• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Immediate Threat is a Lie!

Obscurity said:
We're not in a war with Iran. If you want to send american sons and daughters to die over there lobby your congressman to declare war. Until then, Trump and his admin are war criminals.
Click to expand...

Which war is that?
 
Luckyone said:
You have not proven your point with a link to where it says that the president can declare an emergency without proving that there is one. As such, you are the one that has not proven your point. I have given you a link to an existing law and an event that is presently happening as far as emergency powers in which it is not yet a law unless proven to be so. \

Yet you continue to say that you are right and I am wrong. There is such a thing as fact. I recommend that you give me fact and not your opinion on what you think emergency powers mean in this case. Simply stated, get off the orating box and prove your point...............if you can. If you can't, then shut up.
Click to expand...

The definition of emergency is purposely left vague and there's no language even mentioning proof. Why? Because those fall under the Commander in Chief's discretion. I worked in that world for decades; those are the rules.
 
Jack Hays said:
As you wish. I cannot reason you out of a position you did not reason yourself into. President Trump has acted as his predecessors did and, I expect, as his successors will. The law is not interpreted as you claim, and your rants won't change that.
Click to expand...

The discussion should be more about whether we have set ourselves up for world condemnation as opposed to whether or not Trump was prevented in an absolute sense by the War Powers Act from doing what he did. As it is, we will not even give the Iranian Foreign Minister a waver so he can present to the UN in NY, a childish and shortsighted move on our part.

Trump and his gang have boxed themselves in on the score of credibility settling on this Imminent Threat claim that they can't even come close to proving. They just keep claiming that they based the assassination on an Imminent Threat claim and eventually claimed that they had forewarned the gang of 8 in that regard. Not one member of the 4 Dems of the gang of 8 recalls being briefed ahead of time and none of the Senators and Congresspeople in the post assassination briefing say the admin officials said anything about this Imminent Threat. So the administration has boxed itself into that corner all on its own and continues to speak in tongues to this day, 11 days later, which is stunning to me. This administration has run roughshod over the Congress for three years and now suddenly they think they need some story they can't support to make their argument!!!!

The issue should be that whether we like it or not, Soliemani was a government official of a sovereign nation we had not declared war upon. Yet we overtly assassinated him. I don't buy into this "yea but he was a terrorist" argument because one man's terrorist is another man's head of state. Ask the Panamanians after Bush 41 invaded Panama if they thought Bush was a terrorist. Ask the countless countries where we have engaged in assassination, coup d'etat and overthrow like the Northern Triangle countries what their take on that particular topic would be.

The point is not actually as much whether we do not have the means to assassinate, conduct coup d'etat etc but whether or not we take the additional step of doing it overtly, balls out. Because if countries are going to start balls out, overt assassination of the government officials of sovereign nations they have not declared war upon, all bets are off. Don't complain when somebody puts a bomb under your VP or a bunch of your Senators that are part of a ConDel because you will have given up your right to complain. We have the ability to conduct covert operations and while I am pretty opposed to regime change operations or assassination, we have government assets designed to conduct those operations covertly. To have overtly assassinated Soliemani seems to me just another bit of Trumpian bravado with no real benefit.

I don't consider it a benefit that the world believes we will conduct balls out, overt assassination of this type and I don't give a damn that Soliemani was a terrorist in this specific instance. There are other considerations more important than wagging your dick in the breeze. We already have Trumpean bar stool governance. It now appears that we are on from bad foreign policy to Trumpean bar stool foreign policy as well.
 
Jack Hays said:
The definition of emergency is purposely left vague and there's no language even mentioning proof. Why? Because those fall under the Commander in Chief's discretion. I worked in that world for decades; those are the rules.
Click to expand...

Show me the rules. If there are rules, they need to be written somewhere. I deal with rules and law, not unspoken and vague rules that do not stand up in court. When a person goes to court, unspoken rules do not stand up. If the perp broke the "written" laws he goes to jail. Simple as that.
 
jnug said:
The discussion should be more about whether we have set ourselves up for world condemnation as opposed to whether or not Trump was prevented in an absolute sense by the War Powers Act from doing what he did. As it is, we will not even give the Iranian Foreign Minister a waver so he can present to the UN in NY, a childish and shortsighted move on our part.

Trump and his gang have boxed themselves in on the score of credibility settling on this Imminent Threat claim that they can't even come close to proving. They just keep claiming that they based the assassination on an Imminent Threat claim and eventually claimed that they had forewarned the gang of 8 in that regard. Not one member of the 4 Dems of the gang of 8 recalls being briefed ahead of time and none of the Senators and Congresspeople in the post assassination briefing say the admin officials said anything about this Imminent Threat. So the administration has boxed itself into that corner all on its own and continues to speak in tongues to this day, 11 days later, which is stunning to me. This administration has run roughshod over the Congress for three years and now suddenly they think they need some story they can't support to make their argument!!!!

The issue should be that whether we like it or not, Soliemani was a government official of a sovereign nation we had not declared war upon. Yet we overtly assassinated him. I don't buy into this "yea but he was a terrorist" argument because one man's terrorist is another man's head of state. Ask the Panamanians after Bush 41 invaded Panama if they thought Bush was a terrorist. Ask the countless countries where we have engaged in assassination, coup d'etat and overthrow like the Northern Triangle countries what their take on that particular topic would be.

The point is not actually as much whether we do not have the means to assassinate, conduct coup d'etat etc but whether or not we take the additional step of doing it overtly, balls out. Because if countries are going to start balls out, overt assassination of the government officials of sovereign nations they have not declared war upon, all bets are off. Don't complain when somebody puts a bomb under your VP or a bunch of your Senators that are part of a ConDel because you will have given up your right to complain. We have the ability to conduct covert operations and while I am pretty opposed to regime change operations or assassination, we have government assets designed to conduct those operations covertly. To have overtly assassinated Soliemani seems to me just another bit of Trumpian bravado with no real benefit.

I don't consider it a benefit that the world believes we will conduct balls out, overt assassination of this type and I don't give a damn that Soliemani was a terrorist in this specific instance. There are other considerations more important than wagging your dick in the breeze. We already have Trumpean bar stool governance. It now appears that we are on from bad foreign policy to Trumpean bar stool foreign policy as well.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't care what you think the issue should be.
 
Luckyone said:
Show me the rules. If there are rules, they need to be written somewhere. I deal with rules and law, not unspoken and vague rules that do not stand up in court. When a person goes to court, unspoken rules do not stand up. If the perp broke the "written" laws he goes to jail. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

The rules aren't written, and that's as it should be.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I don't care what you think the issue should be.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. Thanks for your enlightening contribution to the thread. NOT!!!!
 
jnug said:
Of course you don't. Thanks for your enlightening contribution to the thread. NOT!!!!
Click to expand...

The thread tries to make a legal claim out of a political disagreement. My point is that won't work.
 
Luckyone said:
Show me the rules. If there are rules, they need to be written somewhere. I deal with rules and law, not unspoken and vague rules that do not stand up in court. When a person goes to court, unspoken rules do not stand up. If the perp broke the "written" laws he goes to jail. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

We have never been as reliant on rules or law as some would like us to be. We are as much reliant on the common sense of the public servant and the public good as we are on rules and laws and Trump doesn't have any of that.
 
Luckyone said:
I see the opposite of "doing great". Then again, this is not about results but about process. Weren't you one of the people complaining about the Democrats not following the proper process to impeach Trump and saying that because the process was wrong that the impeachment was wrong? Now you say the process does not matter, just the results, right?

Well, you cannot have it both ways. You have to decide whether the process or the results are what counts. If it is the former, then you are wrong about this recent action of Trump and if it is the latter, then you have to get off of complaining about how the Democrats handled the impeachment!

Choose one!
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with Trump giving the US military permission to take out an enemy combatant in the war on terror. And a kangaroo court impeachment process which does not allow the defendant any right to defend himself and where some witnesses for the prosecution are not allowed to be cross examined is not right.
 
Luckyone said:
Immediate threat? He has been an immediate threat since he became president as any of his decisions could create a big problem at any time. Then again, you are using the impeachment articles not having been sent yet as an example that the problem is not immediate enough to the Democrats? That is just plain hooey given that intelligence is involved, meaning that sending the articles of impeachment to a Congress that has already clearly stated that they will find Trump innocent no matter what happens would be just plain stupid. You don't fight a problem with stupidity even if the problem is immediate.

Solution to the problem is the ultimate goal but doing something that is already guaranteed to work against the goal would not solve the problem and solution is what is needed, not haste to solve it.

I am surprised in you. This has to be the most uninformed post you have ever posted..............or you are simply trying to be a pest that bugs for the simple sake of bugging.

Shame on you!
Click to expand...

Well, if he was such an immediate threat then Nancy should have walked the articles over herself the second after the impeachment passed.
 
marke said:
There is nothing wrong with Trump giving the US military permission to take out an enemy combatant in the war on terror. And a kangaroo court impeachment process which does not allow the defendant any right to defend himself and where some witnesses for the prosecution are not allowed to be cross examined is not right.
Click to expand...

Evidently you don't see the hypocrisy there. I am not surprised, coming from you.

Have a great day, you will need it (as a good memory) in preparation of the pain that is to come
 
Moderate Right said:
Well, if he was such an immediate threat then Nancy should have walked the articles over herself the second after the impeachment passed.
Click to expand...

Nancy is smart (especially compared to McConnell and Trump) and doing something stupid is not in her repertoire.

She now has a vote for impeachment and no exoneration from a kangaroo court panel. How much better can it get?
 
Jack Hays said:
The definition of emergency is purposely left vague and there's no language even mentioning proof. Why? Because those fall under the Commander in Chief's discretion. I worked in that world for decades; those are the rules.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to make a strong rebuttal to an Emergency Powers claim in the case of the Soliemani assassination. Frankly that is not my concern though I understand how it could be for some folks. Just for context, an Emergency Powers claim for DonDon's Wall is hilariously absurd.

That the administration has settled on this Imminent Threat claim that they can't make a case for is Keystone Kops stuff. Is there anybody left in Trump's National Security apparatus that knows how to think?
 
ecofarm said:
I hate nationalism. It's small-minded bs for idiots and bigots to cling to for self worth.
Click to expand...

Nationalism is needed when someone is invading your country (like we did vs Russia), but outside of that not so much. For example stupid trade war with China (tariffs) isn't about true capitalism - it's just one trick in nationalism tool box (I assume it's failing too as Americans are paying a lot, correct me if I'm wrong).

Worst thing about nationalism is that when people use it as way to elevate themselves above other people, like you can justify all kind of bad shi* by saying it's about being good nationalist. Only exception, when it's not about war time, where nationalism is healthy attitude is when it's linked to welfare, equality and responsibility. In my mind ultra rich are not those with healthy nationalism in their veins, same with people taking corporate money, brown nosing liars, so on..
 
FinnFox said:
Nationalism is needed when someone is invading your country (like we did vs Russia), but outside of that not so much. For example stupid trade war with China (tariffs) isn't about true capitalism - it's just one trick in nationalism tool box (I assume it's failing too as Americans are paying a lot, correct me if I'm wrong).

Worst thing about nationalism is that when people use it as way to elevate themselves above other people, like you can justify all kind of bad shi* by saying it's about being good nationalist. Only exception, when it's not about war time, where nationalism is healthy attitude is when it's linked to welfare, equality and responsibility. In my mind ultra rich are not those with healthy nationalism in their veins, same with people taking corporate money, brown nosing liars, so on..
Click to expand...

I stand on principles, not tribalism, even when the Russians attack.
 
Luckyone said:
Nancy is smart (especially compared to McConnell and Trump) and doing something stupid is not in her repertoire.

She now has a vote for impeachment and no exoneration from a kangaroo court panel. How much better can it get?
Click to expand...

But she is sending the articles over. So, there will be exoneration. All she did was delay the exoneration a couple of weeks, weeks which Congress was off anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom