top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 100 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Don't be too hopeful.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, but next steps are uncertain. Trump would likely reject any measure from Congress to limit his commander-in-chief authority. Still, the tally, with four Republicans joining Democrats, was a rebuke of the president’s war strategy, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 116 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    So much for checks and balances when the president can just "reject" Congress limiting his power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    This isn't anything new or specific to Trump. He can veto this like any other measure and the veto can be overriden With a 2/3 majority vote in Congress. That's how it's always worked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 3 months ago

    That’s how it’s always worked

    …since 1983 when the supreme court decided the legislative branch did not have the power to veto the president. Even when congress was the one to delegate the power in the first place.

    See: Immigration and Naturalization Service V. Chadha

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    @ChonkyOwlbear makes a very good point: the idea that the burden is on Congress to disapprove of the war and that Trump can veto their disapproval is completely ass-backwards, if you really think about it, and its absurd that the media and/or general public is treating it as anything remotely resembling business as usual.

    (This isn't meant to be a criticism of @Andronyx individually, BTW. I can't blame them for falling for the same logical sleight of hand as almost everybody else.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Its the Constitution limiting his power. Legally, congress has the power to declare a war. We've just been ignoring that as a society for a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's all moot anyway. If the rules worked he wouldn't be able to continue anyway without congressional approval.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 3 months ago*

    Exactly as written in the Constitution, right?

    "The President can start wars unilaterally and Congress has to pass legislation to stop them."

    It doesn't say the FUCKING OPPOSITE, does it?

    Fucking clown shoes.

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Clinton ignored the War Powers Resolution during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. He ignored the Resolution's 60-day limit without formal congressional authorisation and ignored the fact congress voted against the declaration of war. The subsequent Campbell v. Clinton case had the federal appeals court ultimately dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that members of Congress lacked the legal standing to sue the President over his war-making actions, neutering the War Powers Resolution.

    So yeah prepare for this to mean nothing.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    idk.

    I think there's a good chance that he wants an off-ramp and will make a huge show of respecting the will of the legislature in the process of backing out of the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    anything is possible - copium doesn’t work with this one though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    They're saying you're being way too optimistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    oh, I was just contemplating a different possibility of how things might unfold. I don't have so much of an investment in which is which, whatever happens with this particular issue. I'm not American or Iranian.

    I do agree it will somehow turn out in his favour. I would prefer that he just fucks off instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The republicans didnt grow a spine. The loser want out and needs a scapegoat to explain running away from a war he started.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The midterms will be the litmus test. If there's a strong rebuke of republican rule, look for them to move toward ditching tRump. That's my prediction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    move toward ditching tRump

    How? He's been their whole brand for a freaking decade. And before him the best they could do was Mitt Romney types that made half of their voting base gag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Assuming we have untampered elections, yes. And no I don't just mean technological tampering, but ICE at polls, denying people last minute, bomb threats, and the like.

    Already, they have redistricted so much I wonder if a Democratic win is even possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    About fucking time. Even if it'd be veto, Congress should've been pushing for this among other things on a daily basis since the pedo in chief took office

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 19 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "House"

    They could say all Democrats and 4 Republicans. Hardly a big shift and those 4 will fall in line on anything that matters.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    4 fucking rapeublicans do not a rebuke make

    those 4 scapegoats know the penis in cheif will veto

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Ummm. Can't Trump just veto anything Congress passes, anyway? This is all performative, at best.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yes but if Trump is forced to veto then Congress is left again to reconsider how badly they want this to stop. We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    If anybody powerful enough was ever going to stop this with nonviolence, it would have happened already.

    They expect this to happen. It's part of the process. It's just more guidance on who to purge and who to villify in the media. It'll have the same effect as the children who begged Trump to stop raping them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We need congress to grow a pair of balls and this is apparently how it will be done.

    The Republicans control both houses of Congress; even the best case midterm scenario wouldn't give the Democrats enough votes to override a veto.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Technically the ABSOLUTE best case, in which Dems pick up every single Senate seat (which would probably translate to the requisite 2/3 in the House) they have the barest of margins to do so.

    But then let’s talk about our Fetterman problem…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Technically the ABSOLUTE best case, in which Dems pick up every single Senate seat (which would probably translate to the requisite 2/3 in the House) they have the barest of margins to do so.

    The realistic best case scenario—particularly after Republican-slanted gerrymandering—won't be a two-thirds majority in the house, and definitely won't be a two-thirds majority in the senate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    In this case, it ought to work exactly the opposite of how you think: a Congressional resolution is supposed to be the only thing that gives Trump authority to engage in war to begin with, so the only thing vetoing one ought to be able to accomplish is to remove that authority. There isn't supposed to be such a thing as as resolution disapproving of the President's unconstitutional unilateral action; if anything, what Congress just did should be treated like revoking its prior approval and thus not be vetoable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Wake me when the Senate also approves this and it becomes law.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The people he fucked over are getting revenge. It probably won’t turn into anything.

    Somehow, i’m sure we will be told, this is the Democrats’ fault.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic — if not legal — step against further military action.

    The resolution next goes to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Now all we need is Fetterman, the mentally unwell, unfit to serve quasi-republican who supports action in Iran to sign off on it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Uh huh and I'm sure drumpf the child-rapist will certainly do what they say this time.

    Fuck you, you already gave him all the power he wants to just do whatever the hell he pleases. He'll just ignore this resolution and start calling the Guardians of Pedophiles who flipped a bunch of schoolyard bully names, browbeating their spineless asses back in line...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    This is needed for all the 0 negotiation BS between reopening somewhere between any day in last 2 months and labour day, and just letting Israel supremacists derail any reopening of SoH.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›