What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

Interesting, thanks.

Just because I'm curious: the US managed to wage what was in every practical way a major war against the CSA, without Congress declaring war and without the help of AUMF. How did this work legally?

Legally the US was just suppressing a rebellion, not fighting a war against a foreign foe.

[The Minsky Moment]

The War Powers Resolution effectively gives the President 90 days to wage war unilaterally without a vote from Congress.  After that, forces must be withdrawn unless there is a AUMF or war declaration

Nixon disputed it was constituional and I think every President since Carter has violated it at least once.  Given that legal-historical background and given that the Supreme Court's longstanding Youngstown Steel schema is highly deferential to Presidential action overseas, I don't think there is any meaningful practical limitation on Trump's ability to engage in overseas aggression.  Trump and his minions have shown willingness to openly and flagrantly violate clear constitutional prohibitions, to dare those affected to stop them, and to show open contempt for the courts.  If they are willing to do that for basic and uncontestable constitutional rights, they certainly won't be deterred by legal objections where the state of the law is admittedly contested and where the courts have already indicated that they will defer to the President.

[The Brain]

Interesting, thanks.

Just because I'm curious: the US managed to wage what was in every practical way a major war against the CSA, without Congress declaring war and without the help of AUMF. How did this work legally?

Legally the US was just suppressing a rebellion, not fighting a war against a foreign foe.

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

[grumbler]

The War Powers Resolution effectively gives the President 90 days to wage war unilaterally without a vote from Congress.  After that, forces must be withdrawn unless there is a AUMF or war declaration

Nixon disputed it was constituional and I think every President since Carter has violated it at least once.  Given that legal-historical background and given that the Supreme Court's longstanding Youngstown Steel schema is highly deferential to Presidential action overseas, I don't think there is any meaningful practical limitation on Trump's ability to engage in overseas aggression.  Trump and his minions have shown willingness to openly and flagrantly violate clear constitutional prohibitions, to dare those affected to stop them, and to show open contempt for the courts.  If they are willing to do that for basic and uncontestable constitutional rights, they certainly won't be deterred by legal objections where the state of the law is admittedly contested and where the courts have already indicated that they will defer to the President.

All of this is true, but not germane to whether the president is following democratic means and thus enjoying legitimacy, which is what Yi was arguing. I agreed with Yi only to the extent that the president is, indeed, engaged in legitimate actions.

[grumbler]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

[The Brain]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

[Josquius]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Then what?

[The Brain]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Then what?

Then the US use of force to pacify Canada will just be about quelling a rebellion, like in the Civil War, requiring no declaration of war or similar.

[dist]

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.

Thanks for the precisions. It's not a program that I have followed, and I didn't know its ins and outs. From your description, the administration simply decided to push the program forward despite the uncertainties and issues that had led to the postponement of the procurement process. That doesn't mean that the attribution to Boeing is marred in corruption.

In a sense, since NG is developing the B-21, LM will be busy with the F-35 for a long time, it makes a certain sense to attribute this program to Boeing — at least from a perspective of preserving industrial know-how across all three major defense and aerospace manufacturers as the production lines of the F-15 and F-18 are nearing their end. The F-15EX can only sustain Boeing so long.

I do not think it's helpful to frame every action of the Trump administration as being intrinsically corrupt — though it's tempting to do so after what has happened since January. Similarly, I don't think it's helpful to label Trump as a foreign agent. He is sufficiently morally and ideologically corrupt to align himself with and support Russia's goals, weaken old allies and so forth. I think Minsky and Sheilbh articulated rather well what animates him in the Russo-Ukrainian War thread.

For me, the recourse to simple and over the top comments/hyperboles plays into the hyper-polarization of American politics and will lead to turning away possible allies on the center or the right. I think this is already quite clearly at play on this board.

In the case of the F-47, the simplest explanation would be the continuous intent of Trump to do things differently than Biden has done them.

[grumbler]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

[The Brain]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

[grumbler]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

You are evading the question by ignoring the process and simply declaring that magic is obvious to anyone who hasn't "been living under a rock the past months."

President Trump has announced that he is a genius, the best president the US has ever had, that Mexico will build a wall, that Ukraine started the war, etc etc.  None of those announcements made any of those things true.

Annexing a foreign country is nowhere near as trivial an endeavor as you seem to think.  Can you name another instance in which a hostile takeover of a country occurred without a war?

[The Brain]

And if the US annexes Canada then it will be doing the same.

How does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

POTUS announces that Canada has been annexed by the US. Have you been living under a rock the past months?

Perhaps I didn't word my question carefully enough.  Let me put it this way: how does this annexation work, in your thought experiment? What steps are followed, and in accordance with what law or lawful power?

You are evading the question by ignoring the process and simply declaring that magic is obvious to anyone who hasn't "been living under a rock the past months."

President Trump has announced that he is a genius, the best president the US has ever had, that Mexico will build a wall, that Ukraine started the war, etc etc.  None of those announcements made any of those things true.

Annexing a foreign country is nowhere near as trivial an endeavor as you seem to think.  Can you name another instance in which a hostile takeover of a country occurred without a war?

Do you mean war as in a major armed conflict, or war as a US legal term?

[grumbler]

Do you mean war as in a major armed conflict, or war as a US legal term?

The issue is what powers the US President has because he won an election.  Winning the election makes him commander-in-chief with some emergency powers, but the power to declare or fund war (define it as you will) is vested in Congress. Wining an election does not give the US President the lawful power to annex anything. States cannot be admitted to the US by presidential diktat.

[Valmy]

Do you mean war as in a major armed conflict, or war as a US legal term?

The issue is what powers the US President has because he won an election.  Winning the election makes him commander-in-chief with some emergency powers, but the power to declare or fund war (define it as you will) is vested in Congress. Wining an election does not give the US President the lawful power to annex anything. States cannot be admitted to the US by presidential diktat.

Yeah well winning an election doesn't theoretically give the US President lawful power to do all sorts of things. But this President will try to do them anyway. So it is all rather academic.