Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by Uzi

Democrats invariably use the Whitey Bolger defense. "If nobody saw it, it didn't happen." No claim is ever made of innocence, simply lack of evidence. Unfortunately for Hillary, there's plenty of evidence.

Yeah

Not sure if that is necessarily reserved for Democrats
All Politicians tend to go there pretty fast

Haha, Clinton used both his gubernatorial and presidential office the same way a pedophile would use an Ice cream truck. Whatever, but politicians really should try to walk the line when in office. If not for moral reasons at least to keep all the distractions that arise from such behavior both media and political that hurt their ability to actually govern while in a quagmire of allegations and investigations.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Yeah

Not sure if that is necessarily reserved for Democrats
All Politicians tend to go there pretty fast

I don't disagree with that.

A few years ago, someone I worked with told me that he had taken his kids to Washington D. C. to see the seat of government. While they were there, he said that he took his kids to Congress and got to see a Democrat and a Republican debate on the floor. When I asked him what they were debating he said he wasn't exactly sure, since they spent most of the time accusing each other of being liars, cheats, thieves and philanderers. I told him that his children were lucky to have witnessed it. It was one of those very rare occasions when you could see two politicians debate when both of them were telling the truth.

Originally Posted by Nightblade

So your saying the president can declare war on his own without Congress approval because last I checked, war is war declared unless of course the other side has already launched nukes first. And yes maybe I shouldn't have so carelessly said red button of doom which leads to endless microscopic analyzing and arguing. I think you know what I meant but sure if it comes down to nukes you may be right but as far as conventional war I do believe congress still needs to approve . I WAS WRONG . But here seems to be some clarification The President and the Power to Declare War | Tenth Amendment Center

First of all when was the last time we declared war against anyone with an official declaration from congress? How many wars have we been in since the end of WWll? Heck we can't even get Congress to come up with money to fight Zika do you think they would ever approve of a declaration of war?

If General Schmo tells the President nukes are headed our way it's his decision alone to send our nukes.

Originally Posted by Suticat

That's also a big part of the problems in our current govt. It's set up as an adversarial system. My side your side, dem or rep, left or right... So choosing sides is promoted and tolerated. That is until one side wins and wants to actually accomplish something that will take both parties to agree upon. Then if it doesn't pass because both sides can't agree, well then I'm sure you know how the rest of this story plays out. The ever popular and oh so tiresome song and dance of my side good, your side bad scenario.

Our system is set up so even though there is always contention on issues in the end it's compromise that gets things done and since the beginning of the Republic that has always worked.

So if you want to know why things are broken now you need to look at who doesn't want to compromise and why they don't. Whenever someone says my way is the only right way and if I don't get my way nothing will happen the system breaks down.

You can draw your own conclusions as to who is at fault.

Har har.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

If General Schmo tells the President nukes are headed our way it's his decision alone to send our nukes.

No that is not correct

The President alone has the Authority to order a launch without the deceleration of war,, but we still have the 2 man rule all along the system

His order still has to be confirmed by the SecDef and yes there are rules that counter that, but let's not get silly, it always take 2 people to authorize a launch.


Search out

National Command Authority & SIOP it is all accessible

I lay fault at the 538 political elites who appear to have forgotten where they came from.

Agree it is a sad state all around with no compromising by either side and it appears there is no effort to compromise by either side.

I can see why folks don't vote when it does not seem to have any affect on the process either way. It appears once politicians hit DC if not before they buy into the status quo and it's business as usual. Who wouldn't want a fat cat power ride like that?

Most of the posts here have been a good read for me. Everybody I meet 'can' be a teacher and like some I like to see what makes folks tic for it makes me think. Doesn't necessarily change things but I like to think I have a better understanding.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

No that is not correct

The President alone has the Authority to order a launch without the deceleration of war,, but we still have the 2 man rule all along the system

His order still has to be confirmed by the SecDef and yes there are rules that counter that, but let's not get silly, it always take 2 people to authorize a launch.


Search out

National Command Authority & SIOP it is all accessible

It's like being Capt of a ship. You follow a legal order. The chain of command is to ensure the Pres actually issued the command and that he is in his right head. A General sitting at Norad cannot stop the process otherwise and if it was stopped there better be a medical certification to back it up.

Under normal circumstances if we were attacked the Pres issues the codes and the others execute their responsibilities. You can nit pick about how the process goes the same as requiring two people in each silo to actually fire the ICBMs and of course they could just flat out refuse.

Originally Posted by Uzi

Democrats invariably use the Whitey Bolger defense. "If nobody saw it, it didn't happen." No claim is ever made of innocence, simply lack of evidence. Unfortunately for Hillary, there's plenty of evidence.

OK. Great. Since this is likely what some are basing their voting decision on please show me the proof. Not taking a "Whitey Bolger defence" on this just following what the law says. I would expect everyone would agree with doing that .... right? Please douse me with the facts that prove your assertions. I'm a sponge at this point. I want to agree with you. Show me the way to the truth but lets use facts not hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

OK. Great. Since this is likely what some are basing their voting decision on please show me the proof. Not taking a "Whitey Bolger defence" on this just following what the law says. I would expect everyone would agree with doing that .... right? Please douse me with the facts that prove your assertions. I'm a sponge at this point. I want to agree with you. Show me the way to the truth but lets use facts not hyperbole.

Don't worry someone will come along with a laundry list of grave crimes she committed. The info will be straight off the right wing mouthpiece sites and if someone refutes the veracity of it they will just be branded and it goes on and on.