"It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now, we have a newly elected president, and we are going to wait and take the new commander in chief’s direction on all that, so I don’t expect any Ukraine funding to come up now," U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said.
If you can convince the military to do blatantly illegal stuff, than sure. But I wouldn’t bet (nor would I want) the military doing blatantly illegal stuff, just because it happens to be convenient this one time.
Is it blatantly illegal to ship equipment… vs say EVERYTHING trump has talked about? It’s blatantly illegal for the commander in chief to dictate military spending/logistics?
We had a handful of people stopping military deployment on US soil come Jan 6. But Ukraine/logistics getting dictated by the commander in chief is on the same level?
To be clear I’m fine with it being illegal but just want to call out we’re moving into a post law situation over the next 4 years…
Congress sets the parameters for how money is spent. You certainly don’t like the next president, yet you encourage presidents to blatantly ignore budget requirements from Congress? Furthermore, you encourage the military to ignore Congress and do whatever illegal stuff the president asks of them?
No, I do not want a dictator. Nor should you.
Calm down. Discretionary spending is a thing. Multiple arms shipments have already been made via executive decision and not congressional mandate.
Your description of a dictator doesn’t need to include “sends support to allies” unless you have a bone to pick.
There’s a lot more dictatorial shit coming down the pike. You can fret all you want about congress and rules over the next four years right now I don’t see the issue.
Absolutely. That is were notable portions are currently coming from. Biden gave a huge chunk of discretionary spending to Ukraine and some to Israel and some in support of Syrian rebels. This funding, critically, is also Congressionally approved and limited; it isn’t a blank check, Congress sets whatever limits they deem fit on it.
It comes from what we were talking about: something that would require, as you put it “send[ing] anything from the military and it’s impossible to prosecute him or the act as per the Supreme Court saying presidents enjoy absolute immunity?”. If you are talking about prosecutions and presidential immunity, we aren’t talking about Congressionally approved funding.
In summary, Congressionally approved funding good (this includes discretionary spending by definition). While sending military aid that would require prosecutions and presidential immunity, bad.
“Congressional funded” is a fun joke.
You’re describing things the way an imaginary person would wish how they should exist. I agree but I’ll be the first to say you’re off from reality yet you keep on that fantasy.
Things aren’t that way and there is no longer any mechanism to make them so. You aren’t wrong you’re just on a different planet. It’s not that things shouldn’t be that way, it’s the fact that there are no means to make that happen here and now. You are a part of that problem.
Also you are focusing on a narrow application of sharing arms to define a dictator. Rather than saying “supporting an ally is different from becoming a dictator” you keep conflating the two … why?
The vast majority of Ukraine aid was specifically mandated by Congress. This, for example, was $60B in April. I’m not sure what you are referring to when you say that there is ‘no means to make that happen’ when there clearly is.
If your complaint is that people voted in too many Republicans and Republicans won’t do what you or I want, I would argue that Democrats should step up their game and earn more votes next election.
Again you’re describing things as they should be (aid approved by congress) not how they are or will be (infighting where Matt Gaetz dictates terms). Our world is worse than a single description so keep at it! You’re doing… someone’s work… minimizing stuff…