475
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
475 points (98.4% liked)
politics
31574 readers
3301 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And that’s kind of a problem. As far as I see, this use of the war powers act is entirely consistent with previous uses. Trumps not wrong for once.
Maybe the part about not bothering to inform Congress because “they’ll see it in the news”.
Our outrage seems to be mainly that he chose poorly, or maybe even that we haven’t been conditioned to agree with it. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for years(decades?) and I certainly agree the world becomes a more dangerous, unstable place as more countries obtain nuclear weapons. Sanctions haven’t been working, but you combine this with Israel’s assassinations and it should be effective at stopping their program.
Of course I don’t know that anyone tried negotiating from a point of respect for their sovereignty nor was this in response to hostilities against our Interests or any urgent threat (that we’re aware of). You can’t just bomb people you disagree with, but this really seems consistent with previous administrations and the only difference is the propaganda war to manipulate support
He's definitely wrong morally, constitutionally, and strategically just not legally, per how the courts have (mis)interpreted the constitution.
Well, in order to work, they'd have to have a coherent objective.
They did work at bringing Iran to the negotiating table, which led to Obama's Iran deal. The only problem being that Obama made it, so Trump had to hate it. The only thing the US actually wants from Iran is for it to be an enemy the president can bomb to look tough.
The program that we have no evidence actually existed, that is. Certainly, if they weren't actively persuing one before, they'd be mad not to now. How else could they stop the frequent, random unprovoked aggression from the US?
I mean yeah, I didn’t claim this action was morally or even strategically acceptable, just that it seems consistent with the way past administrations have used the same power.