Tweet of the Day

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,402
5,496
1,743
Edmond
LOL, Trump had been less hawkish than any president we've had in generations, and certainly less hawkish than the current leadership of both parties have demonstrated in their careers.

So does the measure limit just Trump or will it apply to future presidents as well?
Checks and balances are hilarious.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,402
5,496
1,743
Edmond
WTF does that even mean?
Everyone seems to be laughing at the tweet I posted about the Senate passing a bill limiting the President's war powers. I know it's the passive aggressive type laughing because they have nothing better to say, but even so.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,553
24,463
1,743
Tulsa, OK
Checks and balances are hilarious.
Hey I'm happy to see Congress try to retake some of the authority they have willingly ceded over the decades. I just think it's funny because they are doing it with Trump even though past presidents have been far more hawkish and deserving of this.....in other words it's political theater.

What I find most disturbing is the belief that they'll willingly give this power back up once Trump is out of office.
 

NotOnTV

BRB -- Taking an okie leak
Sep 14, 2010
8,746
6,474
743
Gondor
Hey I'm happy to see Congress try to retake some of the authority they have willingly ceded over the decades. I just think it's funny because they are doing it with Trump even though past presidents have been far more hawkish and deserving of this.....in other words it's political theater.

What I find most disturbing is the belief that they'll willingly give this power back up once Trump is out of office.
They might.
 

Bowers2

Stackin' Joe's Cups
A/V Subscriber
Jul 31, 2006
7,402
5,496
1,743
Edmond
Hey I'm happy to see Congress try to retake some of the authority they have willingly ceded over the decades. I just think it's funny because they are doing it with Trump even though past presidents have been far more hawkish and deserving of this.....in other words it's political theater.

What I find most disturbing is the belief that they'll willingly give this power back up once Trump is out of office.
Who was more hawkish on Iran? Reagan who sold them weapons? Obama who brought them to the nuclear deal table with pallets of cash?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
27,996
32,658
1,743
oklahoma city
So does the measure limit just Trump or will it apply to future presidents as well?
I cannot imagine that the measure names the current president specifically but it is pretty fascinating that every single news article models this as "congress restraining president Trump" instead of "congress restraining the powers of the presidency." Every single one that I saw of about 20.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,553
24,463
1,743
Tulsa, OK
I cannot imagine that the measure names the current president specifically but it is pretty fascinating that every single news article models this as "congress restraining president Trump" instead of "congress restraining the powers of the presidency." Every single one that I saw of about 20.
Theater needs producers and advertisers.
 

SLVRBK

Johnny 8ball's PR Manager
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 16, 2003
14,516
5,332
1,743
Katy, TX
Hey I'm happy to see Congress try to retake some of the authority they have willingly ceded over the decades. I just think it's funny because they are doing it with Trump even though past presidents have been far more hawkish and deserving of this.....in other words it's political theater.

What I find most disturbing is the belief that they'll willingly give this power back up once Trump is out of office.
There is some legal thought that the Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to limit POTUS war powers, the WP Act has never been tested in court.

In general the idea is that, yes, Congress has the power to declare war but only POTUS has the power to make war. Therefore, as Commander in Chief he can commit troops anytime he sees fit in defense of America or our Allies and the only power Congress has is the power or the purse to defund the action. Neither side really wants the WP Act to go to court so this is why we see AUMF's to fund military action rather than declarations of war, Congress approves the funding but can remove it if deemed necessary.
 

Deere Poke

I'd rather be in the woods
A/V Subscriber
Feb 13, 2014
12,086
10,358
743
52
Bixby-Bristow OK
I expect Dems will now challenge the President's power to NOT wage war.
Now the law gets to be challenged in court. There are a lot of people who believe the original law may be overturned and ruled unconstitutional. Which could end up granting the President even more military powers. Pretty dumb move by the 8 republicans that voted for this if their true objective was to limit a Presidents military powers. Everyone had pretty much agreed to play by the rules of the law which was written in 74 and not challenge it.
 
Sep 6, 2012
1,998
907
743
Edmond
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1228105134435192834?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1228105134435192834&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%231228105134435192834