Apparently Trump killed off that Iranian chappie so that he could cancel the next election and institute permanent fascism. Or summat:
Americans still have elections even when there’s a war on.
Thomas Jefferson got elected during the Barbary Wars.
Madison got relected during the 1812 war.
Lincoln was re-elected during the American Civil War.
McKinley won during the Philippine American war.
FDR was elected yet again in 1944. By this time the Americans were no longer late.
Eisenhower won during the Korean War.
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all, arguably, during the Vietnam War. Plus anyone at all from what, 1990 onwards given Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and all?
So, the idea that Americans delay or cancel elections because of wars doesn’t really seem to hold. And nor does the Constitution give the President the ability to do so either.
At which point, what is it wrong with Paul Mason, his sanity or his knowledge?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Mason's is stock leftie exaggeration. They have been charging imminent tyranny for three years, though each Trump Executive Order takes care to instruct agencies to act within the law. There is rhetoric every cycle that someone will try to cancel an election, or try to win a third term (or proposing that we allow third terms, as a fundraising hook).
To answer the question: Mason might be ignorant of history, is not insane, may feel his followers are expecting him to move his lips no matter what comes out.
Mason says things without thinking they are true. They are rhetoric only. He's playing to his audience and hoping the other side over-reacts.
In that respect he is -- and this would piss him off -- very, very Trumpian. The same ability to spout absolute bullshit in order to inflame his opponents.
If they differ, it is only that Trump probably believes very little of his outpourings, whereas Mason (sadly) probably believes some of his.
"If they differ, it is only that Trump probably believes very little of his outpourings, whereas Mason (sadly) probably believes some of his."
Trump is quite clever in his use of rhetoric. He almost always starts extreme, then walks it back until it is acceptable. He does this as a matter of course, interesting to watch.
Trump's utterances are often literally false, especially the superlatives and the name-calling. Their point is to stress a theme that resonates with his supporters more than troll someone into a rash reaction. He might claim that the US is #1 in a field where it isn't; the point is to repeat the popular "America first."
Trump's technique is to be factual 'wrong', but directionally correct.
Trump's tweets this morning have rattled the saber, repeatedly referring to "World War III." One column says this hit is in marked contrast to Trump's previous restraint: https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2020/01/02/gamechanger-quds-force-supreme-commander-qassem-soleimani-reported-dead-u-s-airstrike-iraq/
I say it benefits Trump, as his entire Democrat opposition has come out for eating the rich and fighting carbon and shopping bags. He has moved the battleground to somewhere they cannot fight.
Now Tulsi Gabbard, their only credible candidate on the military, has called the strike "unconstitutional." She would understand that Commander-in-Chief is an inherent Presidential power, declaring war belonging to Congress, and the War Powers Act passed to try to codify the boundaries (essentially, a month-long foreign occupation).
Tulsi is falling behind the big names and has to say stuff like this to get headlines.
She is, to some degree, not wrong. It would be interesting to see Trump go to Congress and ask for retrospective approval.
That is, to some degree, not factual. Attacks by the President are routine. Again, a prolonged foreign occupation is what Nixon did and Congress passed the War Powers Act to put some limits on what actions of the Commander-in-Chief might qualify as "war." A drone strike is way below the threshold and within recent precedent, cited on this page. As you know, Congress is unlikely to do anything that redounds to Trump's credit unless there is a groundswell.
Congress is still held by the R's, I think it would be straightforward for him to get a yes vote given it was a smooth operation and they nailed a serious player.
The really interesting question is just who gave them the intel. That could be very surprising...
The House is famously held by the D's since 2018 - there was no R vote for impeachment. Speaker Pelosi is the same one who agreed with the latter President Bush that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction until she began denying it and calling it the lie with which Bush tricked the US into war. Getting authorization from them would not be straightforward at all.
What made it a smooth operation was the element of surprise. Surely you don't want it passed by Adam Schiff?
By the way, an article tonight in the conservative Washington Times asks us to recall Obama's 2800 military strikes.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/congress-still-not-specifically-authorizing-islami/
I agree with Gabbard. That is how it should work.
But Democrat presidents have done what Trump is doing, so they can hardly complain now. Not enough people on the left questioned Obama's use of missiles to kill opponents -- and killing US citizens is definitely more in breach of the president's powers than killing an acknowledged enemy.
Yes, the question is whether this is covered by the Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) and whether there is a requirement for the "Gang of Eight" to be informed before or immediately after the strike. I'd argue yes to the former and, based on precedent established by G. W. Bush and Obama, no to the latter since they hardly ever bothered, especially in the case of drone-striking a US citizen (Obama).
It's certainly very Reaganesque. Back when I wore the uniform, I'm minded of an incident right after the Marine Barracks being blown up in Beirut Lebanon involving the USS New Jersey, a 16" shell and a significant chunk of the Syrian General Staff in a hardened bunker. Then there's Quadaffi's "Line of Death" (I was there for that) and the later F-111 bombing which sent a very direct message (and I especially liked the accidentally dropped bomb on the French embassy after they forced the F-111's to divert around France).
In Soleimani's case, and if I'd been kept in spite of disability I would have been in the "Black Community," I wouldn't have questioned any order involving him despite being fully aware of the fall-out, which I always was. He has been, and continued still, involved in direct actions that resulted in the deaths and wounding of US troops, let alone the recent incident at the US embassy. If anyone is confused about that, they have my pity for being a complete, blithering idiot.
Interesting though. Sometime, look up the "Ryan Doctrine" in Tom Clancy's literature.
So far Obama whilst President holds the record for slaughter in the Middle East and Afghanistan by drone-strike, including US citizens and innocents (aka collateral damage) - Trump is still in single digits. Yet the Mindless Blobs did not feel it noteworthy, and gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Funny old World.
That's simply not fair. Obama was awarded the Nobel peace Prize *before* taking office.
Obviously, it was well-awarded.
No, Obama was NOMINATED one week after taking office. Your point is still valid.
Spike; thanks :-)
Obama was given the prize for not being George W Bush. That gave everyone the tingles.
The list of people given the "Peace Prize" is quite entertaining.
Several people who had nothing to do with world peace (Mother Theresa, Lech Walesa, Muhammad Yunus) no matter how inspiring their work. Then there are virtue-signals of total deadbeats (Al Gore!, the EU!) and those that got where they were more or less by accident rather than a life devoted to peace (David Trimble, Mohamed ElBaradei).
But even those are better than the various (ex) terrorists (Begin, Mandela, Arafat), a dictator or two (Sadat, Gorbachev) and a person not averse to bit of ethnic cleansing (Aung San Suu Kyi),
By those standards, the selection of Barrack Obama does the prize credit.
Trump and Obama elected during Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts
He is actually quite thick.
He got a degree - in music. His course probably didn't cover much economics or international politics.
Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Major.... were elected during the UK/RoI 'war'
Paul Mason
Trump 4EVA Meme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwm8pdw69Q