Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you because history started BEFORE Trump was elected, but NATO was in part formed so America could keep some degree of control in Europe. To keep a resurgent military from developing in Germany AND to act as a bulwark against Soviet Russia.
NATO isn't some charity that Trump takes care of. It is OUR DEFENSIVE POSITION.
Either Trump and Putin are correct that the alleged Russian meddling is a hoax perpetrated by the US intelligence community, or
Russia has committed a hostile act against the sovereignty of the United States and Trump has a lot of 'splainin to do, despite the fact that you think he has unilateral authority to nominate our allies.
In other words you have no personal convictions here. Gee I never know that mark do not have any personal opinions on this matter.In large part that is indeed the case.
Aid and Comfort, there's no denying it.
Aid and Comfort, there's no denying it.
The qualifying words to the phrase "give them Aid and Comfort" is "adhering" and "Enemies." Russia is not an "enemy."
Neither do Trump's comments constitute as "adhering" to Russia, or to provide a non-existent enemy "Aid and Comfort."
The word "Enemies" rationally does not contemplate a foreign power in a mere tense relationship with the U.S.,
or what could be characterized as an adversarial relationship. The word "enemy" refers to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S.
There is no need to expound upon the meaning of "adhering" or "aid and comfort" since Russia is not an "enemy."
I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.I rather assume you are unfamiliar with history.
Trump University has a no refund policy.I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.
Almost no one? Isn't it the position of Trump's base that the cyber attacks are a hoax concocted by US intelligence as part of the deep state conspiracy to "get Trump?"But there is almost no one who thinks that Russia merely has a "tense relationship" with us. Arguably they have interfered with our government by meddling in our election (regardless of how egregious you may feel it to be in this case). It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.
So it requires ARMS? Cyberattacks do not count because they do not use gunpowder? Just curious because this could be very important. If cyberattacks are not accounted for in the Constitution then clearly no one can ever attack America using cyberattacks. Is that how we are to interpret the Constitution?
I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.
Almost no one? Isn't it the position of Trump's base that the cyber attacks are a hoax concocted by US intelligence as part of the deep state conspiracy to "get Trump?"
Nah, he is what you called a "sucker". The dude is a open book in predictably.
How are "enemies" determined for the purposes of this statute? (Editted to add: I note it requires ARMED CONFLICT. See my point below about cyberattacks, etc).
How does Trump's action not qualify as adhering or providing aid and comfort? Regardless of the other attributes of the statute, if those things were in effect, how would Trump's actions fail to be adherence or aid and comfort?
But there is almost no one who thinks that Russia merely has a "tense relationship" with us. Arguably they have interfered with our government by meddling in our election (regardless of how egregious you may feel it to be in this case). It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.
So it requires ARMS? Cyberattacks do not count because they do not use gunpowder? Just curious because this could be very important. If cyberattacks are not accounted for in the Constitution then clearly no one can ever attack America using cyberattacks. Is that how we are to interpret the Constitution?
I traverse this. Clearly we can disagree on whether Russia is an enemy or not (by your definition it seems to require GUNPOWDER be involved, and I think that is debatable). If that prong of the test is solved for then can we agree that Trump's activities WOULD qualify as adherence and aid-and-comfort? ("Enemy" is critical to the overall conclusion, but it does NOT define adherence or aid-and-comfort. In that it would technically be possible to provide aid-and-comfort or adhere to someone who is not an enemy it just wouldn't rise to the level of the statute.)
It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.
How does Trump's action not qualify as adhering or providing aid and comfort? Regardless of the other attributes of the statute, if those things were in effect, how would Trump's actions fail to be adherence or aid and comfort?
("Enemy" is critical to the overall conclusion, but it does NOT define adherence or aid-and-comfort.
Clearly we can disagree on whether Russia is an enemy or not (by your definition it seems to require GUNPOWDER be involved, and I think that is debatable).
It is a relationship, whether some conduct constitutes as "aid and comfort" requires analysis of A.) an enemy, a foreign power engaged in armed conflict against the U.S. and B.) the action undertaken by a person is analyzed and considered in relation to A.)
I said "armed conflict" and the article I cited to an article supporting the notion of "armed conflict." You can of course disagree but on what basis?
What is the evidence you have for a different meaning of the word "enemy" in the constitutional provision under discussion?
In other words you have no personal convictions here. Gee I never know that mark do not have any personal opinions on this matter.
Perhaps they care about born children and former children but not so much about embryos. That's a possibility, too.Meanwhile a group is fine with killing their own unborn but acting up in arms about putting illegally-entered children in detention away from their parents. Do they really care about children, or about votes??
It was worse - the so-called apology tour was Obama meeting and greeting our allies, practicing diplomacy and promoting good-will between friendly nation-states while this! this was Donald being obsequious before our enemy and loudly denigrating his own people. Truly disgraceful.Well at least it was not an Obama apology tour.
M-Bob
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?