From Congresswoman Diana DeGette

[wolfbat359]

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

[me]

So a Democrat spouts the usual platitudes to counter Republican platitudes. Normal stuff.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Platitude, platitude,
Gotta ensure enough latitude.

[mg]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

[wolfbat359]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

I thought Trump was going to do all that!?!

[mg]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

I thought Trump was going to do all that!?!

We know what the Republicans and Democrats have done. We
won't know what Trump will do until after he does it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

I thought Trump was going to do all that!?!

We know what the Republicans and Democrats have done. We
won't know what Trump will do until after he does it.

We can guess how stable and well-thought-out
it will be.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

I thought Trump was going to do all that!?!

We know what the Republicans and Democrats have done. We
won't know what Trump will do until after he does it.

We can guess how stable and well-thought-out
it will be.

I think there might be a lot of veto-proof bills coming out
of the legislature, with Democrats and Republicans joining
forces against Trump in the future. So, it won't necessarily
be easy to judge Trump's presidency when he's gone. Here's
an example:

"PRESIDENT SIGNS RUSSIAN SANCTIONS AFTER CONGRESS APPROVES
WITH VETO-PROOF MAJORITY

By Miriam Raftery

August 4, 2017 (Washington D.C.) -- President Donald Trump
has signed into law a bill imposing sanctions against Russia
over its efforts to meddle in the U.S. election and Russian
aggression in the Ukraine.

The bill also prohibits President Trump from easing those
sanctions without Congressional approval. The action is a
stinging rebuke to Trump, who has previously opposed
sanctions and drawn criticism for his close ties to Russia
and praise for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. . . ."

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/print/25775

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:32:51 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

I thought Trump was going to do all that!?!

We know what the Republicans and Democrats have done. We
won't know what Trump will do until after he does it.

We can guess how stable and well-thought-out
it will be.

I think there might be a lot of veto-proof bills coming out
of the legislature, with Democrats and Republicans joining
forces against Trump in the future. So, it won't necessarily
be easy to judge Trump's presidency when he's gone. Here's
"PRESIDENT SIGNS RUSSIAN SANCTIONS AFTER CONGRESS APPROVES
WITH VETO-PROOF MAJORITY

Sanctions seem wimpier and wimpier as time goes on.
I'm sure Attila the Hun never sanctioned anybody.

Post by mg
By Miriam Raftery
August 4, 2017 (Washington D.C.) -- President Donald Trump
has signed into law a bill imposing sanctions against Russia
over its efforts to meddle in the U.S. election and Russian
aggression in the Ukraine.

That's "big lie" time. The USA is meddling in the
Ukraine. I posted a map of the history of the Ukraine
here before, which was ignored. Before Khrushchev
added Crimea and what is now Eastern Ukraine to the
Ukrainian SSR in 1954, Ukraine was never that big.,
The people now in Eastern Ukraine and especially the
Crimeans are mostly ethnically Russian, and WANT
to be back with Russia again. In 1954, Russia and
the Ukraine were parts of the Soviet Union which no
longer exists, in case anybody doesn't want to just
put that out of mind because it's inconvenient for the
current strategy of the USA.
http://tinyurl.com/yd35b465
http://tinyurl.com/y8skuq3s


My, I'm ornery this early morning. It probably
has something to do with the fact that I've been
weak and sick lately. I went to test for
pneumonia, but the results were negative.
Maybe I have bronchitis, but my regular doc
is on holiday so I'll make an appointment with
him when he gets back in a couple of days.

Post by mg
The bill also prohibits President Trump from easing those
sanctions without Congressional approval. The action is a
stinging rebuke to Trump, who has previously opposed
sanctions and drawn criticism for his close ties to Russia
and praise for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. . . ."
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/print/25775

[wolfbat359]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

https://www.thoughtco.com/2002-iraq-war-vote-3325446

Congress Members Who Voted Against the 2002 Iraq War
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members

Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)

https://www.google.com/search?q=degette+votes+against+Iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Diana_DeGette_War_+_Peace.htm


Diana DeGette on War & Peace
Democratic Representative (CO-1)



Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

The House of Representatives makes the following statements of policy:
The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.

The President shall transmit a report describing in detail US security interests and objectives, and the activities of US Armed Forces, in Libya since March 19, 2011, including a description of the following:

The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.

Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the US States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.
Reference: Resolution on Libya; Bill HRes294 ; vote number 11-HV410 on Jun 3, 2011

Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.
Congressional Summary:

Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:
by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay. The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.
Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan; Bill HConRes28 ; vote number 11-HV193 on Mar 17, 2011

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This vote is on referring the impeachment resolution to a Congressional Committee to decide further action (not on impeachment itself).

Congressional Summary: Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for committing the following abuses of power:

Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
Article VI & VIII--Invading Iraq in Violation of H.J. Res. 114, the U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
Article X--Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI--Establishment of Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XVII--Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both US Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing Statements, and Violating Those Laws

Proponents' arguments for voting YEA: Rep. Kucinich: Now is the time for this Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring our troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter and I urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz: Impeachment is a lengthy process which would divide Congress and this nation even more deeply than we are divided right now. Referring this resolution to the House Judiciary Committee is the constitutionally appropriate process that should be pursued.

Rep. Ron Paul: I rise, reluctantly, in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
Reference: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution; Bill H.RES.1258 ; vote number 2008-401 on Jun 11, 2008

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.
To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.
Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill; Bill H R 2237 ; vote number 2007-330 on May 10, 2007 .... (cont)

[mg]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

https://www.thoughtco.com/2002-iraq-war-vote-3325446
Congress Members Who Voted Against the 2002 Iraq War
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
https://www.google.com/search?q=degette+votes+against+Iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Diana_DeGette_War_+_Peace.htm
Diana DeGette on War & Peace
Democratic Representative (CO-1)
Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

Most of the Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq
war authorization and most of the Democrats voted to allow
Obama to continue his warmongering in Libya, like DeGette
did. So, DeGette appears to be a Democrat that merely goes
along with the crowd.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

Post by wolfbat359
The US Armed Forces shall be used exclusively to defend and advance the national security interests of the US.
The President has failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon US national security interests for current US military activities regarding Libya.
The President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and members of the US Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is to rescue a member of the Armed Forces from imminent danger.
The President's justification for not seeking authorization by Congress for the use of military force in Libya.
US political and military objectives regarding Libya, including the relationship between the intended objectives and the operational means being employed to achieve them.
Changes in US political and military objectives following the assumption of command by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Differences between US political and military objectives regarding Libya and those of other NATO member states engaged in military activities.
The specific commitments by the US to ongoing NATO activities regarding Libya.
The anticipated scope and duration of continued US military involvement in Libya.
The costs of military, political, and humanitarian efforts concerning Libya as of June 3, 2011.
Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the US States Armed Forces, including for unauthorized activities regarding Libya.
Reference: Resolution on Libya; Bill HRes294 ; vote number 11-HV410 on Jun 3, 2011
Voted YES on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.
by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.
[Rep. Kucinich, D-OH]:The American people oppose this war by a margin of two to one. Nearly 2/3 of Americans say the war isn't worth fighting. We are spending $100 billion per year on this war. There are those who are saying the war could last at least another 10 years. Are we willing to spend another $1 trillion on a war that doesn't have any exit plan, for which there is no timeframe to get out, no endgame, where we haven't defined our mission? The question is not whether we can afford to leave. The question is, can we afford to stay? And I submit we cannot afford to stay. The counterintelligence strategy of General Petraeus is an abysmal failure, and it needs to be called as such.
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation's security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn't matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.
Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan; Bill HConRes28 ; vote number 11-HV193 on Mar 17, 2011
Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq.
OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This vote is on referring the impeachment resolution to a Congressional Committee to decide further action (not on impeachment itself).
Article I--Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign To Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
Article VI & VIII--Invading Iraq in Violation of H.J. Res. 114, the U.N. Charter and International Criminal Law
Article X--Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI--Establishment of Permanent US Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII--Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XVII--Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons Both US Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XXIV--Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Fourth Amendment
Article XXVI--Announcing the Intent To Violate Laws With Signing Statements, and Violating Those Laws
Proponents' arguments for voting YEA: Rep. Kucinich: Now is the time for this Congress to examine the actions that led us into this war, just as we must work to bring our troops home. This resolution is a very serious matter and I urge the Committee on Judiciary to investigate and carefully consider this resolution.
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz: Impeachment is a lengthy process which would divide Congress and this nation even more deeply than we are divided right now. Referring this resolution to the House Judiciary Committee is the constitutionally appropriate process that should be pursued.
Rep. Ron Paul: I rise, reluctantly, in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
Reference: The Kucinich Privilege Resolution; Bill H.RES.1258 ; vote number 2008-401 on Jun 11, 2008
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.
To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq.
This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end. This is a straightforward bill to redeploy our military forces from Iraq and to end the war in Iraq. This bill does not walk away from the Iraqi people. It specifically continues diplomatic, social, economic, and reconstruction aid. Finally, this bill leaves all the decisions on the locations outside of Iraq to which our troops will be redeployed wholly in the hands of our military commanders.
This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.
Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill; Bill H R 2237 ; vote number 2007-330 on May 10, 2007 .... (cont)

[wolfbat359]

Post by mg
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359
Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

https://www.thoughtco.com/2002-iraq-war-vote-3325446
Congress Members Who Voted Against the 2002 Iraq War
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
https://www.google.com/search?q=degette+votes+against+Iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Diana_DeGette_War_+_Peace.htm
Diana DeGette on War & Peace
Democratic Representative (CO-1)
Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

Most of the Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq
war authorization and most of the Democrats voted to allow
Obama to continue his warmongering in Libya, like DeGette
did. So, DeGette appears to be a Democrat that merely goes
along with the crowd.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

I will still vote for her against a Republican any day!

[mg]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 16:44:33 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:37:05 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:15:37 -0800 (PST), wolfbat359

Last night, I attended President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress in good faith, hoping to hear a substantive policy vision. What we heard instead was a collection of promises and platitudes, but no real plan to tackle systemic national issues that must be addressed. It appears he will continue to double down on his dangerous policies affecting immigrants and refugees while peddling a proposed budget that evidently prioritizes the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and inflates military spending while gutting diplomacy. If the president continues to go down this treacherous path, I will continue to oppose this agenda because Coloradans and all Americans deserve bette

Translated, does that mean as soon as we can get Trump the
hell out of there, we can continue funding terrorists in
Syria, continue the mass immigration from third world
countries, and the work visas, and we can cut Medicare some
more and sabotage Social Security, and help the bankers, and
put a big tax on gasoline and pass a new trade agreement and
maybe deregulate the news media some more?

https://www.thoughtco.com/2002-iraq-war-vote-3325446
Congress Members Who Voted Against the 2002 Iraq War
Names of the 23 Senators and 133 House Members
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
https://www.google.com/search?q=degette+votes+against+Iraq+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Diana_DeGette_War_+_Peace.htm
Diana DeGette on War & Peace
Democratic Representative (CO-1)
Voted NO on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval.
RESOLUTION Declaring that the President shall not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of US Armed Forces in Libya, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

Most of the Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq
war authorization and most of the Democrats voted to allow
Obama to continue his warmongering in Libya, like DeGette
did. So, DeGette appears to be a Democrat that merely goes
along with the crowd.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/how-obama-ignored-congress-and-misled-america-on-war-in-libya/262299/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll411.xml

I will still vote for her against a Republican any day!

When it comes to killing innocent Muslims in the Middle
East, I think that one political party is probably as bad as
the other. In fact, the Democrats and the Republicans are
similar in a lot of ways and that's why Bernie and Trump ran
in the last election.