Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Aid For Afghan Women Because She ‘Couldn’t Seem to Find’ It In the Constitution
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Maybe it Britain hadn't fucked up the entire region when the sun didn't set on their empire, Afghanistan would have a higher standard of living. We'll still never know.
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.
You think aid is going to stop the Taliban
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
Would our government accept aid from China
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.
Probably shouldn’t shit in someone else’s yard in the first place. :)
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/
Foreign aid represents a good investment for this relatively modest sum.
I think you should read further than that sentence.
Did you ever think about owning a lucrative business or just coming from generational wealth?
I come from a long line of shitposters and business is booming. Lol