boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— World Affairs (@World_Affairs11) June 24, 2025
European Union says it will take action against Israel if it does not stop war in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/b5u0nIcHMu
🚨 JUST IN: President Trump has arrived in the Netherlands for the NATO Summit, and IMMEDIATELY whips out a USA hat 🇺🇸
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 24, 2025
He has been destroying absolutely EVERYONE this morning, so expect some fireworks between him and the globalists here 🤣
Go get ‘em, Mr. President! 🔥 pic.twitter.com/BOpD9lKFN9
BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 24, 2025
New message from Crown Prince @PahlaviReza to the Iranian nation:
“My fellow compatriots,
We are now moving to the final phase of our struggle. It will be hard. But the regime is weak. It is near collapse. Only we, the Iranian people, can end it.
To the military—as… pic.twitter.com/lOoqErxmNc
The Trump administration is providing $30 million to an Israeli-backed group distributing food in Gaza, a U.S. official says. It's the first known U.S. government funding for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s aid distribution operation during the Israel-Hamas war.…
— The Associated Press (@AP) June 24, 2025
Many nations support insurgencies, the US not least among them.ATL Bear said:Being a massive state sponsor of terror that was secretly building nuclear weapons infrastructure that could endanger/kill millions = not villain. Taking out the nuclear part of the aforementioned = villain.Sam Lowry said:I doubt Trump is worried about that. He (and you) know that the US playing the villain on the international stage has no consequences as long as Trump doesn't personally suffer for it. Well done, sir.Robert Wilson said:Sam Lowry said:Vance says we've "destroyed" Iran's nuclear program and created a reset moment for the entire region.ATL Bear said:
If this peace holds and this is the end, Trump played this like a Maestro. Not only did he help cripple a potential nuclear armed terrorist state, he did it using weaponry capable of silently deploying massive nuclear payloads (B2 and sub) while China and Russia had to watch. Major peace through strength flex.
So is that it? We all good now?
No, 'we' still have to worry about the international law police arresting us and taking us to the international law prosecutors who will try us in front of the international law tribunal which will put us in international law jail.
Or at least Trump does, along with the mouse in his pocket, if I followed your earlier posts. Unclear to me whether you are going with him given your liberal use of first person plural.
Got it…
Realitybites said:
" "I have instructed the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) in coordination with the Prime Minister to continue the intensive operation to strike in Tehran and thwart regime targets and terror infrastructure in Tehran," Katz said.
Well, so much for the ceasefire.
BREAKING: U.S. intelligence assessments suggest strikes on Iran may not have fully destroyed nuclear sites, per CNN.
— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) June 24, 2025
🚨FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN:
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 24, 2025
This alleged "assessment" is flat-out wrong and was classified as "top secret" but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean…
boognish_bear said:🚨FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN:
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 24, 2025
This alleged "assessment" is flat-out wrong and was classified as "top secret" but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean…
Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Fair ... definitely not an expert ... just not 100% obvious to me how we would know the extent of the impact on the program, but prepared to be wrong.nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
boognish_bear said:🚨FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN:
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 24, 2025
This alleged "assessment" is flat-out wrong and was classified as "top secret" but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean…
nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
STFU. You mean we've had off the record stories spreading disinformation about Trump? No way ... I AM SHOCKED. At the end of the day would give 50-50 chance there was ever an actual source ... the Democrat media threw out its ethics years ago.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
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
They build shelters in mountains to protect from nuclear weapons. I don't think it's that hard to believe that a few 6K lb warheads couldn't obliterate the place. It's almost certain Trump didn't know when he said but I don't think anyone really knows.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
Harrison Bergeron said:STFU. You mean we've had off the record stories spreading disinformation about Trump? No way ... I AM SHOCKED. At the end of the day would give 50-50 chance there was ever an actual source ... the Democrat media threw out its ethics years ago.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
The_barBEARian said:Harrison Bergeron said:STFU. You mean we've had off the record stories spreading disinformation about Trump? No way ... I AM SHOCKED. At the end of the day would give 50-50 chance there was ever an actual source ... the Democrat media threw out its ethics years ago.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
I hate the democrats and the media as much as anyone on this board... but do you really think democrats are the ones creating rumors that Iran still has nukes?
lol. no.
GrowlTowel said:The_barBEARian said:Harrison Bergeron said:STFU. You mean we've had off the record stories spreading disinformation about Trump? No way ... I AM SHOCKED. At the end of the day would give 50-50 chance there was ever an actual source ... the Democrat media threw out its ethics years ago.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
I hate the democrats and the media as much as anyone on this board... but do you really think democrats are the ones creating rumors that Iran still has nukes?
lol. no.
Wait, it's the Jews, right?
This. Is FUCKING. HILARIOUS. 😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/kHB3BXfe9l
— MajToure999 (@MajToure999) June 24, 2025
ron.reagan said:They build shelters in mountains to protect from nuclear weapons. I don't think it's that hard to believe that a few 6K lb warheads couldn't obliterate the place. It's almost certain Trump didn't know when he said but I don't think anyone really knows.KaiBear said:nein51 said:Harrison Bergeron said:
At the end of the day, there is really no way to know either way. It did not help the program.
Oh that's definitely not true.
I'm constantly amazed at the underestimation of our armed services.
There may not be a way you and I know…but "we" definitely know.
Even one 30,000 lb bomb would raise holy hell on any target.
And the Air Force put up to SIX of these monsters on each facility.
However somehow , somewhere an 'expert' comes out of the weeds attempting to discredit the results.
Gotta luv social media.
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
War Powers Act is frequently cited but rarely read. It manifestly does NOT prohibit what Trump did to Iran. In fact, he complied with it fully.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
whiterock said:War Powers Act is frequently cited but rarely read. It manifestly does NOT prohibit what Trump did to Iran. In fact, he complied with it fully.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 DO WE GET FROM ISRAEL
— Earth Hippy 🌎🕊️💚 (@hippyygoat) June 24, 2025
— Theo Von
“I WOULD NOT SEND THEM A DIME”
— Thomas Massie pic.twitter.com/JzC15qpF88
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
Melugin: Over 1,500 Iranian Nationals Were Caught By Border Control Under Biden, 729 Were Releasedhttps://t.co/G2DzANLllV
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) June 24, 2025
I have a lot of sympathy for the non-interventionist policy here. I think the mullah terrorists running Iran and trying to get nukes ("Death to America!") justify some bunker busters, for our own sake. But, in general, I think our involvement should be mostly nil.muddybrazos said:WHAT DO WE GET FROM ISRAEL
— Earth Hippy 🌎🕊️💚 (@hippyygoat) June 24, 2025
— Theo Von
“I WOULD NOT SEND THEM A DIME”
— Thomas Massie pic.twitter.com/JzC15qpF88
Massie is def one of the best reps we have.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??Mitch Blood Green said:boognish_bear said:🚨FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN:
— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 24, 2025
This alleged "assessment" is flat-out wrong and was classified as "top secret" but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean…
She's not saying it's not true.
Technically, if there's a toilet still standing, then it wasn't "fully" destroyed. But regardless, the sites didn't have to be "fully" destroyed, but rather "functionally" destroyed.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.
