Eh, “should” this, “supposed to” that, whatever.
What does it say?
It’s the Trump administration – it doesn’t matter what it says.
Any threat to Canada is a threat to the whole commonwealth!
Yes but No
No country will put themselves in a strategically loosing situation willfully. The UK is militarily very intertwined with the US : An abrupt divorce with the US isn’t possible. Just like Ukraine’s European allies are still buying Russian gaz, many NATO allies will try to play both side and the smaller Canada essentially being abandoned to itself. Easier to organize a blockade with the Atlantic Ocean as a boarder after Canada is attacked and mostly lost. I say this painfully as a Canadian. Hopefully we have time to make it too expensive to attack us.
Canadian, eh?
That’s BS. You could have said the same thing during WWII. Countries stood up against fascism then, going against what was “better” for them. Countries will do it again if they have to. Canada sent troops over the ocean to fight on the front lines in WWII as cannon fodder before members of other armies - but we were tough as shit and savage. If we ever need to call in a favour - we will.
i’m going to take a counter argument here. the united states should annex canada and buy greenland.
why?
because the population of canada is more than california.
because there are 48 democratic senators.
because canada and denmark are both more left leaning than california is.
see where i’m going here? canada and greenland gives dems enough people to force through their agenda through the house and senate. and with enough backlash there’s probably going to be a lot of gop senators who aren’t going to be senators in 2026, probably enough to hit 69 which would be the minimum to remove trump from office. probably enough to impeach that little lickspittle vance too. and then enough votes for a democratic president (since the house would be run by democrats, 3rd in succession is the speaker of the house) to sign bills giving canada it’s “independance” and return greenland to denmark.
if trump wants it that badly, then lets give it to him.
So you want to forcefully exploit people in other nations for your own benefit too, just in a different way to Trump.
They’ll make them a territory like D.C. or P.R. who don’t have senators.
Who can freely settle in the US and then vote.
If the US annexes Canada, ex-Canadians will use the 2nd amendment to take Canada back. It’s the stupidest fucking idea ever. Canadians don’t want to be Americans, the only way it could happen is through violent forced annexation. And then the US would be caught up in a perpetual war of insurgency on the continent.
I know that. I’m just going off what OP said.
make them a territory of the US like PR.
The people of PR can’t vote in our elections unless they move to the mainland. Same thing would apply here. Not that Canadians would allow that to happen. And quite a few Americans would join to help them.
Fascism is okay actually when my party wins
That assumes that Trump or his fascist successors would honor democratic norms. I’ve seen no evidence of that so far.
Chances are that if the lonnie and donnie show annex Canada that the idea of free and fair elections would be over. Or, if they were to somehow come out of such a scenario with free and fair elections, they do something to rig Canada so any progressive majority would be blunted (just like it is already) by the Electoral College.
A lot of things he’s done should have invoked the 25th ammendment
A lot of things in Trumps last term too. And a few things in Bidens term. The 25th doesnt really function.
We used to talk about “constituional crisis” too, and Trump is now just ignoring judges and asking what anyone will do about it. That should also trigger the 25th, if congress lived up to their oaths, but their oaths are vastly secondary to party politics, self interest, and money making, on both sides.
What did Biden do that warranted invoking the 25th? I suspect if you think it should have with him, it should have with every president.
Our laws plainly spell out that if a state is interfering with aid distribution, aid and weapons to them must stop. Biden refused to admit that Israel was interfering with aid distribution in any way. According to Biden the gazans have food aid and aid workers have not been interfered with. I dont see how this violation can possibly be debated.
In the face of strenuous complaints by congress, Biden refused to admit that Israel could plausibly be involved in genocide, which would have triggered automatic safeguards in the Leahy laws and other laws around shipment of weapons and giving of foreign monetary aid.
Israel/Biden also repeatedly and consistently violated the geneva conventions, which we are a signatory of, so thats binding law in our legal system. That makes him a war criminal with blood on his hands.
Biden swore an oath to faithfully execute our laws, which he grossly violated, doing massive amounts of grievous criminal harm. These are the very definition of “high crimes”.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/leahy-law-israel
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/17/palestine-israel-leahy-lawsuit
Oh come on, that’s ridiculous. I was with you calling Biden an enabler for Israel’s actions in Gaza, but I just don’t see the leap to war crime
Well we can google what is a war crime.
Lets do that:
What qualifies as a war crime?
A war crime, a serious violation of international humanitarian law, is a breach of the laws or customs of war committed in the context of an armed conflict, whether international or non-international, and can lead to individual criminal responsibility.
Here’s a breakdown of what qualifies as a war crime: Key Elements:
Context: War crimes always occur within the context of an armed conflict, whether international (between states) or non-international (internal conflicts).
Violation of International Law: They involve serious breaches of the laws and customs of war, as defined in international treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Individual Responsibility: Perpetrators of war crimes incur individual criminal responsibility under international law.
Examples of War Crimes: Attacks Against Civilians: Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects.
Torture and Cruel Treatment: Inflicting torture, cruel treatment, or inhuman treatment on prisoners of war or civilians.
Taking Hostages: Taking hostages.
Pillaging: Pillaging or looting property.
Sexual Violence: Rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, or any other form of sexual violence.
Use of Prohibited Weapons: Using weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or are prohibited by international law, such as chemical weapons or cluster munitions.
Disregard for the Wounded and Sick: Attacking medical personnel, facilities, or transports, or preventing them from carrying out their duties.
Deportation or Transfer of Populations: Forcibly deporting or transferring populations from their homes.
Use of Child Soldiers: Enlisting or using children under the age of 15 in armed conflict.
Killing or Wounding Surrendered Combatants: Killing or wounding combatants who have surrendered or are hors de combat (out of action).
Important Considerations:
Proportionality:
Military actions must be proportionate, meaning the harm caused to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Distinction: Military actions must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between military objectives and civilian objects.
Necessity: Military actions must be necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and should not cause unnecessary suffering.
Humanity: Military actions must be conducted with humanity and should avoid unnecessary suffering.
Which of those did Biden commit?
I’ll just block you instead. You clearly arent worth the time for me or anyone else to reply to.
What US military action has taken place in Gaza?
Let me help you: none. The US has supported a state that is committing war crimes. Show me where in international law that is defined as a war crime.
the United States signed the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on September 25, 2013, which establishes common standards for the international trade of conventional weapons and aims to prevent transfers that could fuel genocide, war crimes, and other human rights abuses.
Article 6 addresses explicitly prohibitions against arms transfers that would be contrary to international legal obligations, or where the State knows the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and certain war crimes. This provision sets a clear benchmark to allow States parties to effectively and consistently implement these prohibitions.
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/att/att.html
In the 1949 geneva conventions, referred to as the IHL, signed by the US: War crimes – serious violations of international humanitarian law that include wilful killings, direct attacks on civilians, torture, use of prohibited weapons, the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or others who have been captured, surrendered or injured and crimes of sexual violence.
Crimes against humanity – crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack by or on behalf of a state or an organization against a civilian population during peace or wartime. There are 11 crimes against humanity including murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of a population, torture, rape and other serious forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance and apartheid. Crimes against humanity may be committed in armed conflict or in peacetime.
Genocide – certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, completely or partially, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Genocide may be committed in armed conflict or in peacetime.
In Us law Biden violated the Leahy act and the arms export control act.
Glad I could help you out and make you better informed. Also check these.
And that’s different than what any other US president would have done? Kowtowing to Israel is US government policy.
Nothing different. I’d argue that’s another indicator that the US’s ‘health’ has been bad for a long time.
The point is whether the 25th amendment should have been invoked.
If the conditions were met, then other past presidents doing the same thing just means the 25th amendment should have been invoked in those situations as well.
None of this has anything to do with the 25th Amendment. The 25th is the process for removing a president from office in the event of physical or mental disability to severe that the President can no longer carry out the duties of office.
Committing war crimes doesn’t trigger the 25th. Neither does breaking any other law. Those are what impeachment is for, and (ignoring the Supreme Court’s recent unlawful establishment of an elective absolute monarchy) enforcement of the law against the President, in those cases where there are criminal penalties.
Thank you for clarifying. In that case the rebuttal to kreskin above should be that the 25th amendment does not apply to crimes, rather than that many presidents commit crimes.
Btw, as an outsider I’m pressing X to doubt that anyone will ever be able to successfully invoke the 25th amendment. It will be even harder than impeaching. None of the people involved are willing to relinquish power and independent access to determine their puppet’s dementia would be impossible.
that changes nothing….
and Isreal has been acting much worse than they were before… although it was still genocidal
You’re claiming that Biden broke laws while in office. There’s a strong argument to be made that he did (like every other US president since Eisenhower). That would have been a case for impeachment. It’s not like Biden was in a coma or otherwise unable to carry out his oath of office due to incapacity, which is what the 25th is for. And the threshold for invoking the 25th is far higher than having looked feeble in a debate.
strenuous complaints by congress
When did a Congressional majority make such a complaint? There are painfully few Congressional voices that challenge the morally bankrupt US policy in that region. In fact, huge part of the underlying problem with US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians is that Congress has never been impartial.
Ok, so def like -100 karma points for Biden, but it’s kind of petty to focus on that when Trump was already at like -20 million before he even took office
Is there some rule that we just imprison whichever one lawbreaker is worst? I dont think thats how laws work. Supposedly we are a nation of laws.
Kyle Rittenhouse has entered the chat
If the law were enforced to the max with no exceptions, everyone would be imprisoned.
I mean there is, thats why if you break the law and speed you get a ticket and pay a fine, but if you break the law and commit premeditated homicide, you get life in prison.
The issue is that laws have to be applied evenly to everyone, and penalties need to scale with income level. They need to be both punitive and prohibitive to EVERYONE.
He should have been banned from running long ago when he incited an insurrection trying to stay in power.
It does seem like all the hoohah about how great the US Constitution is, or the genuis of the US founders may well have just been some good marketing mixed with a reliable dash of American Exceptionalism.
The problem with any constitution is that it’s not self-enforcing. Any system can be subverted and corrupted. It’s the corruption that’s the problem, not that the Constitution (like any set of laws) is not perfect.
Banned from earth.
A crazy, washed-up former reality TV host running for a new term as president while in exile on the moon sounds like the plot of a fun sci-fi political thriller, but not a reality I want to live in.
Still better than what we have
The guy already should be rotting in prison for a whole host of reasons, but here we are.
25th Amendment needs to start with the Vice President, so we know that’s not going to happen:
Section 4
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
This seems like such a short-sighted design by our founding fathers and subsequent leaders when we look at it with today’s lens. I know they likely would have assumed that people would riot with pitchforks and torches of anyone engaged in corruption during their era, including having the support of the VP. I know the 25th amendment was a more recent addition (1967), but I’m surprised there weren’t more catching points for this written into the foundation.
I guess they hoped we would never allow things to get this shitty.
The 25th wasn’t intended for illegal actions. It was for when the president has a stroke and goes comatose, or other forms of incapacitation.
Impeachment is the constitution’s main way to get rid of a corrupt president.
The design seems to be to prevent a single person going rogue and doing whatever. Not designed for when someone has won elections and start damaging the country.
All the nonsense of “Republic is not a democracy because democracy is mob rule and not good for minorities” seems to no longer work.
Our whole system was hanging on the hope that We the People would identify and not elect a power-hungry egomaniac.
On the contrary, they assumed that grossly unfit morons would have mass appeal and that’s why the constitution has so many provisions to make sure that popular will is not reflected at the ballot box.
They hoped that the rich would not elect a grossly unfit traitor, which all of history shows is a laughably stupid assumption.
“We The People” only referred to white land owning men. Even with the expansions of reconstruction, women’s suffrage, and civil rights (all won by working class organization and opposition) our entire representative democracy has been designed to the benefit of capital owners. Neoliberalism just shifted that into overdrive.
The franchise has vastly expanded since then. There are other reasons for the current dysfunction.
Bear in mind that in the early years of the USA, the vice president was generally the person who was running against the sitting President for the seat. It was another built in check to power, though unfortunately not codified. The idea of just picking a VP candidate came much later.
Not that much later. Jefferson was the third president, he’s the one who decided voters be damned he’s picking the VP.
Having a VP in opposition was a design flaw and a source of instability. It made sense to change it.
Do you really want a system where, if a faction dislikes the president, all they have to do is assassinate him?
You can think it’s better. But the fact is he decided to just ignore voters. Sound familiar?
The 25th Amendment was ratified long after the 12th Amendment which changed how the VP got into office.
The founders didn’t consider it at all, the 25th wasn’t added until 1967. Pre-Nixon even.
The 25th was put in to prevent the situation that occurred with Woodrow Wilson, who had a stroke and couldn’t govern but who was not removed from office.
The remedies for grossly unfit traitors were meant to be impeachment, or revolution.
The corruption was a feature, not a bug. The founders of the US were not good dudes.
By modern standards, absolutely not. By the standards of the time, they were pretty radical. Part of why France was a major ally during the revolutionary war.
Unlike all the modern gooch sniffers who treat the founding fathers as infallible and the last word on everything. Including modern issues they could have never imagined. The founding fathers knew their constitution and laws were never perfect. And would likely need updating every 20 to 50 years. They didn’t fail us. We failed them in many ways however. We allowed those who amassed power to only amass more power. And put up roadblocks to any meaningful change in most instances. Which is why it was so hard to get things like civil rights or women’s suffrage. Nearly impossible to get anything at all today. Because it does not serve the entrenched wealthy and Powerful. And your average man is so uninformed that you really don’t know what’s going on or who the actual enemy is.
I mean, if the VP doesn’t want to take over, it doesn’t make sense to force the VP to take over, since if they weren’t willing to go against the president and use the 25th, it means they’d be doing the same thing as the president, so its pointless.
Why not? We all know Vance is pretending for the position. If he sees a real shot, he might take it.
Nobody likes Trump as a person. They’re all just grifting.
The trick is getting enough to turn at once, and getting them all to know that there’s enough. A dumb one might rat it out because of greed, but they should know that doesn’t work. If they’re in that position, there’s no further loyalty rewards. The best they can hope for is avoiding retribution, and that’s not even guaranteed.
The reason he picked Vance is because he knew there was no resistance there, he learned from Pence.
But he’s an idiot, and if Vance sees a legit opening he might jump at it.
“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler,” he wrote privately to an associate on Facebook in 2016.
In another 2016 interview about his book, Vance told a reporter that, although his background would have made him a natural Trump supporter, “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”
Vance is much less of a zombie than Pence. He’s actively evil, fanatical and not stupid.
Even if the VP started it the president can still override them unless unconscious/in a coma.
In his deal with Putin, Trump is closing the investigations into child trafficking and kidnapping of Ukrainian children, and closing down war crimes committed by Russian military.
I agree, Trump advocating for invading Canada and Greenland is enough for the 25th Amendment and on moral grounds I hold him accountable for absolving Putin and Russia of war crimes.
That’s not what the 25th amendment is for. The correct process for such criminality is impeachment, which isn’t a much higher bar than the 25th. It won’t happen, the system is already too corrupt.
It should have been done even before that when he blatantly started contributing to the Russian war effort
Ah yes now it’s time for a “special 3 days operation” in Canada.
Except trump has something like 75% approval rating with republicans. So its wishful thinking, unfortunately.
Jesus Christ that comes across as even worse than Putin deciding he needed to annex Ukraine. How is it that in a world of too many bad guys, we’re turning into the worse guy?
“We” are not turning into anything. The government has been taken over by fascists and what “we” should be turning into is a unified, organized resistance.
Canadian here. Please do.
Trump being elected should have invoked the 2nd amendment, but as we all know the American citizens are the most spineless bags of hot air since the hot air balloon.
What should have happened in America and what is actually happening are two different things.
