FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Another rough week for the TDSers.

---

Why are you trying to make disagreement with policy personal? Many on here who disagree would disagree if it were Biden, Obama, Bush, Trump or Reagan.


The bigger question is why do you give a President a blind pass based on personality? Either you agree or you are a TDSer, you seem to be into labeling people that disagree. Very Bannon-esque of you...

---

It's not personal. TDS is a very real thing. Not everyone that disagrees with President Trump's policy is a TDSer - like Tucker Carlson or the crazy Georgia Congresswoman or Tom Massey - but many are. All your latter stuff is just projection - far fewer blindly give Trump a pass than blindly oppose him.

---

It is about 50/50.

MAGA has a tendency to focus on the negative policy assessments and overlook the positive to label someone TDS. The purpose of the label is to discredit the person and their view of the specific policy.

Many on here say I am a TDSer.

Yet, the reality is:

• I voted for Trump 3 times,
• Have said numerous times that I am in favor of his energy policies,
• Have said he is doing an outstanding job on the border and Homan is outstanding,
• Hegseth is doing a very good job at DOD and I was wrong on that one,
• I liked his monetary policy in the 1st term with Mnuchin and his general views on business,
• like his strong military
• I complimented him on avoiding mission creep in Iran

But, because I think the DOGE bit is a clown show that is not getting any real returns but theatrics
I don't trust Bessent and Trump's infatuation with Putin and hate when he goes in vendetta mode I am a TDSer.

I have seen more people do mental gymnastics to match up some of his action with what he claimed he wants than people outright just against him.

---

What people are afraid of is a return to neocon bs. If you don't like the concept of trying to end the grift in DC or putting our government under a microscope and asking about where our money is going then it's basically a return to a George W Bush style of the GOP.

Trump isn't perfect, but if every single thing people disagree with him on is the end of the world or the criticism has the effect of completely killing the 'America First' movement, then we're going to go right back to where we came from.

---

Well, if bombing Iran, tying the US Treasury to crypto, slapping 50% tariffs across the board and gutting the Federal work force don't qualify as items worth scrutinizing what in the hell does... These are not little things.

Actually, the fact that people don't see what has been done as major and view them as ho-hum is more of a problem.

---

This pretty much sums up the situation.

Luigi Mangione “has been treated like a hero,” Steve Bannon tells @semaforben. “That should scare you to the marrow of your bones because that’s the alternative if the system keeps going like it is.”

"The populist nationalists offer something you're not gonna love, but you'll be… pic.twitter.com/bdX9hFM5Te

— Semafor (@semafor) April 23, 2025

---

I agree with you on this. You guys seem to think I only question Trump, ANYONE in an elected or appointed position needs to be questioned and grilled over actions.

---

Fair, but I think it is the constant hyperbole that gets exhausting. The federal workforce was hardly gutted. There are not 50% tariffs across the board. There is no link to crypto. It's just to exhausting having to muddle through all the histrionics and emotional hysteria.

Might I propose - I don't like tariffs at all. Or, tariffs should only be reciprocal. Or they were really executed terribly. Or, I really cannot believe 0.5% of the federal workers lost their jobs - how in the world will we survive?

---

So, Trump's didn't come out with across the Board tariffs.

So, we are not into crypto at the US Treasury level?

DOGE didn't gut Agencies?

Whew! Glad to hear those never happened. You keep wearing that MAGA hat... You keep believing what you want, as long as you aren't exhausted all is well.






https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trump-administration-tariff-updates-june-19-2025


Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile ]

DOGE gutting of federal agencies presents an unprecedented opportunity for America's enemies to recruit informants, experts say | Fortune

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

My understanding is that the President can take action to protect the United States and its troops but not for prolonged action. War Powers allows the use of troops but has reporting and time limits (60-90 days).

If it is going to be more than that Congress has to approve, such as the Gulf War Congress passed resolutions supporting the use of force to remove Iraq.

It looks to me that Trump met his War Powers responsibilities by reporting to Congress and having them home in less than 90 days. He was within his rights to do so due to the number of US assets in the Middle East and Iran's threats against the US.

---

There also has to be an attack or imminent attack on the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, none of which existed here.

---

Please share the post of your outrage when Obama was droning American citizens and Biden blew up the poor Afghan goat herder to cover up is Saigon debacle.

---

Mothra said:

---

These clips are absolutely hilarious. These people should be ruthlessly mocked. If he was not already a total clown and pariah, this sealed bowtie's fate:

Ben Shapiro Ruthlessly Mocks Tucker Carlson for Predicting Trump Would Drag U.S. Into 'World War III'

---

muddybrazos said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Another rough week for the TDSers.

---

Why are you trying to make disagreement with policy personal? Many on here who disagree would disagree if it were Biden, Obama, Bush, Trump or Reagan.


The bigger question is why do you give a President a blind pass based on personality? Either you agree or you are a TDSer, you seem to be into labeling people that disagree. Very Bannon-esque of you...

---

It's not personal. TDS is a very real thing. Not everyone that disagrees with President Trump's policy is a TDSer - like Tucker Carlson or the crazy Georgia Congresswoman or Tom Massey - but many are. All your latter stuff is just projection - far fewer blindly give Trump a pass than blindly oppose him.

---

It is about 50/50.

MAGA has a tendency to focus on the negative policy assessments and overlook the positive to label someone TDS. The purpose of the label is to discredit the person and their view of the specific policy.

Many on here say I am a TDSer.

Yet, the reality is:

• I voted for Trump 3 times,
• Have said numerous times that I am in favor of his energy policies,
• Have said he is doing an outstanding job on the border and Homan is outstanding,
• Hegseth is doing a very good job at DOD and I was wrong on that one,
• I liked his monetary policy in the 1st term with Mnuchin and his general views on business,
• like his strong military
• I complimented him on avoiding mission creep in Iran

But, because I think the DOGE bit is a clown show that is not getting any real returns but theatrics
I don't trust Bessent and Trump's infatuation with Putin and hate when he goes in vendetta mode I am a TDSer.

I have seen more people do mental gymnastics to match up some of his action with what he claimed he wants than people outright just against him.

---

What people are afraid of is a return to neocon bs. If you don't like the concept of trying to end the grift in DC or putting our government under a microscope and asking about where our money is going then it's basically a return to a George W Bush style of the GOP.

Trump isn't perfect, but if every single thing people disagree with him on is the end of the world or the criticism has the effect of completely killing the 'America First' movement, then we're going to go right back to where we came from.

---

Well, if bombing Iran, tying the US Treasury to crypto, slapping 50% tariffs across the board and gutting the Federal work force don't qualify as items worth scrutinizing what in the hell does... These are not little things.

Actually, the fact that people don't see what has been done as major and view them as ho-hum is more of a problem.

---

This pretty much sums up the situation.

Luigi Mangione “has been treated like a hero,” Steve Bannon tells @semaforben. “That should scare you to the marrow of your bones because that’s the alternative if the system keeps going like it is.”

"The populist nationalists offer something you're not gonna love, but you'll be… pic.twitter.com/bdX9hFM5Te

— Semafor (@semafor) April 23, 2025

---

I agree with you on this. You guys seem to think I only question Trump, ANYONE in an elected or appointed position needs to be questioned and grilled over actions.

---

Fair, but I think it is the constant hyperbole that gets exhausting. The federal workforce was hardly gutted. There are not 50% tariffs across the board. There is no link to crypto. It's just to exhausting having to muddle through all the histrionics and emotional hysteria.

Might I propose - I don't like tariffs at all. Or, tariffs should only be reciprocal. Or they were really executed terribly. Or, I really cannot believe 0.5% of the federal workers lost their jobs - how in the world will we survive?

---

I think I know what FLbear may be referring to which is stablecoins backed by US treasuries which banks and individuals use to move money instantly but its not anything to freak out about. Here is a breakdown from grok:

Stablecoins backed by Treasury bonds are a type of stablecoin that aims to maintain a stable value relative to a fiat currency, typically the U.S. dollar, by holding U.S. Treasury bonds, especially short-term Treasury bills (T-bills), as reserve assets.
How they work:

• Pegging: These stablecoins are designed to be pegged 1:1 to the U.S. dollar.
• Collateralization: To achieve this peg, issuers hold a reserve of assets, primarily short-term U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills). Some also hold cash in FDIC-insured banks and reverse repurchase agreements (repos).
• Minting and Redemption: When a user deposits U.S. dollars to mint a stablecoin, the issuer purchases the equivalent value in T-bills. When a user wants to redeem their stablecoins for dollars, the issuer sells the T-bills and returns the USD.
• Transparency: Leading stablecoin issuers, like USDC and Paxos' USDP, publish monthly attestations of their reserves to demonstrate transparency and regulatory compliance.

Benefits:

• Stability: T-bills are considered a low-risk, liquid asset, contributing to the stable value of the stablecoin.
• Regulatory Compliance: Using U.S. government debt as collateral aligns with existing and proposed regulatory frameworks.
• Institutional Trust: Backing stablecoins with T-bills can enhance institutional trust and facilitate wider adoption.
• Demand for Treasuries: The growing stablecoin market translates into increased demand for U.S. Treasuries, particularly short-term T-bills.

---

Please list the potential cons too. This is what I am talking about, only getting a shaded view. This is a big deal and it should be discussed or at least be eligible for taking a position on one side or the other without exhausting our poor Message Board mates. Or called a TDSer and dismissed. These are not small items he has done.

---

Potential Concerns:

• Lack of FDIC insurance: Stablecoins are not FDIC-insured, so they do not offer the same level of protection as traditional bank deposits.
• Concentration risk: The significant holdings of Treasuries by a few stablecoin issuers could potentially create stability risks if they were forced to liquidate their holdings rapidly.

These cons could easily be addressed by legislation that they be covered by FDIC or SIPC coverage which i believe they are working on. The banks want to use these stablecoins and by using the treasuries as backing it makes sure the stablecoins have liquitidty on the books to meet the demands of people cashing in and out of them. I see this as a good thing and I see people like you hear the word crypto and think fart coin or Trump coin but this is the farthest thing from that.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

My understanding is that the President can take action to protect the United States and its troops but not for prolonged action. War Powers allows the use of troops but has reporting and time limits (60-90 days).

If it is going to be more than that Congress has to approve, such as the Gulf War Congress passed resolutions supporting the use of force to remove Iraq.

It looks to me that Trump met his War Powers responsibilities by reporting to Congress and having them home in less than 90 days. He was within his rights to do so due to the number of US assets in the Middle East and Iran's threats against the US.

---

There also has to be an attack or imminent attack on the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, none of which existed here.

---

There are several points there.

1st - There are enough threats by Iran to destroy "the Great Satan" to qualify as imminent threat.
2nd- The US has 34,000 troops in the that region, 118 in Israel. So, if you want to get lawyerly the US has 118 troops in Israel and hundreds of Embassy staff.
3rd - The US has abot 670 billion dollars worth of assets at risk.

I don't think it is a huge jump...

---

It's about as big a leap as you can get. Name-calling and slogans have always been hurled between countries and always will be. That's not even close to an imminent threat.

---

if this indeed happened. Would you call it an imminent threat?

According to NBC News, Iran delivered a communiqué to U.S. President Trump through an intermediary at the G7 Summit last week in Canada, threatening to activate sleeper-cell terrorist groups inside the United States if it or its nuclear facilities were attacked. The Trump… pic.twitter.com/nvyfMPbDZX

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 22, 2025

---

NEW: Per multiple federal sources, ICE has arrested 130 Iranian nationals across the U.S. in the last 7 days, and 670 Iranian nationals are currently in ICE detention, as the Trump administration significantly ramps up efforts to find & arrest Iranians due to security concerns.

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 25, 2025

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

My understanding is that the President can take action to protect the United States and its troops but not for prolonged action. War Powers allows the use of troops but has reporting and time limits (60-90 days).

If it is going to be more than that Congress has to approve, such as the Gulf War Congress passed resolutions supporting the use of force to remove Iraq.

It looks to me that Trump met his War Powers responsibilities by reporting to Congress and having them home in less than 90 days. He was within his rights to do so due to the number of US assets in the Middle East and Iran's threats against the US.

---

There also has to be an attack or imminent attack on the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces, none of which existed here.

---

There are several points there.

1st - There are enough threats by Iran to destroy "the Great Satan" to qualify as imminent threat.
2nd- The US has 34,000 troops in the that region, 118 in Israel. So, if you want to get lawyerly the US has 118 troops in Israel and hundreds of Embassy staff.
3rd - The US has abot 670 billion dollars worth of assets at risk.

I don't think it is a huge jump...

---

It's about as big a leap as you can get. Name-calling and slogans have always been hurled between countries and always will be. That's not even close to an imminent threat.

---

if this indeed happened. Would you call it an imminent threat?

According to NBC News, Iran delivered a communiqué to U.S. President Trump through an intermediary at the G7 Summit last week in Canada, threatening to activate sleeper-cell terrorist groups inside the United States if it or its nuclear facilities were attacked. The Trump… pic.twitter.com/nvyfMPbDZX

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 22, 2025

---

NEW: Per multiple federal sources, ICE has arrested 130 Iranian nationals across the U.S. in the last 7 days, and 670 Iranian nationals are currently in ICE detention, as the Trump administration significantly ramps up efforts to find & arrest Iranians due to security concerns.

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) June 25, 2025

---

NEW: Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei claims that the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had no major effect https://t.co/4CYNuwugaR

— Axios (@axios) June 26, 2025

BREAKING:

France confirms it shot down several Iranian suicide drones that were heading toward Israel during the Twelve-Day War

🇫🇷🇮🇱🇮🇷 pic.twitter.com/gqR9qfFfa5

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 26, 2025

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

These clips are absolutely hilarious. These people should be ruthlessly mocked. If he was not already a total clown and pariah, this sealed bowtie's fate:

Ben Shapiro Ruthlessly Mocks Tucker Carlson for Predicting Trump Would Drag U.S. Into 'World War III'

---

It's almost as if the Kosher Right hasn't been predicting Iranians would assassinate President Trump or an Iranian sleeper cell is going to launch a terror attack on American soil for the last two and a half weeks without a shred of evidence..... the lack of self awareness is stunning

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Sure Jan

NEW: Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei claims that the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had no major effect https://t.co/4CYNuwugaR

— Axios (@axios) June 26, 2025

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BREAKING: U.S. intelligence assessments suggest strikes on Iran may not have fully destroyed nuclear sites, per CNN.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) June 24, 2025

Natasha Bertrand made this claim on CNN. She's a con artist who helped push the "51 officials say Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation". She gets info from DC bureaucrats that want war and the only way they can get war is by selling it.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

France confirms it shot down several Iranian suicide drones that were heading toward Israel during the Twelve-Day War

🇫🇷🇮🇱🇮🇷 pic.twitter.com/gqR9qfFfa5

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 26, 2025

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Sure Jan

NEW: Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei claims that the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had no major effect https://t.co/4CYNuwugaR

— Axios (@axios) June 26, 2025

---

The reason you can't see his right hand is due to his fingers being crossed.

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

They did this in the War Powers Act, or tried to, after Vietnam & Watergate.

---

Significant developments from the Middle East via @MiddleEast_24

If the reporting from Israel Hayom is correct, we will soon see:

1. Peace in Gaza
2. Four Arab countries will administer Gaza
3. Saudi Arabia, Syria and other Arab countries will joining the Abraham Accords https://t.co/60ysrj6iBX

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 26, 2025

My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

historian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

In the latter, Congress declares war & the nation is committed. It has happened only 5 times in US history (1812, 1846, 1898, 1918, 1941).
In the former, the US goes to war through executive action (Commander in Chief) with congress later authorizing and funding it. Most of our wars happened this way from the Quasi War in 1798 and the Barbary Wars in 1801 & 1815 to the Gulf War, Iraq & Afghanistan and many in between and since.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is from his verified Twitter account...not parody.

Funny guy.

My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is from his verified Twitter account...not parody.

Funny guy.

My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

---

boognish_bear said:

---

This is from his verified Twitter account...not parody.

Funny guy.

My congratulations on our dear Iran’s victory over the US regime. The US regime entered the war directly because it felt that if it didn’t, the Zionist regime would be completely destroyed. It entered the war in an effort to save that regime but achieved nothing.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) June 26, 2025

---

J.R. said:

---

while I'm handing out rare Trump platitudes, I must say, that guy has unbelievable energy for a 79yr old. Impressive .

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

OsoCoreyell said:

---

If the choice is between war with Iran and a nuclear empowered Iran, you take war.

---

Did you say the same about North Korea?

Ultimately we didnt go to war with North Korea. They've had nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US for about a decade now and the world keeps on spinning.

Iran is less of a threat to the US homeland than North Korea is/was.

---

That was a different equation because of China. That dynamic doesn't exist for Iran.

---

How would war with Iran improve our national debt crisis? Or lower the price of energy which is keeping inflation in check?

Everytime the US has attempted regime change in the Middle East it has been catastrophically costly and resulted in abject failure even against adversaries much weaker than Iran.

Forget weapons. Iran has already agreed to not developing nuclear weapons.

Israel wants America to go to war with Iran over Iran keeping its nuclear energy program.

---

ICE has arrested 130 Iranian nationals across the U.S. in the last 7 days amid security concerns, per FOX

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) June 26, 2025

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

Great question....

That is why we have a Congress (Legislative Branch) that exists and has the Constitutional power to define such things.

---

They did this in the War Powers Act, or tried to, after Vietnam & Watergate.

---

The intent is to allow the Commander in Chief to make decisions in real time. It is not to declare war or fight an never ending battle.

---

cowboycwr said:

---

historian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Johnson: "Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I'm persuaded by that argument. They think it's a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief. I think that's right." pic.twitter.com/Qoeuq8muVf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2025

---

Congress can most certainly put restrictions and conditions on the powers of war that the President can exercise.

They may not often do so…but they can certainly specify and constrain his war powers if they wish in accordance with the Constitution.


[Anyone wishing to argue that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional must be prepared to explain the purpose of article I, section 8, clause 11, of the Constitution.

That provision expressly grants to Congress the power "To declare War." If the President of the United States is free to fight a war whether or not one has been declared, then this apparently unambiguous constitutional provision is devoid of significance. Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power.

Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I.

A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances.] -Stephen Carter, Yale Law school
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/1518

---

What is the difference between a military action and a declared war?

---

In the latter, Congress declares war & the nation is committed. It has happened only 5 times in US history (1812, 1846, 1898, 1918, 1941).
In the former, the US goes to war through executive action (Commander in Chief) with congress later authorizing and funding it. Most of our wars happened this way from the Quasi War in 1798 and the Barbary Wars in 1801 & 1815 to the Gulf War, Iraq & Afghanistan and many in between and since.

---

I think you mistyped one of the years. But otherwise an excellent breakdown.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Another rough week for the TDSers.

---

Why are you trying to make disagreement with policy personal? Many on here who disagree would disagree if it were Biden, Obama, Bush, Trump or Reagan.


The bigger question is why do you give a President a blind pass based on personality? Either you agree or you are a TDSer, you seem to be into labeling people that disagree. Very Bannon-esque of you...

---

It's not personal. TDS is a very real thing. Not everyone that disagrees with President Trump's policy is a TDSer - like Tucker Carlson or the crazy Georgia Congresswoman or Tom Massey - but many are. All your latter stuff is just projection - far fewer blindly give Trump a pass than blindly oppose him.

---

It is about 50/50.

MAGA has a tendency to focus on the negative policy assessments and overlook the positive to label someone TDS. The purpose of the label is to discredit the person and their view of the specific policy.

Many on here say I am a TDSer.

Yet, the reality is:

• I voted for Trump 3 times,
• Have said numerous times that I am in favor of his energy policies,
• Have said he is doing an outstanding job on the border and Homan is outstanding,
• Hegseth is doing a very good job at DOD and I was wrong on that one,
• I liked his monetary policy in the 1st term with Mnuchin and his general views on business,
• like his strong military
• I complimented him on avoiding mission creep in Iran

But, because I think the DOGE bit is a clown show that is not getting any real returns but theatrics
I don't trust Bessent and Trump's infatuation with Putin and hate when he goes in vendetta mode I am a TDSer.

I have seen more people do mental gymnastics to match up some of his action with what he claimed he wants than people outright just against him.

---

What people are afraid of is a return to neocon bs. If you don't like the concept of trying to end the grift in DC or putting our government under a microscope and asking about where our money is going then it's basically a return to a George W Bush style of the GOP.

Trump isn't perfect, but if every single thing people disagree with him on is the end of the world or the criticism has the effect of completely killing the 'America First' movement, then we're going to go right back to where we came from.

---

Well, if bombing Iran, tying the US Treasury to crypto, slapping 50% tariffs across the board and gutting the Federal work force don't qualify as items worth scrutinizing what in the hell does... These are not little things.

Actually, the fact that people don't see what has been done as major and view them as ho-hum is more of a problem.

---

This pretty much sums up the situation.

Luigi Mangione “has been treated like a hero,” Steve Bannon tells @semaforben. “That should scare you to the marrow of your bones because that’s the alternative if the system keeps going like it is.”

"The populist nationalists offer something you're not gonna love, but you'll be… pic.twitter.com/bdX9hFM5Te

— Semafor (@semafor) April 23, 2025

---

I agree with you on this. You guys seem to think I only question Trump, ANYONE in an elected or appointed position needs to be questioned and grilled over actions.

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am still impressed by the handling of this. It doesn't matter if the Fordow facility was obliterated, or badly damaged, ill take it.

The description of the bombs was very interesting. They targeted 2 shafts, using 1 bomb to blow each open, then the rest went in in rapid succession. It seems that without actual digging around you couldn't know how successful it was, but just digging around is likely to take months, therefore the nuclear program is set back many months, to years.

It was an incredibly successful campaign that cost no lives. Just a lot of tax dollars. And I'd give all the tax dollars to stop terrorists from having nukes. Credit where credit is due!

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am still impressed by the handling of this. It doesn't matter if the Fordow facility was obliterated, or badly damaged, ill take it.

The description of the bombs was very interesting. They targeted 2 shafts, using 1 bomb to blow each open, then the rest went in in rapid succession. It seems that without actual digging around you couldn't know how successful it was, but just digging around is likely to take months, therefore the nuclear program is set back many months, to years.

It was an incredibly successful campaign that cost no lives. Just a lot of tax dollars. And I'd give all the tax dollars to stop terrorists from having nukes. Credit where credit is due!

---

I read a report that the US got Intel when Iran started building the facility sixteen years ago, and had sources photograph every step of the construction, including changes from the original design, and so they knew all along where to strike and how.

Kudos therefore to the IC under Obama, Trump and even Biden that kept plans updated and the right weapons ready for the order to go.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am still impressed by the handling of this. It doesn't matter if the Fordow facility was obliterated, or badly damaged, ill take it.

The description of the bombs was very interesting. They targeted 2 shafts, using 1 bomb to blow each open, then the rest went in in rapid succession. It seems that without actual digging around you couldn't know how successful it was, but just digging around is likely to take months, therefore the nuclear program is set back many months, to years.

It was an incredibly successful campaign that cost no lives. Just a lot of tax dollars. And I'd give all the tax dollars to stop terrorists from having nukes. Credit where credit is due!

---

I read a report that the US got Intel when Iran started building the facility sixteen years ago, and had sources photograph every step of the construction, including changes from the original design, and so they knew all along where to strike and how.

Kudos therefore to the IC under Obama, Trump and even Biden that kept plans updated and the right weapons ready for the order to go.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am still impressed by the handling of this. It doesn't matter if the Fordow facility was obliterated, or badly damaged, ill take it.

The description of the bombs was very interesting. They targeted 2 shafts, using 1 bomb to blow each open, then the rest went in in rapid succession. It seems that without actual digging around you couldn't know how successful it was, but just digging around is likely to take months, therefore the nuclear program is set back many months, to years.

It was an incredibly successful campaign that cost no lives. Just a lot of tax dollars. And I'd give all the tax dollars to stop terrorists from having nukes. Credit where credit is due!

---

I read a report that the US got Intel when Iran started building the facility sixteen years ago, and had sources photograph every step of the construction, including changes from the original design, and so they knew all along where to strike and how.

Kudos therefore to the IC under Obama, Trump and even Biden that kept plans updated and the right weapons ready for the order to go.

---

Maybe it's just me ... not sure this is the kind of thing that should be shared publicly.

---

nein51 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

I am still impressed by the handling of this. It doesn't matter if the Fordow facility was obliterated, or badly damaged, ill take it.

The description of the bombs was very interesting. They targeted 2 shafts, using 1 bomb to blow each open, then the rest went in in rapid succession. It seems that without actual digging around you couldn't know how successful it was, but just digging around is likely to take months, therefore the nuclear program is set back many months, to years.

It was an incredibly successful campaign that cost no lives. Just a lot of tax dollars. And I'd give all the tax dollars to stop terrorists from having nukes. Credit where credit is due!

---

I read a report that the US got Intel when Iran started building the facility sixteen years ago, and had sources photograph every step of the construction, including changes from the original design, and so they knew all along where to strike and how.

Kudos therefore to the IC under Obama, Trump and even Biden that kept plans updated and the right weapons ready for the order to go.

---

Maybe it's just me ... not sure this is the kind of thing that should be shared publicly.

---

I don't keep saying you guys continually underestimate our military for no reason.

I grew up in a house with an intelligence analyst that spoke 6 languages. The running joke in the 90s was "if someone is reading Pravda in the Kremlin while taking a dump we were reading it over their shoulder".

Just go ahead and assume that inside those Iranian facilities at least one person is working directly for us. The odds are high it's many more than one.

---