President Trump Discussions- merged thread

If it were true the allegation Obama/Biden/HRC and senior FBI,CIA,DOJ officials manufactured the Rus

  • I have always favoured Trump and continue to do so

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • I favoured the other side in the past, but now favour Trump

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I favoured Trump in the past, but now favour the other side

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • I have never favoured Trump and this doesn't change it for me

    Votes: 8 34.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

jacksparrow

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
:eek:ff topic:
Donald Trump has claimed to have spent only a “tiny” amount of time in a reinforced security bunker under the White House as protesters clashed with Secret Service agents outside and has insisted his time there was for an “inspection”, not his own safety.

In an interview with Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on his radio show on Wednesday, Trump also claimed to have visited the bunker in the daytime, not after dark, when protesters and law enforcement officers clashed outside the executive mansion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/03/trump-bunker-george-floyd-protests

 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
24
Points
180
It isn't like he really has a choice. If the secret service says go they will make you. Apparently Dick Cheney had to be carried there after 9/11 because he didn't want to go.
 

jacksparrow

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
What, you mean he couldn't override as the Comd in Chief and say hell naw?

Chauvin in his orange jump suit

derek-chauvin-mugshot-orange-suit-640x480.jpg


Tcm621 said:
It isn't like he really has a choice. If the secret service says go they will make you. Apparently Dick Cheney had to be carried there after 9/11 because he didn't want to go.

- Staff edit to meet forum rules
 

Kat Stevens

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
88
Points
530
jacksparrow said:
What, you mean he couldn't override as the Comd in Chief and say hell naw?

Chauvin in his orange jump suit

derek-chauvin-mugshot-orange-suit-640x480.jpg

No. He couldn't. The job of the secret service protection detail is to protect the life of the POTUS, whether he likes it or not. They are not Donald Trump's bodyguards, they are the President's.The mugshot is a bit of a non sequitur, no?

- Staff edit of quote to meet forum rules
 

mick

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
So... is it more plausible that Donald Trump went for a tiny little inspection coincidentally during the protests outside the WH, as he now claims?  Or that his Secret Service detail required him to shelter there, and he had no choice?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
263
Points
830
mick said:
So... is it more plausible that Donald Trump went for a tiny little inspection coincidentally during the protests outside the WH, as he now claims?  Or that his Secret Service detail required him to shelter there, and he had no choice?

There’s probably poor reception down there. Not too conducive to tweeting. I’m not convinced it’s a place he’d choose to spend time willingly.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Brihard said:
There’s probably poor reception down there. Not too conducive to tweeting. I’m not convinced it’s a place he’d choose to spend time willingly.

I can't seriously believe that a nation whose intelligence apparatus can read the screen of my Smartphone from a base on Mars has poor WIFI in the White House.
 

jeffb

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Haggis said:
I can't seriously believe that a nation whose intelligence apparatus can read the screen of my Smartphone from a base on Mars has poor WIFI in the White House.

Except that the bunker is likely a Level III facility. Likely no wifi there for security reasons.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
68
Points
530
jeffb said:
Except that the bunker is likely a Level III facility. Likely no wifi there for security reasons.
Didn't you watch "White House Down" or "Olympus Has Fallen"?  There's WiFi everywhere.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
398
Points
880
Haggis said:
Didn't you watch "White House Down" or "Olympus Has Fallen"?  There's WiFi everywhere.

Luckily they entrusted the movie Preaident’s life to a Scotsman with great abs :)
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
He had to.  The live takes for a Downfall video have to be shot before the final crash, not after.
 

jacksparrow

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ahahahaha...Channing Tatum is NOT a Scot in the White House Down. I think you're getting it mixed up with Angel Has Fallen (Gerard Butler). LOL :rofl:

daftandbarmy said:
Luckily they entrusted the movie Preaident’s life to a Scotsman with great abs :)
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
Military Advisors kept options from Trump:

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/510990-trump-advisers-were-wary-of-talking-military-options-over-fears-hed
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Hill:
The president did instruct a military attack that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani earlier this year, which Tehran responded to by launching a strike against a U.S. base in Iraq, injuring several.

A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Donald H said:
The Hill:
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!

I don't know Don

Remember that President Clinton cancelled the strike against Osama and President Obama ordered the second strike against Osama.

All I'm saying its very possible Trump ordered the strike.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
263
Points
830
Donald H said:
The Hill:
A strike by Iran that most likely was deliberate and precise. A more damaging hit by Iran would have likely done it for a war on Iran. Which begs the question on how much did Trump have to do with the hit on Suleimaini? Likely very little IMHO.

Great topic for discussion here!

It seems likely to me that such a strike wouldn’t be launched without a thumbs up from the president. I imagine that probably he had given direction to seek an opportunity to spank Iran in a surgical way that would send a message, and they came back with that strike as an option, seeking his assent. The president (any president) would likely not have the knowledge or expertise to really have much to do with target selection; that’s pretty in the weeds, even if a particular target is an important one. He would have probably been offered one or more options to approve or choose from.
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Drafting women into military service? I thought it was a done deal

Federal appeals court: Male-only draft is constitutional
By KEVIN McGILLAugust 13, 2020

https://apnews.com/6240679fed466f36679b7492d015cf0c

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal appeals court in New Orleans upheld the constitutionality of the all-male military draft system Thursday, citing a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In a decision that overturned a 2019 ruling by a Texas-based federal judge, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said “only the Supreme Court may revise its precedent.”

The case was argued in March and was the result of a lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men and two men challenging the male-only draft. They argued that the 1981 case was decided at a time when women were largely absent from combat.

Thursday’s unanimous ruling from the three-judge panel acknowledged that “the factual underpinning of the controlling Supreme Court decision has changed. However, the judges noted, “that does not grant a court of appeals license to disregard or overrule that precedent.”

Plaintiffs in the case could seek a rehearing before the full 17-judge appeals court or go to the Supreme Court. Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men, said organization leaders will discuss their next move with attorneys. “All I can tell you is we will be moving the case forward,” he said.

The U.S. government stopped drafting young men into the military in 1973. But every male must still register for the draft when he turns 18.

Earlier this year — after the arguments before the 5th Circuit — a federal commission recommended including women in the military draft system.
“The Commission concluded that the time is right to extend Selective Service System registration to include men and women, between the ages of 18 and 26. This is a necessary and fair step, making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency,” the commission’s final report said.

The 2019 district court decision declaring the male-only draft unconstitutional had been appealed by the Selective Service System, the federal agency that administers the draft. The appeal was argued during a series of 5th Circuit hearings at Tulane University. The judges were Carl Stewart, Don Willett and Jacques Weiner.

Arguing for the National Coalition for men was Marc Angelucci, an attorney who was shot to death in July. Authorities later linked the killing of Angelucci in California to Roy Den Hollander, 72, who was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on July 20, the day after an ambush shooting in New Jersey that killed U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ 20-year-old son and wounded her husband.

 

Ostrozac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
24
Points
180
shawn5o said:
Drafting women into military service? I thought it was a done deal

It probably doesn't have to be said, given Canada's past negative experiences with conscription, but men-only peacetime conscription simply could not happen anytime in the future in Canada. It would be a clear violation of section 15 of the Charter. Men-only wartime conscription, on the other hand, could be passed by Parliament, for five years at a time, under the notwithstanding clause.

In theory, the US doesn't have such a notwithstanding clause written into their constitution, but in practice their Supreme Court tends to allow things in wartime for short periods (as seen in the US Civil War, WWI, WII) that wouldn't pass muster as permanent peacetime practices. Even should the US Supreme Court rule that the peacetime Selective Service Act has to also register women, that wouldn't necessarily bind a future wartime US Government to actually conscript them.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
263
Points
830
Ostrozac said:
It probably doesn't have to be said, given Canada's past negative experiences with conscription, but men-only peacetime conscription simply could not happen anytime in the future in Canada. It would be a clear violation of section 15 of the Charter. Men-only wartime conscription, on the other hand, could be passed by Parliament, for five years at a time, under the notwithstanding clause.

In theory, the US doesn't have such a notwithstanding clause written into their constitution, but in practice their Supreme Court tends to allow things in wartime for short periods (as seen in the US Civil War, WWI, WII) that wouldn't pass muster as permanent peacetime practices. Even should the US Supreme Court rule that the peacetime Selective Service Act has to also register women, that wouldn't necessarily bind a future wartime US Government to actually conscript them.

It wouldn't be that clean. While S.15 can be 'notwithstood', Parliament built an explicit protection of sex into the Charter in S.28. That section cannot be notwithstood.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms said:
28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

So- while Parliament can invoke the Notwithstanding clause on S.2 and Ss.7-15 for the purpose of any legislation, that option is *not* open to it where there would be discrimination in violation of S.28. If there were a male only draft, that would be a prima facie violation of S.7, the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Because the Notwithstanding Clause could not apply in this particular case, male only draft legislation would have to be able to withstand Charter challenge by somehow passing the Oakes test that applies S.1's 'reasonable limitations'. I can't see that happening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top