President Trump

bluejon said:
The question is, does there come a point where some part of the military refuses to carry out what it believes to be an unconstitutional order. And what happens then is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Nope. They’ll happily shoot Americans, if instructed to so do. Actually, looking at some of them, they’ll happily do it, even if they’re not told to do so…
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
They were highly educated senior officers, who make up a tiny proportion of personnel numbers. The lower ranks seem to love him.
Click to expand...
I'm remembering the lot reluctantly shuffling along the road during his Glorious Birthday Parade.

You may well be right, but I think there's reason for hope, that any attempted mutiny could at least go either way?
 
Last edited:
noseve said:
I was thinking of the lot reluctantly shuffling along the road during his Glorious Birthday Parade.

You may well be right, but I think there's reason for hope, that any attempted mutiny could at least go either way?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of combat soldiers don't have much in the way of critical thinking skills, and with Fox News getting pumped into mess halls across the country 24/7 they are literally being brainwashed.

I hope they'll do the right thing if it comes to it, but I'm certainly not confident.
 
bluejon said:
The question is, does there come a point where some part of the military refuses to carry out what it believes to be an unconstitutional order. And what happens then is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
This is a live discussion at the mo. The law says soldiers should refuse illegal orders but it is usually very difficult to determine illegality outside a court room. There are groups looking to support soldiers caught in this dilemma, eg the Vets Association.
 
Last edited:
Silva61 said:
What unconstitutional order would that be?
Trump has the federal power to employ the military to protect federal buildings which have been under attack.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. The President has enhanced powers only if one of three conditions is met:
1. If there is an invasion by a foreign force.
2. If there is a rebellion/insurrection by citizens.
3. If the local law enforcers are unable to ensure that federal law is obeyed.

Otherwise the President does NOT have the power to employ the military to enforce the law on US soil. This is why Trump is saying stuff like ‘Portland is burning to the ground’, which is a straightforward lie. He is trying to establish one of the above conditions, but, so far, the courts are not allowing this. In a recent judgement the judge said “The Presidents case is untethered to the facts.”
 
KS55 said:
This is not correct. The President has enhanced powers only if one of three conditions is met:
1. If there is an invasion by a foreign force.
2. If there is a rebellion/insurrection by citizens.
3. If the local law enforcers are unable to ensure that federal law is obeyed.

Otherwise the President does NOT have the power to employ the military to enforce the law on US soil. This is why Trump is saying stuff like ‘Portland is burning to the ground’, which is a straightforward lie. He is trying to establish one of the above conditions, but, so far, the courts are not allowing this. In a recent judgement the judge said “The Presidents case is untethered to the facts.”
Click to expand...
Which is precisely why he should have acted on Jan 6.
 
The Comey case going as expected...

Trump's lawyers demanding the trial is moved to July. Admitting they know fuck all about it.

Judge refused and told them to get their shit together. They must get all the security clearances for the defence asap or it will be "The quickest case I've ever dealt
with."

I'll give it an hour before the judge has been doxxed by Trump.
 
Silva61 said:
I'm not debating Trump, you are.
Nobody on here has offered any alternative even when asked for a oposition opinion.
My initial post has been born out time and time again that TDS is alive and kicking on here.
I know it riles you but I would like to listen to yout alternative policies.
What's your view on fetynol turning once great American cities into zombie towns.
Click to expand...
My view is the same the right has on vaccines. My body, my choice what to put in it. Why do we get to choose a vaccine but not a drug? My fucking body. If I want to be a zombie, who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise. Your bootlicking is impressive.
 
KS55 said:
Are there any numbers showing this slow down in social mobility? Interesting theory.
Click to expand...

Here's a couple more links to supplement what Roubaix posted.

He's not wrong it's complicated, men fair worse than women, disagreement between economists and sociologists about the degree to which it's true etc. The bottom line I think is that levels of parental asset wealth are increasingly determining outcomes in a way that was less pronounced before.

I've linked the guardian article for the link to the IFS report. I've also included an FT article behind paywall but it's short so a reader will work, which I think gets to the heart of the issue. If governments continue to fixate on gdp and growth they'll fail. If I find the graphs I mentioned I'll post them.

www.theguardian.com

UK social mobility at its worst in over 50 years, report finds

Institute for Fiscal Studies finds stark disparities in earnings based on geography and ethnicity
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


www.gov.uk

State of the Nation 2023: People and Places

The Social Mobility Commission (SMC) reports on the state of social mobility in the country, building on the fresh approach set out in 2022.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

www.ft.com

Governments are chasing the wrong rainbows

Opportunity and upward mobility are more important than GDP growth
www.ft.com www.ft.com

Edit: Extracted (by AI so caveat emptor!) from the State of The Nation Rep.

1000020342.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top