Removing Trump by Force?

originally posted by: Erno86
We need a law, passed by the U.S. Congress, to prevent a president from using a nuclear first strike, unless approved by Congress.

By the time Congress approves anything, it would be too late.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Erno86
We need a law, passed by the U.S. Congress, to prevent a president from using a nuclear first strike, unless approved by Congress.

Because when minutes or seconds may count, you can absolutely be sure you will get enough of Congress together to vote and then get a majority to approve.

Maybe you could get the bad guys to wait until you have had time to get everyone together and have a meeting about whether to fire back or not?

The Lobbyists would be able to handle all that.

a reply to: nonspecific

Well if you want to vaporize the other country and they want to get all their government figures together to try to decide if they will retaliate or even try to fight back, I'm sure they would obligingly wait for all of those VIP targets to be gathered in one spot!

Everyone wants to be at least that helpful.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Erno86
We need a law, passed by the U.S. Congress, to prevent a president from using a nuclear first strike, unless approved by Congress.

Because when minutes or seconds may count, you can absolutely be sure you will get enough of Congress together to vote and then get a majority to approve.

I'm talking about a U.S. preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea, not when nuclear or chemical bio-weapons missiles are already headed our (or the U.S. allies) way. Trump could easily start World War III...by staging a nuclear preemptive strike, causing China, Russia and Iran to respond in nuclear retaliation against us; due to unforeseen circumstances that might provoke it.

Putin might grab the opportunity to invade Western Europe, due to preemptive nuclear decisions by the Trump administration on North Korea. China might respond in kind...if in fact, nuclear fallout (or a wayward/misguided U.S. nuclear ICBM or nuclear cruise missile) might drench there country by a U.S. preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea --- With that, Iran just might join the nuclear fray, just for loser's sake.

a reply to: Erno86

Pre-emptive strike would need a declaration of war or authorization to use force from Congress. Of course, Obama found all kinds of creative ways to get around that, so there is precedent now for presidents to take military action without Congressional approval although nuclear is a whole other scale.

However, this is why conservatives said Congress ought not let that power slip for the past several decades like they have.

See where you all are now?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
There is a padded cell reserved for you somwhere...
Next to Ant and the missing in action Relda(probably off bashing a Nazi somewhere).

What you are proposing goes against everything our nation stands for. But sure why not! Your feelings got hurt...

a reply to: ketsuko



For a mentally ill president, like Donald Trump, I fear mentally unstable decisions are his forte...

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am having problems believing you 3 are adults!

Don't judge us because we still breast feed.

Breast milk?

originally posted by: Erno86
We need a law, passed by the U.S. Congress, to prevent a president from using a nuclear first strike, unless approved by Congress.

Now that's thinking ahead...

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: ketsuko



For a mentally ill president, like Donald Trump, I fear mentally unstable decisions are his forte...

Says the guy who thinks Congress should come together for split second decisions.

a reply to: Erno86


Now that's funny because while he has you sitting in fear progress in the court system that will outlast everyone is happening every day.
Crazy like a fox !!

I do not, nor have I ever, advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I do not, nor have I ever, advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government.

You sound like someone who has thought about it a lot but fears their internet is bieng monitored with that statement.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OK so in short... not going to happen, if the leftist commies had the balls or intelligence they would have taken out obama and then clinton for their acts against the American people.

"Under current law, the U.S. president can order a first-use nuclear strike even if the U.S. is not under attack."

"Open Letter To Members Of U.S. Congress: Act To Prevent Nuclear Catastrophe"

Link: www.wagingpeace.org...

a reply to: Erno86

ONE example of his mental state DR. Or STFU

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


No, it is no acceptable because the Constitution provides no such means or authority to do so. The POTUS is the CINC of the armed forces, and has sole discretion of military strikes and operations. He doesn't even have to report to congress for something like 90 days.

There are types of strikes known as preventative and preemptive, and both are absolutely legal provided there is a declared threat to our national security. I think NK having the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to the CONUS counts as a national security threat.

In that respect, no. I am fairly certain they'd spark a civil war in the process of attempting this coup, however. Any removal of the POTUS other than the 25th amendment/impeachment is unacceptable.

PS: we don't have to be under attack for a threat to our national security to exist. It is perfectly acceptable (and indeed within our military doctrine) to destroy targets before they have the chance to strike us. Any nuclear retaliation (or even conventional, perhaps) on the part of NK in response to our first strike would most likely result in total destruction of their government and military forces.

a reply to: Erno86


Any evidence he has been diagnosed mentally ill? You can't diagnose someone without their consent. And it has to be in person during a consensual examination, not from a keyboard quoting passages of the DSM. Not accusing you of this, but I've seen this kind of activity (especially on DU)

Mental illness is not a valid predictor of violence or unstableness, anyhow. That is kind of a bigoted thing to say. I'm no SJW snowflake, but I am tired of seeing mentally ill thrown around like it is some kind of insult. There are a lot of good people affected by various psychological diseases who will live their entire lives without harming a single living thing or making irrational judgments.

To say that Trump is mentally ill because you disagree with his foreign policy is a slap in the face to people suffering with those diseases. He is the duly elected POTUS, and has command of the nuclear arsenal. Making some silly law requiring an act of congress to launch them would give our enemies plenty of time to destroy us without any fear of retaliation. What if congress is out of session? What if they're on vacation? Overseas? You can see why the POTUS need this type of discretion. Nuclear strikes are decisions made in seconds to minutes, not hours/days/weeks/months.

End of rant.

At the moment, I sort of feel like I'm reliving the Reagan years only bigger, longer, and far, far more hysterical.

a reply to: Erno86

Why would the U.S. want to use nukes on North Korea with South Korea so close ?