this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
1518 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

8250 readers
2492 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] selkiesidhe@lemm.ee 21 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Diaper Don gonna order brown people to get bombed so he 'looks like a tough man".

Fuck that guy and everyone who voted for him. Or chose not to vote. Fuck you even more.

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

There is absolutely ZERO reason to believe that those who didnt vote would have voted for Harris. In fact, every person I know who didnt vote are trump defenders. Every one. Every. Single. One.

[–] Nelots@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Fuck you even more.

I've never understood this pov. Sure you can say no vote was the same thing as a vote for trump, but surely the people that actually voted for him are worse, no? I can understand 'fuck you just as much', but even more?

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

It's the apathy, or the belief that it somehow doesn't matter. To quote Walter Sobchak:

Nihilists, fuck me. Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.

[–] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago

"Looks like a tough man". Is this really the level of political comprehension we're working with? No wonder you idiots elected a fascist. Are all of you 12? Go back to playing fortnight.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

OMG that's hilarious. We haven't declared war since WWII. But how many presidents have done just that? Good luck with that argument.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

He's not wrong. Definition of genocide and war crimes are also pretty clearly enshrined. As are our countries laws against funding them.

[–] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

yhea, Have you seen the news?

rule of law is dead in the US

[–] bieren@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago

“I don’t care what that old paper says” -Trump

[–] Mrkawfee@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

2/3 of Congress is owned by AIPAC so it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Even if we ignore the fact that he can easily coax our useless congress into agreeing, the entire government has done nothing but dance around this requirement ever since the end of WWII. You won't see a congressional declaration of war unless its literally WWIII.

[–] IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Taco’s a bitch, he’s leaking all this to get leverage to make a deal. He’ll pussy out and Iran knows it. They’re playing the same games with him but from a position of knowing he’s full of shit

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

I think most of those congressional powers have been eroded for a very long time.

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 182 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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 57 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] hungprocess@lemmy.sdf.org 61 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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)
[–] NutWrench@lemmy.world 60 points 1 week 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.

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 76 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stephen@lazysoci.al 36 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

It's abdication. He's already relinquished power. The reigns just need to be taken

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago (14 children)

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.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 38 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"It's illegal"

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Remember Vietnam?

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

In the sense that if you take power you don't deserve you have it

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

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

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

This is how we ended up with the Iran-Contra Scandal. The Reagan administration wanted to fight the growing communist forces in Nicaragua, but Congress forbid them, and denied them funding.

They decided to find the money by selling highly inflated arms to our bitterest enemy at the time, IRAN, only a few short years after they had held our Embassy officials hostage for over a year.

They took the profits of those illegal arms sales, and used it to finance their illegal war on Central America.

So these traitors don't even take no for an answer when Congress shuts off the money tap.

[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

What congress can do is refuse to pay for the war/police action. They still need to write the checks. Wars don't last long with out money.

[–] polle@feddit.org 27 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Its like choosing the president is a really important decision.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Ferrous@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›