The fact wasn’t wrong. In their very first article on the story they stated the DOJ recommended that he didn’t need to include senate business. The new letter supports the facts stated in the original article.
So who here is peddling false stories? CNN or your original article?
Just curious what you believe the Vegas shooters political aims were? I’m open to the possibility he’s a terrorist but without some tangible connection to a cause, mental breakdown plus lots of guns seems the most suitable label.
I agree with you in that by the strict definition of terrorism, it wasn’t a political action designed to strike fear into the populace. That we know of…
The ridiculous thing is that because it doesn’t have the badge of terrorism, no effective action will be taken to prevent another attack of the same kind. If it had been a terrorist motivation, there would have been huge efforts to prevent another tragedy like it.
There is a situation in America where very rare terrorism will be given near infinite prevention resources, whilst nothing is done to prevent members of the community committing mass murder on a near daily basis.
Tax cuts are almost through.
Once that happens, it could get interesting. Institutions might make a bit of a comeback.
If by preventing another attack you are referring to gun control I can’t agree. I don’t think his motivations make his actions any less horrific so I can’t see how a clear case of terrorism by gun would have any more or less effect on US gun laws than the other mass murders you’ve mentioned. I highly doubt fully kitted out ISIS members going on shooting rampages in every major US city would even lead to gun control. As others have said before, if Sandy Hook didn’t force change maybe nothing can.
I am interested in the idea of infinite prevention resources. Do you have an example? I can’t think of what the US has done to really prevent attacks other than higher security (a worldwide phenomenon) & probably covert stuff we’ll never really know about.
By infinite, I more infer that it is extremely rare for a terrorism combating proposal to be rejected due to price. A few examples off the top of my head:
There’d be far more examples, even down to state and local level there will have been significant investment in terrorism response and prevention. No country has made terrorism as central to its decision making as America has.
Poor old Trump gets blamed for moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but he was only doing what the Senate had re-approved just six months ago.
excerpt - Reaffirms: (1) that it is long-standing U.S. bipartisan policy that the permanent status of Jerusalem remains a matter to be decided between the parties through final status negotiations towards a two-state solution; and (2) the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 as U.S. law, and calls upon the President and all U.S. officials to abide by its provisions.
It was approved 90 - 0, so Trump is only following what they are asking for, on behalf of the US people that they all represent.
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 To provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes. It was supposed to be done in '99, but none of the Presidents since then have actually done what they said they were going to do. In true politician form. Trump has only done what he said he would do as President. The people voted him in and the Senate told him to carry out the Jerusalem Act of 95.
And for all those who rue that this will bring more violence what do you think is going on over in the ME now?
The Act includes a Presidential waiver authority, reflecting that relocation could have security implications. Congress defers to the President on this issue .
Although this was announced during the campaign, what has not been explained is why Trump is taking the decision at this time and the contribution it might make to peace . US Embassies warned US citizens to take care in anticipation of the decision.
New low today, astoundingly.
We are just so used to it now. Tomorrow it will be something else. But yes, a sexist smear/insinuation against a female senator today. Insanity rules.
[quote]
Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED![/quote]
How is the above sexist?
And are female senators somehow beyond being criticised?
You obviously have a poor opinion of their ability to take this sort of thing. Bigotry of low expectations I guess.
While I agree people may be making more of that than they should, do you honestly think that is something the President of the Untied States should be sending out?
Explain the meaning of this.
And yes I will say it, the Democrats are the biggest hypocrites going around. They are going after Trump on sexual allegations while they thoroughly ignored and tried hard to deflect from their own President from clear examples of sexual misconduct, not even allegations.
They have no standing on this right now and should shut the hell up.
If the women have provable allegations (personally, I believe them) then they should be going to the police and getting it dealt with properly, not some partisan witch hunt in congress/senate.
I remember when E12 used to come to me, “begging”, and do Anything for my favour.
#sad #used
Probably the same meaning it has if said about a male politician, selling out on political bills to get the funding they need.
Magic word.
Yeah it totally wouldn’t be an attack on women if he said the same thing about men
???
Just so you guys know why I hate the Democrats: Bill Clinton. Before him I actually was more of a supporter, after him I despise them. Their behaviour with him turned me against them. I have always disliked the republican party.
It was over 20 years ago, move on it has no relevance to anything happening today.