What you say as a piece of shit is swirling around the toilet? Doo-doo, bye! Or watching Trump & Netanyahu make out… Du… Bi?!?

They’re guilty of being hated by Islamaphobes

Agreed… I just don’t want people acting like there is nothing that Democrats can do right now, including cutting off funding, drafting resolutions, etc. Maybe they will do something for once, but I don’t have my hopes up. Seeing how they literally enabled the genocide in Palestine, it seems like most of them are bought & paid for.

Democrats could file a TRO in federal court immediately asking to pause operations & that his actions violate Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. But they almost certainly won’t, and they want you believing exactly what you do now, which is “our hands are tied, nothing we can do, send money & then we can do something, etc.” The reality is a vast majority of them are funded by AIPAC & support this, and they’ll almost certainly have a majority of ignorant or naive people repeating their lies.

Here are some things they could try as well:

Sponsoring a Soldier’s Habeas Corpus Petition

Instead of lawmakers suing on their own behalf, a coalition of anti-war lawmakers could legally and financially back a Habeas Corpus petition for a U.S. service member currently deployed or ordered to participate in the Iran strikes.

• The Strategy: The lawsuit would argue that because the war is unconstitutional and lacks congressional authorization, the soldier’s deployment is an illegal deprivation of their liberty (violating their Fifth Amendment Due Process rights).
• Why it could work: A soldier ordered into a combat zone undeniably has “standing”—their life and liberty are directly at risk. If a group of lawmakers files amicus briefs and publicly coordinates this lawsuit, it forces a federal judge to answer whether the military’s orders are lawful. It takes the politicians out of the plaintiff’s seat and puts the actual victim of the constitutional violation in front of the judge.

The “Mike Gravel Maneuver” (The Speech or Debate Clause)

If the minority party knows the administration is lying about Iran posing an “imminent threat,” but the proof is highly classified, they do not need a judge or a majority to release it. They just need one brave lawmaker.

• The Law: Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress have absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they say or read during official legislative business.
• The Action: A single lawmaker (like a dissenting member of the Intelligence or Foreign Affairs Committees) could walk onto the floor of the House or Senate, or convene a specialized subcommittee, and read the classified intelligence proving the administration is lying straight into the public Congressional Record.
• The Precedent: This is exactly what Senator Mike Gravel did in 1971 when he read the top-secret Pentagon Papers into the record to expose the government’s lies about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled he could not be prosecuted.
• The Complicity Test: If Democrats claim they have seen intelligence proving the strikes are unjustified but refuse to read it into the record because they are afraid of losing their security clearances or violating committee rules, they are prioritizing decorum over stopping a war.

The “Senate Hold”

The U.S. Senate runs almost entirely on something called “Unanimous Consent” to function smoothly and confirm nominees.

• The Law: A single Senator has the power to object to unanimous consent, placing a “hold” on Senate business.
• The Action: Just one or two anti-war Senators could publicly declare that they will place a blanket hold on every single military promotion, defense contractor confirmation, and Pentagon budgetary consent request until the administration publicly releases the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos justifying the strikes on Iran and the civilian boats.
• Why it Works: It does not require a majority. It single-handedly grinds the Pentagon’s administrative machinery to a halt. If the minority party refuses to use this leverage to demand transparency for an unconstitutional war, “our hands are tied” is just an excuse.

Sponsoring a Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Lawsuit

Since minority politicians cannot sue the President directly due to “lack of standing,” they can bypass the political blockade by using corporate fraud laws against the defense industry.

• The Law: The False Claims Act allows private citizens with insider knowledge to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government (known as a qui tam suit) against companies defrauding the taxpayers.
• The Action: Minority lawmakers could actively solicit and legally shield a whistleblower from inside a defense contractor (like the companies manufacturing the missiles hitting Iran). The lawsuit would argue that because the military operation violates the War Powers Resolution and the Anti-Deficiency Act, the defense contractor is fulfilling an illegal contract and fraudulently billing the U.S. taxpayer.
• Why it Works: A federal judge cannot throw this out using the “Political Question” doctrine because it is technically a corporate fraud case. It forces the court to examine whether the underlying contract (the war) is legally authorized.

Forcing Privileged Floor Votes (The Complicity Test)

If minority lawmakers say they are powerless because they don’t control the House, they are lying by omission. Certain laws allow any single member of Congress to force a mandatory floor vote that the majority party cannot block.

• The Arms Export Control Act (AECA): Any senator can introduce a Joint Resolution of Disapproval to block the sale or transfer of specific weapons (like the missiles being used in Iran or Israel). Bernie Sanders used this recently regarding Gaza.
• The War Powers “Concurrent Resolution”: Any member can introduce a resolution under Section 5(c) directing the President to remove troops engaged in unauthorized hostilities.
• The Litmus Test: If a Democrat goes on television and says, “We must stop this,” but refuses to introduce or vote for an AECA or War Powers resolution, they are complicit. Forcing the vote is the only way to put every single member of Congress on the public record.

Duh, Israel has kept the media out for a reason.

At this rate the establishment will be pushing Hillary as the only legitimate candidate to challenge Republicans in 2028.

You know sadly like you already see in response here many on the left have already bought the MSM hasbara hook, line & sinker. Let’s not forget how many acquisitions we saw of major media networks recently by major IDF donor Larry Ellison & other Zionists. Netanyahu was bragging about being able to control the information war as a result. The sad truth is people are just so easy to manipulate & they have such a big desire to follow whatever they perceive as the mainstream narrative. Like if the news is pushing some dumb Hollywood sequel they in unison all start talking about it & their entire identity revolves around fads.

Just as they voted for & was complicit in genocide, and then complain non-stop about ICE killing a very small fraction of people compared to the IDF, they will do the same with war. When it is time for elections they’ll virtue signal & pretend they were against the disaster they actively enabled or that they’re the perpetual victim for potentially ever having to deal with any repercussions of their actions.

Lol, they dug their grave by being something Israel can’t turn into another Gaza. Netanyahu has been pushing for it for years but he wants to put American lives in danger. But sure… say whatever Bush 2.0 neocon talking points help you sleep at night as to why the US needs this war with Iran on behalf of Israel. I’m sure the MSM liberal media has you convinced it’s for all the right reasons.

I have 128GB of DDR4 RAM that I’ll sell for $20k

And just to think bruncle Musk could be sharing his stepsister with his dad right now, so in addition to being brother to her kids & uncle, he could also be stepdad…

But “no kings,” right?

Here in the US we call it Only Fans.

War isn’t just physical combat, it’s psychological and political. Momentum matters. My argument is that praising an erratic leader like Trump, who openly disrespects Ukraine, signals to Russia that Ukraine’s backing is fragile.

Beyond that, “how war works” right now involves American tax dollars fueling a conflict that includes forced conscription of people who don’t want to fight. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question the strategy of a leader who is praising the very people attacking American democratic norms, all while demanding American financial support.

I’m not saying “look what you made him do.” I am saying that geopolitics relies on strength and perception. When Zelenskyy praises Trump—a man who openly bullies him and has been engaging in invasions himself—it projects weakness, not strength. That weakness emboldens aggressors like Putin. By praising Trump—the same person who kidnapped the President of Venezuela, bombed Nigeria, Iran & has threatened taking Greenland—Zelensky is praising someone engaging in the same behavior as Putin.

Furthermore, pointing out that Zelenskyy is willing to legitimize Trump’s behavior to keep the cash flowing is a valid critique of his character. It’s strange that the same people who (rightfully) criticize Trump for his authoritarianism turn a blind eye when Zelenskyy feeds Trump’s ego just to keep a proxy war going that is costing American citizens billions and costing Ukrainian citizens their lives via forced conscription.

Everytime conscription Zelensky speaks he’s saying nice things about Trump, and then Russia attacks because praising Trump shows weakness. And yet he avoids any criticism by the left like goddamn magic or something.

Venezuela was doing substantially better the last couple of years, and the sanctions do have a significant impact on their economic stability. Is it really fair to criticize someone for not being very successful when you go out of your way to steal their money & prevent them from making it?

What most people fail to see, is that this has less to do with oil (not entirely, but less than I think most realize) and more to do with a failing “free-market” US strategy & trying to assert the capitalist oligarchy. What do neocons fear the most? Socialist-democratic countries succeeding. Also, let’s not forget that almost no one is talking about Epstein now.

Yeah, I can agree with that part. That the current admin is doing everything they can to stipple speech including deporting people critical of their Israel first policy. Unfortunately, I still see a lot of mods on here that are pro-censorship & leftists claiming we should censor people we don’t like, not realizing it will be used against them.

At least for now, I am still substantially better off than most people in Iran. There is substantially more rain & water where I live as well. I get what you’re saying though.

A loving God or Gods wouldn’t care if people worshiped or believed in them. They would only evaluate people based on whether they made moral choices & the experiences they had endured when making those decisions. Nor would they send anyone to hell for eternity.