When you do something for 4 years, and then stop at the last minute so you cynically can point out your opposition doing the same thing, it just shows that you don't actually want what your voters want, but are too chickenshit to just endorse the republican position that you implemented for 3 years and 11 months.
He has to play nice with China because they don't bend over for him like the US does. I'm pretty sure it would be illegal for him to have investments in Russia at this time.
The problem with those numbers is that gas is a totally inelastic demand for anyone who can't afford an EV. Actual wages haven't gone up 60% in 2 decades, so paying 4.75 today would hit a lot harder than paying $3 in 2006.
I am reminded of Obama banning coal plants from dumping their waste in rivers, 2 weeks before the end of his term, which was immediately reversed by Trump.
Unexploded cluster munitions don't target Serbian politicians, they tend to hurt children more frequently than anyone else.
This is why it's almost universally agreed that weapons that don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians and continue killing long after a conflict has ended are a special kind of evil and a crime to use even in war.
The other reason being that less precise weapons just aren't as effective at actually destroying military targets.
There's bombing the pharma plant in Sudan that killed 10,000 and an unknown number of downstream people due to lack of medicine, there was the sanctions on Iraq, estimated to have killed 1 million, mostly children, the acceleration of Israeli settlements, dropping cluster bombs on Yugoslavia, etc all right there.
But republicans only issue with those crimes is that Clinton didn't kill enough foreigners.
How else could republicans attack a guy who deported more people, bombed more countries, and saw the immiseration of more black families than either Bush or Trump? Right-wing democrats are more competent at being republicans than actual republicans.
As soon as the republicans got into power they removed the filibuster.
There’s also the oddity of “we didn’t exactly what we wanted in the first months
Congrats, you understand how elections work. You do what you were elected to do and you don't do things the base doesn't want you to do or you decrease turnout.
It doesn't work that way for republicans. When republicans are in power, they don't handicap themselves with the filibuster or the parliamentarian or PAYGO or let single members block everything without the threat of getting kicked off committee assignments and denied GOP funding/campaign resources.
They chose to let Lieberman be the villain of the week because they don't want the same things the left wants.
You can whine that people won't vote for politicians who don't do what they elected them to do, but that's not how democracy works. Doing things that are unpopular with the base and failing to do the things you were elected to do decreases turnout.
If the dems wanted the left to stand behind them, they should have gotten rid of the filibuster and passed actual free, universal healthcare instead of the republican plan that just amounted to extra subsidies for insurance companies. Also they shouldn't have bombed a dozen Middle Eastern and African countries while bailing out the banks that just foreclosed on millions of homes and deporting more people than either Bush or Trump.
When you betray the voters who elected you by giving republicans half the discretionary budget and adopting their policy even when they're going to vote against it, you decrease turnout. When you improve people's immediate material conditions, you increase turnout.
Or have right-wing factions armed and trained by the CIA to overthrow the government and do a bunch of crimes against humanity during the 90s.
I don't know enough about Yugoslavia's economy to say whether their coop-centric model was responsible for the stagnation and high unemployment rates.