Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Biden Presidency

Biden seems to think they need 17 republicans to agree so it looks like they do need 2/3rd

Biden tells CNN Trump's impeachment trial 'has to happen' - CNNPolitics

It looks like "unity" was just a buzzword.
Seems that I may have been partially, but not entirely, wrong

Neither a second House impeachment nor even a Senate vote to convict Trump and remove him from office would prevent him from running again, in 2024 or beyond.
Rather, after two-thirds of senators present voted to remove Trump, a simple majority of senators present would have to approve an additional vote to bar him from the presidency in the future.
The Senate could not skip the conviction-and-removal vote that requires two-thirds of senators and go straight to the simple-majority vote for future disqualification, Ross Garber, an impeachment and political investigations lawyer who teaches at Tulane Law School, told CNN.
There is at least some uncertainty about the disqualification issue, since no president has ever been removed from office by the Senate and only judges have been disqualified from future office. The disqualification language in the Constitution is "disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"; Garber noted that no court or Congress has ever settled the question of whether the presidency counts as an "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States" from which the Senate is able to ban an impeached and convicted person. (Garber said he personally thinks the presidency does count.)

 
Wasn't Johnson allowed to use force because of the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution passed by Congress.

I would think that made it more of a war than a "police action", "hot pursuit" etc.

All a bit academic really, but if a B52 was dropping bombs on me I would consider it a war.
 
One only needs to read Steamboats (and other posters) blinkered views to see that statement works for the righties too.
You think?

I've always seen (c)onservatism as small government and a country operating more on Classic Liberalism lines (which is pretty much what the founding fathers laid down) - pay your dues, operate within the law but otherwise do as you please providing you don't affect anyone else.

Very much the opposite of the lefties which want to micro-control every aspect of the country, life, culture etc...

Maybe the US idea of conservatism is more restrictive then - they've hugely corrupted 'liberal' beyond any meaningful position now.
 
One only needs to read Steamboats (and other posters) blinkered views to see that statement works for the righties too.
Actually to be perfectly honest, you would be allowed to have your weirdo views. Live, let live ,but stay the feck off of my lawn, my old lefty buddy. If you don't respect boundaries don't be shocked when you learn very quickly that they are in existence for a reason.
 
The alliance is barely a military one anymore and Trump again, had every right to demand the 2%. He treated the alliance as an underperforming arm of his business and wanted to fix it and stamped on the toes of people, unused to having democratic pressure applied to them and especially in public.

As for Russia, its now a strategic threat again. Because we've basically expanded so far eastwards and into their backyard, without any real thought and it never ceases to amaze me, the intellectual brains desire to broadcast virtue, seems to matter more than rational thought.

If we had applied rational thought, then NATO should have been reorganised and it made mandatory the 2%, before expansion.

That‘s a very simplistic way of looking at. It’s been widely accepted that Icelands strategic value far outweighs the fact it doesn’t have any armed forces.
 
Actually to be perfectly honest, you would be allowed to have your weirdo views. Live, let live ,but stay the feck off of my lawn, my old lefty buddy. If you don't respect boundaries don't be shocked when you learn very quickly that they are in existence for a reason.
How did that work out for ya?
1611680908010.png
1611680937476.png
 
If you don't respect boundaries don't be shocked when you learn very quickly that they are in existence for a reason.
Your boundaries stretch deep into the pockets of everyone else, yet you show little respect and absolutely no gratitude towards them.

Is it always to be a one way street with you?
 
That‘s a very simplistic way of looking at. It’s been widely accepted that Icelands strategic value far outweighs the fact it doesn’t have any armed forces.
Iceland is the key to the Atlantic, just as Gib is for the western Med and you are using an intentionally simplistic example to deftly ignore the wider point.. Congrats ! who is following simplistic logic now.
 
Iceland is the key to the Atlantic, just as Gib is for the western Med and you are using an intentionally simplistic example to deftly ignore the wider point.. Congrats ! who is following simplistic logic now.

You, especially if you value allies in cash only.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
The alliance is barely a military one anymore and Trump again, had every right to demand the 2%. He treated the alliance as an underperforming arm of his business and wanted to fix it and stamped on the toes of people, unused to having democratic pressure applied to them and especially in public.

As for Russia, its now a strategic threat again. Because we've basically expanded so far eastwards and into their backyard, without any real thought and it never ceases to amaze me, the intellectual brains desire to broadcast virtue, seems to matter more than rational thought.

If we had applied rational thought, then NATO should have been reorganised and it made mandatory the 2%, before expansion.

If we'd applied rational thought, we'd have worked to pull Russia into Europe after the end of the Cold War.
 

Latest Threads

Top