He just does what he feels like, couldn't give a hoot about others!! :oops:

The reason to my question is: Trump have said that Denmark should give Greenland to him,'cause he's gonna take it one way or the other.

And some other member an American said He has it in his mouth.

Markus

I read somewhere that Poo-tin had his hand in it too!! :k_confused:

This week it is Greenland, next week it is Canada, maybe he gives back Alaska to Russia next month. This flood the zone has clearly effect on you, do not let it get to you, it is all yada yada. The War Powers Resolution of is 1973 was designed to prevent a US president from starting a war or armed conflict himself, without congressional approval. In practice, it means that within 48 hours of entering into an armed conflict, the president must notify Congress and obtain permission. Moreover, the law says that US troops can then be deployed outside America for a maximum of 60 days. After that, there must be a declaration of war or congressional approval to continue the armed deployment. This came from the experiences in Korea and Vietnam, when US troops fought outside America for years without any declaration of war.

^ Who said that Europe is willing to set up an armed conflict over Denmark/Greenland...?


The US has a base on Greenland, Pittufik Space Base, for the most it serves as an early warning station against Russian ICBMs. They can start to shuttle in troops there, more and more and more, and then simply spill them all over whre they want them to be. Greenland has not even 57,000 inhabitants. And no militia, army, whatever.



Whats more, Trump can give brown stuff for what congress or courts demand and do. He demonstrated it already. Mind you, he is a mentally derranged manon lose emotions who thinks he stands above all laws and must not comply with them if he does not want to, for he is El Presidente, ranking above God, King and Emperor. Not only is he sick, he also is old. He has nothing to lose anymore. And if he wants to run amok, he again has nothing to lose. The doing of the bad guys like Putin and Xi is his idol. He wants to be seen like them, and he wants to do like them. You cannot offend him by telling him he doe slike Putin. For him, thats a compliment he craves for.



Finally, the US population will not object to taklijng over Greenland. They may protest and yell and shout, but they will not set up armed resistence to overtrow the government if it embarks on wars of aggression, may it be Crimea 2014 style, may it be Vietnam or Iraq style. Taking up a rifle in your hand and start shooting at government agents - that is something very different than just saying in an interview that you do not agree with something. And mind you: its right-extreme armed groups behind Trump who spilled him to the top. You think the political house of cards will collapse if Trump goes away? You better think twice. I see Vance as far more dangerous. :03:


I see the US as a lost case, and I do not expect that to reverse for the remaining lifetime of mine. I am also convinced that the US will not go to war if Europe if Russia attacks NATO itself, and I think that already since the times of Obama. Europe lives of illusions since much lonher already than just Trump'S time. And it still does, can you believe it...



All those years since Obama: uselessly wasted by European politicians sticking their heads into the sand. The open dispise of this administration for Europe is shocking. But it is neither unexpected to me, nor in principle unjustified: I feel much the same.


But Germany comes to the rescue: the German super starlet Annalena is becoming president of the UN general assemlby. Her ego trip will leave no stone unturned, I promise. :D

Here are the arguments in support of the TRO.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...78436.67.1.pdf

"3.
Summary Removals Without Notice and a Meaningful Opportunity to
Challenge “Alien Enemy” Designations Violate the AEA, Due Process,
and the APA.

As this Court has already held, Defendants must provide Plaintiffs with a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation as alien enemies before removal is permissible under the Proclamation. Op. 23-24, 30; see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *21 (Millett, J., concurring)
(“the government agrees that individuals are entitled to challenge in court whether they fall within the terms of the AEA or are otherwise not lawfully removable under it.”).

The government’s concession that there must be an opportunity to contest one’s designation as an enemy alien is well taken given that Ludecke expressly recognized as much. 335 U.S. at 171 n.17; see also, e.g., Ex
parte Gilroy, 257 F. 110, 114-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1919); United States ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 858, 860 (2d Cir. 1943); Bauer, 171 F.2d at 493-94.

Because the government is currently providing no process or opportunity to contest a designation, the precise contours of such review need not be determined here. At this stage, even assuming the Court finds that the AEA can be used at all against a “gang” during peacetime, the
Court need only hold that the current Proclamation is unlawful in failing to provide any process, even sufficient notice and opportunity to file the individual habeas petitions held out by the government. At minimum, though, there must be a hearing at which evidence could be introduced
and testimony heard, and judicial review.

The AEA, per Ludecke, as well due process and the APA, require that noncitizens alleged to be alien enemies receive notice of the factual basis for removal and a meaningful opportunity to rebut it. See, e.g., Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Both the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that the right to know the factual basis for [government] action and the opportunity to rebut the evidence supporting that action are essential components of due process.”).

Finally, even if Plaintiffs were properly designated alien enemies (which they were not), this Court has previously held that the President may lawfully remove noncitizens under the AEA only when those designated noncitizens “refuse or neglect to depart” from the United States voluntarily. Op. 30 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 21). Indeed, even during World War II, courts interpreting the AEA consistently recognized that “alien enemies” retained the right to voluntary departure. See U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457 (Section 21 establishes a “right of voluntary departure” that functions as a “statutory condition precedent” to the government’s right to deport enemy
aliens); U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann v. Watkins, 159 F.2d 650, 653 (2d Cir. 1947) (“His present restraint by the respondent is unlawful in so far as it interferes with his voluntary departure, since the enforced removal, of which his present restraint is a concomitant, is unlawful before he does
‘Refuse or neglect’ to depart” under Section 21); United States ex rel. Dorfler v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 431, 432 (2d Cir. 1948) (“An alien must be afforded the privilege of voluntary departure before the Attorney General can lawfully remove him against his will.”).

Under Section 21, there is no exception to the general right of voluntary departure; it is a “statutory condition precedent” to removal. U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457. Section 22 establishes separate rights concerning the particular conditions for departure, with an exception for those “chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against public safety.” 50 U.S.C. § 22.

However, that exception cannot be invoked categorically. It instead requires individualized assessments—each noncitizen must specifically be “chargeable” with actual hostility or a crime against public safety to lose eligibility for the rights described in Section 22. Defendants have made no such individualized assessments here—much less provided any opportunity to contest
such findings.

This thread should be renamed to "Why I hate America". :hmmm:

More like "Why I hate Politicians.":shucks:

Or "America, put that thing away!"

Go cry me a river

that would be quite universal thread :D

More like why all democracies hate Trump. Even neutral Switzerland is virtually fuming in fury. If you cannot understand this you must be blind.
Still, i think Vance is more dangerous. To the US, and the rest of the world. And he will probably topple his former master.

BREAKING: European leaders say they won’t have any Oval Office meetings with Donald Trump if JD Vance is going to sit in the room and, as one Belgian official described it, "be a little bitch.” https://x.com/HalfwayPost/status/1906060256914083939

We have centuries of history to ridicule our absolute send by god royal stupid, get used to it. I stand by 99.99999% of my insults to rulers, the rest I regret because I didn’t emphasize my point cruel enough.

problem is catfish you all say crap over the stuff but then some of your so called leaders are saying why should we defend europe just let the us do it guess after friday with the doc way he was a talking im pretty much a dead man anyway so i shouldn't care what happens over there or even over here anymore

Return of the Mummy.


[Der Spiegel] Donald Trump has openly considered an unconstitutional third term on several occasions. He has always emphasized that his comments were meant only as a joke. Asked again about a possible third term, he now told NBC: "I'm not joking."

This is his most explicit statement yet regarding a possible breach of the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution prohibits presidents from seeking a third term, regardless of whether the first two were consecutive or interrupted. Trump's current second term ends in 2029.

"There are methods you could use to do that," Trump told NBC News regarding the possibility of circumventing the Constitution. But he also said it was far too early to consider that.

The 22nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1951, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been elected four times in a row. It states that "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice."

NBC's Kristen Welker asked Trump if a possible path to a third term would be for Vice President J.D. Vance to run for the highest office and "then pass the baton to you."
More on the topic

"Well, that's one possibility," Trump replied. "But there are others." He didn't explain which ones he meant.

A democratic amendment to the Constitution would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate or Congress. The states would then have to approve the amendment with a three-quarters majority. This is currently considered impossible.

Trump has openly considered staying in office longer than the law allows. Until now, he has always wanted these remarks to be taken as a joke.

In January, he pretended not to know whether he was barred from running for president again. The New York Times also reported that Trump had already told members of Congress in November that he would probably not run again – “unless you tell me, 'He's so good that we have to find a way.'”

------------

Hubris: when you think the world can't do without you and life without your superior leadership is not worth it.