For help on how to follow a comic title,
the tragic part is the MAGA guy watching TV. That’s not an exaggeration.
It seems so. Ted has a strong tendency to find fault with the Democrats and an inability to discern the lesser of two evils.
This is a child’s argument. It is based that the wrong doings of others somehow mitigates one’s own crime. So ok, let’s say you are right about Biden. Now we have the full context. How does that negate the actions of Trump?
Once again, an ardent Trump support resorts to complete hypocrisy.
the House didn’t have the trial. They had the equivalent of an arraignment and it was fair. Still, it’s always nice to see a Trump supporter admit that they don’t care about fairness, honesty or integrity.
Very ironic considering the KKK, White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis and a bunch of torch carrying white guys all support Trump.
the only thing new in this scenario is the technology. Otherwise, this has been standard operation procedure for virtually all government throughout the history of Western Civilization. Still, starry eyed dreamers have their place. We need them to point out the light of possible change in humanity.
this is based on the alternate reality that coal jobs are still alive. where as a few days ago, miners stopped a train carrying coal again due to a lack of pay. Once again, support for Trump has to be based on lies.
Yes, your post was absolutely correct. I never questioned that. However, what has transpired since WWII is also a fact. Because of that, the use of military forces is obviously a complex Constitutional issue and not as simple of a concept as you suggest. Oversimplifications are not always due to clarity of thought. sometimes they are due to a lack of understanding of the overall picture.
So it might seem; but despite almost continuous armed conflict, we haven’t been to war since WWII. Harry Truman had little problem fighting the Korean Conflict and set the precedent for all that followed. That leads me to believe things aren’t as simple as you describe as I can’t find a Constitutional argument against the President’s use of the Armed Forces.