What if "the wrong person" wins in November?

[Darat]

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

You made a very basic error and compounding it with another error now. I did not make any counter argument, but merely described as baloney your attempt to make your argument as if it is the only logical argument.

 

[Darat]

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

Which has nothing to do with your request for citations about the presidents powers. The powers are what they are whether you think they are right or wrong doesn't change the reality of those powers.

Also to start war does not mean a declaration of war has to be made. The aggressor rarely formally makes a declaration of war.

 

[Ziggurat]

You made a very basic error and compounding it with another error now. I did not make any counter argument, but merely described as baloney your attempt to make your argument as if it is the only logical argument.

The fact that you didn't make a counter-argument was the point, Darat. And when you merely assert something without any argument, how does that advance the discussion? Are you simply trying to create hostility? Is this really the best you can do for a contribution to this thread? Do better.

 

[Tony Stark]

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?

The War Powers Act. And the fact that he needed money for it.

It has always been the policy of the United States that it might launch a first strike nuclear attack. Do you think part of that policy was that the President would go ask Congress first? Of course not. He would just do it.

It is beyond doubt that the President has near unilateral control over the US nuclear arsenal. The SecDef is supposed to confirm the orders, though it is not meant to be a veto. And guess who appoints the SecDef and can fire him whenever he wants?

If you really didn't know this, I apologize for insinuating that your were lying.

Here are a couple of links, so you know I'm not just making this up.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...d-the-risks-of-a-hair-trigger-nuclear-button/

 

[Mader Levap]

For me, Ziggurat just plays semantic games now, pretending that launching nukes is under same restrictions as any other act of war. How dishonest.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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".

Exactly we haven't had a declared war since WWII. So why are we trying to pretend that declarations of war matter?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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).

Where is your citation for any legal limit on the ability of the president to launch air strikes, that would bar him from using nuclear weapons? We certainly launch attacks on or in nations all the time with out congressional approval, so why can't those attacks use the nuclear arsenal, what law blocks that and would stop the president if he so ordered it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

Doesn't he only need to do that for military operations lasting more than a certain number of days? I don't think nuclear strikes are likely to last that long. He can certainly order airstrikes on nations with out the approval of congress. Where is the law that says those can only be conventional strikes?

 

[Meadmaker]

Congress has given the President broad power to enact tariffs.

That's too much power for one person to have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For me, Ziggurat just plays semantic games now, pretending that launching nukes is under same restrictions as any other act of war. How dishonest.

It likely is. But the president has a certain amount of time that he can order the military to do things before he needs congressional approval. The only possible exception would be an illegal order and we don't have any laws against using nuclear weapons only testing them.

 

[Darat]

The fact that you didn't make a counter-argument was the point, Darat. And when you merely assert something without any argument, how does that advance the discussion? Are you simply trying to create hostility? Is this really the best you can do for a contribution to this thread? Do better.

You need lessons in basic logic? Wow didn't realise that. I'll can send you some links to some primer sites by PM if you like? This is a oldie but still a good basic intro site to get you started: http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

 

[Meadmaker]

Which has nothing to do with your request for citations about the presidents powers. The powers are what they are whether you think they are right or wrong doesn't change the reality of those powers.

Also to start war does not mean a declaration of war has to be made. The aggressor rarely formally makes a declaration of war.

That whole "declaration of war" thing was very much an 18th century concept. Sure, it lingered, and it serves some purpose yet today, if only someone would actually exercise it. However, the modern world doesn't work the same way the world worked at the founding of the republic.

It's unfortunate that, these days, it's kind of uncertain exactly who has the power to do what. You end up with resolutions that "authorize the President to use force if necessary" and similar wording, which allows congresscritters to vote for things which sort of mean one thing and sort of mean another, and gives the President really broad powers.

When it comes to Trump, the President certainly has power to order military action with very little, and in some cases no, Congressional consent. Because of his self-centeredness and lack of impulse control, it's not a power I want Trump to have. However, to the point of this thread, even then I doubt he would destroy the country or the world. It's a theoretical possibility, but not something that keeps me up at night.

Meanwhile, I think the apocalyptic visions of what will happen if Clinton wins are, as others have alluded to, the consequence of years of just plain hate being spewed by right wing radio and other media. The people who limit themselves to those sources of media end up with a bizarre, skewed, view of the world.

 

[Garrison]

Given the most likely circumstances for a US nuclear launch, that is a retaliatory strike after someone else has launched an attack on the USA, the idea that the President would have to get permission from Congress to fire nuclear weapons seems unlikely in the extreme. I doubt the designer of the system allowed for some President going full 'Greg Stilson' on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj9M34DzAKo

 

[Belz...]

Clinton has no risk. Bad person, bad policies, bad judgement.

Such as?

 

[Ziggurat]

You need lessons in basic logic?

So hostility is your objective. That's a shame.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So hostility is your objective. That's a shame.

Does this mean you have given up the claim that there is any legal bar from a president ordering a nuclear first strike?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The implied threat here is to build a bigger nuclear arsenal. Maybe that will work, maybe it won't (it seemed to work during the cold war, I'll note), but all that's necessary to deliver on that threat is to build the arsenal. We've done it before.

During the Cold War the aim was to have Mutually Ensured Destruction if there was an attack, that's still in place, there is no need to build up the stockpiles again as if it ever got to a nuclear war the US alone has enough to destroy the human population of the planet several times over.

Unless you're willing to roll over for all our enemies, EVERY president will face this question.

False Dichotomy. This is the failing of the right, you believe that you have to win and have things your way or it's a total utter defeat. This is why we have seen 6 years of obstructionism in Washington. The idea of talking an reaching a settlement that might not be perfect for either side, but gives both something seems to be an anathema to you. You can negotiate without pointing a gun at someone, in fact, amazingly it tends to work better too.

No. Any sane leader would realize that we MUST be willing to use the military against these countries if the situation gets bad enough. Where to draw the red lines (and how to communicate those lines) is not an easy question, but if you categorically remove the possibility, then bad actors WILL act very, very badly.

At what cost? Attacking Russia or China leads to what? The cost of attacking needs to be less than the cost of not attacking, and when the ultimate cost of attacking a nuclear power is them launching, what red line is there that is worth that result?

Perhaps you need to take a clue from JFK when faced with a "Red Line"

Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation, which leads a world-wide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required-and it is underway; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.

Now consider, are Trump's Red-Lines and demands on China worth having "the fruits of victory [become] ashes in [y]our mouth"?

Is any power play backed with Chinese military strength likewise a bluff? Because they're making such power plays.

China's power plays are in their own back yard and to do with their own borders, when they start coming and dictating to the US where and when it is allowed to determine it's borders and security, come back and tell me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Such as?

Bob is an anarchist/libertarian. All government policies are bad to him.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Deleted, Tony already posted it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I see the idea that Obama has done a lot of Executive Orders was raised in this thread.

In fact, Obama has signed the least number of EO's per year in office of any President since Chester Arthur from 1881-1885, with just 31.3 a year.

W signed 36.4 a year, his dad did 41.5. Reagan did 47.6 a year, while the most prolific President was FDR with a stunning 290.8 EOs a year! (Which is way more in just a single year than Obama has done in his nearly 8 years!)