[tomohelix]

The fact that it was officially invoked at all is already a point of discussion. This is an act that can suspend the constitution as the executive branch see fit. Nobody has ever tried to use it since WW2, and even then it was a controversial act.

It has only been 2 months. How much further can it go in one year? In 4 years? At what point would there be real consequences? I think these questions are important enough to warrant some serious discussion.

[p_ing]

This already feels like a reddit discussion. You made points all outlined in the article I linked.

I'm not qualified to speak to hypotheticals and likely neither is anyone else here. However, the only consequences are either Congress removing him, the cabinet removing him via Article 25, an armed uprising, or potentially a Big Mac.

Until any of those happen, there are no consequences for the duration.

[totallynothoney]

> This already feels like a reddit discussion. You made points all outlined in the article I linked.

You seemed to say (implicitly) that this isn't too dire because the judiciary stopped it. They in response made the point that even if this isn't effective now, the rapid escalation of the use executive power is a big deal that points to further escalation that might not be stopped.

Yes, they mentioned facts that appear in the article to support the point but nowhere this point is made, or furthermore, it doesn't even matter if it was. Expressing a similar opinion like one in an article quote makes his reply superfluous?

Saying "reddit" and "nobody is qualified to speak hypotheticals" seems more like you don't wish to engage with his point. The act that's been used to put innocent people in to concentration camps was invoked, more discussion should exist beyond dryly mentioning the mechanisms for ousting the US president.

I'm not assuming your opinions on the matter, the refusal to approach the question just seemed weird to me, so I wanted to note it.

[p_ing]

What's the point of approaching questions like this in a forum? Your effort is better spent on the phone with your Congress Critter or on the street protesting. Keyboard warror'ing is a waste of your time.

> You seemed to say (implicitly) that this isn't too dire because the judiciary stopped it.

Do not /ass/ume what other's mean, and don't put words in my mouth.

[nullocator]

The existence of content doesn't mean you need to engage with it. If these types of questions or discussion are superfluous in your mind you can always choose to ignore them instead of jumping in. Conversations and questions about the article and its impact seems on-topic in this context, joining the discussion simply to chastise people for participating in the discourse does not feel on-topic to me.

I personally think there is value in discussion around first-in-my-lifetime events like this.

[bediger4000]

No consequences for Trump. For the rest of us, the non-oligarchs, this could mean the end of representative democracy.