Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

President Trump insisted there are “no limits” to his power when asked in a new interview about his takeaways from the Iran war.

The president was pressed by Axios’s Marc Caputo during an interview about whether he learned there are bounds to his power during the Middle East conflict.

“I haven’t learned that lesson yet,” he replied. “I know there are, but there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily.”

    • paranoia@feddit.dk
      432·
      2 days ago

      Here’s hoping that the law stops the guy who has never been stopped by the law

    • altphoto@lemmy.today
      2·
      2 days ago

      Life expectancy is a pretty good limit. He thought he was going to somehow end wars and spend years and years in retirement. Let’s see what happens. Certainly Jimmy Carter was smarter.

      • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
        142·
        2 days ago

        We won’t make him accountable. We’ll fucking tear him apart, and his kids will be held accountable.

        By that I mean we’re going to throw them in a cia black site and use some highly enhanced techniques to get every bit of Intel they have, they stole, and they sold. At which point they would be too much of a security risk to ever release. Keep them in solitary until their execution for treason.

        Then do the same for the billionaires that bought his power.

        Better yet, strip their citizenship, declare them nation states because of their wealth, then declare war on them, place sanctions on them, etc.

        They want to act like countries, treat them like one

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 days ago

          Ford was Nixon’s VP and after it was clear that Nixon would be impeached he resigned and Ford became president and he completely pardoned Nixon.

          Ford became VP after Nixon’s original VP Agnew resigned and since he was the speaker of the house Ford got the job.

          So Ford was VP and president without being voted in for either role.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            6·
            2 days ago

            The most basic check on the pardon power would be it cannot be used for anyone who is part of or formerly part of the executive branch. These pardons would have to come from Congress.

            At this point the Presidential pardon power should be removed, it has been used for so many corrupt acts it is not funny.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              English
              3·
              2 days ago

              These pardons would have to come from Congress.

              And maybe make some rule about how the same party cannot count as much. Because Republicans.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 days ago

                Seeing the wealthy people pretend Trump did nothing wrong during Trumps last two impeachments was ridiculous. The Senate is truly an institution that knows no low.

  • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
    17·
    2 days ago

    Except for the failure part. It should read there’s no limits to his failure. I’m going to go eat my trump steak now and study for my trump university class. Oh wait, those things failed.

    The rest of the article is correct, he hasn’t learned his lesson yet. Malignant narcissists never do.

  • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
    41·
    2 days ago

    The limit will basically be if the right wing people turn on him because you guys aren’t doing shit fuck all. The best that the left can hope for is for people on the right having a “come to Jesus” moment and wanting to stop him cause they will. Lemmy users can post about it when it happens

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    3·
    2 days ago

    He said before that it was his own morality that limited him. This statement is just further clarifying the previous one.

  • MastKalandar@feddit.onlineFrançais
    1·
    2 days ago

    What’s the meaning of probably unconditional surrender by Tehran ??

    My native language isn’t English. Kindly be patient with me and explain it to me in an eli5 style. Thank you.

    • Triumph@fedia.io
      3·
      2 days ago

      “Unconditional surrender” is when there is an end to hostilities, and one side is so completely defeated that they agree to stop fighting without receiving anything in exchange. Then the winning side gets to make all sorts of demands on the loser and they must agree.

      The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War One is an example of this. Germany got punished hard in that document, which is widely believed to have set the stage for World War Two some twenty years later.

      In this case, though, the US agreed to also end hostilities in Lebanon (including and especially by Israel) and arrange for a whole lot of reparations to be paid. Those are concessions. The winning side in an unconditional surrender doesn’t make concessions.