Politics

[Russ16]

That never stopped former presidents from sending troops overseas.

I didn’t say he couldn’t just that he should keep them informed. If it need to reach the level of a declaration it is good for them to be informed.

It doesn’t have to be so adversarial.

 

[mdwest]

Yes and I didn’t say he was or should ask approval. But briefing them is a good idea. It is good for our government to communicate with itself. It lessens misunderstanding and internal conflict.

Clearly you are going to continue to argue about something you don’t understand or know anything about..

There are some very obvious reasons that presidents (ALL OF THEM SINCE WW2) have committed to combat operations without briefing congress first.

And there is a reason that the law (which was passed by congress ) was written to allow them to do just that…

The law being referred to was passed in 1975 and actually tightened the rules on the president, but still allows them to act without so much as even hinting to congress… there’s been 50 years to change it again if any D or R run congress chose to do so.

There are reasons they haven’t changed a thing..

 

[Woodcarver]

I wouldn't brief Congress until after the initial action. Wouldn't trust a lot of the current members of either branch to hold their tongue.

 

[cwpayton]

As hunters, if we can’t agree on much (as is evidenced by this thread), can we at least agree that running an animal down with a vehicle and then prolonging the death of that animal - any animal - is wrong and more than a little disturbing?

its bad publicity and not sportsman "like" . however if you have calves eaten right out of the cows uterus as there being born, that's bad publicity for wolves and coyotes. 'Ive had it happen twice as recently as this spring. costly ,about 1500.$ per calf. I saw him return next morning but couldnt get a crosshair on him quick enough,ID have killed him no regrets. they do the same to deer, moose,elk or Buffalo, thats a fact. just so you know.
untill they start treating wolves as predators and or game animals and get rid of the iconic lone wolf leader , it will continue to fester and foment ,angst and controversy. Heck in my state they shoot them out of airplanes, coyotes, or at least did till the dems took over the state legislature. it was Government sponsored, not sure today if they still do. wolves are out of control, but thats not the point, I get what youre saying.

 

[Tanks]

Yes and I didn’t say he was or should ask approval. But briefing them is a good idea. It is good for our government to communicate with itself. It lessens misunderstanding and internal conflict.

I agree with briefing Congress after the fact. However, if it is beforehand, next thing would be the Squad or Sanders having a press conference condemning the action and compromising the mission.

 

[Russ16]

Clearly you are going to continue to argue about something you don’t understand or know anything about..

There are some very obvious reasons that presidents (ALL OF THEM SINCE WW2) have committed to combat operations without briefing congress first.

And there is a reason that the law (which was passed by congress ) was written to allow them to do just that…

The law being referred to was passed in 1975 and actually tightened the rules on the president, but still allows them to act without so much as even hinting to congress… there’s been 50 years to change it again if any D or R run congress chose to do so.

There are reasons they haven’t changed a thing..

I’m not arguing about any of that and I agree with it. I fully understand it and have never argued your point.

That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t brief congress as a matter of best practice. It is good for our government to communicate.

I’m not saying he has to. My original post was poorly worded. What I meant was that he should brief Congress because if it reaches the point where a declaration of war is necessary it is better for them to be in the loop.

I deal with the government every day in my profession and I firmly believe that things would be better if more communication occurred even between those who disagree.

 

[Russ16]

I agree with briefing Congress after the fact. However, if it is beforehand, next thing would be the Squad or Sanders having a press conference condemning the action and compromising the mission.

This is where we disagree. I believe we need to build trust and briefing after the fact doesn’t do that.

 

[mdwest]

I’m not arguing about any of that and I agree with it. I fully understand it and have never argued your point.

That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t brief congress as a matter of best practice. It is good for our government to communicate.

I’m not saying he has to. My original post was poorly worded. What I meant was that he should brief Congress because if it reaches the point where a declaration of war is necessary it is better for them to be in the loop.

I deal with the government every day in my profession and I firmly believe that things would be better if more communication occurred even between those who disagree.

I have either worked in government or for government my entire adult life. I’ve worked daily with the DoD, DoS, and the intelligence community every day for the last 20 years.

The days of Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan sitting on opposite sides of almost every possible issue, but remaining cordial and professional and actually communicating have long since ceased to exist in American politics.

If you work for or with congress in any capacity you know that they do indeed get briefed after the fact when military operations or offensive intelligence operations occur. Sometimes it Is only limited people on select committees due to security clearance requirements and need to know… but there are very clear and very specific rules about who gets briefed and when… and those rules are very rarely broken… when they are broken we end up with National/International scandals like Iran/Contra.. people lose jobs, people go to jail, people don’t get re-elected..

It should be noted that historically it’s members of congress that break the rules with far more frequency than the executive branch or any of the cabinet appointees..

Trump himself won’t be briefing congress… but senior cabinet officials will at a minimum be briefing committee chairs if/when something happens..

 

[Russ16]

I have either worked in government or for government my entire adult life. I’ve worked daily with the DoD, DoS, and the intelligence community every day for the last 20 years.

The days of Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan sitting on opposite sides of almost every possible issue, but remaining cordial and professional and actually communicating have long since ceased to exist in American politics.

If you work for or with congress in any capacity you know that they do indeed get briefed after the fact when military operations or offensive intelligence operations occur. Sometimes it Is only limited people on select committees due to security clearance requirements and need to know… but there are very clear and very specific rules about who gets briefed and when… and those rules are very rarely broken… when they are broken we end up with National/International scandals like Iran/Contra.. people lose jobs, people go to jail, people don’t get re-elected..

It should be noted that historically it’s members of congress that break the rules with far more frequency than the executive branch or any of the cabinet appointees..

Trump himself won’t be briefing congress… but senior cabinet officials will at a minimum be briefing committee chairs if/when something happens..

I’m aware of how it works. I never said Trump himself would brief Congress. I just meant that his team would.

My point was I believe that sharing more information earlier with Congress is good governance. Not that it’s required.

The days of Reagan and Tip O’Neal may be gone but I believe that can come back. But they won’t if no one tries. Our country was far more divided earlier in our history and has come closer together at other points in our history. I hope for the pendulum to swing back toward respectful disagreement and hope for actions that are trying to move it in that direction. This is an opportunity for that was all the point I was trying to make.

 

[DillonG]

I didn’t say he couldn’t just that he should keep them informed. If it need to reach the level of a declaration it is good for them to be informed.

It doesn’t have to be so adversarial.

I’m not being adversarial. I just made a comment about US history.

 

[Russ16]

I’m not being adversarial. I just made a comment about US history.

I didn’t meant to imply you were being adversarial. I meant those in government don’t need to be so adversarial to each other on every issue.

 

[Tanks]

This is where we disagree. I believe we need to build trust and briefing after the fact doesn’t do that.

Heck, quite a number of members of Congress (e.g. Ilhan Omar) would not have the security clearance for a briefing prior to the act and also have divided loyalties.

 

[Altitude sickness]

This is what drives me somewhat insane about our current commander in chief.

Day 1 - Unconditional Surrender!

Day 2 - It is too late for negotiations. I gave them sixty days!

Day 3 - We (including Israel) need to wait two weeks while we negotiate.

I suppose this could be viewed as some abstract evolution of the "art of the deal" - but it is equally possible that people could also begin to conclude he is out of his depth and has no idea what he is doing.

I’m also concerned about damage to future deterrence.

If Ali does not agree to dismantle and inspections of his enrichment program.
Or Israel doesn’t completely destroy it, soon.

And Trump crawfish’s. Does not destroy the enrichment program.

Why would China be concerned about the U.S. (or the world) helping Taiwan during the coming 2027 naval blockade. Xi will happily withstand world scrutiny and U.S. saber rattling if he knows they are hollow words. Another risk in Trump backing down is he will receive grief for being weak or indecisive. If you look back in history. Leaders that have been in that position have overreacted in the next confrontation at inappropriate levels or provocation to prove they are not weak. A cocky leader with something to prove is dangerous. Ask General George Custers men. Trump is mistakenly thinking he can reason or deal with anyone. He doesn’t understand fanatics. To him there is always a deal to be made.

Also, remember Hamas still holds prisoners Underground for over 600 days. They also need to be part of this Iran negotiation.

Ali needs to help (if possible) to bring Hamas under control. Or if none of the above peaceful methods come to be. Trump needs to include the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas in the strike packages while they are all weakened.

I am still hopeful that Israel has asked Trump to delay and distract while they deal with the enrichment. Then when enrichment has been set back or destroyed they stop short of sending Iran into decades of the chaos we created in Iraq.

 

[spike.t]

Another of the really useless UK government politicians...and he really is useless...

UK says 'window now exists' for Iran negotiations after Trump sets timeline for US action - live updates

European foreign ministers are due to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva to try to de-escalate the crisis between Iran and Israel.

www.bbc.com

 

[Altitude sickness]

CNN is calling him Two week Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/29/politics/video/president-trump-two-week-timeline-war-in-ukraine-vrtc

 

[DillonG]

I didn’t meant to imply you were being adversarial. I meant those in government don’t need to be so adversarial to each other on every issue.

Unfortunately, the history of politics in this country is to cause a rift between parties if either party recognizes an advantage. I’m up for fist fights between politicians again. We could PPV it to help slow the national debt. Who wouldn’t pay money to see Booker v Hawley or, in the female division, AOC v Luna?

Of course, I agree with your sentiment, and my comment is satirical. I would appreciate to see unity in politics. It just doesn’t happen often. It is just healthy to see the the pros and cons of either party, hold your nose, and vote.

 

[skydiver386]

An important public announcement.

Gentleman, today I woke up nearly in tears watching a tragic sight on my television.

Entire Air Wings of finely maintained collector grade F-4 Phantom and F-14 Tomcats are being destroyed in wholsale fashion.

As someone who has maintained delusions of grandeur after watching Tom Cruise movies, I am thoroughly depressed.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. From Flint Michigan here is Grand Funk Railroad with their hit song We're an American Band.

 

[Altitude sickness]

For we Cold War guys. The Phantom and TomCats were the $hit

A friend of a friend tried for years to buy an F4 or a Tomcat for his private use. He said it was all but impossible. So he ended up buying a Russian Mig. Not sure which version Mig it is.

I know “chipping in” on fuel for a ride is approximately $1k per hour

 

[Tbitty]

This makes me happy.

View attachment 693752

But, but...

The border was closed in May 2024. It couldn't possibly get better than those numbers according to the previous administration and the msm.

 

[bowjijohn]

Another of the really useless UK government politicians...and he really is useless...

UK says 'window now exists' for Iran negotiations after Trump sets timeline for US action - live updates

European foreign ministers are due to meet their Iranian counterpart in Geneva to try to de-escalate the crisis between Iran and Israel.

www.bbc.com

The entire UK Gov can collectively be considered ‘pond life’