War with Iran?

134,827 Views | 2180 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by whiterock
EatMoreSalmon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusyTarpDuster2017 • 10:12a, 6/25/25
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:


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.
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.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 10:34a, 6/25/25
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.

Reply Quote
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusyTarpDuster2017 • 10:34a, 6/25/25
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
boognish_bear said:


She's not saying it's not true.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??

Good lord, folks.


The part where she calls it an "alleged assessment" then admits 1. It exists and 2 it was leaked.

Her opinion vs the expert opinion is what to be judged.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusyTarpDuster2017 • 10:35a, 6/25/25
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:


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.
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.
Unfortunately, there are certain people, including the media outlets, the Democrats and the Woke Right, who have a vested interest in ensuring this isn't a total victory for Trump (which, it of course is), so they will try to throw cold water on what actually occurred. If the leaks are indeed coming from inside the admin, I suspect these people are probably Tucker Carlson sympathizers, who would seek to downplay his unhinged comments, failed predictions and general buffoonery the last couple of weeks.
Reply Quote
3 edits
BusyTarpDuster2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 10:49a, 6/25/25
Mitch Blood Green said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
boognish_bear said:


She's not saying it's not true.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??

Good lord, folks.


The part where she calls it an "alleged assessment" then admits 1. It exists and 2 it was leaked.

Her opinion vs the expert opinion is what to be judged.
She's obviously saying the assessment is "alleged" in that it is not a valid, official assessment. She's not denying the false assessment exists. And she's saying that what was "leaked" was this false assessment.

And she said the assessment was "flat out wrong". But you said that she's not saying it's not true. Is your reading/comprehension really this bad, or is it because you only read want you want to believe?
Reply Quote
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusyTarpDuster2017 • 10:59a, 6/25/25
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
boognish_bear said:


She's not saying it's not true.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??

Good lord, folks.


The part where she calls it an "alleged assessment" then admits 1. It exists and 2 it was leaked.

Her opinion vs the expert opinion is what to be judged.
She's obviously saying the assessment is "alleged" in that it is not a valid, official assessment. She's not denying the false assessment exists. And she's saying that what was "leaked" was this false assessment.

And she said the assessment was "flat out wrong". But you said that she's not saying it's not true. Is your reading/comprehension really this bad, or is it because you only read want you want to believe?
I think you're seeing what you need to see.


Quote:
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.
She clearly says it was "top secret," but it was still leaked. That means it's the official assessment. Then she offers her opinion on why it was leaked and about the person who leaked it. She knows it's the "official" Top Secret Pentagon report. That's clear as day.

Nothing supports the idea that a "leaker" leaked a false report to make the White House look bad.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 11:21a, 6/25/25
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.

Reply Quote
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:22a, 6/25/25
Mothra said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:


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.
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.
Unfortunately, there are certain people, including the media outlets, the Democrats and the Woke Right, who have a vested interest in ensuring this isn't a total victory for Trump (which, it of course is), so they will try to throw cold water on what actually occurred. If the leaks are indeed coming from inside the admin, I suspect these people are probably Tucker Carlson sympathizers, who would seek to downplay his unhinged comments, failed predictions and general buffoonery the last couple of weeks.
As I stated earlier, I think Trump and team did a masterful job conducting the operation. They thought the bunker busters would totally destroy the targets which they did not. Total irradiation of the sites will require boots on the ground. Let Izzy do that. I did see trump's extrodinarly embarrassing pressure from NATO in the Netherlands. I have to say that he does not make me proud to be an American. (question Lee Greenwood which makes me want to put a bullet in the brain pan just because the song sucks) His speech was full of trumpesq self aggrandizing and having his lackeys parrot him just to please dear furor. He also just continues to embarrass himself.
Reply Quote
BusyTarpDuster2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 11:24a, 6/25/25
Mitch Blood Green said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
boognish_bear said:


She's not saying it's not true.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??

Good lord, folks.


The part where she calls it an "alleged assessment" then admits 1. It exists and 2 it was leaked.

Her opinion vs the expert opinion is what to be judged.
She's obviously saying the assessment is "alleged" in that it is not a valid, official assessment. She's not denying the false assessment exists. And she's saying that what was "leaked" was this false assessment.

And she said the assessment was "flat out wrong". But you said that she's not saying it's not true. Is your reading/comprehension really this bad, or is it because you only read want you want to believe?
I think you're seeing what you need to see.


Quote:
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.
She clearly says it was "top secret," but it was still leaked. That means it's the official assessment. Then she offers her opinion on why it was leaked and about the person who leaked it. She knows it's the "official" Top Secret Pentagon report. That's clear as day.

Nothing supports the idea that a "leaker" leaked a false report to make the White House look bad.
She's obviously saying that it is suspicious that something was labeled "top secret" yet was easily leaked by a low level person, who wouldn't have access to it. So she's saying it's phony. Use your head.

And focus, man, focus - you're not addressing the main problem with your comment: she said "flat out wrong", yet you said she's NOT saying it's NOT true. You obviously can not read and comprehend, or your biased lens is so thick that you completely missed it.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 11:46a, 6/25/25
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
Reply Quote
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 12:04p, 6/25/25
Mitch Blood Green said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
boognish_bear said:


She's not saying it's not true.
What part of "this assessment is flat out wrong" is not saying it's not true??

Good lord, folks.


The part where she calls it an "alleged assessment" then admits 1. It exists and 2 it was leaked.

Her opinion vs the expert opinion is what to be judged.

It may be an assessment
It may be a contingency
It may be a bald-faced lie leaked
It may be a bald-faced lie from CNN to make Trump look bad.


Why would anyone believe a source that has already been proven to not be trustworthy.


The reporter has ZERO credibility. That doesn't say the statement isn't true but why trust this source?
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:08p, 6/25/25
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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...




Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 12:15p, 6/25/25
Mothra said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:


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.
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.
Unfortunately, there are certain people, including the media outlets, the Democrats and the Woke Right, who have a vested interest in ensuring this isn't a total victory for Trump (which, it of course is), so they will try to throw cold water on what actually occurred. If the leaks are indeed coming from inside the admin, I suspect these people are probably Tucker Carlson sympathizers, who would seek to downplay his unhinged comments, failed predictions and general buffoonery the last couple of weeks.

Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:17p, 6/25/25
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:26p, 6/25/25
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
We didn't go to war, he took out nuclear weapons sites. Pretty one to one match of force to need and it was only enough for the task. No overkill. Sorry Sam, Trump pretty much has his ducks in a row on this one. You will have a hard time convincing anyone that Iraq is rhetoric, as they have a pretty strong history of terrorism, funding terrorist and attacking merchant vessel. If there are ditches to die in, this ain't one...


Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:36p, 6/25/25


Yep the problem is that so many in the war machine want years long occupations to get the money flowing. They don't want real solutions.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:39p, 6/25/25
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
We didn't go to war, he took out nuclear weapons sites. Pretty one to one match of force to need and it was only enough for the task. No overkill. Sorry Sam, Trump pretty much has his ducks in a row on this one. You will have a hard time convincing anyone that Iraq is rhetoric, as they have a pretty strong history of terrorism, funding terrorist and attacking merchant vessel. If there are ditches to die in, this ain't one...


Huge, huge leap.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 12:44p, 6/25/25
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.

Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 12:49p, 6/25/25
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.

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.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 1:26p, 6/25/25
The_barBEARian said:
Mothra said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Doc Holliday said:


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.
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.
Unfortunately, there are certain people, including the media outlets, the Democrats and the Woke Right, who have a vested interest in ensuring this isn't a total victory for Trump (which, it of course is), so they will try to throw cold water on what actually occurred. If the leaks are indeed coming from inside the admin, I suspect these people are probably Tucker Carlson sympathizers, who would seek to downplay his unhinged comments, failed predictions and general buffoonery the last couple of weeks.

Knew my post would reel in the biggest drama queen and Chicken Little on this board the last week. Like clockwork.

Poor kid has to be bitter that all of those prognostications about this being the "end of the Trump's presidency' and 'American Empire' ended up being bullsh. So many people tried to tell him.

Reply Quote
2 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:30p, 6/25/25
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
Yes, but Joe Biden saying Ukraine would one day be a part of NATO was an existential threat worthy of an attack.

LOL. Love the double standard. Another Sam Lowry special!

Reply Quote
1 edit
BearBall
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ron.reagan • 1:50p, 6/25/25
ron.reagan said:
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.
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.

If you don't want the bombs to work, your mind will allow you to minimize the destruction.
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:38p, 6/25/25
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.

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?
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:50p, 6/25/25
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 2:53p, 6/25/25
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.

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
Reply Quote
1 edit
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 2:55p, 6/25/25
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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?


Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 2:56p, 6/25/25
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:


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?


Nah, just words. Words only constitute an imminent threat when they're spoken by us against Russia and/or Putin.
Reply Quote
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 2:56p, 6/25/25
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.

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.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 2:57p, 6/25/25
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:


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?


Nobody is going to make a living saying that Iran didn't threaten the US. Defending Iran, I think we have no hit the trifecta of Russia, North Korea and now Iran...
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 3:05p, 6/25/25
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.

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.
Reply Quote
muddybrazos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 3:34p, 6/25/25
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.

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.
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 4:39p, 6/25/25
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.

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.

This should be ridiculous but this country is a complete joke so I wouldnt be surprised if this happened.

Tax payers shouldn't be federally insuring crypto.

Its bad enough they insure banks that make bad investments and over-leverage themselves.

They need to re-establish the common sense banking regulations and capital requirements that used to separate commercial banking from investment banking.

See Glass Stiegel Act.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:06p, 6/25/25
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'
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:37p, 6/25/25
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
boognish_bear said:


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.
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to muddybrazos • 5:38p, 6/25/25
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.

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.
Thanks. Stand corrected.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.