What if "the wrong person" wins in November?

[Brainster]

I overall agree, but I think you might have the exception with Trump. Neither party has, in a long time, nominated anybody with his emotional and psychological issues,and nobody who clearly has a authoritarian view of the world,and who seems to be so ignorant of the basics of American Government,and who has courted the White Nationalists element. I feel a lot of what went on at this forum in 2012 vis a vis Mitt Romney was really over the top, but with Trump, I am not so sure.
BTW, there are plenty of conservative writers who share my opinions of Trump as being the most dangerous nominee either party has had in a long,long,time.

I don't care for the guy myself, but my objections are more about issues like trade. Reagan was considered dangerous by a lot of liberals, as were Nixon and Barry Goldwater before him. Nixon and LBJ both had some pretty obvious emotional and psychological issues. I don't believe for a moment that Trump has seriously courted the White Nationalist movement; that's an obvious losing strategy. He's careless with his tweets, certainly.

 

[Meadmaker]

Start WW3, leave NATO, kill NAFTA, slap tariffs on China, and I'm sure lots more that I can't think of.

The President can't slap tariffs on China. That's definitely a Congressional power.

NAFTA is a bit trickier, because there's an international agreement, either a treaty or treaty-like thing, and there's enabling legislation. I honestly don't know how much power the executive branch has over that.

Similarly with leaving NATO. I don't know to what extent a treaty obligation is a legal obligation.

 

[Meadmaker]

How? I thought it could just decide on matters of law/the constitution?

I am among those who believe that the court has overstepped its bounds on a number of occasions, whether it is deciding issues of gay marriage, or deciding how votes are counted in the state of Florida. (If you want to read a ridiculous ruling that stretches the 14th amendment way beyond recognition, read Bush v. Gore.)

Regardless of how you view either of those rulings, or numerous other ones besides, a knowledgeable person would have to agree that courts from previous decades would have given greater deference to legislatures than is done today.

Whether or not people think that's a good idea is also a subject of much dispute, but it seems to me that people most often think powerful courts are bad just after the court issues a ruling whose practical effect is something they don't like, as opposed to just after a ruling that goes against their general view of constitutional law and judicial activism. In other words, conservatives welcome judicial activism just as much as liberals do, as long as it is conservative activism.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, at least here, we don't have much support for the "Hillary is the end" meme.


We do have a little bit of support for the "Donald is the end" meme.

 

[Tony Stark]

The President can't slap tariffs on China. That's definitely a Congressional power.

NAFTA is a bit trickier, because there's an international agreement, either a treaty or treaty-like thing, and there's enabling legislation. I honestly don't know how much power the executive branch has over that.

Similarly with leaving NATO. I don't know to what extent a treaty obligation is a legal obligation.

Congress has given the President broad power to enact tariffs.

The President also has the power to leave treaties.

 

[Ziggurat]

Baloney. Yes that could be one way to address the problem but it depends on your starting premise, something being a logical argument doesn't mean the result is correct.

And yet, the best you can do for a counter-argument is "Baloney". Which isn't really an argument at all, rational or otherwise.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is the constitution that gives the President the power to start WW3.

Citation, please. Article and section.

 

[Tony Stark]

Citation, please. Article and section.

Are you unaware that the Constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the military?

 

[Ziggurat]

Congress has given the President broad power to enact tariffs.

The President also has the power to leave treaties.

And it never occurred to you before that maybe Congress shouldn't have done that?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you unaware that the Constitution makes the President the commander in chief of the military?

And it also constrains his use of the military. So can you provide a citation or not?

 

[Tony Stark]

And it never occurred to you before that maybe Congress shouldn't have done that?

Perhaps not. It probably didn't occur to them that one of the major parties would go insane and nominate a deranged moron.

 

[Tony Stark]

And it also constrains his use of the military. So can you provide a citation or not?

The President has control over the nukes because he (soon to be she) is the commander in chief of the military. Because the Constitution says so.

But you know this. Which begs the question of why you are pretending not to. You're certainly not fooling anyone.

 

[Ziggurat]

The President has control over the nukes because he (soon to be she) is the commander in chief of the military. Because the Constitution says so.

But you know this. Which begs the question of why you are pretending not to. You're certainly not fooling anyone.

And what does the constitution allow the president to do with those nukes? Again, citation, please.

 

[Foolmewunz]

And it also constrains his use of the military. So can you provide a citation or not?

Perhaps you could point out the section that constrains him from launching nukes. The claim was NOT that the POTUS could declare WWIII, but that he could "start WWIII".

 

[Tony Stark]

And what does the constitution allow the president to do with those nukes? Again, citation, please.

The President has control over the nukes and can launch them when ever he wants for any reason. Because he is the commander in chief of the military, a power given to him by the Constitution.

I'm positive you know this. Which again begs the question of why you are pretending not to.

 

[Ziggurat]

The President has control over the nukes and can launch them when ever he wants for any reason. Because he is the commander in chief of the military, a power given to him by the Constitution.

I'm positive you know this. Which again begs the question of why you are pretending not to.

Still no citation. And you are wrong. Hell, the president cannot even detonate a nuke underground just for testing, let alone to start a war (a power the constitution explicitly reserves for Congress).

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps you could point out the section that constrains him from launching nukes. The claim was NOT that the POTUS could declare WWIII, but that he could "start WWIII".

Your position is nonsensical. You are alleging that the constitution granted Congress a power that does not actually mean anything. Yeah, no. It's there for a reason, and it matters. The president cannot start a war on a whim, only Congress can. And the military is obligated to refuse illegal orders, which this would be.

 

[Tony Stark]

Still no citation. And you are wrong. Hell, the president cannot even detonate a nuke underground just for testing, let alone to start a war (a power the constitution explicitly reserves for Congress).

The President can absolutely launch nukes against any country at any time he wishes for any reason without consulting ANYONE. Because he is the commander in chief of of the military.

You know this. I know you know this. Why are you pretending otherwise? Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Your position is nonsensical. You are alleging that the constitution granted Congress a power that does not actually mean anything. Yeah, no. It's there for a reason, and it matters. The president cannot start a war on a whim, only Congress can. And the military is obligated to refuse illegal orders, which this would be.

Well, when I was discussing nuclear weapons with John Adams, he specifically said that we were going to leave that out.

Technology has outrun the founding fathers (hallowed be their name). There is nothing in the Constitution to constrain the POTUS from launching nukes. You assume that the military would refuse to follow through, but if we track the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis as the only possible historical example, I'd say that if JFK had said "Launch!" they would have pressed the button pretty damned quick.

Trump: "Flynny.... It's me Don. I just hit the buton, here. Vladi just called. The Chinese have launched. They have stealth nukes, about forty of 'em and they're going to hit in less than 20 minutes. Spoke to SecDef Coulter and Steve King over at State. We've gotta strike, fast!"
Chairman(JCoS) Flynn: "Hoooo Haaaaa!"

 

[Ziggurat]

The President can absolutely launch nukes against any country at any time he wishes for any reason without consulting ANYONE. Because he is the commander in chief of of the military.

You know this. I know you know this. Why are you pretending otherwise? Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?

If the president can start a war for any reason, then why does the constitution only grant Congress the power to declare war? Is it your honest belief that this serves no purpose? And why did Bush go to Congress for both Afghanistan and Iraq if he didn't need to?