610
president of peace everybody (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 54 points 1 month ago

Ok, so he breaks the law, AGAIN… that’ll be how many times? And how many consequences? And how will he be punished? Who will punish him? Remember, this is an insurrectionist that the administration from 17-21 did not go after because it would have been “taken as political”. So, again, who cares what the law says, because he doesn’t.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

Trump has already been impeached twice. What else could they do except attempt to remove him from power, and with what army?

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Uh, my point exactly. Mother fucker thinks he’s untouchable because he is. The GOP have kneecapped our democracy to the point that if you are in power, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

[-] Zwiebel@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Didnt the supreme court decide that a president can do whatever if its an "official act"?

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXQ43yyJvgs

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] minkymunkey_7_7@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

I think that at this point people should settle on the fact that the only consequences Trump will ever face is in a history book 30 years after WW3/Civil War 2.

Well except in the Reconstruction States because there will be a number of lies that will endure forever, similar to the Lost Cause and Stabbed in the Back myths.

[-] not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 month ago

Bernie should be aware of the war powers act. It's one of the worse pieces of legislation ever, but it makes the whole declare war thing largely meaningless.

The act gives a president the ability to perform military actions provided Congress is notified within 48 hours of the action happening. Then the president gets a free 60 days to do whatever without additional approval. Then there's a further 30 days where forces should be withdrawing if there is no further congressional approval. However, that timeline doesn't really matter, as the Supreme Court ruled under Clinton that of troops are gone by the time the case gets to them then it doesn't really matter that the law was violated.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 month ago

He should also be aware of this legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001

... since he voted for it.

It allows military actions against any country that harbours al Qaeda... and Iran does harbour al Qaeda along with any terrorist group that aligns with their "death to Israel / America" dogma.

[-] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I also like the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which is a 2002 federal law that basically says, "if you try to charge any U.S. soldier or official for a war crime in the International Criminal Court, we will invade the Netherlands."

No, really.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago

Repealed by the House of Representatives in 2021.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago

Can we not pretend like this hasn’t happened numerous times in the past. The US hasn’t been in a war since WW2 and yet somehow we keep ending up killing people in other countries.

[-] T156@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Do Vietnam and Korea not count as wars?

[-] Denjin@lemmings.world 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Or Indonesia, Laos, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Cambodia, Iran, Lebanon, Granada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Congo, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Philippines, Syria, Yemen, Somalia again, Libya, Niger, South Sudan...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 5 points 1 month ago

Can't lose a war if you retroactively count it as not a war 😎

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Why do you let them set the narrative that a precedent of wrongdoing legitimizes future trespasses?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah unfortunately that is not actually the way the law is written Bernie. Wish it was.

Short version, the president gets to deploy the military where ever he wishes (outside the US, posse comitatus etc). That includes invading a sovereign nation or raining missiles down on one.

Only congress has the power to declare a war, but the Potus gets to defacto kick off the war and then dare congress not to back him.

After it was either 60 or 90 days, I forget, congress gets to "review" the decision, the problem is they have no power other than financial if they wish to stop the war. So the only thing they can do is turn off the finances to the military, and wait for the money to run out - which is generally up to a year. They have no way of forcing the president to desist other than impeachment or cutting off the funds.

They can pass a motion, or even legislation, which the Prez can then veto, pointless. If they can muster the 2/3rds of congress they can remove him via impeachment.

Edit, spelling correction and to note that I can pull out the full details if needed - was discussed heavily on reddit a while ago

[-] polle@feddit.org 25 points 1 month ago

Its like choosing the president is a really important decision.

[-] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Sounds like more should have been done to prevent trump even getting on the ballot while his opposition was still in power. Oh wait, but then they couldn't run on "trump bad" and would actually have to champion something for the people to get their votes. Oh well!

[-] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 month ago

But genocidal Kamala is just as bad! I was informed about it multiple times by accounts on .ml (and not all of them are operating exclusively during Moscow working hours)

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yup. Someone has to be the ultimate commander of the military. Unfortunately (at least right now) POTUS is the commander in chief of the military.

So while his actions may not be a formal declaration of war, they certainly can cause a foreign nation to declare war on the USA.... Which simply pulls the US into a state of war regardless.

Can you guys not vote convicted felons suffering from dementia into the white house?

That would be great....

Sincerely, a Canadian.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] hungprocess@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 1 month ago

I mean, the Constitution of the United States is also very clear the fucker wasn't eligible to BE President again, but we all seem to have just shimmied right past that as well.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

Do you mean because of the insurrection? I think there's something in that part about Congress needing to do something too, so Congress dropped the ball on that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] minorkeys@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Are the generals going to refuse his orders? Is the legislative going to impeach him? Is anyone in American government going to do the job their very roles exist to do within the framework of power? What happens if he does? What's been happening as he violates the constitution, daily? When he violates the rights protected, seemingly, by nothing but a sheet of fucking parchment?

Whose going to stop him when he tries?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NutWrench@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Congress has been shirking their responsibility to declare wars since the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. They gave Presidents the power to carry out military actions abroad without a formal declaration. By passing the responsibility on to the president, Congress gets to avoid the blame for unpopular wars.

Even the Vietnam "War" which lasted 10 years, was never declared by Congress.

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 23 points 1 month ago

"It's illegal"

Someone remind him that the supreme court has judged that the usa president can do any crime willy nilly

[-] DoubleSpace@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Trump clearly demonstrated over decades that he is unable to not break laws, and he was arguably elected because of that. Therefore, the most democratic thing would be to let him be a dictator. 🤷

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 month ago

Actually, the constitution IS ambiguous in how it defines war. If it weren't so ambiguous, presidents wouldn't be able to take advantage of the War Powers Act so easily - as they have done for decades.

The US hasn't declared war since WWII despite both red and blue presidents dropping untold bombs since then. The hubbub about Trump unilaterally carrying out "military action" is less about scary orange man, and more about an executive branch that has been concentrating power for decades under red and blue presidents alike. This, like many other things, is something that leftists have been sounding alarm bells about for ages.

Stop elevating the Constitution. It is an extremely weak, vague, and antiquated document that was written almost exclusively by 20 something, white, enslaving, landowing white males. I know of no other constitution that explicitly enshrines the right to enslave people. The US constitution is an embarrassment, and its no surprise its getting torn to shreds once the first unabashedly fascist shows up.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Pepperidge Farms remembers "police action" in Vietnam

load more comments (1 replies)

Really it's surprising it took this long.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Read a great article, over a decade ago, outlining how Congress has steadily given the Executive more and more power under every administration and every Congress. It had dates and links to every single event. Wish I could find that again.

[-] bieren@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 month ago

If they haven’t noticed. Trump does whatever the fuck he wants. If he ignores the ruling of courts, do they think he will read a post on X and be like “oh shit, you’re right.” No, posts on X are fucking useless. He will ignore congress like he does everything else. His ego is severely damaged after the little parade and leaders not worshipping him at G7. He is realizing his place in the food chain and looking for a win to boost his ego.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago

Remember Vietnam?

The president has the power to deploy the military even without a declaration

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Fontasia@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago

After watching some of the footage on Saturday, it's annoying to think "these are the people who will need to pull of a coup?"

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

GWB : Hold mah beer.

[-] DrFistington@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

You know, that technically, when he violated his oath of office the first time, he resigned from his position. Once you violate your oath of office you no longer hold that office. You can do whatever you want to him, worse case scenario you have to wait for a pardon

[-] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah but these laws are only meaningful if they’re enforced

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I asked Merrick Garland if Trump had done anything wrong and he just shrugged and said "There's no way for us to know for sure so we didn't want to take any chances by pressing charges."

Four years later, I feel like he made the right call. Imagine if the Biden DOJ had actually tried to press charges on Trump. Just imagine... I think we can all agree that their prudence and restraint really helped the US dodge a bullet.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

I've never looked at it from that perspective. Now that I've tried, my nose and ears are bleeding, so that's gotta be a good thing, right?

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Oooh! Hey ask him where our fucking unredacted Mueller Reports are.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Lmao had to read it a few times. Ty

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] stephen@lazysoci.al 8 points 1 month ago

I wish the law worked that way, but there is no technicality that violating an oath of office triggers a resignation. Resignation is resignation.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

If anything, the interpretation of "official acts" by the Supreme Court explicitly shields him. He cannot be held legally responsible for any decision carried out as president, which is terrifying.

[-] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
  • 🔫 the only way he will be held responsible and accountable.
[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Don't miss next time.

[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 7 points 1 month ago

That's not a war ! That's a 3 days military special operation !

-Russian Trump alter ego

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is literally the argument behind our indefinite occupation of South Korea. We've been doing a limited policing action for over 70 years. And every two years, the Congress gets a chance to vote on the NDAA that authorizes us to continue deploying troops over there. Every two years, Congress gives it a big old rubber stamp.

Same with the Philippines. Same with Thailand. Same with Cuba. Same with Iraq. Same with... well... easier to just show the picture.

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago

Oh. He must not.

And you're going to stop him, right?

[-] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I mean I'm not sure what to say to anyone that still thinks the Constitution is something the United States actually adheres to.

It's null and void the minute it gets violated at the highest levels of government with no repercussions and we've already crossed that line multiple times.

The Constitution is not valid anymore. The first step is to accept that fact. We're not going to get anywhere endlessly debating a document that isn't taken seriously by the ones capable of enforcing its mandates.

[-] zanyllama52@infosec.pub 6 points 1 month ago

Went thru the same shit with Bush 20 years ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gowron_Howard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

He’ll do what he wants without consequence, whine about it online as if he’s somehow the victim, and then continue to break more laws.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
610 points (99.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

8704 readers
682 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS