What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

My pleasure.

[Solmyr]

Absolutely. And I find Yi's perspective really dangerous in the face of an authoritarian coup that nobody voted for.

What do you mean "nobody"? Half the electorate voted for an authoritarian coup.

[dist]

 

I knew I would be called out for phrasing it like that. If some people might have voted for him in the hope of something like this happening, I don't remember it being part of his platform.

[Josquius]

Anyone seen the shady goings on with a contract being handed to Boeing to develop a f47 () next next gen fighter?

[dist]

Why shaddy? That NGAD program had been going on for a while and the winner was supposed to be announced last year.

Or are you referring to the choice of F47?

[crazy canuck]

For the president of the United States to impose a tariff, there must be a justification of a national security nature. Trump tried to justify imposing tariffs on the basis of a fentanyl crisis.  You don't hear him saying that anymore because even he feels foolish saying that is a justification.

Now he justifies tariffs against Canada as way to force Canada to become the 51st state.  Congress could impose tariffs if it wished.  But that is not what is being done.

The proposition Yi has used to justify his statement is deeply flawed and dangerous.  As Zoupa has already pointed out, even the United States president is supposed to abide by the United States Constitution.

[Josquius]

Why shaddy? That NGAD program had been going on for a while and the winner was supposed to be announced last year.

Or are you referring to the choice of F47?

Boeing are shit. From what I read they weren't even in the running but there's been some corruption going on.
The name is ridiculous too yes.

[grumbler]

Do you think that the democratically elected POTUS wanting to do A is a good reason why A should be done, for all A?

That is the conundrum of democracy.  Sometimes voters make detard choices.  In a democracy detard choices can still grant legitimacy and real power, if you have the votes, or you don't have democracy.

Short answer: yes.  A fair election is *a* good reason why Trump has the right to threaten Canada with annexation.

But, of course, the elected President can only threaten to annex Canada, like he can threaten to hold his breath until he turns blue. Congress has the sole power to declare war.

[grumbler]

Why shaddy? That NGAD program had been going on for a while and the winner was supposed to be announced last year.

Or are you referring to the choice of F47?

Six months ago, the USAF paused development of the manned portion of the PCA program, due to unresolved technical issues and uncertain mission requirements. The Trump administration decided to proceed to procurement regardless. Not because they've resolved any of the earlier doubts, but just to start bending metal.

[The Brain]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

[grumbler]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

[The Brain]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

[grumbler]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

I think that the US will need to fight a war to annex Canada. Canada seems unlikely to agree to be annexed short of war.

[Sheilbh]

Did Trump campaign with the proposed policy of annexing Canada?

I'd add that in my view the more explicit/radical a shift you want to implement in government is, the more explicit you need to be in campaigning for it.

And it brings to my mind how Chirac and Macron, after winning high-percentage victories against the Le Pens, used those results to claim full political legitimacy — despite knowing, like everyone else, that a large part of their support came from voters opposed to their policies rather than endorsing them. That posture has created a lot of anger among left-leaning voters in France, which has led to the current situation where many of these voters are no longer to compromise their vote to oppose the far right.

On that - I also think it's important for trying to work out what to do if you think this is a fight with authoritarianism or fascism. I know some here like Zoups may disagree and are more on the street-fighting side of the argument (I'm very much not, I think it radicalises liberals and conservatives) - but I think the only historic example I can think of of a democratic society facing powerful fascist forces and winning is France and it's through building a popular front and mobilising all forces on the left.

I think Chirac is different. He was from a different political tradition who borrowed votes from the left to win and shame Le Pen - but he was always from the right. But I agree on Macron. And looking at the US I don't see much appetite for a popular front type approach.

[The Brain]

Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Why would an annexation mean war?

To "threaten annexation" implies hostile intent. The only way to follow through on such a threat is war.

You think the US annexing Canada will lead to war? Against whom?

I think that the US will need to fight a war to annex Canada. Canada seems unlikely to agree to be annexed short of war.

Why would the US need Canada's agreement to annex it?