Do you think it's true that "The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,”?

[Anonymous]

I ask because apparently Tulsi Gabbard thinks so. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tulsi-gabbard-stuns-senator-saying-234941924.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[Zack-Bann]

Anyone with a brain can “determine” if something is a threat


But there is a pecking order for a reason


And yes the president is the ultimate authority on what gets done


The idea that someone else can override the president is a quick way to fail as a nation


There’s many such examples around the world


Even a president who’s wrong most of the time but has actual authority is better than one who’s a genius but can have his decisions questioned and overruled

[Asker]

This assumes that the president actually has enough good judgment to make such a determination. I say that this President absolutely does not and in fact his lack of intellectual ability in his emotionality represent a clear and present danger to our country. I don't give a s*** if he was given the authority or not. He has no business using it and we have no business letting it remain his hands.

[Zack-Bann]

It doesn’t matter.
The office of president itself is meant to be an office of power
The fact that the current president is presumably abusing that power shouldn’t change a thing

Because if you instate a contingency that can overrule a president, I promise you every single president no matter what side he comes from will have that contingency used against him.

Precedent is important in matters like these and setting a harmful one just because you disagree with the current regime is not a solution in the long run

[Asker]

So if I understand you correctly, you think it's better to let somebody make terrible judgments and destroy the country then take away the option removing them all together?

[Asker]

Bad presidents need to be overruled you can't just decide but not over really been. It's so important than any bad president can stay in office and do whatever he wants. Kind of like what we have now actually

[Zack-Bann]

Trump is a bad president.
Biden was a bad president.
Obama was a bad president.
Bush was a bad president.
Clinton was a bad president.

Imagine overruling all of them.
Why even have a president at all.

So yes. It’s better let the one in charge steer the ship even if it’s wrong

But we won’t agree on that

All I can see is look at the countries who do take power away from a president
And watch how they sink in corruption and grind to a halt without any clear guidance

[Amy10223]

Not without the approval of the Constitution or Congress, he does not. It is a shared power, supposedly. Trump has broken just about every law in the Constitution that he can manipulate. Congress does nothing because the Republican-majority does nothing to stop him. And those other presidents you listed, were all good presidents.

[Asker]

@Amy10223 trump is mentally ill and has impaired judgment and no insight at all. Because of those things, we should not have him making important decisions: President or not.

[Amy10223]

Exactly. I was referring to Zack above. Trump is unfit to be president, that is true, and I have read that some members of Congress are looking to the Constitution to remove him.

[Asker]

No, that is not better. It's not better at all, because wrong is wrong and wrong has consequences.

[lightbulb27]

Im ok with him making the determination but the act of war goes through congress otherwise we are back to one person deciding war. That isn't how I understood it to be.

[Asker]

Yeah, well, you'll be glad to know that he's decided to just bypass Congress and do whatever the hell he wants, and they are letting him.

[lightbulb27]

they never call me up and ask for my advice.

[Agape93]

Trump can't even spell Wales. He can't even determine what the fuck his dad's own nationality was.

[Amy10223]

No, I do not. I think the president himself poses a threat to America and to the world.

[strateguy632]

She meant The only person who can determine if a situation needs a response due to an imminent threat. So yes.

[Asker]

I assume that she meant what she said. Why are you trying to change it?

[Cyfris]

No he is just the person with the most information avalable to him to inform his choice. I think anyone with all the facts and the right motivation is capable of determining though.

[WindAtMyBack]

He's the one to make a final decision, yea. That's his job. It sure as hell isn't the job of Congress.

[OneViewpoint]

Not this president. This old dementia patient can't remember not to pee in his pants.

[exitseven]

The president has the last word since he is the Commander in Chief so I guess he is the one that makes the determination.

[Asker]

The cool thing is that he's so competent, thoughtful, and intelligent enough to make such a decision.

[exitseven]

ha has done a whole lot of things in his life and has many different experiences. He is not just another politician.

[Asker]

Just because he has a title doesn't mean he's competent to do anything.

[Asker]

The President is too stupid to have the last word about anything and have it be safe.

[exitseven]

True, but look at his life? He is a businessman, a builder, an entrepreneur, a television star and a big celebrity.

[Asker]

He's a terrible businessman. I'm not aware that he built anything. Yeah, he started a bunch of businesses, all of which failed. He was on television for a little bit of time. He's a big celebrity minion because he's an asshole.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Gabbard's a careerist butt-kisser!!!

[Pterodon]

Yeah I’d have to agree with that