471–480 of 604 posts
[flagged]
[flagged]
There is a secret police force actively patrolling the streets, going door-to-door asking for papers, shooting American citizens and your response is "it's not that bad"?
I think Mexico should take back California. They need it, and I’m sure they appreciate it more.
This isn’t really about Greenland’s strategic value; it’s about the category error. You can trade goods, sign treaties, and negotiate basing rights. You can’t “buy” a people or their sovereignty especially when they don’t consent. That’s why Europe responds with process and principle: normalize coercion-as-bargaining among allies and you’re reviving a pre-1945 model of politics Europe built institutions to prevent. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is self-destructive defeatism. It is also flat wrong on its substantive points.
The only thing congress can do is impeach and convict trump and his administration, thereby stripping him of his authority. Laws have been passed, judges have ruled, but all those are ignored. however, if he has no authority, then we get to find out who's on the side of the constitution and who is with trump and his allies.
Turns out, when the law has failed, the only solution is a fight to the death. And after such a fight, we do not return to our normal state and live happily ever after, we remain deeply unstable and untrustworthy for decades to come.
One thing I never heard a talk about. What would happen to all the US bases in the NATO countrys? I can't imagine the US could fly from NATOs countrys bases and attack Greenland and partner. Would for ex. germany attack Ramstein?
So if the US decides to resign from NATO, they would likely face challenges directly with Germany regarding their existing agreement.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan. The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
I think it is likely that he wants to stop protecting Taiwan, give it up to China and then expect to make a deal with China to buy stuff manufactured on the island with money, afterwards. It would be totally in character for him and match his actual actions across the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding option (2), isn’t SCOTUS supposed to rule on the legality of Trump’s tariffs soon?
Are people expecting to SCOTUS rebuff Trump? So far it seems that they're good to go on any Trumpian designs.
Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize.
Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs.
The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices.
[0] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/prediction-market-trade...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"survived" - millions and millions were killed. The geographical land mass of Europe will of course survive anything bar a collision with another planet, if this is what you're referring to.
[flagged]
It was the greatest disasters in the history of Europe, and the effects are still deeply felt. The world wars were the greatest idiocy in the history of humanity.
I wonder how the current events in Greenland will impact the safety and sovereignty of Taiwan. The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
IMO, China will get back Taiwan without firing a single shot, the US is slowly de-risking itself from it and will eventually make Taiwan redundant. After seeing how the US is "helping" Ukraine, will the Taiwanese think fighting an all-out war with allies like this is worth it? China doesn't have the same genocidal intentions russia has towards Ukraine, so less reasons for people to fight it out Edt: would love some a…