Biden and Reagan both are required to advise and consult for congressional approval BEFORE stopping congressionally approved aid: Biden Withholding Aid From Israel Sure Looks Impeachable | Opinion (newsweek.com) Reagan did, and Biden didn't. How do I know this? Because President Trump was unilaterally impeached in 2020 after being accused of not first receiving congressional approval, then candidate Biden agreed: The Biden administration has put a hold on a shipment of military aid to Israel in a nakedly political attempt to win votes in key swing states. Presidents have been impeached for far less. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) governs the control of funds appropriated by Congress. It was enacted to reassert Congress' power of the purse and prevent the president from simply substituting their own funding decisions for those of Congress. While it was once an obscure rule on governing spending, the masses may remember it for its brief starring role in the first impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. As the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry report explained: President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the president, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the president withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anticorruption justification. The president did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act. This from the Wall Street Journal, but the meat of the article is behind a paywall. Anyone who subscribes to the WSJ please pull relevant parts of the article forward. Thank you: On Israel, Biden Is No Reagan - WSJ Defenders of President Biden’s decision to halt weapons shipments to Israel amid its war against Hamas have invoked a Washington “gotcha”—Mr. Biden is simply doing what Ronald Reagan did on more than one occasion. The comparison doesn’t hold up. Superficially, the parallels between the U.S.-Israel relationship in the early 1980s and today may appear compelling. Reagan and Prime Minister Menachem Begin got along no better than Mr. Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu. Then as now, the deeper U.S.-Israeli differences were strategic. The Reagan administration fumed at Israeli actions, often taken with little advance notice to Washington, that it felt put U.S. interests in jeopardy by risking war and the revival of Soviet influence in the Arab world. Reagan suspended the delivery of F-16s twice in 1981 and again in early 1983, the last in response to Israel’s intervention in Lebanon, siege of Beirut, and rejection of the “Reagan plan” for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Has anyone ever wondered if maybe these pro-Trump Russian troll-bot farms might have a work release program where incarcerated Americans can perform the task of Russians by shilling for Trump to work off their sentence?
@ETGator1 Have you achieved whatever intent you had in creating this contentious thread? Have any of the insults exchanged between the Trump and No Trump factions gained any support or persuaded a single person to change his preference of one candidate over the other? Other than riling people, what has changed in 11 pages of insulting argument?
ETGator1 has successfully distinguished itself from ETGator to at least one poster, the latter being an excellent Gator Nation denizen. So there’s that.
In New Jersey....a few minutes later, the crowd leaving half way through as the orange lunatic rants and raves while dazed and confused. The man is falling apart mentally before our eyes. Slurring. President Jimmy Connors? Fake job numbers? Developed the name "caravan"? Confused Beijing and Taiwan. He's going to win New Jersey.
No, I haven't achieved my intent. I'm using this thread as a catch all for Biden's Troubles. My intent is for this thread is to be the mirror image of the Trump's Trouble thread. The thread is no more contentious than that thread where insults have been exchanged throughout and people get riled up for the offense of not agreeing with them or not liking what is posted. Has the Trump's Troubles thread gained any conservative support or persuaded a single person to change from one candidate over the other? Trump's Troubles is up to 182 pages and counting. What I want to know is why you have singled out me and this thread as a moderator. There is nothing pornographic or insulting to anyone participating here that is out of line with what is accepted in practice on this board. There have even been some good exchanges without insults. Yes, there have been insults particularly from people who don't want conservative views to be heard. Do you have demands as a moderator? If so, you'll have to be specific.
ETGator, the moderator, and ETGator1, myself, both have been here for many years. We've always gotten along on all of the boards we post on. I'd say we are far more alike than not even though the similarity of the names has been purely accidental. I truly don't know what he thinks as we've never had any cause to have this discussion.
Congress gave Israel weapons. Biden is doing a good Emperor Palpatine impression, though, and defying Congress.
Copied and pasted directly from the rules at the top of the forum. Any words you don't understand? "F. Arguing your point with a moderator or refusing to do, or stop doing something a Moderator has asked you about, will not be tolerated. If you have an issue with a Moderator, arguing with him or her on the forum is not a smart move. Send a PM to one of the site administrators."
Good job @ETGator1. Welcome to the club. Some people want an echo chamber. Others want actual real exchange of ideas. You got blocked by the former.
I neither have a problem with nor have I argued with a moderator. I was asked questions by a moderator, and I answered the questions.
Bolded comments embedded. My participation on the forum is not restricted to moderating and comments made on my posts, including the one you quoted, are my own opinion or perceptions, not necessarily those of other GC moderators. Nothing is gained from insulting people, no matter who makes the insult or is targeted by same. Civil conversation is infinitely more constructive. We would all benefit from taking the sage advice of Gandhi - Be the change you wish to see in the world.
That sounds very difficult. I prefer the sage advice from another wise soul: "Demand others be the change you want to see in the world. If they refuse, call them a butthead."
Thank you for being clear. I apologize for mistaking your personal and moderator positions. In the future, I'll be sure to address you as a participant unless you make it clear you are addressing me as a moderator. Okay?
