• mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Ok, now pass one requiring the President to support and defend the Constitution, and to not be such an utter shithead.

    I realize that second one is delusional when it comes to Trump.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Good.

    But as a point of contention, dictators, emperors, supreme leaders, etc. are not presidents. Just saying.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The fact that this is even something Congress needed to consider doing is crazy.

    The main purpose of the US military is deterrence. Soldiers and tanks and aircraft carriers do their job by being so intimidating that no one starts a major war. (They’re still useful if a war does start, but winning a war is far worse than not having to fight it in the first place.) A major component of this system of deterrence is the presentation of an indivisible united front between us and our allies. Simply having the President publicly question the dedication of the USA to NATO did billions of dollars worth of damage - compare how much better it would be to have had Trump keep his mouth shut than it would be to build an extra carrier battle group. (Arguments about who pays how much can be held in secret.)

    The fun part is that they can pass a law to prevent Trump from officially leaving NATO, but they can’t pass a law to make him actually honor the alliance if a war does start, and they especially can’t pass a law to make the enemies of the USA believe that he would honor the alliance.

    • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I was under the impression that while one function of the the US military is being a deterrence army, they also regularly invade countries around the globe in wars of aggression?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Eh, sorta. As far as full scale invasion is concerned, off the top of my head, it’s happened three times since WWII (Iraq twice, Afghanistan once). There are many other cases that aren’t really invasions, but are terrible in their own right.

        Korea and Vietnam were both cases of the country’s government being split, and one of the factions asked the US to intervene. Then there are a hundred conflicts all over where the US was involved in some capacity–usually material support or training, but not combat. Those smaller support actions are where the really bad stuff is. Most of South America was completely fucked up in that way. The US could pretend not to be involved while one faction of locals commits crimes against humanity.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not to deter countries from starting wars, it’s to deter countries from stopping using the dollar as a reserve currency. The wars of aggression come with that.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

    The provision underscores Congress’s commitment to the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office.

    “NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world,” Kaine said in a statement.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) leaves a Senate Republican Conference luncheon where they heard from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)

    Biden has invested deeply in the NATO alliance during his term, committing more troops and military resources to Europe as a show of force against Putin’s war.

    The former president’s advocates say his tough talk and criticisms of the alliance served to inspire member-states to fulfill their obligations to reach 2 percent of defense spending, lightening the burden on the U.S.


    The original article contains 376 words, the summary contains 160 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Water@real.lemmy.fan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I appreciate people posting content which disproves the idea that the GOP is monolithic.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Aannndddd…

    that is somehow going to prevent Trump, post-crowning as GEOTUS, in 2025, from doing that?

    He’s already said that the Constitution needs to be deleted.

    He backs Putin.

    This is just “Arranging the deck-chairs, on the sinking Titanic.”

    The economic rug-pull, in the 1st half of next-year, 2024, will hand the election to the Repubs, via backlash.

    That, combined with NO Muslim vote for the Dems…

    and the Confederates will win dominion.

    US’s Civil War Part2 begins, then.

    The “letter of the law” protects nothing, when the authorities who interpret it, are ideology-addicts/prejudice-addicts.

    As Metallica said: “sad but true”.

    _ /\ _