• CharlotteRain
    link
    fedilink
    1061 year ago

    It’s amazing that we were able to elect people so unqualified for office. I have no idea how they were able to make it to the polls without being hit by a bus…

    • netburnr
      link
      fedilink
      311 year ago

      Florida, they use swamp boats. Riding lawnmowers. Whatever it takes to get to the polls and own the libs

  • themeatbridge
    link
    fedilink
    681 year ago

    “This amendment would make that humanitarian aid illegal and people would die,” she concluded before Luna rose to rebut her speech.

    “Chairman, I couldn’t help but pull out my pocket Constitution and I couldn’t seem to find anywhere in here where it says we need to fund programs for humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan,” Luna said. “So, with that, I just wanted to point that out.”

    Swamp ass.

  • @Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    391 year ago

    Since it seems like Anna needs help reading, I’ll point out the relevant text in the constitution:

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

    Article 2, section 2

  • @LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    30
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The Lunatic is in the house

    Does she know the “pocket constitution” also doesn’t mention that a woman can vote, let alone get elected?

    • AnonTwo
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      I think you’re right about the “get elected” part, but isn’t voting amended to the constitution?

  • Gnothi
    link
    fedilink
    171 year ago

    But the constitution also does not say that we shouldn’t provide aid, so I guess it would be unconstitutional to not provide aid.

    Aid for everyone!

  • Rottcodd
    link
    fedilink
    131 year ago

    Her constituents Josh and Aschleigh just heard “Blah blah blah Constitution blah blah blah brown people bad,” and that was enough for them, so it served its purpose.

  • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    This wasn’t just about aid. “The fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which sets policy for the Pentagon and authorizes $886 billion in spending, was approved 219-210.” But, because a crazy Republican said something evil, you focus on that and the aid cut. Yes, we should deplore Republicans for being deplorable. But this increases military spending.

  • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -101 year ago

    Why does the US have to be a power? We have homeless here. We have poverty here. We have food insecurity here. I’m not against aid, just aid that goes to the wrong people.

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      181 year ago

      We would have plenty of money to spend at home and abroad if we didn’t have a military bigger than the next 20 combined. Giving foreign aid is something all first world countries do. Because they have it better than others. Even if there are people who live in poverty in America, overall the standard of living is higher than Afghanistan.

      • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        Maybe, if we hadn’t bombed their country for 20 years they’d have a higher standard of living. We’ll never know though

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Considering how they were before we bombed them, that’s doubtful.

          • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -21 year ago

            You think aid is going to stop the Taliban. We’re aiding a country we bombed, because of terrorists we created, because the Soviet Union was spreading communism. We’re deriving solutions to problems we created.

            • Flying SquidOP
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              You think aid is going to stop the Taliban

              I do? Weird, I thought what I thought was that it was going to help Afghan women and nothing else due to restrictions put on the funding. That’s what the article said. You read it, right?

              • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -21 year ago

                Unfortunately I can’t read well do to astigmatism, so I had my daughter read it to me. It said “a specter is haunting America - the specter of enlightened centrism.” What does that mean?

            • @minnow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t try to solve problems that we created? That if we create a problem, intentionally or not, that we should just say to the world “ok you deal with it now”?

              Because that sure seems like what you’re saying here.

              • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -11 year ago

                That is exactly what I am saying. Did the Taliban ask for our help? Would our government accept aid from China to curb homelessness here? With restrictions of course that it be used only for food and clothing. They are a sovereign nation. We are usurping their authority. And we wonder why they hate us.

                • @minnow@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  31 year ago

                  Well that’s one of the more fucked up and asinine things I’ve heard in a while.

                  You know countries can refuse aide, right? Nobody is forcing them to accept the money. Because, you know, they’re a sovereign nation with the authority to make decisions for themselves. You even said it yourself

                  Would our government accept aid from China

                  China offering us aid doesn’t “usurpe our authority”. How the heck did you even come up with that nonsense.

                  But hey, believe whatever you want. Me, I think we should take responsibility for the harm we’ve done to the world and offer to make amends in some way or another. I don’t think it’s right to take a shit in somebody else’s yard and tell them it’s their problem. But again, that’s me.

      • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        That money we give comes with strings that benefit us. We don’t give money unless we get something in return. Quid pro quo. Reciprocity.

    • @minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      You’re painting a false dichotomy. We can take care of all these domestic issues, and we can give foreign aide. It wouldn’t even be hard, it would require a small fraction of the military budget or a slight to most increase of taxes on corporations and the ultra rich.

      But some people don’t want to give money to poor/starving people, regardless of how much it costs. You could end all foreign aide and all the money would just go… somewhere else that isn’t poor people’s pockets.

    • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      She’s not right at all though, so it doesn’t apply here.

      Some libertarians were right that it was a bad idea to invade and destroy the country, but not sending aid after fucking everything up for 20 years is just irresponsible and cruel.

      • @TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        Is Walther your dog? I love golden retrievers. I was unknowingly concern trolling. That aid was part of a $816 billion military spending bill. My complaint was more about the rage posting. Getting people to hate on Republicans without looking at the bigger picture. How is the aid distributed? How do we know women get it when the Taliban is in control? What are we getting in return? None of that is answered in the article.

        • @Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Nah, Walther is my mom’s dog that I’m lucky enough to dogsit once a week and he’s a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel not a golden retriever lol

          As for the article not mentioning all that, it’s probably because that’s not what it’s about. It’s outside the scope of an article about the Republicans’ new tool of claiming that anything that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the 1700s isn’t politically valid.

  • sadreality
    link
    fedilink
    -251 year ago

    How would that aid be administered?

    Sounds like more money for USAID or/and, State Dept, DoD corruption?