This wouldn’t happen today. Today there is talk about Canada becoming 51st state; there is relatively little opposition to that - on the contrary, the perception of Canada as a US ally drops in the US[1]. Four more years of this and I could see people similarly accepting tanks. And if you want to prevent this, the time to act is now.
Surely no one currently in power wants Canadians to vote in U.S. Federal elections? So it has to be a setup like Puerto Rico (U.S. citizenship without representation in Washington) or even American Samoa (no U.S. citizenship). The 51st state thing does not make sense at all.
Yes. For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them. And goal posts are moved, frogs are boiled, whatever analogy you prefer. Dude’s, right now, disappearing people against court orders to forced labor camps in other countries with no due process. He’s talking about taking over Canada and Greenland. What makes you think this is unrealistic? Why do you believe what you believe?
At best -- at best -- the rhetoric about Canada and Greenland is just yet another distraction from all the other domestic crap he and Musk are pulling. At slightly less than best, he wants to scare other countries into making concessions favorable to the US (or at even less than best, favorable to Trump and his cronies).
But yes, I would not be terribly surprised if Trump were to use boots on the ground -- or at least the threat of such -- to expand the US's territory in some way.
Underestimating your enemy, or buying into all these media talking points about his will-they-won't-they energy and "epic trolling", will have disastrous effects. The most culpable person down the list after the apathetic are those who refuse to take tragedy and security threats seriously.
Did you forget we recently spent over 30 years of military operations in Iraq? Or our current military support of an ongoing genocidal religious massacre? What exactly is your threshold for fucked up shit?
All of this is a strawman. I said nothing about the other side of the aisle, and they get no excuses either. But whataboutism is not a valid argument nor an excuse for this current administration's behavior.
> significant drawdown under Trump
Dude is literally going full empire mode right now with our neighboring allies. And he also got very close to starting a war with Iran on his way out of his last term. And now he is continuing to support the same genocide as his predecessors, and siding with Russia over the Ukraine conflict. He is an absolute clown and an illegitimate tyrant.
> Has the US government been out of control for decades? Sure. Is Trump doing something uniquely bad? I've yet to see it.
Status quo has never been a legitimate excuse for tyranny.
> All of this is a strawman. I said nothing about the other side of the aisle, and they get no excuses either. But whataboutism is not a valid argument nor an excuse for this current administration's behavior.
If your position is that Trump is doing something crazy then you absolutely need to show how what he's doing is different from baseline. And if you're suggesting people should have voted against him, which tends to be implicit in conversations about the president, then the alternative they would be voting for is absolutely relevant.
I don't need to bother when the man himself will be the first to proclaim to you that he's done more in his first 100 days of this term than any prior president. He can't shut up about it.
> And if you're suggesting people should have voted against him, which tends to be implicit in conversations about the president
I'm not suggesting anything other than what I explicitly stated, and this kind of predisposition, bias, whatever you'd like to call it, is the entire issue of this conversation with you. At each turn, you pile on another straw man, telling me how I must be thinking instead of earnestly finding out exactly what I have to say. There is no value in such an exchange.
> At each turn, you pile on another straw man, telling me how I must be thinking instead of earnestly finding out exactly what I have to say.
You stepped into my conversation with someone else. The statement I called out was:
"For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them. And goal posts are moved, frogs are boiled, whatever analogy you prefer."
If that's not a statement you want to defend then there is indeed no value in your participation.
> You stepped into my conversation with someone else
This is hacker news, that's the point of threaded conversation. I presented fine counterpoints to your arguments, and you failed to effectively engage them, instead moving to straw man arguments. There is a reason your post was flagged to death. This is the end of our conversation.
> > For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them.
> We've been hearing hysterical things about every Republican candidate for at least 30 years. Nothing ever happens.
I think you replied to something you made up to avoid replying to the actual thing. It was that in case of Trump apparently there is a history of ppl saying "surely it is joke and president would never do that" but then the president does exactly that. Not about hysterical things talked about US presidents.
After many cases where he said "I'll do that" then people like you said "no that's insane he's not going to do that don't worry" and then he does it, a sane person should assume that maybe he talks without thinking but then he sticks to what he blurted. And those things include attacking allies bordering with USA
So it can be up to USA military to uphold constitution or do what president says.
It looks like Trump's second presidency is very different from the first and a bunch of things actually happened like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43511213, renaming of international water bodies, rugpull meme cryptocoins, DOGE and stuff it does, appointing convicted criminals to the gov, tax cuts on the rich, tariffs on allies (UK/Taiwan), pardoning darknet druglord, disappeared a Muslim student and terminated her visa apparently for coauthoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed in university newspaper (https://apnews.com/article/tufts-student-detained-massachuse...) etc.
> It looks like Trump's second presidency is very different from the first
That's a pretty big backpedal from "For 10 years now, we’ve been hearing how hysterical the predictions about Trump’s actions are. And then he does them."
I didn't give those examples but stuff was happening during first presidency too (the wall, abortion, Jan 6). And now it keeps happening except more often & worse. Both can be true.
A curse of the old is that they are doomed to see the world only as they have always known it, to always be "right," leaving them at best to die bitter; at worst, confused.
I mean, he did pay people directly for voting in the last round of primaries and he's doing it again for that judge election in Wisconsin, and all his money is Tesla shares so.. yes, he's already doing it.
Even though the world is turning upside down, the fact that this is possible without facing immediate arrest is still surprising. I don't think this is possible in any other democracy.
I believe that the person you're responding to also passionately argues that "I'm not touching you!" is an acceptable defense to the charge of sibling harassment.
I really wish for this theory to be tested TBH. Martial law in US would be a great thing. US economy tanks, rest of the world like Europe is forced to pick up the slack, the world gets a refresh on what conservative "small government" brainrot does to countries.
It won't be like that. You'll slide further towards Putin/Erdogan state management and oligarchy. Hints of it already in how AP and The Atlantic are being treated, and the hints about what a future judicial system might look like.
Congress has the power to declare a war, which was supposed to prevent the Executive from taking any military action that was not purely defensive, without their approval. There was even a requirement about how long the President had to give an accounting to Congress about any action they did take. So yes, Congress was supposed to have the ability to "command" the military insomuch as they could choose whether the Executive could utilize them or not. Saying "no, you're not going to do that" is an authoritative command.
Hamilton, Washington, and Madison all separately wrote that Section 8's War Declaration clause was intended to be a substantial limit on the President's power. Even the small, mini-conflicts in the 1800s required Congressional approval to initiate, it wasn't until the 1950s that the Executive branch destroyed that check on Executive power.
By command I meant that Congress cannot tell the military "go arrest the president" or "go quell the unrest in that state." I agree that Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive in regard to declaration of war/military action in foreign countries after 9/11 though.
Trump may be Commander in Chief, but he cannot start a war without Congress' approval.
Unfortunately, they've essentially given more or less blanket approval for various wars and war-like actions since before 9/11, and that approval keeps getting renewed every year.
The U.S. will never allow any former president to get prosecuted because the precedent is too severe.
By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Trump should have been prosecuted the moment he left office for a spectrum of crimes. There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.
But power protects power, and the moment that seal is broken all hell breaks loose amongst the ruling class.
How many people were held accountable for the 2008 crash? Zero. That would mean everyone else has to stop their criming too.
Who knows, maybe Trump is stupid and petty enough to take revenge on his enemies. If he does, no doubt his entire administration is the next against the wall as soon as the winds change.
Nixon certainly would've been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.
> There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants.
I don't think this is very strong at all. There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki. Suggesting that he did, and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes, puts him in the same moral category as those who ordered actual torture on enemy combatants and launched wars on fabricated evidence. It's preposterous.
War crimes are a very broad category, so no, it's not preposterous to claim that different people are both guilty of them even if the scope varies significantly.
I strongly disagree with that equivalency. Obama should have pursued accountability instead of pardoning them like he did, but I do not agree that it puts him in the same moral category. Your framing shifts the argument from "Obama maybe deserves some scrutiny here" to "Obama belongs in the same cells with the torturers."
You're collapsing several degrees of responsibility with this lazy equivalence, and minimizing the heinousness of the people who actually designed and executed torture programs.
The world has no shortage of evil bastards. The only thing that restrains them is the knowledge that they may be held to account. Obama undermined that.
"Don't worry, we've got your back. If your country asks you to do evil, we won't hold you to account. So go right ahead."
Sorry, I actually meant to write that al-Awlaki was a citizen, as in an American citizen. Obama didn't intentionally target civilians, and he didn't intentionally target "citizens" as OP stated outside of al-Awlaki who was an American citizen turned insurgent.
The American justice system deserves to cease existing if 4 years isn’t enough to process people for possibly capital crimes (J6 coup attempt). No state can afford that.
Even if MAGA loses in 2028, I have very low confidence that Trump will see any consequences for his crimes. There's also the fun self-pardon-by-proxy trick: on the morning of the last day of his administration, he resigns. Vance is sworn in, pardons Trump for anything he's done, and then passes the presidency on to the next one.
Regardless, Trump is old. Even if he's convicted of something in 2030 or whenever, he probably won't go to prison. He may even be dead by then; he'll be nearly 85, and no matter what his doctors have been told to say publicly, it's hard to believe the man is in super great health.
Sure he was. He is a convicted felon, with 34 guilty counts under his belt[0]. You can't get convicted of felonies in a civil case. That was a criminal prosecution.
Trump was criminally prosecuted on both state (New York and Georgia) and federal charges, and convicted on New York state charges, before being re-elected. Because prosecution is an executive power exercised by the President, his re-election made it so that he would be President and thus unprosecutable by the time of trial on the federal charges for which there were still active prosecutions, resulting in them being dismissed without prejudice. (Technically, they could be refiled after he leaves office again.)
Concerns about Constitutional issues with state penalties interfering with federal duties also led the judge in the New York state case, where he was convicted of 34 felony charges, to sentence him to "unconditional discharge" -- essentially, he remains a convict, but faced no penalty beyond the fact of officially being a felony convict.
Issues relating to prosecutorial behavior have stalled Trump's prosecution on state criminal charges in Georgia, but those charges remain active (whether the prosecutor's office that was handling the case can continue to do so is an issue currently subject to appeal, and may not be decided for several months.)
That's a fantasy military leaders like to tell troops.
Let's hope we won't how that plays out against against the reality of having bills to pay and family members to take care of after enough layers of leadership has been replaced.
A loyalist privileges their leader over their principles. A patriot is a leader that subordinates themselves to the principles shared with their followers.
> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
I'll grant you that these militias are well-armed and have sketchy loyalties, but if the US military decided they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution, against Trump, they'd crush the Oath Keepers and their ilk.
Many of the members of those militias are themselves military or ex-military. Which already tells you volumes about how likely it is that all of the US military would "decide they were honor-bound to defend the Constitution". Besides, those guys don't think of what they are doing as contradicting the constitution - quite the opposite! They are very obviously wrong, but that has never stopped fanatics from believing in their creed.
The real question, anyway, is not whether the military will obey Trump's illegal orders, should he issue them. It's whether the military would do something to stop the militias if Trump lets them off the leash with an explicit mandate.
And my concern is that most of the lower-ranking officers and people below them will prefer to sit it out. Because if they do something, and it's not enough, they are all looking at actual treason charges and likely death sentences.
Do you really believe that these lower-ranking soldiers are going to sit idly by while they watch their family members get raped and executed (because that's what lawless paramilitaries do) on the nightly news?
But it won't be their family members, in most cases. It will be some despicable "cultural Marxists" or even more abstract "terrorists". And the rapes? Fake news.
Which does match what GP said. Enlisted swear to defend the constitution and obey the president. No limitation to lawful orders or stated precedence between the too. Commissioned officers don't swear to obey the president
What do you mean "no limitation to lawful orders"? That's what "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice" means. Article 92 is pretty explicit about what constitutes a lawful order.
A soldier comes to their own assessment then a court martial decides later on if they agree. Just like every other form of action: do what you believe is within bounds, then find out later if the courts agree
The individual. If your boss orders you to do something illegal, it’s up to you to be sceptical and do your research. That’s the only way it can work without converting a part of the population to drones.
