politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
take your pick:
deployment to Minneapolis (under what trump himself has called an invasion.) (don't believe his lies. the only unrest here is brought by federal agents violating the shit out of our rights.)
initiating what is certainly an act of war in Venezuela.
Same for Denmark should that happen.
using the military to engage civilian ships in Venezuelan waters with lethal force rather than using the cost guard for police actions.
Also to your specific example, yes, it is. Constitutionally, the president is not allowed to initiate wars without approval by congress. This has been pissed away for longer than I've been alive, using 'authorizations' but it's still largely there. (Korea, Vietnam. Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.) the only currently still active war authorization is related to the 2002 authorization meant to go after the people behind 9/11, and any attempt to link that to Venezuela is going to be a lie. (never mind Greenland and the rest of NATO.)
So that's illegal but the soldiers followed those orders and killed civilians. I don't see how that's a good look for what's coming up.
I'm a little curious where you got that I thought it was a good look?
I mean, this admin is nothing but a bunch of toddlers who aspire to be lawless tyrants. It's not a good look, because it's bad. Very. Bad.
Congress has largely looked the other way for some 50 years as far as war powers go (along with a lot more of its exclusive power). Worse yet while there is text to say that the executive will execute the laws created by congress, they largely pick and choose the laws they enforce and to what degree, which is constantly ignored (especially when the executive and majority in congress share the same party).
We now have a situation where the executive sees how loose the responsibility and accountability congress wields, and now decides to violate the norms and there no standard for congress to follow. Congress all seem to be looking at each other shrugging, while rank and file military see nothing in a future of pain and loss for standing up to do the right thing because ultimately nobody has thier backs.
They've pissed away the "Equal" part of "equal but separate" and now we have to suffer the consequences.
I suspect it happened largely because both factions wanted the unitary executive, but the goobers got their first and here we are. Dem's spent the last 50 years strengthening the president when they wanted to, too. (See obama's drone strikes.)