IRAN WAR Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 294
  • Views: 6K
  • Politics 
BlueSmoke said:
So the markets think this is good? Just my opinion, but I will really be surprised if there is anything in the proposal that moves the ball toward a resolution. But we might get a clue if Iran is feeling any pain is they give a little. So there's that to watch for.
Click to expand...
The Dow was up what yesterday? Like 800pts? On data indicating inflation hit the highest in 2.5 years, with acknowledged future shocks through the summer. The markets are operating on predictive algorithms and retirement accounts that buy, buy, buy. I think it’ll take blinding recession and/or an AI monetization and capex (first) collapse to see the correction that hasn’t come for decades (sans COVID).
 
Patb78 said:
We had a dog when I was a kid who would eat our crayons if we left them on the floor. Only case I ever saw of Technicolor shits.
Click to expand...
My Airedale ate a bowl of Hershey Kisses in the Christmas foil wrappers. The result was technicolor shits.
 
superrific said:
So Trump said the hostilities have terminated.

Seems like the most humiliating military defeat since Custer.
Click to expand...
But of course the hostilities have not terminated. A blockade is hostile (just ask the Touska). And it is also a massive logistics operations to feed and fuel that many ships away from US bases.

So Trump has two defenses to the War Powers Act. One, we aren't fighting. Two, it is not constitutional.

Of course, his best defense is that this Supreme Court would never order Trump to bring the troops home, so the WPA is effectively toothless. The only remedy is impeachment, and we all know how that would play out.

I guess the other remedy is to simply stop funding the war. But that would be a tough fight with the Navy in harm's way -- and Trump would likely pull money from other buckets anyway.
 
Calheel said:
But of course the hostilities have not terminated. A blockade is hostile (just ask the Touska). And it is also a massive logistics operations to feed and fuel that many ships away from US bases.

So Trump has two defenses to the War Powers Act. One, we aren't fighting. Two, it is not constitutional.

Of course, his best defense is that this Supreme Court would never order Trump to bring the troops home, so the WPA is effectively toothless. The only remedy is impeachment, and we all know how that would play out.

I guess the other remedy is to simply stop funding the war. But that would be a tough fight with the Navy in harm's way -- and Trump would likely pull money from other buckets anyway.
Click to expand...
ICE would be a good place. :rolleyes:
 
Calheel said:
But of course the hostilities have not terminated. A blockade is hostile (just ask the Touska). And it is also a massive logistics operations to feed and fuel that many ships away from US bases.

So Trump has two defenses to the War Powers Act. One, we aren't fighting. Two, it is not constitutional.

Of course, his best defense is that this Supreme Court would never order Trump to bring the troops home, so the WPA is effectively toothless. The only remedy is impeachment, and we all know how that would play out.

I guess the other remedy is to simply stop funding the war. But that would be a tough fight with the Navy in harm's way -- and Trump would likely pull money from other buckets anyway.
Click to expand...
Of course the hostilities have not ended. I was mocking Trump. But if they have, we lost.

The idea that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional boggles my mind. Is that a serious argument? What part of Article I is unclear about declaring war?
 
superrific said:
Of course the hostilities have not ended. I was mocking Trump. But if they have, we lost.

The idea that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional boggles my mind. Is that a serious argument? What part of Article I is unclear about declaring war?
Click to expand...
What part of Article I is unclear about Congress having the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations?

As you know, Trump's argument is that he is the Commander in Chief and that the WPA usurps that function. It is not like Trump is the first President to challenge the constitutionality of the WPA. And I would think this Court would be particularly sympathetic to such a challenge -- at least when the President is an R.
 
Calheel said:
As you know, Trump's argument is that he is the Commander in Chief and that the WPA usurps that function. It is not like Trump is the first President to challenge the constitutionality of the WPA. And I would think this Court would be particularly sympathetic to such a challenge -- at least when the President is an R.
Click to expand...
So the Framers gave the war power to Congress and then created a loophole eviscerating that power in Article II? I do not consider that a serious argument. It is also decided anti-originalist. I agree that the Supreme Court would do absolutely nothing here, but that's not the same thing as a serious legal argument. I know you're not advancing it, just parroting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top