On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:07:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2026 10:45 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:18:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This is in >>>> the Constitution and supported by SCOTUS. He can call it whatever he wants.
If that were /really/ the case, he would be subject to the UCMJ.
And the military has a lot of experience with removing Commanding
Officers who behave badly. Generally /not/ with extreme prejudice, of
course.
At some point, the legal reality of the title will need to be
determined: a courtesy reflecting his being Chief Executive, or actual
fact.
You are a funny guy. The USA Constitution has a well laid out procedure
for removing the President or the Vice President.
The UCMJ doesn't require the approval of Congress.
And the JAG is not limited by the DOiJ theory that they cannot indict
a sitting President.
But none of this is to the point. So I guess you have no point, on
this topic.
As to talking to Trump, I have far better things to waste my time on.
On 6/6/2026 10:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:07:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2026 10:45 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:18:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.-a This >>>>> is in
the Constitution and supported by SCOTUS.-a He can call it whatever >>>>> he wants.
If that were /really/ the case, he would be subject to the UCMJ.
And the military has a lot of experience with removing Commanding
Officers who behave badly. Generally /not/ with extreme prejudice, of
course.
At some point, the legal reality of the title will need to be
determined: a courtesy reflecting his being Chief Executive, or actual >>>> fact.
You are a funny guy.-a The USA Constitution has a well laid out procedure >>> for removing the President or the Vice President.
The UCMJ doesn't require the approval of Congress.
And the JAG is not limited by the DOiJ theory that they cannot indict
a sitting President.
But none of this is to the point. So I guess you have no point, on
this topic.
As to talking to Trump, I have far better things to waste my time on.
Your TDS is getting worse.
Lynn
On 6/6/26 11:32, Lynn McGuire wrote:Hey, everybody needs a hobby.
On 6/6/2026 10:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:On the other hand your Trump Derangement Syndrome seems incurable,
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026 18:07:33 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/2026 10:45 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:18:13 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.a This >>>>>> is in
the Constitution and supported by SCOTUS.a He can call it whatever >>>>>> he wants.
If that were /really/ the case, he would be subject to the UCMJ.
And the military has a lot of experience with removing Commanding
Officers who behave badly. Generally /not/ with extreme prejudice, of >>>>> course.
At some point, the legal reality of the title will need to be
determined: a courtesy reflecting his being Chief Executive, or actual >>>>> fact.
You are a funny guy.a The USA Constitution has a well laid out procedure >>>> for removing the President or the Vice President.
The UCMJ doesn't require the approval of Congress.
And the JAG is not limited by the DOiJ theory that they cannot indict
a sitting President.
But none of this is to the point. So I guess you have no point, on
this topic.
As to talking to Trump, I have far better things to waste my time on.
Your TDS is getting worse.
Lynn
Lynn. You are accepting every word that comes out of
that mouth as gospel truth, as though the lying felon were
indeed a manifestation of Divinity.
So sad to see a mind like yours sunk into the depths
of inanity by TDS.
Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
We have a DOD and NASA is related to that so SpaceX and other providers >> are related to that.
NASA is NOT related to that. This is very deliberate. NASA was created because it was found impossible to get a particular job done under a
military organization. NASA is a research organization with some
operational parts.
SpaceX is contracted by some of those operational parts and they use some NASA facilities. SpaceX is also contracted by the Space Force, a DoD organization.
--scott
On 6/3/26 11:49, Lynn McGuire wrote:He knows this.
On 6/3/2026 10:36 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 14:52:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
oCharted: Annual Space Launches by Superpowers (1957u2025)o
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sp/hf09-charted-annual-space-
launches-by-country-19572026/
Hat tip to:
aaa https://thelibertydaily.com/
I guess that the USA gets to count SpaceX.a Of course, SpaceX is an arm >>>> of the USA DOW.a And I like that.
So the USA has a DoD but no "DOW", this means that SpaceX is an arm of
... nothing.
Sigh.a Just another old man screaming at the sky, trying to ruin my day.
Lynn
We have a DOD and NASA is related to that so SpaceX and other providers
are related to that.
Congress after WW II changed the name of the Department of War
to the Department of Defense. They haven't changed the name yet and
they are the body with that authority.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:54:50 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,561 |