941
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 147 points 10 months ago

Trump doesn't need to withdraw from NATO. He just needs to give Putin additional top secret intelligence, ignore all treaties, and do whatever the fuck he wants to do. Seriously, does anyone expect anything else?

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 77 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Trump can still fuck Ukraine, but now it's harder to fuck up NATO and international relations for decades to come. Different things.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 24 points 10 months ago

As much as I hope you are correct, I’m not going to bet that he can’t fuck with our international relations for decades to come.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago
[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's that pesky nuance thing nobody seems to be able to get these days again.

[-] GratefullyGodless@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

And you think giving NATO intelligence to Putin won't screw up our relations with NATO and other nations? Because that's what he would do if reelected. Hell, knowing Trump, he'd probably invite Putin to the swearing in, and give him Top secret materials as a goody bag when he went home.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago

Maybe, dear US citizens, don't vote that evil clown again. Last time really stressed our good friendship.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago

Alternate possibility: he lets Ukraine fall, Russia, China, and/or NK are emboldened to attack NATO countries, and we have to send troops to war.

Trump invokes wartime powers and just never stops.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Or he does all that except sending the troops.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

Trump can openly say he won't ever allow US military intervention as part of NATO article 5, so even if the US remains in NATO it's teeth are gone.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

If Trump is elected, honestly we have bigger problems than backing up NATO forces. I mean, at least there are NATO forces besides the US. It would be bad, but literally everything about it would be bad for everyone everywhere.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

If he regains the presidency ever again, the world as a whole is fucked, the amount of cascading chaos can not be understated.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 109 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Ok, now pass one requiring the President to support and defend the Constitution, and to not be such an utter shithead.

I realize that second one is delusional when it comes to Trump.

[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 51 points 10 months ago

My favorite part was how that was implied and held true by every fucking president.

And now we have to make shit explicit.

[-] jasondj@ttrpg.network 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean, the President-elect must take the Oath of Office as stated in Article II, Section I , Clause 8 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”.

So it is on there. But it’s really just a pinky promise between you and a higher power. Whether that be a deity, the government, society/the social contract, or whatever.

There are two problems with this:

1, president Trump did not believe in a higher power than himself. He may present as Christian or even a twice-a-year Christian, but make no doubts, he saw himself as the highest power, answerable to no one

2, the president shouldn’t be answerable to no one. But the system of checks and balances is broken by a party-before-country half of Congress and a stacked and obviously biased and hyper-political Supreme Court (that has at least one seat stolen depending on how consistent you are in your beliefs. More if you think back to Bush v Gore…which is also why I hate people spouting for third parties. If half of the Florida Nader voters held their nose and voted for Gore, there wouldn’t have even been a question. Were their virtues worth the result that came of them? I say the same for the Bernie Bros who couldn’t hold their nose for HRC).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Igloojoe@lemm.ee 28 points 10 months ago

Next, remove the presidential pardon power.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] AmeijinG@lemmy.world 89 points 10 months ago

An actual proactive decision? Instead of relying on nebulous gentleman's agreements? How novel.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

And yet the president could still refuse to answer an article 5 declaration and leave in all but name.

Until impeachment is actually on the table there's no law restricting the presidency that has any teeth

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Call me a conspiracy theorist but if there's an article 5 declaration and any President decides to stand in the way of the MIC from cranking on full profit mode, they'd get Kennedy'd.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

For reasons having nothing to do with my personal safety I must disagree with you. The Defense Industry^tm^ is the most moral industry in America!

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

How useful if a dictator gets in. I'm sure they'll care. How about voting rights bills? Stopping gerrymandering? No?

[-] AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago

I don't think the President has a role in gerrymandering.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

No, but the party backing one of the inevitable candidates does.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Klypto@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago

I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.

For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

The bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text

Look for Sec. 1250A. Limitation on withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

[-] Klypto@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash- ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern- ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(c) NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—

(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior to taking such action.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi- dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’, ‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text

[-] bryconic@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Thanks very much for sharing this language.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 31 points 10 months ago

Good.

But as a point of contention, dictators, emperors, supreme leaders, etc. are not presidents. Just saying.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Dictators, emperors, supreme leaders, etc. do not hold themselves to the law in the first place, so should we just never bother passing any?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The fact that this is even something Congress needed to consider doing is crazy.

The main purpose of the US military is deterrence. Soldiers and tanks and aircraft carriers do their job by being so intimidating that no one starts a major war. (They're still useful if a war does start, but winning a war is far worse than not having to fight it in the first place.) A major component of this system of deterrence is the presentation of an indivisible united front between us and our allies. Simply having the President publicly question the dedication of the USA to NATO did billions of dollars worth of damage - compare how much better it would be to have had Trump keep his mouth shut than it would be to build an extra carrier battle group. (Arguments about who pays how much can be held in secret.)

The fun part is that they can pass a law to prevent Trump from officially leaving NATO, but they can't pass a law to make him actually honor the alliance if a war does start, and they especially can't pass a law to make the enemies of the USA believe that he would honor the alliance.

[-] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

I was under the impression that while one function of the the US military is being a deterrence army, they also regularly invade countries around the globe in wars of aggression?

[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Eh, sorta. As far as full scale invasion is concerned, off the top of my head, it's happened three times since WWII (Iraq twice, Afghanistan once). There are many other cases that aren't really invasions, but are terrible in their own right.

Korea and Vietnam were both cases of the country's government being split, and one of the factions asked the US to intervene. Then there are a hundred conflicts all over where the US was involved in some capacity--usually material support or training, but not combat. Those smaller support actions are where the really bad stuff is. Most of South America was completely fucked up in that way. The US could pretend not to be involved while one faction of locals commits crimes against humanity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] rivermonster@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Trump doesn't follow laws and has and continues to be at war with the constitution and rule of law. Nothing congress does matters. Especially when it's filled with brown shirt traitors.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

This won’t mean squat if Trump is elected. Fascist assholes don’t follow rules.

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago

Finally some good news.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

The provision underscores Congress’s commitment to the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office.

“NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world,” Kaine said in a statement.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) leaves a Senate Republican Conference luncheon where they heard from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)

Biden has invested deeply in the NATO alliance during his term, committing more troops and military resources to Europe as a show of force against Putin’s war.

The former president’s advocates say his tough talk and criticisms of the alliance served to inspire member-states to fulfill their obligations to reach 2 percent of defense spending, lightening the burden on the U.S.


The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 57%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
941 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19072 readers
1907 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS