Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Aid For Afghan Women Because She ‘Couldn’t Seem to Find’ It In the Constitution
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/republican-congresswoman-argues-against-aid-for-afghan-women-because-she-couldnt-seem-to-find-it-in-the-constitution/Open linkView original on lemmy.world346
Comments89
It's amazing that we were able to elect people so unqualified for office. I have no idea how they were able to make it to the polls without being hit by a bus...
Florida, they use swamp boats. Riding lawnmowers. Whatever it takes to get to the polls and own the libs
Lots and lots of gerrymandering
No, Florida people ride alligators like they're living surfboards
Swamp ass.
Considering the impact they had on supporting the revolution the writers of the constitution oversaw and took part in it is a good thing France and Spain didnt have as many compunctions about providing aid.
Luna is a continuing source of inspiration
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Uynb0_PH-40
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Guess we should stop funding Israel too huh?
Is she that stupid, or that much of a bad actor?
We spend generations creating a population of uneducated people by gutting public education systems and price lockouting higher education, so now we need politicians that can pretend to be dumb, fit in and garner their support.
Or hired by stupid people to be a bad actor?
also yes
Yes.
That’s an inclusive “or”, so: yes.
Why not both?
Since it seems like Anna needs help reading, I'll point out the relevant text in the constitution:
Article 2, section 2
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution mentions anything about women in government.
The Lunatic is in the house
Does she know the “pocket constitution” also doesn’t mention that a woman can vote, let alone get elected?
I think you're right about the "get elected" part, but isn't voting amended to the constitution?
Those libturd, commie, sisy amendments aren't part of my constitution.
Only one that matters is the one that lets me own more weaponry than a South American guerilla group!
For some, cruelty is entirely the point and empathy is a weakness
please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida
fuck.
Listen buddy it is like when you are on a plane. Make sure you are safe before helping others. Plenty of space available in the blue states.
I'm not leaving yet. I was born here, I'm staying here, and I'm voting here. I give it another ten years before I abandon state.
Thank you for your service
But the constitution also does not say that we shouldn't provide aid, so I guess it would be unconstitutional to not provide aid.
Aid for everyone!
Free AIDS!
Wait….
Send more aides to Africa!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/NVS43k1eVbY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Her constituents Josh and Aschleigh just heard "Blah blah blah Constitution blah blah blah brown people bad," and that was enough for them, so it served its purpose.
This wasn’t just about aid. “The fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which sets policy for the Pentagon and authorizes $886 billion in spending, was approved 219-210.” But, because a crazy Republican said something evil, you focus on that and the aid cut. Yes, we should deplore Republicans for being deplorable. But this increases military spending.
Feel free to post your own thread about that.
Guys, guys, trust me, America is good and never does anything bad. Trust me.
You know, sometimes Republicans can be right for the wrong reasons.
She's not right at all though, so it doesn't apply here.
Some libertarians were right that it was a bad idea to invade and destroy the country, but not sending aid after fucking everything up for 20 years is just irresponsible and cruel.
Is Walther your dog? I love golden retrievers. I was unknowingly concern trolling. That aid was part of a $816 billion military spending bill. My complaint was more about the rage posting. Getting people to hate on Republicans without looking at the bigger picture. How is the aid distributed? How do we know women get it when the Taliban is in control? What are we getting in return? None of that is answered in the article.
Nah, Walther is my mom's dog that I'm lucky enough to dogsit once a week and he's a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel not a golden retriever lol
As for the article not mentioning all that, it's probably because that's not what it's about. It's outside the scope of an article about the Republicans' new tool of claiming that anything that wasn't specifically mentioned in the 1700s isn't politically valid.
Why does the US have to be a power? We have homeless here. We have poverty here. We have food insecurity here. I’m not against aid, just aid that goes to the wrong people.
We would have plenty of money to spend at home and abroad if we didn't have a military bigger than the next 20 combined. Giving foreign aid is something all first world countries do. Because they have it better than others. Even if there are people who live in poverty in America, overall the standard of living is higher than Afghanistan.
Maybe, if we hadn’t bombed their country for 20 years they’d have a higher standard of living. We’ll never know though
Considering how they were before we bombed them, that's doubtful.
Afghanistan has been wrecked by many, not just Britain. The Soviets, and other empires in the past
You think aid is going to stop the Taliban. We’re aiding a country we bombed, because of terrorists we created, because the Soviet Union was spreading communism. We’re deriving solutions to problems we created.
I do? Weird, I thought what I thought was that it was going to help Afghan women and nothing else due to restrictions put on the funding. That's what the article said. You read it, right?
Unfortunately I can’t read well do to astigmatism, so I had my daughter read it to me. It said “a specter is haunting America - the specter of enlightened centrism.” What does that mean?
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't try to solve problems that we created? That if we create a problem, intentionally or not, that we should just say to the world "ok you deal with it now"?
Because that sure seems like what you're saying here.
That is exactly what I am saying. Did the Taliban ask for our help? Would our government accept aid from China to curb homelessness here? With restrictions of course that it be used only for food and clothing. They are a sovereign nation. We are usurping their authority. And we wonder why they hate us.
Well that's one of the more fucked up and asinine things I've heard in a while.
You know countries can refuse aide, right? Nobody is forcing them to accept the money. Because, you know, they're a sovereign nation with the authority to make decisions for themselves. You even said it yourself
China offering us aid doesn't "usurpe our authority". How the heck did you even come up with that nonsense.
But hey, believe whatever you want. Me, I think we should take responsibility for the harm we've done to the world and offer to make amends in some way or another. I don't think it's right to take a shit in somebody else's yard and tell them it's their problem. But again, that's me.
That money we give comes with strings that benefit us. We don’t give money unless we get something in return. Quid pro quo. Reciprocity.
You're painting a false dichotomy. We can take care of all these domestic issues, and we can give foreign aide. It wouldn't even be hard, it would require a small fraction of the military budget or a slight to most increase of taxes on corporations and the ultra rich.
But some people don't want to give money to poor/starving people, regardless of how much it costs. You could end all foreign aide and all the money would just go... somewhere else that isn't poor people's pockets.
I wasn’t aware we had solved the domestic issues.
https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/12/why-we-send-them-money.html Good piece from the RAND Corporation. The short answer is that it is in the US's self interest to do so....
So we’re reducing people in foreign countries to a commodity we invest in for our self interest. There’s a word for that- exploitation.
No exploitation is when you get an unjust benefit. Is it exploitation for a store to sell you a mattress because you want a mattress and they profit from people buying mattresses?
I was referring to the Rand article:
Foreign aid represents a good investment for this relatively modest sum.
This is exploitation:
https://www.liberationnews.org/usaid-the-humanitarian-face-of-colonial-exploitation/
I think you should read further than that sentence.
I did. https://www.liberationnews.org/usaid-the-humanitarian-face-of-colonial-exploitation/
I come from a long line of shitposters and business is booming. Lol
Exactly
Why does American taxpayers have to fund aid for the rest of the world? Not morally, practically. Why can’t Japan or Germany do this?
https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/assist0901.html
Did you even look?
Wow, that’s great. Now we don’t have to give aid.
Or we could because we have a long history of helping people, which shows them that maybe we're not evil.
Yeah, I think its interesting how the humanitarian rations the US donates are labeled "Food gift from the People of the United States of America." It seems to largely want to make it clear its coming from the US.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=iKfWQ3Sij68
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development USAID states that "U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world." Non-government organization watch groups have noted that as much as 40% of aid to Afghanistan has found its way back to donor countries through awarding contracts at inflated costs. That money comes with financial attachments. You’re better off giving to international organizations.
I'm not sure your quote is having the impact you think - yes, we give aid not just for moral reasons but to further extend our influence in region. That's a big part of what has made the US the absolute powerhouse that it is - through hegemony, soft power, and hard power. Hard power in the ME has failed, so now we are trying soft power and hegemony
So instead of thinking "Oh we should do this since every other nation is doing it. It's not abnormal"
You think "Let's let some other chump take the loss"
Says a lot about you.
He says as he steps over the homeless guy outside his door.
So no denial, just a strawman
Got it.
If a straw man would get you to home the homeless, instead of worrying about a woman in a burka halfway around the world, then yes. And before you say we can do both; then why don’t we?
Great, you're arguing philosophy without knowing what a Strawman Argument is.
Or you think I'm dumb enough to go down a conversation in bad faith. But no I won't go into this discussion.
Just because every nation is doing something, doesn’t mean it’s the best way to tackle a problem.
You don't have any ways to handle the problem, your previous comments don't even show you care about the problem. You just don't want your taxpayer money spent on it.
And I will add: I would bet everything to say that the money wouldn't go to anything helpful to you, let alone back into your pocket.
America is not the main protagonist. Other countries are doing other things. No one is asking the US to be a hero and save third world countries, they're asking for aid which every Western country is involved in.
The US is by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine, and effectively the only country meeting the military aid needs of Ukraine
Bro really pulled a "are there no workhouses"
I was trying to pose a question about colonialism and American hegemony, it did not go well
maybe the others does too?
The US spent two decades sapping what resources the country had in the name of "bringing democracy" and then just abandoned them to the Taliban. Humanitarian aid is the bare minimum for any wealthy country, let alone the one that fucked everything up.
I agree. The point and question I was trying to explore was: Should the country that burned down the house be the one that offers to rebuild it? We could give that money to international organizations. Maybe they will. Which is good. The article doesn’t say that though, it just wants you to hate Republicans.
Yes the country that burned down the house should ABSOLUTELY help pay for the rebuilding and it can by law not give money to NGOs to do it as that would jeopardise their neutrality. As for private citizens voluntarily donating to humanitarian aid charities, that's unreliable at the best of times and dwindles significantly as the economic situation of the people worsens.
And yeah, regardless of anything else, it IS justified to spend a lot of time criticizing something that is genuinely abhorrent, such as wanting to deprive starving and oppressed people of aid under the flimsiest of pretenses.