It was because they needed an established ally in the middle east to help them control oil reserves, and to oppose socialist governments in Palestine they worried would align with the Soviets.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing - the Soviet Union was a hostile power and the USA needs oil.
The leaders were set to meet where the offices of the Iranian presidency, the supreme leader and Iran’s National Security Council are located.
Where the Iranians not even trying to avoid all getting killed at once? They must have thought that this was a bluff.
What’s the reasoning behind treating this as a scandal? Clearly participating in Epstein’s crimes would be blameworthy but simply doing business with someone who had been convicted of crimes seems fairly neutral to me - one might argue that a decent person should be so disgusted by the crimes that he would refuse to associate with the criminal in any way, but how is that supposed to work as a general principle if the criminal in question isn’t independently wealthy? Do sex offenders just never get to have jobs again?
Well, to be fair, I think I would vote for a racist pro-choice candidate before I would vote for a pro-life candidate, so it makes sense that a pro-life voter would have similar priorities.
I don’t see anything in there that substantially challenges the facts presented in the New York Times coverage being criticized.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Consider certain graffiti. The person tagging a building doesn’t think that he is improving it. Rather, he is showing that he has the power to put his name on places where other people don’t want it. In doing so, he asserts dominance. That’s what legacy is in a zero-sum mindset where success must mean someone else’s failure - a record of whom he defeated.
I don’t think the intent is to make the center look good - it’s to humiliate.
“Controversial” here seems like a basic statement of fact. One might think that she ought not to be controversial, but she is.
That’s not how it would work even for an ordinary person. This is an accusation about something rather far-fetched happening 35 years before the accusation was made, with no evidence for it except the accusation itself. It wouldn’t lead to criminal charges.
Any true Roman Empire appreciator would happily be devoured by lions for the amusement of Emperor Nero.
Please, don’t make me choose between Rome and libertarianism. I love them both too much.
I’m not sure why people want him to humiliate Democrats by trying something doomed to failure. Hegseth can’t be impeached successfully unless multiple Republicans support doing so.
So we’re at the “I didn’t do it, but if I did then it isn’t so bad” stage.
My favorite part of this is that the redistricting would have had no problems in court if the Republicans had simply not talked about their race-related motives in public.
With that said, I don’t have high hopes for the Supreme Court here.
he has no control over his party
He can’t actually order them to do anything. One might argue that if he was a better leader, he could have persuaded them to stick with the plan longer, but maybe he had already done that weeks ago and this is the longest that anyone could have persuaded them to hold out. It is the longest shutdown ever, after all…
The random sample survey of 604 D.C. residents was taken between August 14 and 17 shortly after Trump signed the executive order. It indicates some 65 percent of residents do not believe the presence of FBI agents and uniformed National Guard troops from an increasing number of states makes the city safer.
Eight of 10 residents surveyed oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city. Seven in 10 oppose it “strongly.”
I’m not sure why they thought a DC jury would ever convict, given that even a DC grand jury (which hears only the prosecutor’s side) didn’t indict.
Because disenfranchising people is the solution to disenfranchising people. But who knows - this may be the least bad option.
So people want him to (1) believe that the Catholic faith is essential for eternal salvation but also (2) not care whether or not his wife is Catholic? That wouldn’t make any sense. Of course any Catholic who cares about his loved ones is going to hope that they convert to Catholicism.
I wouldn’t say that Trump is interested in being a theocrat - his movement pays lip service to Christianity as part of its nostalgic fantasy of America the way that it used to be, but the actual Christian conservative movement has been sidelined within the Republican party since 2016 (if not earlier). Trump and his inner circle care about Christianity only to the extent that it is a label that divides “us” from “them”.
That’s not quite that what the said.
Not the phrasing I would have chosen, but it sounds like he means “a great deal of good” as in “We’ve done a great deal to help.”
With that said, any President has to weigh the costs and benefits in lives of military action - it would be crude to explicitly say that some number of soldiers’ lives is a favorable exchange for a military objective, but it’s essential to do that math in private.