Kinja reply list

Read More
IMadeANewBurnerToStarThisPoopJokeTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 9:44am
This is a stupid, meaningless “argument” because if a “president” is unfit to order a nuclear strike then he is fucking unfit for the office.
You’ve got a couple Republicans mewling about this because they’re far too politically cowardly to actually do anything meaningful, but they think this lazy CYA move gives them some kind of credibility in the face of an obviously totally unfit “president.” You’ve got Dems supporting it because they know Repubs are too cowardly to do anything meaningful and this is probably the best they can get. It’s pathetic political pageantry (hooray for unintentional alliteration!) of the most insulting kind.
Reply
- Read More
  Tim WernerIMadeANewBurnerToStarThisPoopJoke
  11/18/17 10:34am
  This is a stupid, meaningless “argument” because if a “president” is unfit to order a nuclear strike then he is fucking unfit for the office.
  While this is true in the specific instance of Donald Trump, it touches on a larger constitutional issue: The founding fathers were deeply afraid of a military dictatorship as it was common during the Roman Empire, in which the army often appointed emperors to disastrous effect, so they vested the legislative (Congress), not the executive with the power to fund the military and declare war - the President’s task was the execution of the war effort, as commander in chief.
  In the post World War II order, Congress has relinquished this grave power to the executive more and more, and it’s gotten a lot worse with the broad-ranging, blanket AUMF (authorization for the use of military force) to fight Al Qaida that George Bush received in the wake of 9-11, and then used to order “interventions” all over the world. President Obama only exacerbated this constitutional overreach. Now the military commits acts of war in dozens of countries on a daily basis, without Congress having any say in the matter. Efforts to reign in the executive and re-empower Congress with its constitutionally assigned role have failed so far, like the recent bi-partisan bill brought forward by Tim Kaine and Jeff Flake.
  If an obviously unfit commander in chief like Trump doesn’t get this debate going, what will? The military has become a state within the state, managing its own wars all over the world with virtually no oversight by elected representatives of the people. This is precisely what the founding fathers feared.
  To quote James Madison:
  Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
  Reply
- Read More
  IMadeANewBurnerToStarThisPoopJokeTim Werner
  11/18/17 10:39am
  Oh, I agree in an overall sense, and especially regarding the AUMF that was likely unconstitutional to begin with. But it’s only being hauled out now because we have a “president” who is clearly and blatantly unqualified and unfit, and a Repub Congress that is too criminally callow to do anything of actual consequence about it. It’s a band-aid on a traumatic amputation.
  Reply
Read More
Not Enough Day DrinkingTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 10:03am
Even during the Cold War, when bluster of war was at its highest, no one at the Kremlin or the White House was as reckless or deemed nearly as incompetent as Trump.
As incompetent? No, no one came close. As reckless? That’s debatable...JFK was mobilizing an invasion of Cuba (a second one) during the Cuban missile crisis, but he didn’t know the Russians already had nuclear missiles on the island with orders to launch them if the US invaded (without requiring clearance from Moscow first).
He played a game of chicken with the entire world, and he absolutely would’ve followed through with it if the Soviets hadn’t backed down. All over something that ultimately wouldn’t matter because submarine launched missiles were right around the corner which would render land based missiles in Cuba redundant.
But yeah, Trump definitely shouldn’t be able to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike under any circumstances...nor should any president.
Reply
- Read More
  You are what you sayNot Enough Day Drinking
  11/18/17 10:07am
  Yeah JFK was pretty reckless but he also had people in his administration that would stand up to him unlike trump. Though I think that Khrushchev doesn’t get enough credit for his part in solving the crisis.
  Reply
- Read More
  Tim WernerYou are what you say
  11/18/17 10:18am
  Let’s also give it up for the first officer of a Soviet submarine, who refused to sign off on a launch order when his captain and political commissar decided to take matters into their own hands.
  There were a lot of close calls during the Cold War, where the Nuclear Holocaust was avoided only through sheer luck and officers trusting their good judgement, rather than standing orders or their superiors. This is why we have to continue to work against proliferation of nuclear weapons, regardless of who sits in the White House.
  Reply
Read More
Michael KingTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 10:44am
Let’s see — take away the petulant three year old’s giant sledgehammer?
WTF do you think!?
Reply
Read More
SarDeliacTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 1:24pm
It is also likely that none of the signees anticipated that someone like Trump would be elected to oversee what has become the world’s most powerful military.
But they did. That’s why they wrote Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and then clarified it with the Twelfth Amendment in the first place.
The real thing they didn’t anticipate is that a large enough group of people would place party over country, and that those elected to defend the Constitution would decide instead to wipe their asses with it. But then nothing they wrote could have prevented that, right.
To the topic: No president should have unilateral first-strike capability in any way; not *45, not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon... no individual should have the unfettered power to literally end the world any time they chose for any reason they chose.
No. Just no.
Reply
Read More
dudebraTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 10:17am
Yes.
Congress also needs to take back their Constitutional duty to wage war from the Executive. The Imperial Presidency is not only morally wrong, it has proven to be a practical disaster. Serve our troops best by bringing them home.
Reply
Read More
My Hovercraft Is Full Of EelsTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 2:17pm
Also, how about, instead of attempting to take powers away from the presidency (which might not even be constitutional), Congress instead takes the presidency away from Trump?
If you can’t trust the president not to kill millions out of sheer stupidity ... maybe he simply shouldn’t be president?
Just a thought.
Reply
Read More
LJ909Terrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 3:30pm
I think they should reign him in. But to outright take it away? No. It opens up a whole other can of worm problems that could border on a coup d’état of presidential powers. A dangerous road we dont want to go down no matter how shitty the president is.
Reply
- Read More
  Lady AnneLJ909
  11/18/17 4:17pm
  OK. I hate, hate, hate, being a grammar Nazi, but the word you want is “rein” - as in reining in a four-footed beast of burden. “Reign” is what Queen Elizabeth does. Here endeth the sermon.
  Reply
- Read More
  LJ909Lady Anne
  11/18/17 5:03pm
  Yea thanks. That wasnt me though that was my spellcheck.
  Reply
Read More
TheBlightOfGreyTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 1:51pm
This is the one issue that convinces me we’d be better off with Pence. Although, as near as I can tell the only functional difference between Pence and the Taliban is beards. My backup plan involves a Rosetta Stone subscription to Mandarin.
Reply
Read More
skefflesTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 2:43pm
I’d be happy with them installing some proper checks and balances on nuclear usage and authorization. We should never have gotten ourselves into this situation to start with.
Reply
Read More
900turboTerrell Jermaine Starr
11/18/17 11:46am
Just let him carry this around in his pocket.
Reply