US 2024 Presidential Election

[dreng3]

I mean, that's been the problem the whole time

You cant imagine

It seems to me that we find ourselves living in a world without a history.
Some German fellow started spouting off about the territory of other nations being "necessary" and nobody thought anything would come from it. Until he did invade and a bunch of people figured that he probably wasn't for real about the rest of the stuff he said he wanted to do and that we should just leave him be.

Then, years and years later, some Russian fellow starts spouting off about the territory of other nations being "necessary" and nobody thought anything would come from it. Until he did invade and a bunch of people figured that he probably wasn't for real about the rest of the suff he said he wanted to do and that we should just leave him be.

Now, a scant few years later, some American fellow has started spouting off about the territorry of other nations being "necessary" and nobody thunks anything will come from it.

 

[Satinavian]

For anyone not from the US, who thinks he is going to do this. He won't, you know who would stop Donald Trump from using the US Military to take Greenland, and the Panama Canal... The US military.

I studied US civil-military relations in college, they don't let anyone become a high-ranking officer, Flint is an exemption most people are like Mattis, McMaster, or Kelly.

First, i am not convinced. We have been disappointed by all the checks and balances the US prides itself with time and time again.

I mean sure. Maybe he gives the order and the military does not invade Greenland. And then ? They will all be publicly called deep state traitors and then Trump will fire half the Pentagon and replace everyone with his cronies, only looking for loyalty, not competence. Then he will issue the order again. And both chambers of congress have his back, possibly making new laws on it and the supreme court will rubberstamp it. What exactly can prevent such a scenario, if we exclude a coup ?

But i still don't think it will happen. But what wil happen, is that Trump does threaten military action against other Nato members. (He already is issueing nonsensical demands to the rest of Nato on other topics) He might end up killing the alliance for good.

 

[thebobmaster]

Another thing to consider. That "Commander in Chief" thing? That's not just a fancy title. The President of the United States is, in fact, in charge of the military. They have to follow his orders, just like any other superiors, with the exception of unlawful orders.

Well, the Supreme Court has been deciding recently that, if it can be shown that the President's actions were done for presidential reasons, he/she cannot be found to have committed any legal actions. So, if the President as Commander in Chief orders the military to attack Greenland, the military must either follow his orders that the Supreme Court have determined are always de facto legal, or commit treason. Which do you think is more likely?

 

[Samtemdo8]

Another thing to consider. That "Commander in Chief" thing? That's not just a fancy title. The President of the United States is, in fact, in charge of the military. They have to follow his orders, just like any other superiors, with the exception of unlawful orders.

Well, the Supreme Court has been deciding recently that, if it can be shown that the President's actions were done for presidential reasons, he/she cannot be found to have committed any legal actions. So, if the President as Commander in Chief orders the military to attack Greenland, the military must either follow his orders that the Supreme Court have determined are always de facto legal, or commit treason. Which do you think is more likely?

Well there is the issue of Greenland, being part of Denmark, is a NATO ally.

The US is flagrantly attacking and colonizing an allied nation.

 

[thebobmaster]

Well there is the issue of Greenland, being part of Denmark, is a NATO ally.

The US is flagrantly attacking and colonizing an allied nation.

But if he does it as President, it's not unlawful. Nothing the President does, in the execution of his duties, is unlawful according to the Supreme Court. Or at least, is so hard to determine unlawfulness that it is de facto legal.

 

[Silvanus]

But if he does it as President, it's not unlawful. Nothing the President does, in the execution of his duties, is unlawful according to the Supreme Court. Or at least, is so hard to determine unlawfulness that it is de facto legal.

It would be a legal order under American law, but carrying it out would still be illegal under international law. The SCOTUS has no ability to override that. The question would be whether that allowance for American servicemen to disobey unlawful orders extends to internationally unlawful orders.

But honestly this is all theoretical. It's extraordinarily unlikely that he'll actually use military force. It's much more likely that he'll just continue to bluster and threaten, and perhaps implement some coercive/ punitive trade policies. In extremis I could see some fracturing of the NATO alliance, with the other members concluding America is not reliable as an ally and cannot be trusted to defend their integrity.

 

[Schadrach]

At our most charitable to your argument we could bring up Bush vs Gore with some convinced Gore indeed would have won without the supreme court stepping in.

Even if we ignored equal protection and election deadlines entirely and let him have that last recount of those three counties under a different standard than the rest of the state, he still wouldn't have won. No realistic estimate of the results suggests he would have under those conditions. If he'd tried to recount the entire state under that new standard then he might have (maybe, potentially), but that definitely wouldn't have been completed before the deadline (which is why he didn't try to redo the entire state that way to begin with).

That ad on the left is just chefs kiss

I mean, he is a parasite so it does seem appropriate.

is running his mouth like a WWE Star cutting a promo?

Self promotion is one of the few things he's actually pretty capable at.

Not even winning the presidency stops these guys from ranting about election fraud that never happened.

Read the exact thing they are complaining about: No one voted for Harris in a primary (true) and she stole the election from Biden (I'd be shocked if she didn't play a [if not the] central role in pressuring Biden to surrender his nomination to her).

Maybe he gives the order and the military does not invade Greenland.

I believe the exact phrasing of that refusal would be along the lines of "That would be an act of war, and by the Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare war." Then he'd pressure Congress to pass invading Greenland and I'd be curious whether "obey Trump" or "don't start WW3" would be the bigger influence on Congress.

 

[tippy2k2]

Also don't forget that just because Trump is a dipshit doesn't mean the Democrats are good...

 

[Samtemdo8]

Also don't forget that just because Trump is a dipshit doesn't mean the Democrats are good...

Well here's the thing...Napoleonic France was willing to sell Lousiana and it was all done diplomatically.

Trump wants to take Greenland at gunpoint like a bandit from an unwilling Denmark.

 

[Trunkage]

First, i am not convinced. We have been disappointed by all the checks and balances the US prides itself with time and time again.

I mean sure. Maybe he gives the order and the military does not invade Greenland. And then ? They will all be publicly called deep state traitors and then Trump will fire half the Pentagon and replace everyone with his cronies, only looking for loyalty, not competence. Then he will issue the order again. And both chambers of congress have his back, possibly making new laws on it and the supreme court will rubberstamp it. What exactly can prevent such a scenario, if we exclude a coup ?

But i still don't think it will happen. But what wil happen, is that Trump does threaten military action against other Nato members. (He already is issueing nonsensical demands to the rest of Nato on other topics) He might end up killing the alliance for good.

Killing NATO is a feature, not a bug for Trump

 

[Trunkage]

It would be a legal order under American law, but carrying it out would still be illegal under international law. The SCOTUS has no ability to override that. The question would be whether that allowance for American servicemen to disobey unlawful orders extends to internationally unlawful orders.

But honestly this is all theoretical. It's extraordinarily unlikely that he'll actually use military force. It's much more likely that he'll just continue to bluster and threaten, and perhaps implement some coercive/ punitive trade policies. In extremis I could see some fracturing of the NATO alliance, with the other members concluding America is not reliable as an ally and cannot be trusted to defend their integrity.

I don't know why you bring up international law. There isn't a way to enforce it. It's generally pointless. It hasn't stop Putin or Netanyahu

 

[Silvanus]

I don't know why you bring up international law. There isn't a way to enforce it. It's generally pointless. It hasn't stop Putin or Netanyahu

Well in this case, a mechanism of international enforcement isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the willingness of internal US military structures to protect their servicemen if they refuse orders on grounds of international law.

 

[tippy2k2]

Lol look at the "resistance" party. Trump is gonna get to do anything he wants for the next four years

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

It would be a legal order under American law, but carrying it out would still be illegal under international law.

I don't want things to hinge on Donald Trump's respect for international law.

 

[Burnhardt]

It would be a legal order under American law, but carrying it out would still be illegal under international law. The SCOTUS has no ability to override that. The question would be whether that allowance for American servicemen to disobey unlawful orders extends to internationally unlawful orders.

But honestly this is all theoretical. It's extraordinarily unlikely that he'll actually use military force. It's much more likely that he'll just continue to bluster and threaten, and perhaps implement some coercive/ punitive trade policies. In extremis I could see some fracturing of the NATO alliance, with the other members concluding America is not reliable as an ally and cannot be trusted to defend their integrity.

Trumps first term saw him pull the US out a number of international treaties/organisation including:

• the Paris Agreement
• the Trans Pacific Partnership
• the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
• the Untied Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
• the Joint Comprehensive Plan (aka the Iran Nuclear Deal)

He also pulled funding from the WHO and threatened to pull the US out of it completely, all during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Now while Biden reversed the decisions on some of these, Trump is likely to withdraw the US from them again within the first 100 days if not day 1.

So sole basis for the US honouring international agreements is now wholly contingent on there being an adult at the Resolute Deck, with adults around them that can tell them 'No' or something is not 'a good idea', without ending up a pariah or akin to a Scientology's Suppressive Person. Trump and the people he is surrounding himself with, are not those people. All the while his main base are lapping it up and the non-MAGA Republicans (if they can be considered to even exist anymore) who voted for him are shifting uneasily, wringing their hands and claiming it just tough talk or it's just a distraction for other things.

The US can never be trusted again.

 

[Gergar12]

I can't imagine anyone actually thinks he's going to do any of this stuff (or if he attempts to, that he won't be stopped) but do you think it's still not a HUGE problem that the man who will become one of the most powerful people in the world in 13 days is running his mouth like a WWE Star cutting a promo?

Yes, and no. Yes in that he's willing to gamble US soft power for hard power. No in that it's Trump, he's old so was Nixon. He's already a lame-duck in many ways like age.

 

[Gergar12]

First, i am not convinced. We have been disappointed by all the checks and balances the US prides itself with time and time again.

I mean sure. Maybe he gives the order and the military does not invade Greenland. And then ? They will all be publicly called deep state traitors and then Trump will fire half the Pentagon and replace everyone with his cronies, only looking for loyalty, not competence. Then he will issue the order again. And both chambers of congress have his back, possibly making new laws on it and the supreme court will rubberstamp it. What exactly can prevent such a scenario, if we exclude a coup ?

But i still don't think it will happen. But what wil happen, is that Trump does threaten military action against other Nato members. (He already is issueing nonsensical demands to the rest of Nato on other topics) He might end up killing the alliance for good.

Many companies have boards with military high-ranking officers. Can he invade Greenland without Lockheed's aircraft or GE General Dynamic's tanks?

I don't think the alliance will die, and even if it does temporarily, the US needs EU/European consumers, and the EU/Europe needs US troops. Plus US leaders even out of power have seen what happens when the US doesn't get involved in Europe. War happens. Without trade France can't run its reactors, Germany can't sell its cars, and the UK can't insure the world's investments to put it lightly.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Many companies have boards with military high-ranking officers. Can he invade Greenland without Lockheed's aircraft or GE's tanks?

Without the assets the US has bought from those companies in the past, no, but as the US military is the current owner, that's not so important.

Secondly, not seeing the US military-industrial complex deciding to stop the US engaging in a war. See also *gestures wildly*

 

[Gergar12]

Without the assets the US has bought from those companies in the past, no, but as the US military is the current owner, that's not so important.

Secondly, not seeing the US military-industrial complex deciding to stop the US engaging in a war. See also *gestures wildly*

Who do you think maintains that stuff, troubleshoots it, and oftentimes repairs it?

Second, the US MIC was able to stop Trump from canceling the F-35 which Trump wanted to ax. It's full of generals, and officers.

"Secondly, not seeing the US military-industrial complex deciding to stop the US from engaging in a war. See also *gestures wildly*"

Because it's not in anyone's interest to not stop the Houthis from lobbing missiles at ships over Gaza, people starve when that happens. Trump didn't even invade any country like Bush did | you guys should be more afraid of Macro Rubio if that logic holds.