upvote

points

by ourmandave12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby kenjackson9 hours ago|
next
[-]
A plan? Actually there is. This is all part of the backdrop to end US elections. We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war. And if we do have them we must greatly constrain how they are held while we are at war.
reply
upvoteby jjk1669 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
We had elections during WW2, the largest war of all time; we had elections during the civil war when confederate troops were 30 miles from DC. An air campaign in the Middle East is just another tuesday by comparison. This theory falls flat on its face - it is not a reasonable pretext for suspending elections, and this administration does not bother with creating pretexts for its power grabs.
reply
upvoteby zelphirkalt8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ah, but whether it is a "reasonable" pretext/excuse for suspending elections is up to the media and how they want to spin it for the masses, to shape their opinion, isn't it? And how practical, that more news outlets are now owned by MAGA people. Furthermore, I will not put it past Trump to use any flimsy excuse to suspend elections, if he thinks he will lose.
reply
upvoteby ourmandave8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The president has no legal powers over elections, per the constitution. Only states can hold elections.

Of course Trump and the GOP can try all sorts of voter suppression, which is what they're doing now.

reply
upvoteby kenjackson7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What if Trump were to say elections are illegal due to the war. We need to delay them. And Republicans in congress did nothing. And the Supreme Court decided not to hear any cases related to it. What then? We’re learning the US government has basically no teeth to stop something like this.
reply
upvoteby loganc23426 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's a scary thought, albeit not a realistic one at the moment, thankfully. The Supreme Court has shown ample willingness to strike down blatant (and subtle, for that matter) executive overreach. Exhibit A is Trump's tariffs, which were justified by the administration to be legal through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to “regulate…importation” during a declared state of emergency. The Supreme Court found that the wording in the act allowing the president to “regulate…importation” was not sufficient to grant the president the power to impose tariffs. The wording in the IEEPA is vague enough that you could go either way, but the conservative majority tends to follow the Major Questions Doctrine, which essentially says that in vague matters like this, assume that the power belongs to Congress and not the president.

Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.

I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.

reply
upvoteby jjk1667 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Can you name something which can't be spun by the media or that you could not believe Trump would try to use as an excuse? If something is always true, it is evidence of nothing in particular.

Claiming this strike on Iran is an attempt to suspend US elections is exactly as ridiculous as claiming the last round of strikes on Iran, or the Maduro raid, or any of Trump's other previous military boondoggles were attempts to suspend US elections.

reply
upvoteby muwtyhg9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> We can’t have elections in the middle of a major war.

Yes we can? Is there any provision in the US Constitution that allows delay of election because of war? We have had elections during most of our recent wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan).

Trump could definitely try. Or pull an emergency card out of his ass. But it doesn't mean there is any provision for cancelling elections because of this 'war' with Iran (which they aren't even calling a war, but a "special combat operation" to get around congress having the war powers)

reply
upvoteby kenjackson9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That statement was not on my voice, but the coming voice from this administration. IMO there is never a reason to withhold elections.
reply
upvoteby petre8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
What, is the US Ukraine? Is it under attack?
reply
upvoteby bakies8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
When zelenskyy mentioned elections were suspended by the war to trump, in the Whitehouse while in a room full of media, trump replied something like "now that's a good idea"
reply
upvoteby jimt12348 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I've been trying to avoid the news for a little over a year now. I needed a detox. ... Is this true? That is, are there legitimate proposals to cancel or constrain the November elections in any significant way? Or, is this all speculation?
reply
upvoteby bakies8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There's a memo out about nationalizing elections and there's the SAVE America act to require much stricter voting requirements. Both of these unconstitutional obviously because federal government doesn't run elections.
reply
upvoteby jimt12344 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Isn't this essentially what MAGA argued during the fighting over the 2020 election - that the states should be able to run their elections however-the-fvck they want, and the feds have no right tell the states how to run their elections?
reply
upvoteby idontwantthis9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
That's an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
reply
upvoteby rdiddly8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Unfortunately, you can't dismiss it based on that. Most of what this administration does is an absurd stretch with no basis in fact or history.
reply
upvoteby avaer8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The president said they should cancel the elections.
reply
upvoteby skullone8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You must be ignorant - the entire republican leadership is telegraphing the cancel elections
reply
upvoteby actionfromafar8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So, I heard Epstein started a war in the middle east...
reply
upvoteby guerrilla11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Are we supplying arms to groups?

Yes. The US supports the monarchy, the Kurds and MeK. The CIA was revealed to have armed MeK (despite designation) and my guess is that they do with the Kurds too. The CIA also talks to the Balochi groups as well although I don't know how organized or armed they are.

Needless to say, "regime change" would in reality mean civil war like Syria or collapse like Libya.

reply
upvoteby etc-hosts9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The US has spent a lot of time and money on MEK but I don't think they are very effective. Or will be very effective. My understanding is the leader of MEK has n't been seen in years(is probably dead), and MEK members are only allowed to marry other MEK members, so the number of MEK members is way down from their 80s highpoint, and it's not getting better.
reply
upvoteby guerrilla8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah, my understanding as well. Seems more like a cult that the US got too excited about.
reply
upvoteby aucisson_masque10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Or Irak.

The list of exemple is long enough, no need to add Iran.

We already had ISIS thanks to the mess in Irak and Libya.

reply
upvoteby guerrilla8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Well, Iraq is not that simple because Iran has also invested a lot in Iraq with various Shia forces. Right now Iraq is trying not to get involved. That's been their news all day. Maybe that is a sign that the Iranian investment is paying off, or just that the Iraqis are tired as fuck especially after the first Iran-Iraq invasion and then them being fucked by the US.
reply
upvoteby PretzelPirate9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You spelled Iraq as "Irak". Is there a meaning to this? I couldn't find a reference but wonder if that's somehow a meaningful spelling.
reply
upvoteby SSLy9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It's the spelling used by French, German and couple of neighbouring languages.
reply
upvoteby t-38 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Romanizations are fashion trends rather than any kind of science or real standardized system. Other than those places with Roman-era Latin spellings like Syria, others have dozens of variants.
reply
upvoteby aucisson_masque3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes it's how we write in french.
reply
upvoteby petre8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, he's probably French.
reply
upvoteby Natfan10 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> is there a plan...

probably not, outside of making more revenue for raytheon

reply
upvoteby thisisit9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Campaign to move the headlines from Epstein to something else, perhaps?
reply
upvoteby gruez11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>No approval from Congress.

To be fair that's been the case for decades. Trump's hardly new in this.

reply
upvoteby qup10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (and he did beforehand), and has 60 days before needing Congress to declare war.
reply
upvoteby xeromal10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Looking at the list of countries we have declared war on

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-...

I don't think it matters.

reply
upvoteby wat100008 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
For better or for worse, the War Powers Resolution acts as standing approval.
reply
upvoteby Ylpertnodi11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
...In a couple of weeks.
reply
upvoteby parineum10 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> No approval from Congress.

I don't support it but there's blanket approval from Congress from the AUMF.

reply
upvoteby richk4498 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This authorizes an attack on Iran?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’’. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

reply
upvoteby pphysch9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
And when was that approval passed?
reply