Imperial Presidency Wins Again: Trump’s Veto Continues Yemen War

President Trump has vetoed the second bill of his presidency. Both vetoes have strengthened the Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative Branch (and the Constitution). Yesterday’s veto of S.J. Res. 7 means there will be no foreseeable end to US participation in the genocidal Saudi war on Yemen. On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

12 thoughts on “Imperial Presidency Wins Again: Trump’s Veto Continues Yemen War”

  1. How could he defeat Tulsi after such a veto? Most any Democrat now will run to the less interventionist side of him after this.

    1. Well, he couldn’t defeat Tulsi after any veto, because in order to defeat Tulsi he would have to be running against her. And the chances of that happening are so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero.

      The only real question is whether she

      1) drops out early and helps deliver Hawaii (and a few scattered non-interventionist votes nationwide) to the winner of the nomination, in return for some goodies (party support in a future run for governor or US Senate, or perhaps a cabinet position if the nominee wins); or

      2) drops out late and goes home with nothing but a complimentary copy of the home game.

      1. Many said the same of Trump. Trump was at ~1% before his online army of trolls got behind him, as well as the forgotten old (and dying) people of Middle America.

        Tulsi would argue against foreign interventions at the debates. In so doing, she’d distinguish herself. Yang also will distinguish himself. The two could support one another at the debates, position themselves as against the rest.

        No one expects the Buchanan Brigades! Even if we’d be the first to be liquidated should the left take over, the brigades march on!

        1. Luch, I am inclined to agree with you and disagree with Thomas here. I am old enough to remember George McGovern ran an insurgency campaign, and he wasn’t supposed to get the nomination either.

          Biden has absolutely no quality which would serve to distinguish him, and just comes across as a Democratic Party hack. It seems to me, if Tulsi could present herself as a legitimate non-interventionist, consistently, she could very well take the nomination. Just think about how close Bernie got, and that, only with moderately distinguishing himself, being quite inconsistent and hypocritical.

          My observations of Tulsi so far, would seem to indicate her own instincts show the peace issue to be the biggest winner. While she talks about a single payer healthcare system, she spends at least five times as much time and energy focusing on the “regime change wars,” and consistently gets the most applause and enthusiasm when discussing that issue.

          Yes, the system is rigged, but if an even moderately pro peace candidate cannot win a major party nomination for President, I do not see how a consistently pro-peace Libertarian Party nominee could win the general election either. Either way, all we would ever have is perpetual, aggressive, warfare.

          1. Democrats care about healthcare. Trump might could win by promising single-payer healthcare. That’s maybe most dangerous to Dems.

          2. “Trump might could win by promising single-payer healthcare.”

            I am not an advocate of single-payer, and feel that it is not a winning issue, as it just smacks of more involvement by the State. But, with Trump, it seems that his supporters would continue their support regardless of his actions or any positions he takes, and his opponents, or most of them anyway, would continue their opposition, regardless.

            While I gave a token financial contribution to Tulsi’s campaign for the nomination, as I did to Rand Paul’s campaign in 2016, as with Paul, I don’t think I could bring myself to vote for her in the general election. If the Libertarian Party were to nominate another non-libertarian, I don’t believe I would have anyone I could vote for in the general election. But, I would certainly support Tulsi’s efforts to spread the word about peace, and, if she means even half of it, I would probably consider her nomination and election to be a welcome harbinger of ultimate change.

          3. Trump’s supporters want specific things. Free healthcare really doesnt matter relative to other things. The US is broke regardless. If it’s inevitable, then why fight it, is part of the argument.

            Immigration is the primary difference between right and leftwing populists right now. Ann Coulter recently said she could support Bernie if he adjusted his immigration position. Things like gun rights, abortion, culture war, and free speech also divide of course.

            Populists have a very different perspective though. They tend to want material benefits, for example. It’s tough to argue against impossibly expensive free stuff when there’s so much corruption, waste, and supposed lack of opportunity. Certainly government policies hinder worker opportunity.

      2. No other candidate has to promise Tulsi anything as Hawaii would vote for a Stalin/Hitler ticket as long as they were Democrats.

        1. Yes, Hawaii will almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

          The question is which candidate for that nomination Hawaii will vote for.

          Hawaii might or might not be a factor in getting the nomination, depending on how things go in the earlier states. But if it is important, it’s something she can help someone with.

  2. Hopefully this puts to rest any delusions of Trump being the anti-war Messiah some people pinned their hopes on. Getting us the hell out of the Yemen “War” is a no-brainer.

Comments are closed.