[gosub100]

My hope is that this will show weaknesses in our supposed "checks and balances" that can be patched later. If that means it takes an act of congress to even fire a single military weapon, so be it. That's just one example, but basically "they" need to backtrack and find every "hack" trump used and plug it so this never happens again.

[pjc50]

Checks and balances mean nothing when the same party controls house, senate, president, and supreme court.

[gosub100]

I disagree. Plenty of republicans are vociferously disagreeing with Trump over Iran and Epstein. But even if your premise is true, what if the two-party system were constructed or manipulated by a foreign government with the express intent on dividing us? Maybe that should be addressed as well?

[jmye]

> Plenty of republicans are vociferously disagreeing with Trump over Iran and Epstein.

Until they have to take a meaningful vote. Because it’s bullshit.

[Jensson]

And the military. Who the majority of soldiers supports matters a lot since they have the final say when leaders cannot agree. Trump does a lot to gain favor with the military, democrats doesn't do much for them.

[LeFantome]

What “checks and balances”?

The SCOTUS ruled that presidents cannot be held accountable.

The constitution is pretty clear. Trump does not have the authority to invade Iran. Yet he did. What are you planning to patch?

Despite everything, Trump has 35-40 percent approval right now. You cannot patch that out.

[gosub100]

the ones that were printed in my middle school government McGraw Hill textbook...

[ceejayoz]

“First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement, so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the Pirate's Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.”

Turns out that last bit is how the US was setup. Oops.

[freedomben]

Agreed, but the problem is that whichever party is in power wants to expand presidential authority, and only the minority party wants to reign it in. When the president flips, usually so do the parties in power. Plus you have to be enough majority to override a presidential veto. I don't see this ever workign out :-(