True. But it still looks symbolically bad.

Not really. Iran are blockading non-Iranian ships. The US is only blockading Iranian-bound ships.

So a priory there was no reason to think that the US would block the Russian ship. And it would be illegal under international law.

They’ve received all the best equipment and ammunition and they’ve made zero progress.

So Ukraine fighting the “second army of the world” to a standstill, instead of winning, can only be explained by extreme corruption?

And Ukraine did not receive the best equipment in the world. The US (and Europe) has refused to give Ukraine tons of the most potent weapons, like Tomahawk missiles.

Examples please?

Trump is governing by executive order. Hence the Democrats have to proactively pass laws to stop Trump. It is not a bill Democrats can filibuster in the Senate.

Whereas Democrats actually try to pass bills, as the system is supposed to work. And when Biden or Obama did try to use executive orders, they were often blocked by SCOTUS. Because US voters allowed Republican Presidents to stack the courts with partisans.

Also, generally Democrats are trying to build stuff. Whereas Republicans are trying to block or destroy stuff. destroying stuff is inherently easier.

They. Don’t. Have. The. Power. To. Do. So.

Voters have not given Democrats the power to block anything. Republicans control both chambers of Congress. How is that so hard to understand?

Because

1. SCOTUS is corrupt, filled by Republican partisans, after voters gave Republicans the power to choose judges

2. It is way easier to block stuff, than to pass stuff. So when Republicans right now is preventing a minimum wage increase, Republicans can do that

3. “Democrats can remove the pedotus by any means necessary.” - which requires a supermajority in the Senate. Whereas leaving Trump in power requires nothing. So Republicans “win”.

Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority for almost 20 years.

Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how democracy works. You can’t blame a party for not passing stuff, if you don’t give that party the power to pass stuff.

Democrats have not had a filibuster-proof majority for almost 20 years.

Sometimes I think Americans don’t know how democracy works. You can’t blame a party for not passing stuff, if you don’t give that party the power to pass stuff.

these people still trying to pass fake bills?

Telling voters what to expect, if voters give Democrats power, is not “fake bills”. What do you want, for Democrats to not tell voters what they would pass, if given power?

Maybe try stopping the fascist movement first

Hard to do when voters just handed control of all branches of government to Republicans.

Will be interesting to see the British mental gymnastics this time around.

What do you mean? The UK’s claim to the Falklands is ironclad, both legally and morally.

72% of Republicans think the US is going in the right direction. They are not just shrugging, they are applauding.

It is pretty clear at this point that almost nothing Trump could do would lose their support. How can the US ever work if Republican voters are so utterly detached from reality? It is likely a symptom of corrupt media.

People vastly overestimate their accuracy with a firearm.

In a fluid situation, sure. Like the guy who allegedly hit Trump’s ear - the police was coming after him right that moment, the missed shot was clearly taken under enormous pressure.

But with a no acute pressure situation, like the Kennedy assassination, even I could surely reliably hit at 200m with a good rifle.

Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists

Does a bear poop in the woods?

I’m sure King Charles will cozy up to Trump.

Trump is super easy to manipulate. Sending Charles to get free brown nose points, at no real cost to the UK, is the right thing to do.

That would be a direct violation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

Nope. NATO doesn’t cover wars in overseas possessions.

I assume the threat is that the US would not support the UK military or in the UN, if Argentina attacked.

Argentina is not going to attack in either case, so it is moot. Argentina simply don’t have a military capable to launch a 500km amphibious landing, against a UK military which already reinforced the Falklands after 1982 to avoid repeats.

Eh, why not? Trump is like an easily manipulated child. Cancelling the trump would accomplish nothing, while keeping the trip might work.

And then when the UK doesn’t feel eternal gratitude the next time the US needs help, Trump will again be surprised.

The US foreign policy/diplomacy seems to be a kakistocracy. If you literally picked a random person out of the phone book to be President, then it would with great probability be better than Trump.