Democrats looking to provoke another war is all this is. Considering we are incapable of defeating a rag tag group of Muslim extremists I don't think we should be fucking around with a real superpower who have the stones to actually fight a war.
If they didn't stop The McCain and force them to turn around they weren't expelled.The McCain entered the waters and went through.
To be clear I am not saying our military troops are incapable of victory over any enemy, the men and women in the ranks are more than ready for that task if required. The problem is we have a government of cowards and pussies who like to bark, but have no stomach for all that comes when the shooting starts. The whole lions lead by lambs comes to mind, and that is why we shouldn't play games with people who have no issues killing by the millions if that's what it takes.
Traveling through international waters isn't provoking a war.Republicans are just looking to be soft on China again.
China will not start a war with The US over The S China Sea.Obama sent Navy ships through there throughout his presidency and China has yet to force a Navy ship to turn around.
get rid of all these pedos Joe: https://www.thedailybeast.com/forme...tigui-charged-with-child-pornography-offenses https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/06/politics/biden-removing-trump-board-appointments/index.html Biden administration works to clean house of Trump appointees On Wednesday, Roger Severino, a Trump appointee to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, sued in DC district court to seek an injunction to prevent his removal from the council on the basis that the President has no authority to terminate his appointment. Severino stated in the lawsuit that he received an email Tuesday sent "on behalf of President Biden" asking him to resign by Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. or his appointment to the council would be terminated. According to the lawsuit, three other Trump appointees to the council also received similar requests to resign or risk termination. As of 10:00 p.m. Wednesday, all four Trump appointees mentioned in the lawsuit no longer appeared on the council's website, though Ronald Cass and Adrian Vermeule, who were appointed by Trump alongside Severino, remained. The Biden administration has also removed people from Voice of America, where there was public outcry over what was perceived as Trump's attempts to create a news network that would act as an extension of his administration. Two appointees to the National Capital Planning Commission, which oversees development of federal property in the DC area, have also been dismissed. "The National Capital Planning Commission was notified by the White House on February 3, 2021 that presidential appointees Chairman Paul Dans and Commissioner Gibson Worsham are no longer members of the Commission," an NCPC spokesperson said in a statement. Reflecting the more mundane sides of government bureaucracy, most of these boards are not household names, and these presidential appointees usually don't make national news. But in an increasingly polarized Washington, the fates of several of Trump's other last-minute appointments remain unclear as they undergo review and receive heightened scrutiny. "The Biden administration is conducting a thorough review of holdover appointees on councils, commissions, and advisory boards," White House spokesperson Michael Gwin said. According to a White House official, as part of the review, the White House "may remove individuals whose continued membership on the board would not serve the public interest." It remains to be seen what legal recourse appointees may have if their tenures are cut short by the Biden administration, especially if they are working full-time and can attempt to claim labor protections afforded to government workers. While positions in federally funded organizations like Voice of America and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks are full-time and salaried, of eight other federal boards, councils or commissions CNN contacted for this article, only members of three -- the Federal Service Impasses Panel, the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board and the National Capital Planning Commission -- are compensated.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/9649...um-agreements-with-central-american-countries Biden Moves To End Trump-Era Asylum Agreements With Central American Countries The Biden administration is ending agreements with the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras that the Trump administration said were meant to help drive down the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S. border. The State Department announced on Saturday that it had suspended the so-called Asylum Cooperative Agreements, with immediate effect, and initiated the process to terminate them. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in the statement that the administration has notified El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras that the United States "is taking this action as efforts to establish a cooperative, mutually respectful approach to managing migration across the region begin." Under the agreements, signed in 2019, the U.S. could send asylum-seekers to the three Latin American countries to "share the distribution of asylum claims," according to the Federal Register. Critics said the policies risked putting asylum seekers into unsafe environments. Last year, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration's asylum agreement with Guatemala, a country grappling with widespread poverty and extreme violence. Transfers under the U.S.-Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement have been paused since March due to the pandemic, and the agreements with El Salvador and Honduras were never implemented, the State Department said. The moves to eliminate the Asylum Cooperative Agreements is another step by the Biden administration to dismantle Trump's immigration policies, after pushing ahead with a reform plan and signing a series of executive orders on immigration. Secretary Blinken said the steps to get rid of the pacts with El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala "do not mean that the U.S. border is open."
https://www.vox.com/2021/2/11/22276...citor-general-noel-francisco-california-texas The government has abandoned Trump’s effort to repeal Obamacare by judicial decree A frivolous lawsuit seeking to repeal Obamacare is still before the Supreme Court. One of former Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s final acts as the Trump administration’s top litigator was to sign a brief claiming that Obamacare should be struck down by the Supreme Court. The arguments in that brief, as well as the arguments raised by the plaintiffs in California v. Texas, are widely viewed as absurd even by conservative scholars who have, in the past, tried to convince the courts to dismantle Obamacare. Nevertheless, this brief in a still-pending Supreme Court challenge placed President Joe Biden’s Justice Department in a difficult position. Traditionally, the solicitor general’s office is extremely reluctant to switch its positions in pending cases, even when a new administration takes over. The Bush administration did not switch its position in a single Supreme Court case that had already been briefed by President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department. And the Obama administration did not abandon any of the positions taken by the Bush administration. This traditional practice exists for a very good reason — changing positions after a case has already been briefed tends to piss off the justices. During his tenure as solicitor general, Francisco did not adhere to the Justice Department’s ordinary practice, leading Justice Sonia Sotomayor to ask him during a 2018 oral argument “how many times this term already have you flipped positions from prior administrations?” (According to Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, the answer to Sotomayor’s question was at least a dozen times.) The Biden administration appears to have decided to treat Francisco’s brief in the Texas case with the same regard that Francisco held for his predecessors’ arguments. In a letter filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler officially informed the Court that “the United States no longer adheres to the conclusions in the previously filed brief.”
My take on this is that they were cocky in thinking, "we've done enough to steal the state", but were mistaken about having "done enough cheating". Making it point to not make THAT mistake again this time, so going "overboard" on the cheat! (If you're conning and cheating someone, it's better to do it in such a way that they don't realize they've been conned. If you con them "full blast", they might recognize what you've done and seek retribution. If you're the one conning, you don't want that.... you'd rather they just "accept their loss". The best con is the one where the mark doesn't realize he's been conned.) Soooo this time..... (1) The Dems went overboard on the cheat such that it was OBVIOUS (making sure they cheated ENOUGH so that there was no chance they'd come up on the short end of the vote), (2) it didn't matter anyway because those who could do something to rectify the cheat (governors, legislatures, state courts, state supreme courts, SCOTUS)... all "turned a blind eye". So... what fair recourse is there??