Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

Wikipedia tells me that Joe Biden pardoned 4,245 people.Some difference between that 4,245 and 80. Anyone know the true figure?

Biden issued 80 pardons which pardoned 4,245 people. Me thinks that graphic is misleading.

Trump fundraising email claims donations will help him 'get to heaven' as campaign defends spiritual appeal

"Critics argue the episode illustrates troubling territory: a political leader framing his survival as divine favour, then asking supporters to convert that narrative into campaign donations.

 For example, in May 2024, the campaign reported raising tens of millions of dollars in the hours after a courtroom verdict, demonstrating how quickly digital solicitations can convert attention into money."

Trump spent a lot of time with the sky pilot lads learning their ways of simply asking people for monies and justifying their lifestyle to their donors.

Certainly looks like it paid off and will continue to do so in the future.

What if he said he needs monies to take up a job with Jesus in the next life, could become a contender in raising funds like RCC, pushing into their market.

Far as I know, was the 2001 AUMF not specific to the 9/11in that it authorised the use of force against those that planned, carried out, aided or harboured them ?

Whatever about it being then used by others for whatever reasons, Trump getting Bondi to cobble something together to attempt to get Congress to legislate for the sinking of boats he classifies as carrying terrorists would suggest, to me at least, that even for him, he recognised that using the 2001 AUMF was a reach too far for a kill them all order.

Even had he used the 2001 AUMF, it would make no difference for this particular incident where two people were killed in a follow up strike. The Geneva Convention and the U.S. 1996 War Crimes Act are both aligned when it comes to what constitutes a war crime, and - while I am waiting for MM to get back to me - I seem to recall that even for terrorist the U.S. Department of Defense/ (War whatever) Law of War Manual states that terrorists hors de combat must be extended the same protections as anyone else hors de combat.

I think it is pretty clear cut at this point as to what that incident that killed those two people clinging to a wrecked boat is, and a strong case could be made that the other 21 such incidents we know off could be looked upon as the same.

Fascinated to know what is in the cannula drips he looks to be receiving on a daily basis if the plasters and bruises are anything to go by

For what it`s worth this is what that 2001 AUMF says.

The 2001 AUMF was specific to 9/11. Bush, Obama, and Biden may have got away with using it for claiming that those they used it against were connected or were a by product of those that planned, authorised, committed, aided or harbored those that carried it out, but for Trump to use it to blow up what he claimed were narco terrorist boats from South America that had at most fuel to carry them 50 miles to land drugs in the U.S. up to 2,000 miles away without as much as a tenuous connection to 9/11 wasn`t going to stand on its own. Nor should it have with the U.S. military, and the reason he had Bondi come up with a case as to why he could blow those boats up using an act of Congress. Which I can only speculate must have been so poor a case that they could not even let Congress, or anyone else for that matter, see it.

From Admiral Holsey, the Commander of the area these actions were being carried out in, questioning and subsequently resigning because he could get legal clarity on them, it looks as if Trump may have been correct in that regard.

The focus has been shifting because all involved know that under their own Law of War Manual, their 1996 War Crimes Act and the Geneva Convention killing those that are hors de combat is a war crime. The shifting around is the civil administration attempting to tag Admiral Bradly - and by association anyone else in the military involved in any way with those two killed by that second strike - with carrying the can.

I don`t believe there is much if any case to be made that this was anything other than a kill them all policy. Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State and fourth in the line of succession, admitted that stopping and searching those boats by the U.S. navy would not be a problem, but that is not what they were going to do.

"I know the best lawyers.…"

I don't think they could really enforce this. I don't think for example that they would necessarily receive any notification of other citizenship status from other countries. Also let's say I tell the US that I renounce swedish citizenship, the swedes don't care, means nothing to them regarding my status whatever I communicate to the US government.

Also, this idea that if you don't get back to them in one year that is considered consent to relinquish us citizenship, I cannot imagine that surviving a legal challenge, you cannot have your citizenship removed, only in special controversially accepted circumstances(convicted of acts of terrorism where you have another citizenship and you cannot be left stateless or you obtained citizenship through a proven act of fraud)

Also this might not even be popular, I don't think nativism is popular enough for this.

I suspect one of the differences of interpretation between us is that you think that the fact that there are survivors clinging to or climbing onto a boat is relevant to a decision to further engage the boat and must overrule the concept of the boat itself being a valid target, even if there are survivors. This is not a distinction with nuance, it’s pretty binary and we are not in agreement on this.

This reads, rather worryingly, that you are ok with the killing of survivors…is that what you are saying?

So who decided to strike that boat a second time, because somebody as sure as hell did and killed two people clinging to its wreckage ?

Are you now attempting to make the case that when it was seen by the command center that when hors de combat were seen clinging to that wreckage Admiral Bradley, like SSecretary of War Hegseth, had also left the room and that someone else just took the decision of their own bat to do it ?

Unless Congress raises an eye and rescinds the 1996 War Crimes Act that green bus - be it outside Tucson or floating in the Caribbean - when it has been turned into a wreck after a first strike and has hors de combat clinging to it, too strike it again killing those clinging to it is a war crime under that Act alone and is applicable for offenses whether in or outside of the U.S. if either the victim or the perpetrator was a U.S. national or a member of the U.S. armed forces.

There is no ambiguity under The War Crimes Act, the Geneva Convention, or the U.S. Dept of Defense Law of War Manual as to what constitutes a war crime in relation to hors de combat