I think it was Gill whom I saw interviewed on CNN earlier today. He blathered on in the manner of your posted quote from him, never answering the reporter’s question, leaving her saying “That doesn’t answer my question; will you please answer my question?” He didn’t; he just blathered on with Trumpist propaganda.
The reporter just plain interrupted him a few times, but he never supplied an answer to her question. Just propaganda.
Because using bully tactics is the only way Trump “negotiates”. And no one is going to tell him that’s the wrong way to do things.
I hate to say it, but these tactics continue to be successful for Trump.
Only inside the US, they’ve worked terribly elsewhere.
Yes, I’ve been watching the “light of America expanding” on the news.
I’m sure Trump’s proposals will have a similar effect elsewhere.
Not for Trump.
You are assuming someone who is smart. Trump is not smart. He may be shrewd. He may be good at getting what he wants. But he is not smart.
A take from my POV: Asking the question “do you rule out using force” was a mistake. Opening a door nobody was knocking on. Because he probably up to that point had not given it serious thought but of course being asked how far he’ll go to get what he wants, his reflex unthinking reaction is, whatever it takes, never rule out anything. As mentioned, he has been conditioned to that the bully’s way is his go-to if any pushback is expected, because it has worked for him. Not for the company or the party or the country, for him.
I was pretty young when William Walker was in his prime adventuring and overlanding days. It’ll be nice to get the old filibuster going again:
I hope there’s still space at the “Old Cemetery,” in Honduras!
MAGAfest Destiny, indeed!!
Because even that’s pretty damn insulting. The US and Greenland have been working together as allies since at least the US finally got off it’s ass during WWII. To suggest that Greenland now has to make extra-special “pinky swear promise” that it won’t suddenly embrace an anti-American position is utterly deranged.
See also, Canada. Trump did this to us last time around, labelling us a threat to US national security just so he could slap tariffs on us. It’s insulting and infuriating.
Walker may have been evil and crazy, but there’s also this quote from your link:
Both men were tried by a military court on charges of piracy and “filibusterism”. In his defense, Walker argued that piracy could not be committed on land and “filibusterism” wasn’t a word.
I mean… respect.
For any who doubted that “You should feel hugely flattered that I found you attractive enough to rape” wasn’t actually the kind of justification considered by execrable (male) human beings …
Oh, fine. But did he really do anything other than bogart “Princess Bride?”
@Spoons Yeah. That was him.
Why is a newly-sworn “lawmaker” on CNN? Oh yeah, those juicy soundbites and clicks.
If Trump wanted to take Greenland and Panama by force, wouldn’t it require a declaration of war by Congress?
I know we like to do these decade-long AUMFs (which I think are unconstitutional and just allow Congress to absolve itself of yet another responsibility) but I cannot see how any AUMF currently in place would apply to Greenland or Panama.
Right-wing, batshit crazy bona fides don’t just establish themselves, y’know.
I believe he is securing his legacy, much like the pharaohs of ancient Egypt as his prime motivation. Changing the map of the world that will be credited to him for centuries, children will learn about that in school. He has also hinted at adding his head to Mt Rushmore during his first term and I also think that’s why he did Space Force.
No. He can start the war and then it is up to Congress to end it. Here is a summary:
Congressional Research Service - War Powers
I think that military operations in Panama or Greenland would be pretty much over before the 90 days limit. If not, he would make some excuse and go on as desired.
P.S. Panama doesn’t even have a real army. Greenland is defended by Denmark, which has conscription. But Greenland does not have conscription! How long would mainland Danes be willing to see their conscripts die for Greenlanders whose children were not dying?
That seems foolish. I was under the impression the US could act unilaterally in defense, but not in offense.
This reminds me of my WW2 vet coworker who used to say, “If Hitler tried to enter Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?”
Pick just about any recent use of military force by the US. See how many of them involve declarations of war or Congressional approval. Some do, but I suggest that is largely influenced by political, rather than legal, factors. I recall writing a lengthy paper on the War Powers Act in college back in the early 80s. Surprised me to learn how free the President is to commit troops and initiate military action.
Also, you discuss the US acting unilaterally in defense. Defense of what? Its territory or its interests? Defined by whom?
Finally, are you discussing the ability of the US - as a nation - acting unilaterally militarily, without the agreement of its allies? Or are you discussing the President’s ability to commit troops without the agreement of Congress?