Donald became inevitable when the Democratic Party opted to rule in a manner that didn’t distinguish them from the Republicans in any meaningful way. “We” didn’t let him do anything. “We” exist in a country where absent a billion dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class, you have no power whatsoever to effect change outside of your local municipality.
My point being that he isn’t CURRENTLY supposed to be able to declare war. The Marines are the only branch of the military he should be able to send without a congressional declaration.
But, since even TWO impeachments wouldn’t stick, who will have the balls to stop him? I see your point.
Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hand are tied, nothing we can do, send money & vote for us, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this.
Half the stuff Trump wouldn’t care about, the other half would not really affect any current military operation. Plus most of it he’d just ignore like he did most other things, e.g. tarifs are illegal, welp, let me just use some other law to justify tarifs
That’s not what I’m saying, OP asked an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do. LLMs are terrible at legal questions/opinions. Of the things it says, if they were true and made legal sense, none of it would stop the current war any time soon, it’s stuff that would take years to figure out, by which time this likely has blown over for the next crisis.
By all means, prosecute the fucker and his administration for everything and try and make his life hell. But asking an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do seems like top grade cope/virtue signaling so someone can feel better going “see, there’s all these things they can do, but they don’t, so they’re in on it and bad”. when there’s enough valid reasons to think that about democrats without falling back on slop and there’s no shortage of valid criticism, nor valid actions they could take.
It’d be good if Lemmy were to ban anyone posting AI slop, unless it’s being quoted in a reasonable context, such as an article about why AI slop is cancer.
Agreed… I just don’t want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don’t have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.
They’re not going to do anything, not because they’re powerless, but because they’re bought off by AIPAC and support the war too, and not only that, they have a maniacal leader in charge willing to take all of the heat off of them by acting without Congress and giving them plausible deniability. It’s a dream scenario if you’re an AIPAC-bribed legislator.
If they couldn’t stop any prior president from starting a war, then why would Trump be any different.
This will never be declared a ‘war’ legally by the US government, because those require congressional approval. It will instead be a ‘military operation’, just like the Iraq War, Desert Storm 2, Afghanistan, Libya and pretty much all major military engagements since WW2.
Wild how the small innovation of just changing terminology completely allowed presidents to get around the law.
Under Obama, civilians became: “Unarmed combatants”. Under Bush, torture became “enhanced interrogation” and kidnapping became “extraordinary rendition”. Under Clinton war became “peacekeeping operation”. They all loved using the term “air strike” instead of “bombing” or “settlers” instead of “murderers and rapists”.
Uhhh. I have news for ya, cuckgress
The man is proving to be untouchable. If you have enough money, power and legal advice you can get away with just about anything.
He’s grabbed the country by the pussy, and we let him do it, just like he said.
I think that’s incorrect.
Donald became inevitable when the Democratic Party opted to rule in a manner that didn’t distinguish them from the Republicans in any meaningful way. “We” didn’t let him do anything. “We” exist in a country where absent a billion dollar fortune or membership in the Epstein Class, you have no power whatsoever to effect change outside of your local municipality.
My point being that he isn’t CURRENTLY supposed to be able to declare war. The Marines are the only branch of the military he should be able to send without a congressional declaration.
But, since even TWO impeachments wouldn’t stick, who will have the balls to stop him? I see your point.
Yeah he’s not supposed to do a lot of stuff. He farting all over the founding father’s faces.
That’s very generous of you to limit it to “farts”
They just forgot to add “spray” before “farts”.
And since I don’t doubt that he has limited control of his sphincter, he’s probably sharting all over George Washington. “do ya like that George?”
Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hand are tied, nothing we can do, send money & vote for us, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this.
What is this LLM slop?
Half the stuff Trump wouldn’t care about, the other half would not really affect any current military operation. Plus most of it he’d just ignore like he did most other things, e.g. tarifs are illegal, welp, let me just use some other law to justify tarifs
You’ve just demonstrated my favorite excuse from Dems.
“It’s okay that they don’t do anything because opposition is hard, and it might not work anyway, so why do anything?”
Not a democrat or even american, so 🤷
That’s not what I’m saying, OP asked an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do. LLMs are terrible at legal questions/opinions. Of the things it says, if they were true and made legal sense, none of it would stop the current war any time soon, it’s stuff that would take years to figure out, by which time this likely has blown over for the next crisis.
By all means, prosecute the fucker and his administration for everything and try and make his life hell. But asking an LLM for a legal opinion on what democrats could do seems like top grade cope/virtue signaling so someone can feel better going “see, there’s all these things they can do, but they don’t, so they’re in on it and bad”. when there’s enough valid reasons to think that about democrats without falling back on slop and there’s no shortage of valid criticism, nor valid actions they could take.
It’d be good if Lemmy were to ban anyone posting AI slop, unless it’s being quoted in a reasonable context, such as an article about why AI slop is cancer.
I didn’t say their hands were tied, but he shouldn’t be committing acts of war unilaterally. That was my point
Agreed… I just don’t want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don’t have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.
They’re not going to do anything, not because they’re powerless, but because they’re bought off by AIPAC and support the war too, and not only that, they have a maniacal leader in charge willing to take all of the heat off of them by acting without Congress and giving them plausible deniability. It’s a dream scenario if you’re an AIPAC-bribed legislator.
Dictators are always untouchable until they’re not. Sometimes they die before justice is done, sometimes they end up on a meat hook.
If they couldn’t stop any prior president from starting a war, then why would Trump be any different.
This will never be declared a ‘war’ legally by the US government, because those require congressional approval. It will instead be a ‘military operation’, just like the Iraq War, Desert Storm 2, Afghanistan, Libya and pretty much all major military engagements since WW2.
We really ought to be calling those ‘illegal military operations’
Wild how the small innovation of just changing terminology completely allowed presidents to get around the law.
Under Obama, civilians became: “Unarmed combatants”. Under Bush, torture became “enhanced interrogation” and kidnapping became “extraordinary rendition”. Under Clinton war became “peacekeeping operation”. They all loved using the term “air strike” instead of “bombing” or “settlers” instead of “murderers and rapists”.
I hate that it works, but it works.
the Department of War does not do war, only military operations! that would be a good joke if people wouldn’t be dying
Yeah it’s Monty python level worplay shit, but sadly that’s what passes for skirting the law successfully in the USA.