Lives matter, Christian, father, husband, retired. God, Family, Country, in that order. MAGA.
Colorado, USA
Joined August 2008
- Tweets25.6K
- Following3.7K
- Followers2.3K
- Likes16.7K
Wrong. Trump has succeeded spectularly during both of his terms to obey the US Constitution and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
US presidents are obligated to the US Constitution and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The US Constitution mandates that the President:
faithfully executes the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of his/her ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's the issue right there, dummy. Obama following international courts instead of our US Constitution.
International law does not supersede the US Constitution and international courts cannot independently rewrite or overrule it.
Taps the sign
xitter.cf/i/grok/share/c2hhcmQtM…
Try again, dummy.
xitter.cf/i/grok/share/c2hhcmQtM…
Calling it “their money” doesn’t settle the argument; it dodges the real issue. The question wasn’t simply who owned the money, but whether returning it under those circumstances served American interests. When you’re dealing with a regime with a documented history of supporting terrorism and attacks that have killed Americans, you don’t get to declare a policy wise simply because the money technically belonged to them. Ownership is a legal question. Whether handing over billions was strategically prudent is a national security question. Confusing the two isn’t a defense of the policy; it’s an excuse to avoid evaluating it.
Calling it “their money” doesn’t settle the argument; it dodges the real issue. The question wasn’t simply who owned the money, but whether returning it under those circumstances served American interests. When you’re dealing with a regime with a documented history of supporting terrorism and attacks that have killed Americans, you don’t get to declare a policy wise simply because the money technically belonged to them. Ownership is a legal question. Whether handing over billions was strategically prudent is a national security question. Confusing the two isn’t a defense of the policy; it’s an excuse to avoid evaluating it.
Psst. $1.7 billion is billions of dollars, which is exactly what I originally said, dummy.
xitter.cf/OpenThreads/status/211…
For the dummies out there, it's apples.
Is it 1.7 apple or 1.7 apples?
1.7 apples is correct.
Use the plural when the number is greater than 1.
1 apple
1.7 apples
2 apples
Exception: When the number is exactly 1, use the singular: 1 apple.
OpenThreads retweeted
Calling it “their money” doesn’t settle the argument; it dodges the real issue. The question wasn’t simply who owned the money, but whether returning it under those circumstances served American interests. When you’re dealing with a regime with a documented history of supporting terrorism and attacks that have killed Americans, you don’t get to declare a policy wise simply because the money technically belonged to them. Ownership is a legal question. Whether handing over billions was strategically prudent is a national security question. Confusing the two isn’t a defense of the policy; it’s an excuse to avoid evaluating it.
Calling it “their money” doesn’t settle the argument; it dodges the real issue. The question wasn’t simply who owned the money, but whether returning it under those circumstances served American interests. When you’re dealing with a regime with a documented history of supporting terrorism and attacks that have killed Americans, you don’t get to declare a policy wise simply because the money technically belonged to them. Ownership is a legal question. Whether handing over billions was strategically prudent is a national security question. Confusing the two isn’t a defense of the policy; it’s an excuse to avoid evaluating it.
It happened, dummy.
xitter.cf/i/grok/share/c2hhcmQtM…