i don't know if you're just being your usual hacky self, goon-shill, or if your reading comprehension is that bad, but that is not at all what i'm saying. what i'm saying is that going through congress would not have protected the treaty. the comment concerning GOP obstructionism is merely additional information explaining WHY obama didn't even try. your strawman is simply a result of you not being able to distinguish those two different points. the first one would still be true even IF republicans had not been complete obstructionist cunts during obama's presidency.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 4 2020 06:48pm

lmao!

now, the icing on the cake would be Jimmy G leading the 49ers to a Super Bowl victory while Kaepernick sits on his couch crying himself to sleep.

Haha

Try actually reading the links you post, especially the parts people quote for you from the links you post.
You cited a source talking about a supreme court precedent saying that if congress declines to protect a treaty then going through congress doesn't protect that treaty.

It seems the issue isn't with the decision itself but with who made the decision.

look like the asshole-in-chief elected by meow-IQ is doing well to distract from his impeachment.

Truly shocking how many of my liberal dipwad friends aren't just upset by what happened to the general. They are in grief and cannot be disturbed

Probably a good move by Trump to throw out big threats to Iran in an attempt to scare away any retaliation. We can't afford a war. Sometimes waving the big stick around works. It worked with North Korea to force a meeting.

If we are going to pump so much money into defense at the expense of the rest of our country, we mine as well wield its might.

so now it's the source that allegedly (not really, you're just illiterate) claimed the ridiculous strawman you suggested i made.
nice try distracting from the fact that you couldn't even distinguish between the two seperate points i made, and ended up creating that abomination of trumptard 'logic' for lack of a real argument, goon-shill.



obama's use of drones is most certainly a massive stain on his record, and the main issue (of course there are more) with his foreign policy. unlike bush, he of course did not fabricate evidence in order to start a multi trillion dollar war, he 'just' failed to clean up the incredible mess his predecessor left him in the middle east, but that does of course not excuse the war crimes committed under his leadership.

that said: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207