Biden is a coward

[Sue U]

Great moments from GOP history:

Could you imagine any GOP candidate saying anything like that today? JFC, what absolute monsters they have become.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I like the way Moskowitz speaks - he's not reading his speech, he's talking from the heart.

[liberty]

The money for Ukraine has been authorized, but have the Ukrainians received the weapons. No, because Biden put them on a slow boat by way of China, the incompetent, cowardly, thieving, son of a bitch, bastard. If Trump had faced losing in Ukraine, he would have made damn sure the Ukrainians got their weapons; he would let nothing standing his way. Trump might be crazy, but he is no coward.

[Joe Guy]

The money for Ukraine has been authorized, but have the Ukrainians received the weapons. No, because Biden put them on a slow boat by way of China, the incompetent, cowardly, thieving, son of a bitch, bastard.

Where do you get your information?

If Trump had faced losing in Ukraine, he would have made damn sure the Ukrainians got their weapons; he would let nothing standing his way. Trump might be crazy, but he is no coward.

Trump wouldn't have sent anything. He's not interested in helping other nations, especially in this case, where he could help his buddy Putin by doing nothing.

[Econoline]

U.S. Approved More Weapons for Ukraine. Now It’s a Race Against Time.
May 3, 2024

Last Sunday, as Russia put pressure on Ukrainian forces across a 600-mile front line, Ukraine received a shipment of anti-armor rockets, missiles and badly needed 155-millimeter artillery shells. It was the first installment from the $61 billion in military aid that President Biden approved just four days earlier.

A second batch of those weapons and ammunition arrived on Monday. And a fresh supply of Patriot interceptor missiles from Spain arrived in Poland on Tuesday. They would be at the Ukrainian front soon, a senior Spanish official said.

The push is on to move weapons to a depleted Ukrainian army that is back on its heels and desperate for aid. Over the last week, a flurry of planes, trains and trucks have arrived at NATO depots in Europe carrying ammunition and smaller weapon systems to be shipped across Ukraine’s borders.

“Now we need to move fast, and we are,” Mr. Biden said on April 24 when he signed the bill approving the aid. He added, “I’m making sure the shipments start right away.”

[liberty]

The money for Ukraine has been authorized, but have the Ukrainians received the weapons. No, because Biden put them on a slow boat by way of China, the incompetent, cowardly, thieving, son of a bitch, bastard.

Where do you get your information?

If Trump had faced losing in Ukraine, he would have made damn sure the Ukrainians got their weapons; he would let nothing standing his way. Trump might be crazy, but he is no coward.

Trump wouldn't have sent anything. He's not interested in helping other nations, especially in this case, where he could help his buddy Putin by doing nothing.

When it comes to Trump's ego, I don't believe he has friends. If he had to live with the stigma of being the man who lost Ukraine, he'd fight Putin to the bloody end. I think his ego is more important to him than his life and I also think that's a weakness, but he's not the only one with a big ego; DC is full of them.

[Joe Guy]

When it comes to Trump's ego, I don't believe he has friends. If he had to live with the stigma of being the man who lost Ukraine, he'd fight Putin to the bloody end. I think his ego is more important to him than his life and I also think that's a weakness, but he's not the only one with a big ego; DC is full of them.

If Trump "lost" Ukraine, he would blame it on somebody else. That's always been his modus operandi and it will never change.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The money for Ukraine has been authorized, but have the Ukrainians received the weapons. No, because Biden put them on a slow boat by way of China, the incompetent, cowardly, thieving, son of a bitch, bastard.

What a lying piece of crap. Your nose must be so far down Trump's underwear you're chewing his socks

[liberty]

U.S. Approved More Weapons for Ukraine. Now It’s a Race Against Time.
May 3, 2024

Last Sunday, as Russia put pressure on Ukrainian forces across a 600-mile front line, Ukraine received a shipment of anti-armor rockets, missiles and badly needed 155-millimeter artillery shells. It was the first installment from the $61 billion in military aid that President Biden approved just four days earlier.

A second batch of those weapons and ammunition arrived on Monday. And a fresh supply of Patriot interceptor missiles from Spain arrived in Poland on Tuesday. They would be at the Ukrainian front soon, a senior Spanish official said.

The push is on to move weapons to a depleted Ukrainian army that is back on its heels and desperate for aid. Over the last week, a flurry of planes, trains and trucks have arrived at NATO depots in Europe carrying ammunition and smaller weapon systems to be shipped across Ukraine’s borders.

“Now we need to move fast, and we are,” Mr. Biden said on April 24 when he signed the bill approving the aid. He added, “I’m making sure the shipments start right away.”

Thanks, Econo, you found what I couldn't; that makes you feel somewhat better. I just hope the morale of Ukrainian army is not too badly damaged. The Ukrainians are tough people but there are no Superman anybody can be broken.


It didn't have to be this way if Biden had the courage to act six months ago the situation would be a lot better now. If Biden had just dropped the Mamma May I crap and sent the weapons from the warehouses he controlled the Ukrainians would be in a lot better positioned now. My God he's Commander in Chief of the US military does he realize that?

I worry about the future of my grandchildren; if they ever had to fight the Russians they would be in serious trouble. I have sweet grandchildren, but there are no killers among them. I think if we have to fight Russians, they will get massacred. In my lifetime, I've seen the military potential of the American population really degenerate even among Southerners; don't get me wrong we still got some tough people but not nearly enough to deal with a nation like Russia. If we lose in Ukraine we are really in serious trouble.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It didn't have to be this way if Biden had the courage to act six months ago the situation would be a lot better now. If Biden had just dropped the Mamma May I crap and sent the weapons from the warehouses he controlled the Ukrainians would be in a lot better positioned now. My God he's Commander in Chief of the US military does he realize that?

Just to give you a thrill here's a link with a modicum of confirmation that someone somewhere agrees with you that Biden could have done something (though not the simplistic stuff you spout):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... 55c4c120c7

You'll note it's from February and not from "six months ago" which is another figment of what would be called imagination in anyone else

[Big RR]

It didn't have to be this way if Biden had the courage to act six months ago the situation would be a lot better now. If Biden had just dropped the Mamma May I crap and sent the weapons from the warehouses he controlled the Ukrainians would be in a lot better positioned now. My God he's Commander in Chief of the US military does he realize that?

You'd really love to live in a dictatorship, wouldn't you> None of this having to worry about Congress, right?

[MajGenl.Meade]

You'd really love to live in a dictatorship, wouldn't you> None of this having to worry about Congress, right?

Oh now . . . did you read that link I sent him just below (or above depending on which way up you are). There's a rational argument that he could have shipped artillery shells much earlier under his own power and according to law.

But yes, he would prefer a dictatorship which is why he's going to vote for Trump

[Burning Petard]

I suppose from a certain point of view, nearly all politicians are cowards--they are all afraid, so very afraid that it dominates all their decision making. It rules what clothes they wear, what car they drive, what friends they associate with. They are all scared they will lose their next election.

snailgate.

[Big RR]

Actually Meade, I did, and I am not certain of the particularities of that law; however, even if the author is correct that Biden could "legally" do this, I personally do not think a president should give military aid to a country that Congress has expressly said the US should not given such aid, or while Congress is debating the parameters of the aid. We can argue about the legality, but I would much rather have Congress, with all its inefficiencies, control such aid then give the president that latitude to act. Putting that much power in the hands of one person is, IMHO, very dangerous.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Huh. That's not what Jefferson said when he wanted to buy Louisiana! "Buy it and then ask" was the summary IIRC

[Big RR]

And, thus, the imperial presidency continued with him, much as he tried to claim he was against it. I think a lot of people would be happier with a king who could rule autocratically, and most presidents would prefer it as well, despite their protestations to the contrary.

[liberty]

The idea that the founders wanted a weak president makes no sense to me. Their primary objective was not to be hung. They knew that if the British ever gained control of America again they would hang. They needed a strong military commander with the power to be able to keep the country safe from invasion regardless of what else was happening at the time. They knew they were giving one individual a lot of power that could be used against them that's why everyone insisted on Washington to be the first president; he was the only man that everyone trusted. He has a lot of power, but that doesn't mean the president is all powerful; congress can always block him by making a law and override his veto. And they had other safeguards as well in the constitution.

[Big RR]

They needed a strong military commander with the power to be able to keep the country safe from invasion regardless of what else was happening at the time.

Of course they did; that's why they disbanded all but a small portion of the continental army and fought like hell against funding even a small navy for years. They feared a federal army under the command on a single person, preferring widely distributed militias under various control of the stat.

and while Washington had power, it pales in comparison to the power we give presidents now, and pales even further in light of the power some would like to give the president. For example, Washington couldn't commit the federal army to fight an enemy--that was the province of Congress (and while the executive could enforce the law, this required a combination of the agreement of state governors to provide militia members and approval of a Supreme Court justice--as in the response to the Whiskey Rebellion)--but when is the last time you saw a formal declaration of war since WW2? And presidents routinely ignore the laws Congress pass as best they can, unsually with impunity; ditto for the Supreme Court rulings. The founders clearly didn't want a dictator or king, more of an administrator who carried out the laws while Congress was in recess, leaving the states to more or less govern themselves in most areas. But over the years we have concentrated more and more power in the hands of a single individual because it was expedient.

[MajGenl.Meade]

They knew that if the British ever gained control of America again they would hang. They needed a strong military commander with the power to be able to keep the country safe from invasion regardless of what else was happening at the time.

"They would hang"?????? Good gracious! Has Lib ever read a book or did he get his edumacation by watching that well-beloved America hero Mel Gibson in "The Patriot"?

Rule 1 - check the dates of the Treaty of Paris and of the Constitutional Convention

Read this lib: you'll like some of it

https://constitution.congress.gov/brows ... _00013589/

There you will find (to your joy): "The result of these conflicting considerations was that the Convention amended the clause so as to give Congress the power to "declare war." Although this change could be read to give Congress the mere formal function of recognizing a state of hostilities, in the context of the Convention proceedings it appears more likely the change was intended to ensure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks without awaiting congressional action and to make clear that the conduct of war was vested exclusively in the President."

You might want to check your "military commander" thesis against Jefferson (well-known anti-pirate), Madison (barely known husband of Dolly) and Monroe. The latter of course disastrously led the USA in to the 1812 war with GB and the humiliation involved in that cat-ass-trophy. (So you can also blame Monroe for that clod Jackson's eventual presidency too)

[Big RR]

Deleted