2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Da_man]

So is there a consensus on term limits?

Well yes but his main argument would be that the Constitution exists to serve the will of the people. If the voters overwhelmingly want him back, he’d argue that the 22nd Amendment is just an arbitrary restriction standing in the way of true democracy. Basically, if the people choose him, the system shouldn't block it.
He’s also said in the past that he is 'owed' more time because his first term was obstructed by investigations. So the argument is a mix of 'let the people decide' and 'reparations' for his first term

 

[MilEME09]

It's utterly pathetic to listen to.
There is no way that a publicly traded company would ever have him as their CEO, the Board and the shareholders would sack his ass tout suite.

The US has a consistent history of voting into office and keeping in office individuals whose age/ability is well past the 'best before date. The list of examples is endless.

1) Mitch McConnell - should have resigned 4+yrs ago
2) Chuck Grassley - 90yrs old
3) Nancy Pelosi - 83 and seeking another re-election
4) Strom Thrumond - 101yrs old - wtf -

These are just 4 that quickly came to my mind - I understand that there are people who age 'slowly' and still have alot to offer but when 15% of the US Senators are over the age of 76, there is something wrong.

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/29/feinstein-dies-oldest-senators-mcconnell

I am of the opinion that 70 should be the cut off for mandatory retirement for politicians. As this is the age that scientific evidence suggests cognitive decline begins.

 

[QV]

Well yes but his main argument would be that the Constitution exists to serve the will of the people. If the voters overwhelmingly want him back, he’d argue that the 22nd Amendment is just an arbitrary restriction standing in the way of true democracy. Basically, if the people choose him, the system shouldn't block it.
He’s also said in the past that he is 'owed' more time because his first term was obstructed by investigations. So the argument is a mix of 'let the people decide' and 'reparations' for his first term

I meant in terms of the house and senate. POTUS is already limited to two terms.

 

[Da_man]

I meant in terms of the house and senate. POTUS is already limited to two terms.

my mistake! I thought you meant POTUS.
For the House and Senate: No, there is no consensus politically. The public overwhelmingly wants them, but Congress would have to vote to limit their own power, which they'll never do.

But on the Presidential side, I guarantee he's going for a 3rd. Rep. Ogles already introduced a bill last year to amend the Constitution specifically to let non-consecutive presidents run a 3rd time and DJT himself said there are methods to bypass the 22nd.

 

[Altair]

I saw a post on FB from some, probably foreign run, group. Asking if you would be willing to go fight for Canada. And it was awash with 50, 60 and 70+ year old's all beating their chest and ready to fight. I tried to find some youngins in the comments but I didn't find any in my cursory look.

Looking in the wrong place mate

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I am of the opinion that 70 should be the cut off for mandatory retirement for politicians. As this is the age that scientific evidence suggests cognitive decline begins.

I offer a counter. A limit on how long one can hold an elected office. Myentific evidence suggests moral decline increases the longer one serves. That would bring in fresh blood and ideas, and avoid creating a professional political class that have had very little real life work experience but know how to use the system to their advantage,

 

[mariomike]

Heck, there's plenty of people on this forum who will rationalize and spin that brain rot in to some kind 3D chess. Just give it 5 mins.....

That's about as much response time President Reagan said he had in case of nuclear attack.

Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon!

​

 

[The Bread Guy]

I love this poll.

With Liberals and NDP so willing to fight we should see a large representation of them joining the military. Right?

Canada should fight =/= I should/would go fight, it appears. To be fair though, that wasn’t the question asked in that survey.

 

[Czech_pivo]

So is there a consensus on term limits?

No - on age limits, based on cognitive ability.

I can be elected at 25yrs old and can serve for 40-50yrs and only be 65-75yrs old.

Here in Ontario at the age of 80 you have to be re-tested every 2yrs for your drivers license to be renewed - why? So that you're not a danger to yourself and those around you. I completely agree with this.

In Connecticut (and I can only speak about CT), they don't have this rule, so any elderly person can continue to drive their vehicle, unless their medical doctor strips them of their license - which is a very, very difficult thing to do. We've gone through this twice with my wife's family and getting a MD to do this is very hard.

It should be the same with our elected officials. If we test someone here in Ontario at the age of 80 for their drivers license, then at a similar age we should be testing our elected officials cognitive ability to continue to perform their elected position. I'm well aware of someone like a Hazel McCallion, but she was clearly an exception to the rule and I'd like to think that she would agree that some sort of cognitive testing should occur at regular intervals.

We have age limits now in our unelected Senate, for the H of C, when an MP turns 75(?) they should be required to perform a set of cognitive tests to ensure that they are still able to perform the day to day requirements expected of them.

I'm sure that this will generate some passionate discussions. But the sad reality is, at a certain point in all of our lives we just simply can't do what we used to be able to do.

 

[mariomike]

Anyone willing to morally debase himself by nuking civilians doesn't really have any moral authority for anything.

Nothing new about that.

 

[Czech_pivo]

EDIT: I’m dumb, the stream we were half watching just immediately replayed as soon as he finished.


…Did Trump just finish his speech, do the Q&A, and then just randomly go back to the podium to talk again without being scheduled to? I thought he was only supposed to go for 40 minutes and then the brief ‘fireside chat’?

I think that he talked for over an hr. I was watching on CNN and at one point CNN cut the feed and went to some random shot of what I think was the stairs of the US SC with no audio. This lasted about 1 min and then without explanation or warning it went back to Trump still talking.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I offer a counter. A limit on how long one can hold an elected office. Myentific evidence suggests moral decline increases the longer one serves. That would bring in fresh blood and ideas, and avoid creating a professional political class that have had very little real life work experience but know how to use the system to their advantage,

I am of the opinion that 70 should be the cut off for mandatory retirement for politicians. As this is the age that scientific evidence suggests cognitive decline begins.

Cant we do both ? Age and term limits ?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

EDIT: I’m dumb, the stream we were half watching just immediately replayed as soon as he finished.


…Did Trump just finish his speech, do the Q&A, and then just randomly go back to the podium to talk again without being scheduled to? I thought he was only supposed to go for 40 minutes and then the brief ‘fireside chat’?

72 mins, then 20+ in the fireside. All speakers have been offered the fireside after their chat...including Carney

 

[Halifax Tar]

I did, there are issues with the demographics, especially since the 55+ crowd is more willing, but the numbers already willing translate into millions of potential recruits

Sounds like the RCs should start over flowing anyday.

 

[Halifax Tar]

72 mins, then 20+ in the fireside. All speakers have been offered the fireside after their chat...including Carney

"Mark," Trump said: "Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/trump-carney-davos-9.7054255?ts=1769005716323

Yikes

 

[brihard]

"Mark," Trump said: "Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/trump-carney-davos-9.7054255?ts=1769005716323

Yikes

Yeah but that’s exactly the attitude Carney was talking about anyways. That was probably a significantly more tempered response than some of the contemplated possibilities Carney reasonably anticipated from his speech. Trump being mad about it was already ‘priced in’.

 

[Altair]

So the threat of military force is off the table, for now, so I guess someone got into his ear telling him the horrible implications from it.

Now I guess we will watch him use tariffs to put ever increasing pressure on allies of Denmark to try to get them to cave.

At least until the SCOTUS rules on tariffs at somepoint in 2029.

 

[MilEME09]

So the threat of military force is off the table, for now, so I guess someone got into his ear telling him the horrible implications from it.

I think enough GOP came together and told him armed force would lead to impeachment to make it a serious threat

 

[RangerRay]

We had it on at the office… I feel dumber for listening to that rambling nonsense.

 

[Altair]

I think enough GOP came together and told him armed force would lead to impeachment to make it a serious threat

I mean, I guess we will never know, but if this is the case, maybe congress isn't 100 percent useless.