4 ms·

I'm a little worried about this. This president may take out this setback on innocent people. I don't think it's out of the question that he may start a war.

by ivape 1y ago

nessbot 1y ago
So he gets to flaunt the law because he's vindictive? Not a system I wanna live in.
- ivape 1y ago
  That's why I'm worried. To me it's obvious he was extremely upset with all those court cases against him, and now the courts and the Fed Chair are just straight ignoring him. So is Putin.
  - nessbot 1y ago
    Yeah I get personally being worried but it's a weird thing to post online because the implication shared is that it'd be better if he [was allowed to]* just abuse emergency powers. *edit
  - MBCook 1y ago
    What’s the alternative? Roll over and let him do whatever he wants?
  - Spooky23 1y ago
    You have to force the issue. At the end of the day, congress will either stand by and allow the president to ignore the court, arrest judges, send his flying monkeys to intimidate them… or not. If the president doesn’t back down, we’ve crossed the rubicon.
    - myko 1y ago
      We already crossed that rubicon Jan 6th
- BeFlatXIII 1y ago
  I was going to say, now is the best tome to double down and escalate. Never back down.
eru 1y ago
In the US the president doesn't have the authority to start a war. Congress has the exclusive power to declare wars per the constitution.) (Obviously, in practice that's about as relevant congress having the sole authority over taxes, including tariffs.)
- ivape 1y ago
  He only has to notify Congress within 48 hours, and if they don't approve it, those troops can stay deployed for up to 60 days. I'm just saying, he has already shown he's very interested in finding every loophole possible.
  - hiatus 1y ago
    For people who may not know about this, it is in fact law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
  - eru 1y ago
    Oh, but isn't that law just for 'special military operations'? It's not proper 'war'? (I agree that in practice, a war is a war, whether your nation's laws officially call it as such or not doesn't make much of a difference.)
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      The last time America formally declared a war was 1942. Every war since then has been various shades of "special military operation". At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.
      - lesuorac 1y ago
        > At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least. I'm not sure this is accurate. We have plenty of "wars" that aren't wars. Such as the annual "war on Christmas". Do we recognize them as "wars"? Or do we just use the word?
XorNot 1y ago
[flagged]
rascul 1y ago
Innocent people are already being abused by the tariffs.

I'm a little worried about this. This president may take out this setback on innocent people. I don't think it's out of the question that he may start a war.

by ivape 1y ago

I'm a little worried about this. This president may take out this setback on innocent people. I don't think it's out of the question that he may start a war.

nessbot 1y ago

So he gets to flaunt the law because he's vindictive? Not a system I wanna live in.

ivape 1y ago
That's why I'm worried. To me it's obvious he was extremely upset with all those court cases against him, and now the courts and the Fed Chair are just straight ignoring him. So is Putin.
- nessbot 1y ago
  Yeah I get personally being worried but it's a weird thing to post online because the implication shared is that it'd be better if he [was allowed to]* just abuse emergency powers. *edit
- MBCook 1y ago
  What’s the alternative? Roll over and let him do whatever he wants?
- Spooky23 1y ago
  You have to force the issue. At the end of the day, congress will either stand by and allow the president to ignore the court, arrest judges, send his flying monkeys to intimidate them… or not. If the president doesn’t back down, we’ve crossed the rubicon.
  - myko 1y ago
    We already crossed that rubicon Jan 6th
BeFlatXIII 1y ago
I was going to say, now is the best tome to double down and escalate. Never back down.

eru 1y ago

In the US the president doesn't have the authority to start a war. Congress has the exclusive power to declare wars per the constitution.) (Obviously, in practice that's about as relevant congress having the sole authority over taxes, including tariffs.)

ivape 1y ago
He only has to notify Congress within 48 hours, and if they don't approve it, those troops can stay deployed for up to 60 days. I'm just saying, he has already shown he's very interested in finding every loophole possible.
- hiatus 1y ago
  For people who may not know about this, it is in fact law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
- eru 1y ago
  Oh, but isn't that law just for 'special military operations'? It's not proper 'war'? (I agree that in practice, a war is a war, whether your nation's laws officially call it as such or not doesn't make much of a difference.)
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    The last time America formally declared a war was 1942. Every war since then has been various shades of "special military operation". At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      > At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least. I'm not sure this is accurate. We have plenty of "wars" that aren't wars. Such as the annual "war on Christmas". Do we recognize them as "wars"? Or do we just use the word?

XorNot 1y ago

[flagged]

rascul 1y ago

Innocent people are already being abused by the tariffs.