or….run a different candidate who wouldn’t be? Seems a bit less controversial and messy than an assassination.
Why would anyone want to veto election integrity?
- Thread starter UberCougars
- Start date
Geezus Gibby. Could you possibly move on from this? This dead horse has been beaten so far into the ground it's head just popped up in China.
Bill Barr probably disagrees with you. He would “grapple” with the description of cackling moron I think.
That said, seems like Haley would be a home run choice for trumps VP. I’d guess she could swing a decent amount of the female sympathy vote from Kamala and Trumps huge weakness is with women.
R's had a primary this year there were a dozen candidates who all lost to Trump. The D's in their infinite wisdom decided no primary this year, Joe was the guy. How is that working out?
I seriously doubt Haley will be the VP. For that matter she will NEVER be the nominee of the GOP. She committed political suicide going up against Trump then not dropping out sooner than she did. She also held out on endorsing Trump. She will never be POTUS.
They can run whoever they want. They went all in on the previous and potentially recurring existential threat.
Only in EXTREME EMERGENCIES, can the USA President EXTREMELY TEMPORARILY use the actual non national guard, actual Army, Airforce, Marines(Not Airforce national guard, not army nation guard(those are not part of the actual military forces, and are there for the protection of the country, domestically, available at the beck and call of Governors, USA president for domestic problems, and unlike the actual military, Army, Airforce, Marines, is not restricted to temporaryness domestically, and doesn't need to have the congress, sanction, approve, etc, after the temporaryness expires, like what has to happen in with the army, Airforce, marines, navy, domestically. The national guard can also be called up and used in wars overseas. The national guard can regularly help with law enforcement, etc, domestically. The Army, Airforce, Marines, Navy, can only help with Law enforcement domestically, IF IF IF it's only for a short period of time temporarily, and only if it's a extreme emergency, and only if the police, ATF, DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA, are not capable of handling, dealing with the emergency. And then after the time limit is up, then Congress has to approve the use of the militiary domestically. The National Guard doesn't have that, those restrictions, which is why see national guard more often used domestically, then the Militiary, Army, Airforce, Marines, etc.)
The constitution says that the Militiary, Army, Airforce, Marines, etc, con only be used domestically in the most extreme of emergencies, and only is Police, Federal Marshall's, DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, National Guard, etc, are not able to deal with the problem. And if the Militiary, Army, Airforce, Marines, etc, are authorized domestically by USA president, it's only temporary, and if it last beyond temporary, the congress has to approve it.
Examples of this, is George Washington calling up the continental Army as President to deal with Farmers rioting(back then law enforcement didn't have the enforcement abilities that law enforcement has now, so George Washington had to use the continental army(Not National Guard). If George Washington had wanted to keep using them beyond the temporary situation, George would have had to get approval of congress.
Abraham Lincoln called up the armed forces(not national guard, militias, etc), to domestically deal with South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter. The Congress had to approve, and approved what Abraham Lincoln was doing. Thats why Abraham Lincoln had to have the victories at Antietam, Gettysburg, etc, because if those had been defeats, then the Congress would have likely to have revoked the authorization of the use of armed forces domestically, and Abraham Lincoln would have had to use the local law enforcement to try to stop the confederate armed forces, if the Congress had revoked authorization.
It's ultimately extremely ultimately extremely rare for the president to use the Army, Airforce, Marines, Navy, domestically, and if do that, have it last beyond temporary, and if last beyond temporary, rare for the Congress to approve it, etc. And part of the reason it's so rare nowadays, is that almost always the Police, SWAT, Marshalls, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NSA, National Guard, etc, are almost always able to deal with whatever happens domestically.
And that's as it should be, because the founding fathers, constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Founding Documents, etc, are against the military, army, marines, etc, being used domestically, because might trample on individual rights, state rights, etc, and so they decided to only allow it, if local law enforcement, local militias, National Guard, etc, couldn't handle it, and only for a short, temporary period, and after that, only if Congress approved it.
They wanted to make it almost impossible to have the military, be involved domestically, and the constitution reflects that, and because of that, the constitution is generally against the military being used domestically, unless the rare, couple, few exceptions to the general forbidding the military from being involved domestically exist.
Those exceptions do exist, and under those exceptions the USA president can temporarily involve the military in domestic matters, but all other times it's FORBIDDEN to involve Militiary, Army, Airforce, Marines, etc, by, under the USA Constitution, the Supreme law of the land, and no other USC(United States Codes, laws), apply, as they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF IF they go against the constitution, and allow the President to wily, nilly use the militiary, army, Airforce, Marines, wily, nily, whenever he wants.
A example of USC(Codes, laws)being wrong, etc, there is a USC code, law, that forbids the burning of the USA flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that USC code, law, as unconstitutional, and has struck it down
Also there have been a couple, few past president's who have illegally used the militiary domestically beyond temporaryness, and where congress didn't authorize it, or didn't continue to authorize it, and where the president didn't stop, didn't follow the laws, constitution, and kept using the militiary illegally, domestically, where they were threatened with impeachment, removal(they were NOT impeached, removed, but they were threatened with impeachment, and people, congress, politicians, etc, threatened to impeach them.)
Now that applies to the militiary, Army, Airforce, Marines, etc. The NATIONAL GUARD IS, CAN BE USED DOMESTICALLY WITH A LOT MORE FREEDOM, LESS RESTRICTIONS, ETC, BY GOVERNORS OF STATES, AND BY THE USA PRESIDENT.
That's why we see the National Guard on a regular, consistent basis being involved domestically, on a regular, consistent basis.
So you accidentally misrepresented things a bit there DGibbs.
Last edited:
FDR was not alone in that. The Congress also approved it, so even if FDR had changed his mind, Congress had approved it. Congress, FDR, past president's, etc, have gotten away with a lot they should have been punished, jailed, impeached for, etc.
Some of those things are the Manhatten project, Area 51, Japanese interment camps, what the USA govt did to disabled people against disabled people's will, God Given, constitutional rights, etc.
Yes a lot of people got away with Shit like that, and were not punished, etc, for shit like that.
That doesn't make what they did morally right, and that doesn't make what they did legally right, as what they did was both morally wrong, and legally, constitutionally wrong, and they should have been punished, jailed, impeached, etc, including the past president's, including FDR.
FDR was a good man, and did what he had to do, what he felt he had to do, had good intentions, etc, but his methodology, wasn't right, wasn't legal, and he should have been punished, and probably should have also gotten a little mercy, because of his good intentions. But despite that, he should have been punished some way, form.
I know that you fantasize about living in a banana republic led by an orange tinted narcissist but the rest of us prefer to live in a country of laws. That you keep on talking about this makes you look like a fool.
You really haven't. I asked you this in #148, which you haven't answered.
"Under your broad interpretation Biden or any president can knock off any opponent without any fear whatsoever of punishment. Kinda like an old fashioned king. Do you think the founding fathers agree with your interpretation of intended presidential powers?"
I also asked you this in the same post:
"Trump, as a domestic citizen, has legal rights that protect him from being knocked off simply because the current president claims he's an "existential threat". Do you disagree with this?"
Followed up with citing your quote claiming Biden could because circumstances (you believe to be present)
"make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings...."
And asking you directly:
Do you really think the president would need to resort to military action against a US citizen (kill him) because there was no other course of action because all current resources or action?
And finally, asked you:
You really think the original intention was to allow ordering the killing a US citizen (without trial) for political gain or an alledged supreme benefit to the nation?
Then in #149 you asked ME about the Biden rhetoric being 'bs' without addressing ANY of my questions. I answered that in #150, providing you with a better way to form your argument...one you weren't even asking me. You asked ED the question about biden's rhetoric (before and again in #629 of the bizarro thread) which I just tossed my 2 cents in. I THEN asked you, since we were on the topic of rhetoric that you find so terrible, if you found Trump's rhetoric in 2020 as disturbing with this:
You don't really think trump is correct when he calls the press the "enemy of the people" do you? Or that his claim in late 2020 that the Democrats (and Biden) "Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy." And that (Biden and the Democrats would "Take away your guns, take away your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything," Is that rhetoric BS?
THEN, in #155 of this current thread you claim that you "expressly answered the question you said I dodged"
Just where between 149 and 155 did you answer these questions?
I also asked you how you would defend Biden and you didn't answer that either, unless you are claiming he has immunity to murder a political rival, which takes us back to the first three questions reposted here above (unanswered).
You ask me something direct, I'll answer it without resorted to calling you names. And as you can see, I haven't lied.
Now, what haven't I answered? You answer all the above without deflecting and then ask me and I'll gladly answer and explain why I believe those answers to be based in fact.
Similar threads
