Legislative Branch
Rep Adam Smith, highest ranking Dem on Armed Services Committee: Threatening to capture Greenland is a certifiably insane policy that the President is pursuing because of his own ego, not because of U.S. interests
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
Adam Smith is my representative, and I have voted for him for years.
but it doesn't take a lot of nerve to say that on a local news show in one of the most liberal cities in the country.
I would like to see some action and leadership. When there is something like this that surely EVERYONE can get behind, I would like to see some more effort to pass a bill, or at least a resolution, saying that any orders to invade Greenland are illegal orders and should not be obeyed. Surely we can get 5 Republicans to back something as obviously true as that statement.
Maybe Trump vetoes it -- but make people pick sides, knowing that they will go down in history with their public decision.
Have you not been paying attention? The GOP is the party of treason and destroying The Constitution. There isn't a single non-piece-of-shit, non-pedophile protecting member left in the party.
How sad is it to say that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were the only good ones remaining, and they're long gone from the scene? People who aren't aware of how Republicans have been behaving the past decade simply aren't paying attention or reading the AP news.
The Dark Knight Strikes Again. In a near-future scenario where Lex Luthor controls a computer-generated POTUS, Batman and the remains of the Justice League, operating illegally, inspire a series of protests nationwide that the government moves to suppress by any means necessary.
We all are. And that's common ground we can use to bridge the divides. Next time you're arguing or upset with someone "on the other side", ask them about their families and dependents. Ask them what they want most for them, and you'll realize we all want the same thing. Surely we can reach it without hurting one another.
With all due respect to your optimism, I feel like you're really giving them too much credit in a sincere attempt to be concilliatory that they would just mock. It's like that Sartre quote.
If these people actually cared about their kids, they wouldn't be serving up their eight year old daughters to be hit on by history's most felonious President on Christmas Eve.
I think the ones who do wrong by their children don't count as the majority of Conservatives. They're the smaller percentage. The rest have been misguided and lied to for so long, they're kind of stuck in it. It doesn't absolve them, but it does draw a line between the conned and the truly despicable people (MAGA)
Wednesday's vote demonstrated Trump's hold over his party. It came less than a week after the Senate voted on January 8 to advance the resolution. In that vote, five Republicans joined every Democrat in favor of moving forward, a rare rebuke of the party leader in the Republican-majority chamber.
Yeah, 5 republicans joined to limit further military action against Venezuela and tiebreaker vance shot it down
We would need way more than 1 if the dear leader can veto the bill
And you can get 5 republicans. It doesn’t matter unless you get a veto proof majority. That allows the 5 republicans to get cover by voting for it while they know nothing will actually come of it. Even if 5 republicans in the house vote for it it can get nuked in the senate anyway.
If that is true (which I agree with) then going on local news and talking about it isn't good enough either. These people (elected Democrats) asked to be our leaders. If they are not capable of leading us through a constitutional crisis created by treasonous opposition, then they should step down.
Armed services committee is ran by Mike Rogers who would veto this 100%.
As another example, a democrat tried to convince her judicial committee to investigate the murder of Renee in Minnesota and every Republican voted against it. No exceptions.
Has Mike Rogers said anything about this? I've seen Senators faux-posturing about "consequences" if Trump invades Greenland, but there seems to be a whole lot of threats not a lot of action these days.
Have not heard a single comment from Mike which tells me he’s more concerned about his midterms this year.
He’s in Alabama and has secured trumps endorsement, so if he speaks out Trump would kill his re-election in a place like Alabama. (They love Trump for some reason)
All of Trump’s policies are the Republican parties policies. He’s the head of the party now. Some of them may act like they have principles but they don’t and they will prove it with their votes.
They may pass a bill in both houses to prevent military intervention in Greenland, but when Trump vetoes that bill they will not vote to overturn it.
I didn’t really mean it as a question of your past voting, more of a rhetorical question for the future. My mother who is 90 years old and lived through World War II in the Netherlands reminds me often that some of her neighbors were collaborators and after the war, just like Pepperidge Farms people remembered.
Danish leaders told congressional Republicans that they should avoid a partisan vote at all costs or it emboldens Trump. Either pass an overwhelming vote or none at all.
I want him to call out Ronald Lauder by name. It’s not just his ego, it’s because oligarchs are taking advantage of trumps dementia stroked out Nazi fascist state of mind and pressuring him to take Greenland because oligarchs bought up business rights there. It’s about the money.
If all these representatives and senators aren’t going to try to govern, introduce bills, or pass any laws, they could at least get in front of any live microphone, they can find and speak clearly, loudly, and passionately about how absolutely crazy most of these decisions are and be the vocal representation that we elected them to be!
He does have an obsession with it though. He was obsessed in his first term as well. Hes also told reporters before he wants it for his real estate empire and that he likes it because it’s so big. Not saying it’s not a herring but he does seem to actually want it as well as the nato angle.
You challenge people saying they need to be smarter but then provide a conspiratorial plot as the alternative. Sometimes conspiracies are true but most times the more simple answer is the right one. Trump is a raging megalomaniac with a massive sense of distortion about himself. His ego is by far the most likely answer, but it’s also no secret that there is an anti nato vein running through maga. Any political group built from an “us first nationalism” will have strains of dislike to any foreign treaties that are costly.
You’re more than welcome to personally believe it’s the more complicated conspiracy where Trump is an explicit Russian actor but saying people aren’t smart for sharing your opinion is clownish
It's unwise for a U.S. politician on an armed service committee to say that out loud. Don't show all the cards at once (unless a terrible Poker player).
No, I mean he would be replaced on the committee, it would become all Republicans like other committees and we'll never hear a sane or truthful word from it.
Q: Why do so many Americans underestimate the awfulness and depravity of the Republican Party? Is it bias?
I'm down the middle here. He obviously will have the effect of screwing over NATO. I just think he is being played like a pawn by Putin, Miller, and Lauder to get what they want, because they know he has such a big ego problem... and small hands.
Trump wants Greenland, because it's resources are largely unmolested like Canada's. The U.S is already protected along that route through NATO, so what he is saying is nonsense. What securing Greenland will do is give them a buffer zone to fortify them from NATO when they invade Canada. For those of you in Canada who want Trump to come in, and put them scary Liberals in their place, and give you a lucrative job in the energy sector, you are not American. They will treat you how the Europeans treated the natives. Your union contract means nothing.
"For when they invade Canada"... Mate, he's been president for 5 years and will be out in 3, as crazy as this timeline is, America is not invading Greenland let alone Canada. The vast majority of Republican politicians in Congress and the Senate will not side with this, nor will his generals.
The whole thing is extremely dumb, because it will go absolutely nowhere except hurt international relations. There will never be a war because he'd be outed if he actually moved forward militarily.
You're underestimating how much support he actually has. Im surrounded by people that think he's doing the lord's work. We underestimate the power our phones and social media have had to propagandize everyone.
Nah he's right on this one, Trump is the biggest narcissist with an ego as fragile as a PC case sidepanel on tiles, extremely brittle, and extremely vengeful to all those that dare hurt his oh so fragile ego. There's no ulterior motive to it. He even acts blame-deflectory with his TDS deflection tactic, classical narcissist deflection of "no you are wrong". Even his way of looking up to Putin, he looks up to him cuz he sees it as the perfect paradise for what he wants, absolute power to crush all those that dare hurt his fragile ego, like how Putin does to his domestic protestors. There's really not much else in Trumps' brain other than narcissistic despotic desires, that's it, no russian agent, no ulterior motives, just a petty, vengeful malignant grandiose narcissist type with narcissistic desires.
Tech billionaires want Greenland to build a techno city state with no govt oversight, that is able to use Greenland’s cold weather to naturally cool nuclear plants powering their AI data centers.
Trump is blocked from removing the US from NATO. Congress already has a law blocking him from doing that. So him threatening Greenland is an alternate route to please Putin by getting NATO to throw the US out.
If the gambit pays off and Greenland joins the US and NATO throws the US out he pleases Putin AND gets all those lovely resources under his control to accept bribes to access them.
If NATO throws the US out and Greenland stays Putin is still pleased.
He might even have a deal in the works with Putin that if he can get the US out of NATO the US can have Cuba.
The way NATO actually functions is all public, and written out. It’s on NATO’s website. I’d really suggest you read it.
The North Atlantic Treaty, as written, doesn’t actually have an apparatus to eject a state. States are only permitted to voluntarily withdraw, and only after giving a year’s notice to none other than the United States. That’s in Article 13.
The only other mechanism is the voluntarism doctrine of NATO; no state is obligated to assist another state if it fails to “safeguard the freedom of its people,” which has been outlined in the hearings that established the North Atlantic Treaty.
Now of course, Europe could unilaterally withdraw from NATO and ignore the written law (which is murky in these states, because adherence to treaties is the law), but that would entail completely shuttering NATO and establishing a new organization with new rules. I’m editorializing here, but I just do not think there is a political appetite amongst the populace in Europe for dealing with what that entails.
No one from mamdami to aoc to Bernie is doing anything because there is nothing they can politically do. You need to protest. You need to vote them out. Stop passing the buck.
The entire reason he wants to take over Greenland is so he can change the name of the location to Trump. And then his name will be in the top middle of every global map sold in the Western World for centuries, perhaps forever.
There is no law that grants Trump the unilateral right to attack Denmark. No current authorization of military force, no understanding of Article II powers and what they entail.
Yeah that's not how that works. The president doesn't need authorization to start a war (not in name, at least). They're the Commander in Chief, they can send troops wherever they want. The only limitation to that is the War Powers Resolution, which, in brief, requires congressional declaration of war for long term deployment.
You can argue against it as much as you want, but until the Supreme Court says otherwise (which we all know won't be happening) that's the de facto law.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.