Mamdani, Schumer, AOC battling for most idiotic response to Trump's Iran strikes
NYC lefty 'it boy' Zohran Mamdani is one clear leader of the pack: 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' the failed rapper posted on X.
And: 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos.'
Wrong on virtually every count: As the president noted Saturday night, Iran's been waging war on our country since it seized the hostages back in 1979, through its sponsorship of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, its provision of IEDs to slaughter our troops in Afhganistan and Iraq and on to its efforts to assassinate Trump.
By finishing off Tehran's nuclear program, the prez moved decisively to end Israel's strikes on Iran by eliminating their target.
And defanging the monsters who run the Islamic Republic is a blow against chaos that opens the door to a brighter future for the entire region.
Naturally, Mamdani's less-radical rivals for Democrats' mayoral nomination felt obliged to also condemn Trump, with Andrew Cuomo (Dems' 'it boy' of 2020!) whining about how 'Trump went about this without consulting Congress, without consulting the normal congressional officials' blah-blah-blah.
That's the same approach embraced by most national Democrats, including ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer.
Which is beyond pathetic, as all of them are on record praising President Barack Obama's various unilateral, left-Congress-in-the-dark actions from doing 'regime change' in Libya by taking out Moammer Khadafy to his multiple drone assassinations of US citizens such as Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez basically sits in the same camp as Mamdani (her preferred mayoral candidate, of course) with the added filip of claiming Trump's actions are 'absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.'
In fact, the US strikes were plainly legal, covered (like Obama's) by Congress' open-ended authorizations for presidential force back in 2003 — resolutions that neither party has sought to repeal even when both Houses of Congress are held by the presidential-opposition party.
Yes, it'd be wonderful if the House and Senate were willing to do their duties in matters of war and peace, but instead they've chosen not to — and to just carp about the other team's leadership.
This also means Trump had no responsibility to brief top Democrats in advance of the strikes — and that no word of the coming attacks leaked suggests he was wise to shut them out.
We certainly wouldn't trust the likes of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to put the safety of Americans headed into a war zone above his partisan desire to undermine anything and everything Donald Trump is doing.
Let us not forget the international contestants in the idiot sweepstakes: UN Secretary-General António Guterres (last seen thundering that Israel's strikes on Iran could 'ignite a fire no one can control') denounced Trump's 'dangerous escalation' as 'a direct threat to international peace and security' before droning on about supposed 'rules of international law.'
That is: He's still pretending Iran isn't one of the main threats to other nations' safety, and that stopping it is somehow an 'escalation.'
Russia and China of course condemned the US strikes, but all should note that that's literally the least they could do to support their ally Iran.
We guess British Prime Minister Keir Starmer can represent the countless fools of Western Europe in the competition, adding to the chorus of clueless handwringing over the supposed 'risk of escalation' even as he admitted Iran's nuke program posed a 'grave threat to international security' and called for 'a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.'
OK: Tehran should end the crisis by calling it quits on attacking Israel so the Israelis don't need to keep taking out Iranian missile launchers etc., and by foreswearing any response to the US strikes; it certainly shouldn't try to close the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping if it doesn't want half its Navy sunk again (as was its fate the last time it tried that stunt).
No one else can or should offer the Islamic Republic a damned thing except what's been on the table from the start: Verifiably end your nuke quest, stop attacking other countries (remember its utterly unprovoked strikes on Israel last year) and other nations will leave you alone.
It's all clear as crystal, even if so many idiots insist on pretending otherwise.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Analysis: What is gerrymandering? Why is it legal?
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Halfway between the 2020 and 2030 census is not the normal time to be talking about redistricting, or gerrymandering, but the issue has nonetheless taken over the political conversation. Perhaps sensing some political weakness and fearing the loss of their House majority, Republicans are looking for more congressional seats. But rather than just trying to win them at the ballot box, they're primed to conjure additional seats by redrawing congressional maps in Texas. Democrats, tired of being outplayed, have threatened to redraw maps in states they control, such as New York and California, although it's more difficult to accomplish in states that, heretofore, have tried to make the process less political. Enabled by conservatives on the Supreme Court, whose decisions have chipped away at the Voting Rights Act and given a green light to partisan gerrymandering, the Texas effort could set off a full-on redistricting war in the years to come. So it's worth taking a step back to look at redistricting, gerrymandering and why things work the way they do. The Constitution lays out the general order of how members of Congress are divided among the states. The basic outline is this: There is a national census every 10 years to establish the number of residents in each state. House districts are then apportioned to the states based on each state's population. As states grow, they can gain seats. But if their population shrinks compared with those of other states, they can lose seats. But the Constitution leaves it to states to determine who, exactly, those members of Congress will represent. In states with more than one US representative, the process of drawing congressional maps is known as redistricting. Some states give that power to their legislatures. Others have assigned the task of redistricting to nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions. The Constitution says that 'the whole number of free persons' should be counted. The original version excluded 'Indians not taxed' and counted only 'three fifths of all other Persons.' That ugly acknowledgment of slavery is one of the few mentions of the country's original sin in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, removed the three-fifths clause and declared everyone born in the US to be a citizen. Now, notably, Trump wants to end birthright citizenship as one way to address undocumented immigration. Republicans also want to exclude undocumented people from the census, something Trump tried and failed to accomplish in 2020. It's the drawing of political maps for partisan gain. Republicans and Democrats both do it, but Republicans have more openly embraced the process. In practice, it's the equivalent of politicians picking their voters instead of the other way around, which is an inversion of the democratic process. North Carolina, for instance, leans ever-so-slightly toward Republicans in presidential elections, but thanks to gerrymandering, 10 of its 14 congressional seats are held by Republicans. Democrats have done the same in multiple states they control. Elbridge Gerry was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, but later, as governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to the drawing of a serpentine, salamander-like state Senate district. He is depicted in CGI in a recently published video on the White House Youtube's page frustrated that his name has been mispronounced ever since. His name should sound like Gary, Indiana. But in terms of redistricting, it's generally pronounced with a soft 'G,' like Jerry. It can look like inkblot art. Cities can be creatively carved up to spread like-minded voters to other districts. They can also be strung together to push like-minded voters together. In the current Texas map, for instance, Democratic voters from Austin and San Antonio are both placed in one district, connected by a sliver of land. In the newly proposed map, those Democratic voters would be spread to other districts. It depends on what legislators drawing the map are trying to accomplish. In Texas, they now want to add Republican seats. Quite simply, the White House asked it to. The president's party usually loses at least some seats during midterm elections and, in an effort to blunt an expected turn against the him in the next election, President Donald Trump asked Texas to redraw its maps. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott complied by adding an agenda item about redistricting to a planned special session of the legislature. Trump's Department of Justice is also providing some cover by arguing that some of the state's districts, which were drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act, actually violate the US Constitution. Probably not, but they'll try. A group of state Democratic legislators have left the state in order to bring all business in the Texas legislature's special session to a halt. They've tried this tactic before, including the last time Texas Republicans did a mid-decade gerrymander in 2003. Abbott has issued civil arrest warrants and threatened to remove fleeing Democrats from office. The question will be how long the Democrats remain out of state, seeking refuge in blue states like Illinois and New York. The current special session lasts for two more weeks. But Abbott can always call another one. States are largely in charge of the process of drawing maps for the districts they are apportioned. It's unusual, but not unprecedented, to redraw those maps in the middle of the decade. Texas did it previously, in 2003. Mid-decade redistricting is prohibited by state law in some places, but not in Texas. Sure is, at least under federal law. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court so took away federal courts' power to review politically gerrymandered districts in a 2019 case. 'Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote at the time, drawing the criticism of liberals on the court. Yes. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, there are restrictions on how state lines can be drawn to minimize the voting power of minorities. The Supreme Court is set to hear a case this year over maps in Louisiana that could further gut the Voting Rights Act protections. Districts are also supposed to have relatively equal representation, but that does not always work out. Delaware had more than 990,000 residents for its sole congressional district after the 2020 apportionment, but Rhode Island had about 549,000 each for its two. There are winners and losers in the apportionment process. Where they can, they do. In Illinois, former Vice President Kamala Harris got 54% of the vote in 2024, but Democrats, thanks to gerrymandering, won 14 of 17 congressional seats. But Democrats have handed away their power to gerrymander in states like California, where a nonpartisan commission draws congressional maps. In red states with such commissions, they have frequently been overturned by state lawmakers, such as in Utah, where a Democratic seat focused on Salt Lake City was carved up among Republican seats. Texas Republicans originally drew maps to protect incumbents. States like California, which have commission-drawn maps, frequently have more competitive seats. Democrats won most of them in 2024 in California. Republicans are now eyeing five more seats in Texas based on Trump's strength in the state in 2024. They're assuming, for instance, that Latino voters who swung toward Republicans in 2024 will continue to support Republicans. If the country turns against Trump, it could, in theory, backfire. It's a much tougher lift. While governors in New York and California have promised to 'fight fire with fire,' their hands are tied by their own state laws. In New York, it would take a multi-year process to amend the state Constitution. It would be more possible in California, but it would still require a special election this November to essentially ask voters to undo the nonpartisan process they created in 2008. If the Texas maneuver snowballs into efforts to redraw maps in multiple states, Republicans would come out with more advantage, especially in the short term, according to CNN's Arit John and Manu Raju. They write: GOP lawmakers in states such as Missouri and Florida have also expressed openness to new maps. Ohio, where lawmakers must redraw their maps under state redistricting laws, could also yield additional seats. Republicans hold government majorities in 23 states compared to Democrats' 15. The expectation should be that support for Trump and Republicans will soften in the coming election. That's not a value judgment on their leadership, but a historical reality. Every president's party going back to George W. Bush has lost the House in a midterm election. That includes Joe Biden's Democrats in 2022, Trump's Republicans in 2018, Barack Obama's Democrats in 2010, George W. Bush's Republicans in 2006 and Bill Clinton's Democrats in 1994. The redrawing of maps could blunt the effects of such a turn, but Democrats only need to win three more seats to flip the House. If there's a wave against Republicans, no amount of gerrymandering is likely to save that GOP majority.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Trump Says JD Vance 'Probably Favored' to Take Over MAGA
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump was asked if Vice President JD Vance is the heir apparent to his MAGA empire in a news conference on Tuesday and responded "most likely," while noting Vance's position. Newsweek reached out to a political analyst via email Tuesday for additional comment. Why It Matters Trump, addressing ongoing speculation about his political legacy and the possibility of attempting a third term, reiterated during a CNBC interview that he would "probably not" run again, saying, "I'd like to run. I have the best poll numbers I've ever had," adding that legal constraints made a third-term run highly unlikely. The Constitution's 22nd Amendment does not allow anyone to be elected to the presidency more than twice, even if the terms served in the Oval Office are nonconsecutive. What To Know While answering questions from reporters during a news conference about the 2028 Olympics, Trump was directly asked if Vance is the successor to MAGA. "Well, I think most likely in all fairness, he's the vice president," Trump responded. "I think Marco [Rubio] is also somebody that maybe would get together with JD in some form. I also think we have incredible people, some of the people on the stage right here, so it's too early obviously to talk about it but certainly he's doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point." A survey by Emerson College Polling released last week shows Vance as the top 2028 Republican contender for voters in North Carolina, jumping 7 percentage points from a June poll from Emerson. President Donald Trump, right, arrives to speak as Vice President JD Vance looks on before Trump signs an executive order in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on August 5 in... President Donald Trump, right, arrives to speak as Vice President JD Vance looks on before Trump signs an executive order in the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on August 5 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) More This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Elon Musk Backs Donald Trump's Latest Threat
Billionaire Elon Musk said Tuesday that it's "time to federalize DC" after President Donald Trump suggested the same threat while spotlighting a recent crime in Washington that allegedly involved a member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk posted on X, "A few days ago, a gang of about a dozen young men tried to assault a woman in her car at night in DC. A @Doge team member saw what was happening, ran to defend her and was severely beaten to the point of concussion, but he saved her. It is time to federalize DC." Earlier Tuesday, Trump posted on Truth Social, that he would "federalize this city" while talking about crime in the nation's capital. The president posted, "Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control. Local 'youths' and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released. They are not afraid of Law Enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it's going to happen now! The Law in D.C. must be changed to prosecute these 'minors' as adults, and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14. The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs. Washington, D.C., must be safe, clean, and beautiful for all Americans and, importantly, for the World to see. If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore. Perhaps it should have been done a long time ago, then this incredible young man, and so many others, would not have had to go through the horrors of Violent Crime. If this continues, I am going to exert my powers, and FEDERALIZE this City. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! He also referenced the incident during his remarks on Tuesday. TRUMP: 'Somebody from @DOGE was very badly hurt last night ... A young man who was beat up by a bunch of thugs in D.C.' — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) August 5, 2025 This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
