Trump Pauses Military Aid to Ukraine After Clash With Zelenskiy
-
worst case is sending it to russia
It was a joke it's not for russia...
-
they are helping russia…
this one
-
Republicans hold the majority in congress, so they're refusing to push back and are just allowing him to usurp power from them.
-
The way it should be
-
I saw you around, and I know also you are Italian, so I will tell you in a way you understand. You are being a “puntalcazzista” to throw shade on Ukraine with vague racism claims. Anybody with a pulse will understand that “shooting every Russian on the spot” means “shooting every invader”
You must be new here, people have been racist toward russians for a good time.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/27157199
How exactly i'm throwing shade on ukraine by pointing out a racist generalization in comment?
-
The average us citizen doesn’t have a solid grasps of how our government actually works.
Defunding education and gutting curriculum and removing civics education has … been impactful.
-
You’re either not understanding the intent of their message or you’re willfully twisting it.
That’s what is being pointed out.
They’re clearly referencing the invaders, you misunderstood and took umbrage where you didn’t need to. Having been corrected you’re still pushing the idea that they were being racist.
You’re acting in bad faith.
-
It isn't daft. The Republicans since Reagan have pushed a fringe legal theory called the Unitary Executive Theory. Basically, they want the president to fully control the executive branch and military such that theirs is the only voice that matters for much of the government. Not unlike a king, but partially checked by congress and the courts. They have been taking (illegal) actions to try to get sued, and also have been suing others/other branches of government, to try to get the Supreme Court to hear cases that will support this fringe legal theory so that it becomes the law of the land.
I am not a lawyer, but this is possibly something Trump can legally do since he is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. However, this seems more like an apportionment thing Congress has allocated funds to send military aid to Ukraine. So, even if Trump as Commander in Chief could say "no more weapons to ukraine", it seems doubtful to me that he could (legally) stop weapons shipments currently en route.
But, by the time whatever government office sues the office of the president to get a judge to enjoin them to send the agreed upon weapons that were already apportioned, it will already have hurt Ukraine somewhat. Trump often weaponizes inefficiency. And these sort of illegal acts aren't crimes per se - they're just procedural breaches - the legal remedy is just to reverse the action.
So, probably not legal. But Trump gets to weaponize his administration's incompetence (or feigned incompetence) to at least delay aid.
-
What a fucking nonsensical comment
You gotta go for quality over quantity if you really want to impress the handlers
-
Laws only have value as long as someone is willing to enforce them. It's all a social construct.
I'm not from the US and am far from being a legal expert, but your country appears to be close to being lawless (or is getting there at an accelerated pace).
-
What a fucking nonsensical comment
same for yours
-
I am not new, but I have a skill that you might find useful, it's called "context".
racist generalization in comment?
Because there is no any racial generalization. From the context it was clear to anybody who is in good faith what OP meant. Even if it wasn't, OP comment was a statement on what is happening, so your remark "I hope they don't..." doesn't make any fucking sense, because you can just check what they are doing. Currently Russians in Ukraine that are being shot are invading troops.
So let's make a parallel. "Partisans were shooting germans", in the context of Italian resistance. Do you think it's a racist remark? Would you feel the need to say " oh boy, I hope they don't shoot German civilians", "oh, there are ethnical Germans in the north, I hope they are not shooting them".
No you wouldn't, because what you are doing is not in good faith, you are not raising any valid concern, you are just purposefully misunderstanding OP to stir shit. -
It's not a narrative though
-
It could very well be
-
It is being denied. Had some chud on here mocking me the other day (at about a 4th grade writing level) for saying as much.
-
You’re either not understanding the intent of their message or you’re willfully twisting it.
How i'm twisting anything? To me it looks like you are try to twist things here accusing me of being in bad faith when i simply pointed out yet another discrimination against "russians" as if they were all bad. Are you aware that there are russian people living in ukraine?
-
It could very well be
-
Does your god have anti-air missiles they could use?
-
you aware that there are russian people
Some of them are getting shot.
The once belonging to an army who is invading.
The random resident who immigrated is not being shotHow a statement such as "they are shooting Russians on the spot" discriminatory? It's a statement, not even a call to do that.
Stop embarrassing yourself, take the L and just close this post, PD. -
partisans were shooting germans troops, soldiers or the nazi they weren't “shooting every german on the spot"
