1 yr. ago • 97%

Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Aid For Afghan Women Because She ‘Couldn’t Seem to Find’ It In the Constitution

www.mediaite.com Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Aid For Afghan Women Because She ‘Couldn’t Seem to Find’ It In the Constitution

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) suggested on the House floor that because the phrase "humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan" is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such aid is unconstitutional.

96 comments

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...

106
- Florida, they use swamp boats. Riding lawnmowers. Whatever it takes to get to the polls and own the libs
  
  31
  
  Lots and lots of gerrymandering
  
  3
  
  No, Florida people ride alligators like they're living surfboards
  
  2
“This amendment would make that humanitarian aid illegal and people would die,” she concluded before Luna rose to rebut her speech.

“Chairman, I couldn’t help but pull out my pocket Constitution and I couldn’t seem to find anywhere in here where it says we need to fund programs for humanitarian aid for women and children in Afghanistan,” Luna said. “So, with that, I just wanted to point that out.”

Swamp ass.

68
- 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.
  
  17
- Luna is a continuing source of inspiration
  
  10
  
  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.
  
  8
- Guess we should stop funding Israel too huh?
  
  3
Is she that stupid, or that much of a bad actor?

58
- 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.
  
  36
- Or hired by stupid people to be a bad actor?
  
  17
  
  also yes
  
  3
- Yes.
  
  12
- That’s an inclusive “or”, so: yes.
  
  6
- Why not both?
  
  5
Since it seems like Anna needs help reading, I'll point out the relevant text in the constitution:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Article 2, section 2

39
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Constitution mentions anything about women in government.

30
- Otoh, it does mention something about sedition. That didn't seem to stop them though
  
  14
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?

29
- I think you're right about the "get elected" part, but isn't voting amended to the constitution?
  
  6
  
  Those libturd, commie, sisy amendments aren't part of my constitution.
  
  10
For some, cruelty is entirely the point and empathy is a weakness

27
please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida. please don't be from Florida

fuck.

20
- 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.
  
  4
  
  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.
  
  3
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!

17
- Free AIDS!
  
  Wait….
  
  5
  
  Send more aides to Africa!
  
  2
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.

13
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.

10
- Feel free to post your own thread about that.
  
  6
Guys, guys, trust me, America is good and never does anything bad. Trust me.

6
You know, sometimes Republicans can be right for the wrong reasons.

-10
- 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.
  
  1
  
  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.
  
  -2
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.

-10
- 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.
  
  18
  
  Maybe, if we hadn’t bombed their country for 20 years they’d have a higher standard of living. We’ll never know though
  
  6
  
  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.
  
  0
- 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.
  
  5
  
  I wasn’t aware we had solved the domestic issues.
  
  0
- 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....
  
  4
  
  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.
  
  -1
- Did you ever think about owning a lucrative business or just coming from generational wealth?
  
  2
  
  I come from a long line of shitposters and business is booming. Lol
  
  0
How would that aid be administered?

Sounds like more money for USAID or/and, State Dept, DoD corruption?

-25
- Exactly
  
  -4
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?

-38
- https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/assist0901.html
  
  Did you even look?
  
  23
  
  Wow, that’s great. Now we don’t have to give aid.
  
  -35
- 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.
  
  15
- They...do? Do you think the rest of the world sits there with their hands in their pockets, watching the USA dole out money? Just as we aren't the only ones supporting Ukraine, we are NOT the only ones giving aid.
  
  13
  
  The US is by far the biggest supporter of Ukraine, and effectively the only country meeting the military aid needs of Ukraine
  
  -2
- Bro really pulled a "are there no workhouses"
  
  6
  
  I was trying to pose a question about colonialism and American hegemony, it did not go well
  
  -2
- maybe the others does too?
  
  3
- 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.
  
  2
  
  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.
  
  0

You've viewed 96 comments.