOPLE will always do immoral things. However, as to the question of why is our form of government a “hypocritical democracy” is primarily because we are a hypocritical PEOPLE. » Posted By TOCB On January 26, 2020 @ 3:41 am Celebrating Martin Luther King in a White Nationalist America I grew up in the Jim Crow south, so I understand the thing about, “that’s just the way it was”. During slavery and Jim Crow, white people did not have to apologize for being racist. That was just the way it was. And many white people who practiced racism and looked the other, even if they didn’t practice it a much as their family and friends, were actually fairly nice people. At this age and stage, I don’t hold it against them. However, I still don’t understand how a human could treat another human the way white people treated black people in those days. And believe it or not, many white people still do it as much as they can get away it. Most of trump’s supporters and the GOP are comprised of that kind of people. But humans are not born with racist genes. It is something that is learned and taught from generation to generation, not so much now as in the past. I think when people of my generation die off, those who perpetrated it and those who were forced to endure it, it will help the decline in racism. » Posted By TOCB On January 25, 2020 @ 11:47 am So trump’s legal team is defending him. What I gleaned from Jay Sekulow is that since assistance to other nations is frequently put on hold for legitimate reasons, it was within trump’s authority to place of hold on Ukraine assistance, for legitimate reasons. The other defense so far, is that trump did not honor any subpoenas because the House did not have the authority to issue subpoenas. We all know, of course, that the House has SOLE POWER to impeach. So if they don’t have the power to issue subpoenas to determine if they should impeach, how can they impeach? I wonder if trump’s legal team realize that their audience is more than trump. It is actually senators, most of whom are attorneys, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the American people (not just trump supporters, but ALL of the American people). » Posted By TOCB On January 25, 2020 @ 8:58 am Racism is indeed a learned behavior. One personal example (and I have MANY) is when one of my daughters was six years old and was outside playing with the next-door neighbor’s daughter of the same age. A friend of the neighbor’s daughter came by and made the comment that the neighbor’s daughter was gross, because she was playing with a n***er. The little girl who said this was also six years old. Where do you suppose the little girl “learned” that attitude? » Posted By TOCB On January 25, 2020 @ 8:47 am Mitch McConnell, The Gravedigger Of American Democracy I guess that McConnell will also refuse to allow witnesses, or evidence. Making the impeachment of our criminal president a hoax, and a scam. Moscow Mitch apparently got his law degree from trump university, because he doesn’t seem to understand how a trial works. The Senate is the jury, not the judge. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the trial. Presiding over a trial includes maintaining order, which includes deciding what witnesses and evidence to allow. The jury does not get to decide what witnesses are allowed to testify, nor do they determine what evidence is admissible. The only thing the jury does is listen to the witnesses and the evidence and then they render a verdict. Of course Justice Roberts and Senate Democrats can let republicans get away with rigging the trial if they choose to do so, but they don’t have to. Democrats can force Justice Roberts to weigh in publicly on what presiding over the trial means. Does it mean republicans get to stage a scam trial, or does Justice Roberts require them to do impartial justice, according the oath he administered to them? » Posted By TOCB On January 20, 2020 @ 5:23 pm A ‘Sham Trial’ Will Not Exonerate Trump Nothing in the Constitution supports the notion that an impeachment trial in the Senate should be any different from a trial in any court. I know the press promotes this, but there is absolutely zero support for it in the Constitution. The only difference is that senators are the jury. They are not the judge. That is why the chief justice presides over the trial, as opposed to the majority leader. That is also PROBABLY why the special oath of affirmation to do impartial justice is required to be taken by each senator. Just because Rehnquist did not assert the normal responsibilities of a judge, does not mean Roberts can’t. I don’t believe Roberts can be overruled by a Senate vote as it relates to him “presiding” over the trial. Again, the question is what does preside mean. The Constitution does not indicate that “preside” has a different meaning in a Senate impeachment trial than it does in a regular court proceeding. » Posted By TOCB On January 16, 2020 @ 4:39 pm Politicians often bank on citizens not knowing what the laws actually say. However, some of us lay people actually study the law to understand it. We are all obligated to obey the laws, so it is incumbent on us to at least have a cursory understanding of laws, and if we can read and comprehend, we can glean more details about laws. The Constitution does not provide for the Senate to dismiss an impeachment. It requires the Senate to “try all impeachments”. So there MUST be a trial. Now the question becomes, what is a trial, and how does the chief justice “preside” over an impeachment trial. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec2 Article 3 of the Constitution does not set out the role of the chief justice in an impeachment trial, but Article 2 says the chief justice shall preside over the trial. So, what is the role of a judge when he/she presides over a trial? The judge presides over the trial from a desk, called a bench, on an elevated platform. The judge has five basic tasks. The first is simply to preside over the proceedings and see that order is maintained. The second is to determine whether any of the evidence that the parties want to use is illegal or improper. Third, before the jury begins its deliberations about the facts in the case, the judge gives the jury instructions about the law that applies to the case and the standards it must use in deciding the case. Fourth, in bench trials, the judge must also determine the facts and decide the case. The fifth is to sentence convicted criminal defendants. http://www.flnd.uscourts.gov/role-judge-and-other-courtroom-participants Does “preside” simply mean to maintain order, or does it include determining whether evidence is illegal and improper, as well as instructing the jury (the Senate) about the law that applies to the case? If Chief Justice Roberts role includes determining whether evidence is illegal or improper, he can decide if testimony from Joe and Hunter Biden is improper. Article 2 requires senators to take an oath of affirmation to do impartial justice, so will Chief Justice Roberts instruct ALL senators to remember their oath in deliberations? In an impeachment trial, not only is the president on trial, but both chambers of Congress are on trial related to their loyalty to the Constitution. » Posted By TOCB On January 16, 2020 @ 6:26 am The 2002 Authorization Vote on Iraq – The Big Lie I think part of our difference of opinion on why Dems shouldn’t have trusted Bush’s assurances that he wasn’t using the AUMF to go to war with Iraq is that you express a view of how a president’s word should be ideally regarded while my view incorporates how that particular president and his words should have been viewed. I think you might be right. Personally, I supported the 2002 resolution, although I opposed the invasion and quite frankly thought it violated both U.S. and international law. Democrats who supported the resolution did so as a means to first resolve the Iraq issue after 9/11 in a peaceful manner, but if that failed they were prepared to use military force. That is the part that I agreed with then as well as now, and I think that is where Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and others were then and now, if the truth be known. Here is the problem. We agree that the Constitution tasked Congress with the authority and responsibility to declare war. We also agree that Congress has not used that authority since WWII. We may or may not agree that in 1973 Congress gave the president the authority to use military force without a declaration of war under certain circumstances, but still in consultation with Congress, i.e., The War Powers Act of 1973. Introduced in Senate (01/18/1973) https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/440 Since 1973 presidents don’t need a resolution or AUMF from Congress to engage the military in conflicts, as long as there is an imminent threat to the U.S. or our allies. Congressional resolutions are only used to show that Congress supports the president in a particular conflict. When we elect any president, we are saying that we trust their judgment to use the military, pursuant to the War Powers Act, at their discretion. So without the 2002 resolution Bush 43 could have and no doubt would have used the military to invade Iraq. In the view of some congressional Democrats the resolution was for the purpose of giving peace a chance. The U.N. did not sanction the use of military force. They only agreed to send weapons inspectors back to Iraq. That is also the position congressional Democrats supported. In 1998, Saddam expelled the weapons inspectors. In 2003, he did not. However, Bush pulled the inspectors so he could invade Iraq. The judgment and responsibility for the invasion of Iraq is fully and squarely on Bush and congressional republicans, because that was ALWAYS their intent. Could Bush and congressional republicans have used the votes of congressional Democrats to persuade the public that the invasion was necessary? Of course they could, and they did, in spite of the objection of every congressional Democrat to the rush to war. As I stated in my original post, the problem I have with the big lie is how Democrats, including President Obama, who was actually the first presidential candidate to use it as a political strategy, as well as the so-called liberal media, used and continue to use such a serious issue as war for PURELY POLITICAL PURPOSES. » Posted By TOCB On January 19, 2020 @ 4:08 am I think Tom Hartman initially blamed Democrats who voted for the 2002 resolution for supporting the war in Iraq. In this article he seems to blame them for trusting that Bush 43, the president of the United States, would act in the best interest of the United States, and not abuse the authority granted to him by the Constitution and Congress. https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013/03/did-congress-really-vote-iraq-war Maybe I am just different from most people, but I don’t hold it against members of Congress who trusted the president, as I think ALL Americans should be able to trust the president. There were conditions in the resolution to prevent a well-intentioned president from using military force unnecessarily. Bush ignored those conditions. Because DEMOCRATIC politicians have used the 2002 resolution as a political tool and have lied about those who voted for it, more Americans blame Hillary Clinton for the invasion of Iraq than blame George W Bush. One reason for that is because republicans STILL think the invasion was justified, so Bush doesn’t get negative reviews from them, while Democrats who don’t think the invasion was justified (me being one of them) look on those who voted for the resolution as a peace resolution as having bad judgment. From my perspective, THAT is a lack of judgment on the part of those people. » Posted By TOCB On January 17, 2020 @ 4:53 am Respectfully, I totally disagree with the premise that the 2002 resolution was not written and passed as an attempt to peaceably persuade Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to give an accounting of WMD, regardless of what so-called peace activists thought. I challenge the peace activists to actually read the resolution. In fact, I too was a peace activist and I supported the resolution, but not the invasion of Iraq. From my perspective the ones who displayed a lack of judgment where those who voted against giving peace a chance, and they compound that by putting Democrats who supported the resolution for peaceful purposes with republicans who supported it for war. Additionally, the majority of Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of the resolution, while the majority of Democrats in the House voted against it. Voters in New York supported Hillary Clinton’s vote, as 83% of Democrats voted for her re-election in the 2006 primary for the senator of New York, and 67% voted for her in the general election. Another point to consider is that at the time of the invasion 90% of Americans supported it. That 90% mathematically had to include many who now blame people like Hillary Clinton, but not themselves https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168-general/37699.html By November 2002, a Gallup poll showed 59 percent in favor of an invasion and only 35 percent against. In a December Los Angeles Times poll, Americans thought, by a 90 percent to 7 percent margin, that Saddam was “currently developing weapons of mass destruction.” And, in an ABC/Washington Post poll, 81 percent thought Iraq posed a threat to the United States. The Bush administration had won the domestic debate over Iraq–and it had done so by withholding from the public details that would have undermined its case for war. Bush always maintained that he did not need the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq. He was content on using the same resolution Bush 41 used to push Iraq from Kuwait in the first Gulf war. So I do not buy into the notion that either Democrats who voted for the resolution or those who voted against it supported or in any way contributed to Bush illegally using it as justification to invade Iraq, and I think those who hold Democrats who voted for peace as being responsible for that invasion allow republicans to make the false claim that even Democrats voted for the war with Iraq. The truth is that there were only two Democrats who voted for that resolution who also supported the rush to war, that being Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. » Posted By TOCB On January 16, 2020 @ 4:19 pm So if 21 of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution, that means 29 of 50 Democratic senators voted in favor of it. In hind-site everyone can see how Bush and congressional republicans misused it, but should we not make laws because there is a chance someone will misuse them? If someone misuses a law, that person should be held accountable for that, not those who made the law, if the law was otherwise a good law. I contend that the resolution was sold to Congress and to the American people not as a war resolution but as a peace resolution, and Senator Clinton CLEARLY stated that as the reason her voted for it at the time she registered her vote. Some congressional democrats saw the resolution as a war resolution all along, and did not have faith that the president would use it as it was passed, or the ability of Congress to prevent the president from abusing the law. I come down firmly on the side of those who voted to give peace a chance. The most egregious thing about the resolution to me, is how politicians like Obama and Sanders and others have lied about it in order to get a political advantage about their supposed superior judgment. One provision of the resolution that its critics COMPLETLY IGNORES is that it required the president to come to Congress before using military force and present a case that diplomatic efforts had failed. Bush DID NOT do that. If I recall correctly, the public protests were against the “rush to war”, and Hillary Clinton protested that as well. Trump has attempted to use that same resolution to attack Iran, EVEN THOUGH the resolution was specific to Iraq. So are the 29 Democratic senators who voted for the resolution in 2002 responsible for trump using it to assassinate Soleimani as well? At some point perpetuating the lie must end, and the people who abuse the law are the ones who should be held accountable. » Posted By TOCB On January 16, 2020 @ 6:53 am Has America Ever Really Been A Democracy? I suspect you know this, but maybe you view it in a different perspective than I do. When our country began, only white male landowners could vote. For a brief period after the civil war, black men could vote, but that did not last very long. It wasn’t until 1920 that even white women could vote, and it wasn’t until 1965 that black people could vote again. Today, for whatever reason(s), in most national elections fewer than 60% of eligible voters vote. So, you were saying??? » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 8:41 am A basic tenet of democracy is majority rule. We have never had that, even through our representative government. When a presidential candidate receives 3 million more votes than her opponent, but the one who received fewer votes wins, that is NOT democracy. When nine people are able to determine what our Constitution says, in their opinions, not based on the intent of the law, but rather on political ideology, that is not democracy. Yet, a “democratic” process is required to change these undemocratic laws, that were not originally put in plant by democracy. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 8:02 am In your opinion she is not. In my opinion she is. Hillary is currently involved in helping people run for public office, among other things that are relevant to the future. The future is shaped by how we respond to the past and the present. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 7:55 am It is still not a democracy. Yes, we CLAIM to be a democracy, but we are far from it. Currently 538 people get to decide who our president is, in spite of how over 120 million people voted. Nine people get to decide what our Constitution actually says, based on political ideology. Our so-called justice system could not be more unjust. Well, I guess it COULD be, but not by much. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 6:37 am EVERYONE is still relevant. Bill and Hillary Clinton were two of the most savvy politicians in modern history, and they COULD help to move the Democratic Party, and more importantly, the country forward. Hillary is even more relevant because of the way she was treated when she ran for president, SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN. Until America reconciles that, we are stuck on stupid, as evidenced by the fact that at least forty percent of us made a “binary choice” that someone with the moral character of trump was even CLOSE to a better choice than Hillary. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 6:31 am She could never get out of her own way? Please expound. She won the popular vote. She underwent a fake FBI investigation during her campaign, while her opponent’s FBI investigation was kept secret. Her opponent worked with Putin to interfere in the election and PROBABLY even changed ballots. She is a WOMAN! Give me ONE person who could have or have done what she did, with those things against them. PLUS, everything non-republicans held against her, they are willing to excuse them with other people. For instance, the 1994 crime bill that she could not have voted for, but Biden actually helped to write. Or the resolution to support Bush’s effort to ask the U.N. to send weapons inspectors back to Iraq. Sanders says he voted against the war with Iraq, and Obama campaigned on saying he would have voted against that war. The FACT is there was never a vote in Congress to go to war with Iraq. Instead Bush used a resolution that was sold to the American public and Congress as a peace resolution, to illegally invade Iraq. And Democrats let him off the hook by promoting the notion that Hillary Clinton voted for a war with Iraq, and John Kerry voted for a funding bill before he voted against it. This supports that if Democratic voters had a rabbit’s brain, they would hop backwards. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 6:22 am Hillary? A First Lady with a rather unspectacular career as a civil servant, who had a shot at the Bigs; but blew it because she failed to actually say anything. She became a live target for the Base. They killed her political aspirations. I would never have voted for her, because she was in the inner circle of the devisers of the “War on Drugs/The People.” I have often said that Hillary Clinton eats sh*t and runs rabbits; but I have never once called her a “bitch.” I swear. This post was what was on my mind when I responded to your post. You did not post this, so I was not saying YOU degraded anyone. I just said I don’t see any value in that. Actually, as I re-read your post that I responded to, I agree with most of it. I have never been one to cast a protest vote though. Voting for Nader, to me, is a protest vote. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 6:06 am wrong post. » Posted By TOCB On January 13, 2020 @ 6:05 am I didn’t say there was one picture. You said that. And that is trolling. I don’t recall saying anything about a picture. Also, by saying that you and I were on Yabberz is revealing your identity and could possibly get you killed??? I don’t recall the environment around how the U.S. got involved in the civil war in Yugoslovia, but I believe it was NATO that bombed them, not the USA. My son actually served with a peacekeeping force in that war. but the Clintons should have known better. I have hear this statement a lot regarding the Clintons. Hillary should have known that George W Bush was going to hijack the Resolution To Use Military Force Against Iraq as an excuse to invade Iraq. Bill should have known better about something related to how republicans abused and misapplied the 1994 crime bill. You can disagree with the someone’s decisions, but to hold them accountable for something that someone else did because YOU think they should have known better is pretty condescending. and they bury people alive in a hellish prison system who have done no harm. Of course drugs are an escape. From people like you. People who never fairly discuss any subject. I am a black male who grew up in the southern USA during Jim Crow when NO ONE apologized for oppressing and exploiting black people. So, I don’t need ANYONE to lecture me about a hellish system. Been there, and done that! » Posted By TOCB On January 12, 2020 @ 8:51 am I am not sure what your main point is/was. So the Clintons are bad people because they attended one of trump’s weddings? I am sure you are proud of your accolades, but I am not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. I have read reports that trump and Epstein together raped a 13 year old girl. I also read where Bill Clinton was on a plane trip with Epstein related to something having to do with the Clinton Foundation. In point of fact, I read as recently as today that Epstein had donated money to MIT. I suppose that makes MIT a child molester? I don’t begrudge you your opinions and perspectives, but I prefer dealing in facts. » Posted By TOCB On January 11, 2020 @ 8:17 am I think you and I had similar discussions when we were on Yabberz. The so-called war of drugs began under the Reagan administration. Neither Bill or Hillary had anything to do with that. If you are referencing the 1994 crime bill, which I supported because gangs and drug dealers were killing innocent men, women and children IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, republicans used that bill as a racist tool rather than to prosecute criminals. Not to get into a back and forth about our different perspectives, but you can close your eyes to what actually happened related to the crime bill. » Posted By TOCB On January 11, 2020 @ 8:07 am No, the USA has never been a democracy. The founders and framers of the Constitution laid a framework for a democracy and they set a goal of becoming a more perfect union. I suppose it is unquestionable that we have become a “more” perfect union, but we are a long way from being perfect. » Posted By TOCB On January 11, 2020 @ 5:45 am Everyone is entitle to their preferences. I disagree with almost everything in your post, but I respect your right to say it. I don’t see any value in degrading people who have a history of helping others. It is extremely difficult for me not to degrade people like trump and his supporters. I guess I have to feel comfort in knowing that I actually don’t degrade people, but I do degrade their words and their actions. » Posted By TOCB On January 11, 2020 @ 5:39 am Comments like this at the very least feeds into the lies republicans have promoted about Hillary Clinton for almost three decades. If the people who constantly criticize Hillary had a very small fraction of her grace and integrity, the world would be a better place. I would venture to say that she has probably never called you a “bitch” either. » Posted By TOCB On January 11, 2020 @ 5:31 am Projection Is Confession: Decoding Trump’s ‘Tells’ I think it is dangerous to promote the narrative that we are in a post-truth world. Everyone have unique perspectives and opinions, but there is generally only one truth. There are no alternative truths. What people refer to as alternative truths, are lies. Just because someone doesn’t accept the truth or doesn’t know the truth or chooses to ignore the truth, does not change what the truth is. Everyone knows that what trump and Fox “News” promote are lies. It would probably help if real news outlets stopped pretending that Fox “News” is a legitimate news outlet. For a long time it was a republican propaganda outlet, and now it is a trump propaganda outlet. » Posted By TOCB On December 30, 2019 @ 3:17 pm Pelosi Should Add to Impeachment Articles if McConnell Won’t Allow Fair Trial Now that Giuliani claims that he has PROOF of money laundering involving the Bidens, republicans MUST allow him to testify to show what that proof is. Yes, that would probably mean Joe and Hunter Biden would have to testify as well, but if they have not done anything wrong and trump actually had justified reasons to investigate them, that should be revealed as well. If we want facts, we have to be willing to see ALL facts. Not alternative facts, but facts. President Trump’s personal lawyer and former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, joins Glenn at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit. He presents Glenn documents that prove Democrat corruption in Ukraine. Specifically, the documents show that Burisma committed a money laundering scheme to get millions of dollars into the pockets of board members…like Hunter Biden. It seems though from his interview that he only claims that the former president of Ukraine, who btw was a Putin puppet as trump is, moved $14 million through Cyprus to board members of Burisma, and Hunter Biden was a member of the board. He doesn’t mention anything that Joe Biden had to do with that, or that Hunter Biden had anything to with it other than being a member of the board. Maybe he can claim that Hunter SHOULD have known about the supposed money laundering. So they are claiming that trump legitimately held up security assistance to Ukraine because he was REALLY legitimately concerned about general corruption in Ukraine that happened to have involved the Bidens, and that would make article one of the impeachment invalid. The problem with that theory though is if the theory is true, WHY did trump eventually release the money? » Posted By TOCB On December 21, 2019 @ 5:36 am I love your idea! One of the republicans’ complaints about the House impeachment is that they didn’t take trump’s bait to have the court process drag out the impeachment. Now that he has been impeached and the Senate publicly refuses to have a fair and impartial trial, the House definitely should used that time to go through the court process and issue subpoenas to Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, Rick Perry, Bolton, Pence and anyone else who was “in the loop” of the “drug deal”. Additionally, beginning in January we will be fully into the election year and Democrats should bombard the airways with ads of how the Republican Senate is conspiring with trump’s legal team to cover up his “drug deal”. They can even use the rebuttal to the State Of The Union Address to make this point. LOVE IT!!! » Posted By TOCB On December 21, 2019 @ 5:11 am Facing Facts: The GOP is a Russian Asset I want to believe that MOST Americans will not support a political party that values Putin and Russia more than they do Americans, even Democratic Americans. I disagree with MOST republican policies, but I do not value Putin above republicans who put the interest of the country ahead of their party. So, the challenge for those of us who place country ahead of party is to enthusiastically participate in the democratic process and vote for leaders who support our country. I suppose not putting my political party above my country is just ANOTHER thing I disagree with republicans about. » Posted By TOCB On December 10, 2019 @ 4:36 amComments Posted By TOCB
War Powers Act – Declares that it is the purpose of this Act to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of the Armed Forces of the United States in hostilities, or in situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats