Nothing except for consolidating his power and punishing the people who held him accountable for his previous attempts to overturn a free and fair election.
The "bribe" isn't going to be a one-time payment. That's another benefit of doing it in the form of trade. The bribe goes away if Russia re-invades. They have to keep not invading to keep getting the "bribe".
Which other neighbor? Belarus? They don't need to. The Baltic states? Finland? Already part of NATO. Kazakhstan? Yeah, good luck with Afghanistan 2.0. Mongolia? No point, there's nothing there. China? Bust out the popcorn.
It's not just about ambition, it's also about ability.
Meaning gaining control of the executive branch. Oh noes!
Why should any president be obligated to keep people in key positions within the executive branch who will work against his policies? There's nothing democratic about that.
No, don't put words in my mouth. He's consolidating his personal power. The rule of law means that the President is not above the law that governs the exercise of his officer. The Appointments Clause makes this absolutely clear.
They didn't act against his policies. They acted against his behavior. That's an incredibly important difference. Just because a President has a policy doesn't mean that policy is being lawfully carried out. That's why we have people whose job it is to determine lawfulness.
How?
Do you think they are supportive of his policies? Of course they aren't.
By dismantling the executive branch and removing oversight.
You dodged the point and begged the question.
First off, this happened more than 15 years ago. Second, this isn't an accurate representation of what happened. A version of 1984 (as well as Animal Farm) was put on Amazon by a publisher that didn't actually have the publishing rights to these books in some of the territories they were being sold. Amazon didn't catch the mistake before some customers bought illegal copies. When it found out, it deleted those copies and refunded customers who bought the book. A version of 1984 from the actual rights holder in those territories was and remains available.
Yes, that's new. But it's got nothing to do with Trump, it's just the latest in a long line of companies making ever more restrictive controls over access to digital media.
Um... the executive branch doesn't exist to check his personal power. That's not how it works. To the extent that he's dismantling anything, that reduces the power of the executive branch, and thus his personal power. If you want to expand your power as a political leader, you expand government, you don't shrink it.
He's removing some ineffective forms of oversight and instituting others. Which he gets to do as President. We're all finding out a lot about government spending that we didn't know before. I don't see that as a net loss of oversight, I see that as an increase.
The point isn't relevant, because it was your own attempt at dodging mine. And no, I don't think it really was begging the question. I think we all know it's true.
It's for Ukraine to decide if and when it stops fighting and what, if anything they concede or give up.
Absolutely. You may note that Trump has not asked them to stop.
How about something better than "peace in our time"? Don't confuse a temporary cessation of gunfire with "peace".
Why are you putting the burden on the country that was invaded? And not even bringing them to the table to negotiate?
"your soldiers will stop dying"
And that's what you are proposing to give.
Pretty sure invasion and occupying territory is directly counter to what Ukraine wants.
Pull out of Ukraine, we lift some of the sanctions we hit them with in response to the invasion.
And the next time Putin's popularity dips and he needs a quick way to drum up support? Because that is part of what happened here. He's been growing unpopular domestically. He needed something to distract from the growing problems at home. Since those problems are still there, he'll need to do something else to distract people.
Yes it does, because it is nominally answerable to Congress via the Appointments Clause, which gives authority to Title 5. This in turn gives rise to the legal doctrine of the presumption of regularity, which courts have recognized.
No, that's now how it works. He's removing people who have traditionally had discretionary and oversight power within the executive branch and either not replacing them or replacing them with loyalists—all without ceding any power away from the executive. The Trump administration has already tried to claim it holds the true power of the purse and thereby has sole discretion over appropriated funding.
No, we aren't. We're seeing an incredible amount of disinformation and straight-up lies by people who want to convince you that the rank-and-file operatives they're doing away with were somehow part of some evil cabal.
No.
I want to fight this war to the last Russian, if that's what it takes. And I want it done sooner rather than later. And I want to support Ukraine in their willingness to take on this heavy burden, in any and every way we can.
