Try the political quiz

15.4k Replies

@9SXWJS8Transhumanist from Florida answered…3wks

If we are unexpectedly under attack we shouldn`t be required to "ask" if its ok to fight back

@9T9TS9CTranshumanist from Utah answered…2 days

@9T9RB3LPeace and Freedom from Maryland answered…2 days

If we are attacked, we should be allowed to defend immediately. Otherwise it should go through congress expeditiously.

@9T9PPD8Transhumanist from Tennessee answered…2 days

no, Congress should think about the situation before ruling. unless in extreme casses

@9T9KN2GRepublican from Missouri answered…2 days

Yes and no, if an attack happens to us then it shouldn’t need to go through Congress

@9T9JNWFSocialist from Kentucky answered…2 days

no violence is never the answer they should try and resolve it a civil way if that doesnt work than go ahead

@9T957ZJDemocrat from Missouri answered…3 days

Yes, only under the idea that we have probable cause to do so.

@9MW82QWRepublican from Kentucky answered…6mos

@9MW7QDHIndependent from New York answered…6mos

conflicted, no one person should hold the power, but giving congress would most likely lead to waiting to long for a response.

@9MW57J6Republican from New Jersey answered…6mos

Depends on the sitution, but more time then not congress should approve

@9MVTBBTRepublican from Michigan answered…6mos

Depends on what is going on with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. If something needs done right away then yes

@9MVL4G9Working Family from New York answered…6mos

Depends upon scope and duration. A one time security raid may be necessary, but long term actions without congressional approval is wrong

@9MVF6X7Republican from Georgia answered…6mos

I think he should be allowed - but there needs to be accountability. If a president uses it incorrectly - then what are the consequences? Once upon a time didn’t we have a thing called checks and balances?

@9MV4WDFAmerican Solidarity from Montana answered…6mos

Yes, but only if he needs to act quickly in a situation, or if it is a no brainier to do so.

@9MT7KPLLibertarian from Georgia answered…6mos

@9MSJQK3Democrat from Massachusetts answered…6mos

Yes, but only for limited durations in response to an emergency situation.

@9MRDRW5Women’s Equality from Nevada answered…6mos

If congress cannot come up with a solution fast enough the president should have leeway to apply military force

@9MR9RH3Transhumanist from Arkansas answered…6mos

It honestly just depends on what is going on and what needs to happen.

@9MR4CSZTranshumanist from California answered…6mos

It depends on the opportunities there are and if it is an urgent situation that cannot wait for Congress to vote.

@9MR2JP3Republican from California answered…6mos

@9MQWR6GWomen’s Equality from Nevada answered…6mos

Yes but only for emergencies. If they have time to get approved by congress then they should do that instead.

@9MQPX3ZPeace and Freedom from New Jersey answered…6mos

@9MQP297Peace and Freedom from Minnesota answered…6mos

No, unless it is incredibly needed and isn't just for a dumb reason, like 'I choked on my food and I'm in danger!'

@9MQKTKMWomen’s Equality from Illinois answered…6mos

No, nothing has happened in a while If something happens then yes

@9MQCXKKDemocrat from New Mexico answered…6mos

I have no idea what this means, even including the explanation so this is my answer.

@9MQC5R7Libertarian from Illinois answered…6mos

Yes, but only for the first few weeks while congress sets up a vote.

@9MQBVQWWomen’s Equality from Illinois answered…6mos

Yes, as long as afterwards Congress can sign off that it was a good idea. If Congress rules no the President shall face the consequences.

@9MQ9JH2Women’s Equality from Texas answered…6mos

@9MQ23G7Green from New York answered…6mos

Yes, but the President should have to supply a strategy to Congress so they can review the rules of engagement

@9MPJFJTSocialist from California answered…6mos

Depending on the circumstances, then yes. Only under extreme and dire situations.

@9MPCGQMWomen’s Equality from Ohio answered…6mos

yes, but his plans should always be checked so we don´t have an abuse of power situation

@9MNVYZNDemocrat from New Jersey answered…6mos

@9MNTYXCTranshumanist from Maryland answered…6mos

I think within reason! If Congress is just disagreeing because they don’t like the president... that’s where things get hazy

@9MNTMLDTranshumanist from Indiana answered…6mos

Yes, but with restrictions against what they can do against terrorist groups without Congress' approval.

@9MNTH8NLibertarian from Texas answered…6mos

Maybe in an emergency, but it should truly only ever be an emergency situation, and the power to make such a decision should not be abused

@9MNBF4BWorking Family from Ohio answered…6mos

In certain emergent situation that must be dealt with immediately.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...