Originally posted by robbie carrobieLOL....That sounds like a very bias poll to me. The people who do more accurate polls are calling it a very tight race with a 3% advantage for Clinton. Adding it very well could be one of the closest U.S. races of all time, for two people who are really not that well liked.
Actually the stock market is a better predictor of US presidents than the polls. It gives Trump an 86% chance of winning.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-04/market-indicator-gives-trump-86-chance-winning-election
-VR
Originally posted by divegeesterDive,
I dread a Trump presidency. Congress and the Sennet will block most of his BS, but how much damage can he do abroad with his horrible attitude which will affect us all. Furthermore what is the protocol for launching neuclear weapons? Seriously...
We agree on this point. I think as commander the President would have the last say on launching neuclear weapons. Lets hope IF he is elected, he isn't in one of his rages if/when the day comes that has to be decided. Like I said before. May God bless the U.S. and also the rest of the world. He is just too unpredictable for me!!!
-VR
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
"War Powers
Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the president could send troops to battle by adding strict time frames for reporting to Congress after sending troops to war, in addition to other measures."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power
The War Powers Act of 1973 requires the president to consult with Congress "in every possible instance" before introducing troops into "hostilities" and says he must withdraw forces after 60 to 90 days unless Congress says differently. Critics at the time (during Vietnam) argued that it unconstitutionally gave the president too free a hand to get America into a "quagmire." In the 1980s, critics made the opposite argument: that the act unconstitutionally limited the president's freedom to initiate military action as "commander in chief." In any case, the act does not limit a one-day bombing strike.
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also cites a 1996 congressional statute empowering the U.S. to use all necessary force against terrorists.
In short, neither international law nor U.S. law, as currently interpreted, imposes any serious limit on a president who wishes to bomb a foreign country."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/08/can_the_president_bomb_anyone_he_wants.html
Originally posted by JS357JS357,
"War Powers
Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). The 1973 War Powers Act attempted to define when and how the president could se ...[text shortened]... ate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/08/can_the_president_bomb_anyone_he_wants.html
Keep in mind we are talking the Trumpster here, who listens to no one. Someone who is a billionare ( bankrupt 7 times he admits to), who brags about not having paid taxes in very many years. He will not be asking permission to anything he wants to do IF he gets to be President. He wants the POWER that comes with the presidency.
He pretty much does as he pleases, and I believe if elected will continue along that road. Why change if elected. It would have worked for him up to that point.
Even if he is not elected he will drag things out by declaring a re-vote, etc., etc., for God knows how long. He reminds me of a man that was once dictator of Germany.
-VR
Originally posted by HandyAndyRanders, Randers you are too late my son, I had it on my feed an hour ago! Still tis a great pity really, one hoped for more. Obviously the timing is bad, Mr Comey could have waited till the election was over. 🙂
Check this out before you nod off:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37892138
I would also like to point out just because the FBI found no criminality does not mean that Mrs Clinton is innocent, all it says is that the FBI's position has not changed since July.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSounds like someone told them to put up, shut up, or action would be taken against them, at least that is what my thoughts are.
Randers, Randers you are too late my son, I had it on my feed an hour ago! Still tis a great pity really, one hoped for more. Obviously the timing is bad, Mr Comey could have waited till the election was over. 🙂
I would also like to point out just because the FBI found no criminality does not mean that Mrs Clinton is innocent, all it says is that the FBI's position has not changed since July.
The FBI says it has found no evidence of criminality in a new batch of Hillary Clinton emails, boosting her campaign two days before the election.
FBI Director James Comey told Congress his agency's review had found nothing to alter its original conclusion.
In July, he said Mrs Clinton had been careless but not criminal in handling sensitive material on her private email server while secretary of state
-VR
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCountless times you have spent the early hours ( 1 am, 2 am, 3 am... in the UK) online and flinging puerile and oddly repetitive insults at me here, 7 time zones away. So I think your reply to HandyAndy's on-the-nail question ~ "Do you stay awake nights thinking of ways to make people dislike you?" ~ seems like a bit of a fib.
Call me crazy but I generally try not to stay awake and instead go to sleep at night.