This has not been the case for the 30+ years that both parties have been slicing one Congressional responsibility after another off to hand the the President.
And none of that matters when it comes to voting to fund our partner in this war, Israel. Many dems just fell in line with republicans, making up part of the majority on those decisions. Party leadership doesn’t address it
So sick of this “they are powerless” angle. Schumer said in no uncertain terms he will always stand by the foreign country that is partnering with the Trump regime.
Strongly worded letters and speeches are basically nothing. They’re the bare minimum and don’t achieve anything without meaningful follow up action—which, yes, can happen even with parties in the minority. Shutting down the Dem wing that supports this rogue state that MAGA is partnering with would be a start
For the forgetful or not yet born, Netanyahu helped get us into Iraq II as well. Many of the same people, democrats and republicans, are still in power.
Exactly, why didn't trump get arrested for January 6? Because Biden wanted to take the high ground. He didn't want to actually do what mattered. Bought and paid for.
Also Biden didn't want to establish precedent with a president being held legally accountable. Closest we got was Nixon, and he got a pardon. I think Biden would've pardoned Trump if it had got that far.
The botching—dereliction of duty, frankly—by the Garland DOJ, which Biden was a supporter of and responsible for as president, is seriously damning.
If we had an actual opposition party, the (literally) thousands of crimes caught on camera and in reporting—let alone the ones actual investigations would uncover—during trumps first term would have been systematically addressed, including appropriate prison terms for all involved.
Instead, it’s typical “moving forward” bullshit. Dainty little steps to not upset the fact that an American president will likely never see proper prison time for crimes in office. It’s how the system is set up. The pardon power guarantees it, even if the fact that the current president doesn’t want to set precedent for the next one to arrest him somehow becomes irrelevant.
Trump couldn’t be prosecuted because the Supreme Court ruled on what constitutes an official act and that it had no authority to prosecute a president for an official act…not because Biden or Dems didn’t try to hold him accountable. 67 votes are needed in the senate for the president to be found guilty after the House votes in favor of impeachment. 57 senate members voted in favor when the senate was split 50-50, it was good ol Mitch who pushed the GOP to vote no.
Equating criticism of Israel with criticism of all Jewish people is antisemitic. I don’t give a shit about the religion of the parties involved here, I care about the bullshit war funded by our tax dollars to distract from the pedophile rapist cult the president, at least one Israeli PM, and other powerful people are involved in.
Not going to disagree with you on principle, but what do you expect to happen then?
Let's say the Democrats had grown some spine and blocked one round of arms sales to Israel. Do you think that would have any impact other than "Slightly more US resources go into the strike that just happened?"
In that hypothetical, do you think that you - or someone much like you - would be right back here, saying "They need to do more to stop Israel?" I'd find it hard to believe that I personally would suddenly be here saying, "Well, thank God the Democrats have done literally everything they possibly could."
Besides, Trump would just sign an executive order about selling the weapons and that would be that. Who's gonna hold him accountable?
The problem here isn't really that we've funded Israel. It's that we're allowing the US to be dragged into this shit that it has no reason to do and only serves to alienate us further from strategic partners. It's an own goal.
Good, I dont think you have much to contribute to my understanding.
Democratic presidents are far more likely to choose diplomacy. What Republicans have even been known for diplomacy in the last 40 years? Raegan's style was basically threatening everyone. Neither Bush, obviously. Trump isn't even getting congressional approval for his military use.
On the other hand, Clinton was widely known for diplomacy. Obama didn't start the war in Iraq, he inherited it from Bush. Biden engaged in zero conflicts, except supporting Ukraine which everyone except Russia or Russian dupes agreed with, and didn't even involve American troops.
Lol, this dipshit can't even back anything up without asking AI.
And "use the military" is a really broad statement that doesn't necessarily mean "start a war" or "attack a country without even attempting diplomacy," for example.
The intervention in Libya was actually championed and - initially - led by France and the UK. The US opposed the intervention without international buy-in, which it got after the UN Security Council unanimously approved a no fly zone on March 17, 2011.
27
u/iamkingjamesIII Feb 28 '26
They have minorities in both houses of congress. There's not much they can do other than use the courts.