Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
That is very reassuring to hear. I just hope that a 2nd Trump presidency doesn't put an end to all sorts of failsafes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case that challenged former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024.
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Anything "could" happen. Anything might happen. But in this case it shouldn't.
Article 2 clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
Friends tell you the truth, enemies will flatter.I am terribly offended by this reasonable statement
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are some, but technically he could do it:
TLDR: The President could order an attack on his own, but that order has to be passed down to people below him. Odds are that a key person would balk at such an order, but if that did not happen . . . BOOM!!
Which is why I can understand your concerns about him being head of state.
Of course one thing that should comfort you is that Trump could tell that the military would not follow his orders if he tried to declare martial law after losing. They made that clear to him, so I think that you probably, please not I said probably, be safe from the US shooting off missiles on just the President's wishes.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would like to think no one would ever be so reckless as to allow that from ever happening.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
That is what we've been hearing, through the grape vine. I am sure both our militaries were in constant communication throughout that period. I know that US armed forces staff swear allegiance to the Constitution and not the President. A good thing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It was hardly a new truth to me. Ronald Reagan was a bit of a loose cannon and that helped US foreign policy a bit. People were reasonable afraid that he would follow through on his threats. But at least his threats were not totally irrational. Being irrational but not having the ability to pull off one's threats only makes a person look rather pathetic. Having the ability, but only applying them to reasonable targets, can earn a person respect. But if you combine the two the whole world can fear that person and just might do something about it.Friends tell you the truth, enemies will flatter.
Little Dragon
Well-Known Member
In British and European eyes, we saw in Trump a man who was a loose cannon, but one that could be pointed in any direction...
And what happens if someone down the line does "balk"? Does Trump just forget about it? Maybe, things like that did happened. But what happens if he the repeats the order, again and again? Remember, in a second term there will be no "adults in the room".There are some, but technically he could do it:
TLDR: The President could order an attack on his own, but that order has to be passed down to people below him. Odds are that a key person would balk at such an order, but if that did not happen . . . BOOM!!
Which is why I can understand your concerns about him being head of state.
Of course one thing that should comfort you is that Trump could tell that the military would not follow his orders if he tried to declare martial law after losing. They made that clear to him, so I think that you probably, please not I said probably, be safe from the US shooting off missiles on just the President's wishes.
If the President really does insist on launching a nuclear weapon, he does have that authority. And nothing short of a impeachment with a conviction, or the 25th amendment can stop him.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh a person could be in huge trouble for doing that. That could easily end up being a life sentence, especially if such an order was valid. But if it was a Trump brain fart he would be called out as a hero. It is a job that I would not touch with a ten foot pole. I do not know if I could pull the switch if such an order came.
That is why some of the jobs in the military can make a person go insane. Do the right thing and you can lose and do the wrong thing and you can lose. There are so many no win situations. I would hope that such jobs were filled by true patriots that follow the Constitution and not politics. So far it has worked out okay. I wonder how close we have come to failing.
Oh such a person would be a hero, but they would quickly be replaced. That is what scares me. They could end up running through who knows how many good officers until they finds two people who will "turn their key".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I used to be a Republican, even though they kept voting wrong on far too many issues. I would lie to myself and say "the next one won't be so bad", "the next one will be better".
And when Trump first ran I only said "He is there to make all of the other candidates look better". It was a rather lackluster field. And somehow the absolute worst candidate of all. The absolute worst candidate in over a hundred years, won. When he got the nomination that was it. I was cured of the lies of "fiscal conservatism" that had kept me a Republican, The social issues I was always more liberal on so that was no issue and then when I realized that the Republicans were no longer the party of fiscal conservatism (giving money to the rich in the hopes that it will spur the economy is not being fiscally conservative) I switched parties.
My idea Republican was Eisenhower, and he would clearly be a Democrat today.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The things that nightmares are made of.
We Never Know
No Slack
This is typical of the Supreme Court. It wasn't absolutely necessary to hear the case, so they didn't. But it should send a signal to all those deluded people that think Trump can be kept off the ballot because of their misunderstanding of the XIV Amendment. The Court is signalling that it is willing to hear such a case if necessary but also that there isn't a consensus among the SC members that such a case is valid. If they did the putative consensus majority members would have taken up this case. Since they didn't that indicates there is no such consensus.
If "idea" is to mean "ideal", then I've a bone to pick.
Eisenhower approved the 1953 coup that USA staged in
Iran. He also tried to shift blame for wrongful wars from
voters electing warmongering leaders to the invented
Military Industrial Complex. (There is no evidence that
either industry or contractors drive government's
decisions to wage wars.) This results in voters thinking
that their electing hawks isn't their fault. No responsibility.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Wasn’t he also responsible for the interstate highway system? I’m sure he’s no more a mixed bag than any of the rest of them.
But not "ideal".
And how are they doing that? Are these signals in a code? Do I need a decoder ring to interpret these signals? Does it involve gematria or an acrostic?
Blatant deception
untruths and fabrications
lies and falsehoods
ludicrous claims
Spurious arguments
hoaxes and scams
inaccuracies and deceit
tall tales and exaggerations
untruths and fabrications
lies and falsehoods
ludicrous claims
Spurious arguments
hoaxes and scams
inaccuracies and deceit
tall tales and exaggerations
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Ovaltine.