And almost ironically, it's making him more electable as interest in the dog and pony show has declined and Trump has another "swamp" campaign in him, and the Dems are setting the Dems up later for one of their presidents to be impeached for something vague.Only the 3rd president ever to be impeached.
Won't amount to a hill o beans though will it, because there is Bob Hope of him being removed from office and also because this has purely been done down partisan lines, it looks nothing like a due impeachment process where the GOP and Dem Reps are SUPPOSED to act as impartial jurors. They have done nothing of the sort, which has cheapened the whole process IMHOOnly the 3rd president ever to be impeached.
Still not been impeached yet. Seems the Dems aren't willing to serve the papers to the Senate. Bit of a strange one eh?
It is strange in that the Dems said time and time and time and time again that it was a clear cut case for impeachment, but refuse to serve the papers up to proceed with the impeachment. What are they worried about? It leads one to suppose it's a partisan exercise rather than a clear cut impeachment case that they know will fall unless they can control the entire process - a no no, I'm sure you'd agree.
I note one US senator is putting papers forth to try and cancel the process if Dems don't serve the papers soon as it's wasting time.
Trump is a very dangerous man. Whether the actions taken in Baghdad were warranted or not he has probably done this for his up and coming election campaign.Au contraire. One faux moderate poster on this very thread always sees Trump as a victim of the eternally evil 'leftie' Democrats. Anyone criticising Trump on here has fallen for baseless leftie propaganda.
What concerns me is that he doesnβt consider the effect his actions have on the wider communities.
With apparent financial stability in the markets after a long period of recession we seem to have a president hell bent on causing disruption with retaliation against not only USA but us as a consenting partner.
He is now on record as stating that they will take disproportionate action in the event of any attacks against the USA.
The British woman βspyβ might, for example, find her situation becomes more uncomfortable too.
Trump wouldn't want to deny it - he wanted to boast about it. And if he could do so using advanced US drone tech to do it, demonstrating their advantage over the countries without it then he'd want to do that as well.The Americans do like their military toys but they can do asymmetric war so why they didn't take him out using methods that have plausible deniability I don't know.
Trump wouldn't want to deny it - he wanted to boast about it. And if he could do so using advanced US drone tech to do it, demonstrating their advantage over the countries without it then he'd want to do that as well.
I was there as far as thatcher was concerned the Falklands were British and had been invaded. No talk about America and Granada 20,000 troops and 17,000 got bravery medals for an ill equipped rag taggle of a few militants.Worked wonderfully for Thatcher in 1982. 300 British dead, circa 800 Argentinian dead, countless servicemen wounded to take back a pile of rocks in the south Atlantic unheard of by 99.9% of the UK population and inhabited by 2,000 people who vaguely thought of themselves as 'British' but wanted the military gone as soon as possible after the war. (They didn't all go, to the chagrin of the Falklanders). Still, on a wave of patriotism Thatcher secured another term. Blair wasn't the only recent British PM war criminal.
Worked wonderfully for Thatcher in 1982. 300 British dead, circa 800 Argentinian dead, countless servicemen wounded to take back a pile of rocks in the south Atlantic unheard of by 99.9% of the UK population and inhabited by 2,000 people who vaguely thought of themselves as 'British' but wanted the military gone as soon as possible after the war. (They didn't all go, to the chagrin of the Falklanders). Still, on a wave of patriotism Thatcher secured another term. Blair wasn't the only recent British PM war criminal.
The point is that it wasnt a war crime. If people do invade land belonging to you, you have a right to defend it?Conveniently omits the fact that Thatcher needed 'a Falklands' to maintain her power. That is why we set sail, not to 'evict invaders' or in defence of British sovereignty. Still, 'Land of hope and glory ....'
A new military junta invaded the Falklands in 1982- an island that had been under British rule for 150 years.Conveniently omits the fact that Thatcher needed 'a Falklands' to maintain her power. That is why we set sail, not to 'evict invaders' or in defence of British sovereignty. Still, 'Land of hope and glory ....'