|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls.
How does war work in the US can the President order attacks on his own or with his cabinet, or does he need congress to do anything? He might just start WW3 if he can act on his own.
|
On August 10 2017 08:12 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls. How does war work in the US can the President order attacks on his own or with his cabinet, or does he need congress to do anything? He might just start WW3 if he can act on his own.
The US president needs congress to declare war.
However, the US seems to be fine with fighting people without actually declaring war. The last time an actual war was declared was WW2 if i recall correctly. So for something like, for example, invading iraq, you don't need congress to declare war. You can just send the soldiers there and start fighting.
So, Trump can start a war on his own (Well, he would need to convince the military guys to actually do the fighting, but they tend to be trained to obey orders). And no one can do anything about it.
|
He can engage in a military conflict for ... 30 days? without authorization, after that he needs permission. The AUMF for the Iraq War has been stretched beyond all definition though, justifying assaults against ISIS which didn't even exist in 2001.
|
Just send troops into North Korea and scream "They're coming right for us!" and you're good to go.
|
America the butt of all jokes now and North Korea not taking us seriously along with the rest of the world I'm so mad
|
On August 10 2017 08:23 riotjune wrote: America the butt of all jokes now and North Korea not taking us seriously along with the rest of the world I'm so mad
Reform your election system of president to just popular vote not stupid electoral college, it would stop a lot of problems.
|
United States41982 Posts
On August 10 2017 08:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:12 Zaros wrote:On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls. How does war work in the US can the President order attacks on his own or with his cabinet, or does he need congress to do anything? He might just start WW3 if he can act on his own. The US president needs congress to declare war. However, the US seems to be fine with fighting people without actually declaring war. The last time an actual war was declared was WW2 if i recall correctly. So for something like, for example, invading iraq, you don't need congress to declare war. You can just send the soldiers there and start fighting. So, Trump can start a war on his own (Well, he would need to convince the military guys to actually do the fighting, but they tend to be trained to obey orders). And no one can do anything about it. Congress authorized Vietnam. They didn't declare war but there was congressional approval.
|
|
On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls. Little did they know, "Fire" and "Fury" are the nicknames he has for his thumbs when he's tweeting.
|
On August 10 2017 08:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls. Little did they know, "Fire" and "Fury" are the nicknames he has for his thumbs when he's tweeting.
lol
Nothing else to say, made me chuckle.
|
|
That chicken is huge, but with tiny wings.
|
On August 10 2017 07:48 Nevuk wrote:Keep an eye out for a new piece of flagrantly absurd actual fake news being parroted soon : Show nested quote +The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney.
The discussion of a plea bargain took place late last month and was offered by a high-ranking Justice Department official to the Clinton lawyer.
During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey's decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts.
Under the Justice Department's plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe.
Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary's pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees.
The Clinton attorney cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment, and Hillary has not yet been charged with any crime.
Actual source : www.newsmax.com
"But her emails" is in full effect.
Nine months after Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, congressional Republicans and conservative legal watchdogs are continuing to probe the scandals that dogged the Democratic campaign. And in conservative media, the churn of possible investigations has created a news cycle that operates independently of the one seen in most of the press.
The latest round of pressure for new investigations gained steam last week, when Judicial Watch and then the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) released the latest fruit of a federal lawsuit against the Justice Department — email traffic inside the agency about the June 2016 decision by Bill Clinton to walk across the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport and have a conversation with then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. The meeting, first reported by a local news station that also reported being told not to photograph Lynch or Clinton, caused an instant scandal, despite a hasty attempt by Hillary Clinton’s campaign to describe the meeting as nonpolitical.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
clearly a ratings thing. I expect Colbert to take full advantage of it though. It's all about the ratings.
it is a comedy/late night show. Pretty sure outrages guests are a staple of those shows.
|
Colbert needs relevance and Mooch needs money.
|
On August 10 2017 09:32 Mohdoo wrote: Colbert needs relevance and Mooch needs money.
What do you mean needs relevance? He show is dominating in ratings which is the best judge of relevance one can have. If anything Mooch needs this to try and salvage his reputation.
|
A lawsuit contending that President Donald Trump's business dealings with and in foreign countries violate the Constitution is set to get a public airing in October in a New York federal courtroom.
U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels issued an order Wednesday setting oral arguments for Oct. 18 on a suit the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed in January. The suit argues that Trump's business ties run afoul of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, which bars federal officials from receiving benefits from foreign governments.
The Justice Department's final response brief in the case is due Sept. 22.
Daniels took over the case last month after Judge Ronnie Abrams recused herself, apparently because her husband accepted a job as a prosecutor on the staff of Robert Mueller, the special counsel probing alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Abrams is an Obama appointee. Daniels is a Clinton appointee.
The suit is one of about half a dozen lawsuits targeting income Trump derives from foreign sources. One of those additional cases is pending before Daniels. The other are before federal courts in Washington, D.C., Greenbelt, Maryland, and West Palm Beach, Florida.
The Trump Organization says its Washington hotel and similar businesses have voluntarily implemented procedures to identify profits from foreign government sources and divert those to the U.S. Treasury.
The Justice Department is defending Trump in the litigation and contends that the foreign emoluments clause does not cover routine business payments, even if foreign governments are involved.
Source
|
so apparently now Scaramucci doesn't understand how some stats have 1 party consent for recording conversations.
|
On August 10 2017 08:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 08:15 Simberto wrote:On August 10 2017 08:12 Zaros wrote:On August 10 2017 08:08 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 08:05 Zaros wrote: North Korea trying to piss Trump off as much as possible. They're totally gonna get lit up on Twitter. God help those poor souls. How does war work in the US can the President order attacks on his own or with his cabinet, or does he need congress to do anything? He might just start WW3 if he can act on his own. The US president needs congress to declare war. However, the US seems to be fine with fighting people without actually declaring war. The last time an actual war was declared was WW2 if i recall correctly. So for something like, for example, invading iraq, you don't need congress to declare war. You can just send the soldiers there and start fighting. So, Trump can start a war on his own (Well, he would need to convince the military guys to actually do the fighting, but they tend to be trained to obey orders). And no one can do anything about it. Congress authorized Vietnam. They didn't declare war but there was congressional approval.
The Korean war never ended (just reached a ceasefire) so technically he wouldn't be declaring a war. No idea the legal status of backing out of a ceasefire though.
|
On August 10 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 07:22 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:18 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 07:07 Danglars wrote:On August 10 2017 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 10 2017 06:42 Danglars wrote:Netroots Nation, the activist left's largest annual gathering, arrives in Atlanta this year with its clearest focus in years: how to resist President Trump.
Former Vice President Gore will speak about the threats to the planet from a president who dismisses climate change as a hoax hatched in Beijing. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will ring alarm bells about domestic policy. And 14 separate sessions will discuss the best ways to fight the White House and Republican Congress. Jon Ossoff, the Democratic star who narrowly lost Georgia’s special House election in June, will also show.
“The last couple of years, much of the energy nationally was focused on social justice,” said Netroots Nation spokeswoman Mary Rickles. This year, the focus for nearly 3,000 attendees was back on politics: “How do we channel the energy of resistance into helping progressives win elections?”
At more than 80 panels and training sessions, activists will get updates from the “resistance” groups like Indivisible founded after the 2016 election, or those that have multiplied their membership since then, like the American Civil Liberties Union. One panel will go over ways to challenge Trump’s “xenophobic NAFTA narrative,” while another — more relevant given news from North Korea — will brainstorm ways to oppose Trump if a traumatic event causes people to rally around the flag.
[Trump’s threats to North Korea were spontaneous and not drafted by advisers, officials say]
“Hitler used the Reichstag Fire; Putin used the 1999 apartment bombings; and George W. Bush used 9/11,” reads the online description of the panel, which will feature leaders of MoveOn.org and the ACLU. “With Trump, [Stephen K.] Bannon and their allies in Congress, progressives must be prepared to fight back in the first hours and days of a national security crisis.”
The conference, which began in 2006 as a spinoff from the elections-focused Daily Kos blog, transformed in the Obama years into a showcase for labor and civil rights movements. In 2007, it hosted every major Democratic candidate for president for a traditional question-and-answer session, and more than a hundred reporters swarmed the halls to see where the Democratic base was directing its energy.
But as soon as Democrats took power, an invitation to Netroots meant a decent shot of being heckled by activists who demanded results on LGBT rights, on National Security Agency spying, or the failings of the Affordable Care Act. In 2015, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) took questions, they were interrupted by Black Lives Matter activists — a scene that led to productive meetings between protesters and candidates, but unfolded awkwardly onstage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign checked off the Netroots box with a three-minute video message. WaPoIt's good to know ACLU leaders are fine on a panel that compares GWB to Hitler. You're disappointed that the ACLU aren't doing enough to limit discussions you find distasteful? That's an odd thing to be disappointed by. Do you know what they do? It's odd that past US presidents and literal Hitler is an association you would detachedly comment on in passing. Today, the civil rights of America, tomorrow, our lawyer's leaders examine how 9/11 was comparable to the Reichstag fire. I might echo your words at our last interaction, and say I risk explaining this as I would to a child. Which example of civil liberties and privacy being curtailed following an attack would you prefer them to compare 9/11 to? Presumably you acknowledge that there has been an increase in surveillance of the American people by their government. And presumably you acknowledge that 9/11 was the event that caused that increase. So, if you don't doubt that it happened, are you simply upset about the parallel being drawn? And if so, which historical event would you prefer? So your defense is that Hitler and the Reichstag bear surprising similarities to GWB and 9/11. Well, I suppose the ACLU does have its supporters in this behavior. I thought it a little beyond the pale, similar to saying broad swaths of America didn't vote for Obama because of racism, but you pepped up to defend that one on the basis of truth. I find it so blindingly outrageous on its face that breaking it down really is just indulging someone who chooses to be dense. What in the hell are you even talking about? You ignored literally everything I said. All I did was ask you if you're upset about the parallel being drawn and if so which historical event you would prefer they use as a parallel. I'm saying you could technically put the ACLU on a panel questioning the bases for why rape is considered wrong and claim any objectors are just disappointed that their sexual moral norms can be questioned and its just a view you find distasteful, as you've done here. I'm about as prepared and willing to discuss that moral case as for why GWB used 9/11 like Hitler used the Reichstag fire. I will second my original repetition of your words, by wondering if I'm going too far in explaining this as I would to a child. I'm a little confused at your objection here. It seems like the point of the comparison is that big emergencies are frequently used as excuses for curtailing civil rights, which seems both true and widely agreed upon (something something Benjamin Franklin, something something deserve neither). I don't see any indication that they drew any moral equivalence between GWB and Hitler, just that both used a high-profile national emergency to justify letting the government snoop a lot more.
I could imagine liberals moralizing about how the comparison trivializes the suffering of the many victims of Hitler's regime, but that seems like the exact kind of political correctness you'd normally hate. (But maybe I'm just blind on this issue, I recall LL complaining about me in website feedback for a very similar offense so maybe I'm just not getting something)
|
|
|
|