I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

No one was been overwhelmingly elected since Bush 41

YouBet said:

---

I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

---

You don't see how an explanation of how the law you are relying upon is unconstitutional is relevant?

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Trump's Dementia (sorry Diminished Mental Capacity) Thread and post your evidence of this decline.

Personally, my observation is that both his intellect and his elbows are sharpening. Beware.

BTW, from Grok+:

Quote:

---

Diminished mental capacity in older people is most commonly referred to in medical contexts as dementia (when severe enough to interfere with daily life) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (when milder and not yet disrupting independence).

---

---

Cool we can call it MCI if you're more comfortable with that verbiage.

With only moderate respect, you're not seeing what others are seeing.

---

It's at least somewhat more accurate (if you can prove it - feel free to).

It's simply TDS and/or frustration with his style to claim dementia.

---

I lived in NYC for over a decade working on trading desks. My wife did Big Law. My wife and I cuss like ****ing sailors. The language and style doesn't phase me one bit. It's the messaging and context. I'm aware enough to differentiate.

---

See my post above. Once you factor the political and legal realities and the timeline with known deadline for current events, then his messaging and context make more sense.

Y'all are ignoring reality around him.

---

What political realities and timelines do you mean?

---

Proving my point.

Legal: He had 60 days when he started this to get it done. He requires Congress to go any further as of around May 1. I realize many on here do not want to acknowledge that reality and/or think it doesn't mean anything, but his timelines and frequent comments about wrapping this up are directly in line with that 60 days.

Political: the populace can turn on you on a dime when it comes to war making and he could (already has?) hampered mid-term chances for R's.

---

I don't think that 60 days is as absolute as you're painting it. The WPA has always been viewed by presidents of both parties as an unconstitutional intrusion on his role as CIC. Of course, Congress sees it differently, and the Supreme Court has never explicitly weighed in on it. I generally align with the WPA because I believe war funding and war-making are shared responsibilities between Congress and the president. But he can buy some time beyond that 60 days without formal Congressional approval, especially with both chambers controlled by his party. He'll be under pressure for sure to wrap it up sooner than later. I just don't think the 60-day mark on the calendar is an absolute.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

When you see how stupid the President that America overwhelmingly elected is we have to ask ourself, how stupid are we? Our founding fathers wouldn't claim us.

---

But enough about Joe Biden.

---

Biden sucked. Trump sucks. Obama sucked. They're all just paid actors that don't represent the middle class. They represent corporations.

I'm not naive enough to think that voting Red or Blue will ever make a difference.

Quote:

---

Not even Obama publicly said "Praise be to Allah" while President!

---

FIFY

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

One of the beauties of this president is you always know what he's thinking, and he posts it directly to the world and you know it's him.
Except when he doesn't and a rogue staffer posts on his account that we've been told is only him posting. I'm betting this will be one of those times.

---

If a rouge staffer can post to an account that could theoretically start WWIII then there are serious issues.

YouBet said:

---

I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

---

He's become basically a policy adviser to the president

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

---

You don't see how an explanation of how the law you are relying upon is unconstitutional is relevant?

---

It's not until ruled so. Right or wrong. Fair or not.

YouBet said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

---

You don't see how an explanation of how the law you are relying upon is unconstitutional is relevant?

---

It's not until ruled so. Right or wrong. Fair or not.

---

And it won't be ruled on. So unless this Congress is going to impeach him, the "60 day deadline" has as much teeth as a nursing home hooker!

MemphisAg1 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Trump's Dementia (sorry Diminished Mental Capacity) Thread and post your evidence of this decline.

Personally, my observation is that both his intellect and his elbows are sharpening. Beware.

BTW, from Grok+:

Quote:

---

Diminished mental capacity in older people is most commonly referred to in medical contexts as dementia (when severe enough to interfere with daily life) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (when milder and not yet disrupting independence).

---

---

Cool we can call it MCI if you're more comfortable with that verbiage.

With only moderate respect, you're not seeing what others are seeing.

---

It's at least somewhat more accurate (if you can prove it - feel free to).

It's simply TDS and/or frustration with his style to claim dementia.

---

I lived in NYC for over a decade working on trading desks. My wife did Big Law. My wife and I cuss like ****ing sailors. The language and style doesn't phase me one bit. It's the messaging and context. I'm aware enough to differentiate.

---

See my post above. Once you factor the political and legal realities and the timeline with known deadline for current events, then his messaging and context make more sense.

Y'all are ignoring reality around him.

---

What political realities and timelines do you mean?

---

Proving my point.

Legal: He had 60 days when he started this to get it done. He requires Congress to go any further as of around May 1. I realize many on here do not want to acknowledge that reality and/or think it doesn't mean anything, but his timelines and frequent comments about wrapping this up are directly in line with that 60 days.

Political: the populace can turn on you on a dime when it comes to war making and he could (already has?) hampered mid-term chances for R's.

---

I don't think that 60 days is as absolute as you're painting it. The WPA has always been viewed by presidents of both parties as an unconstitutional intrusion on his role as CIC. Of course, Congress sees it differently, and the Supreme Court has never explicitly weighed in on it. I generally align with the WPA because I believe war funding and war-making are shared responsibilities between Congress and the president. But he can buy some time beyond that 60 days without formal Congressional approval, especially with both chambers controlled by his party. He'll be under pressure for sure to wrap it up sooner than later. I just don't think the 60-day mark on the calendar is an absolute.

---

I believe he still gets 30 days to wind down even if not given the green light at 60 days so in that regard, correct. My main point here is that many are just wholesale ignoring this reality as if it has zero bearing on matters. His timeline is clearly aligned to the 60 days and his statements indirectly reflect that.

As we get closer to end of month and if this thing isn't being wrapped up, it will become the national story, obviously. It's obvious leverage for Democrats and you will have several Republicans who jump ship and side with them on this.

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I don't follow Mark Levin and I'm not sure how relevant he is to this issue other than being a talking head.

---

You don't see how an explanation of how the law you are relying upon is unconstitutional is relevant?

---

It's not until ruled so. Right or wrong. Fair or not.

---

And it won't be ruled on. So unless this Congress is going to impeach him, the "60 day deadline" has as much teeth as a nursing home hooker!

---

We may find out.

Find out what?

Im Gipper said:

---

Find out what?

---

How much teeth it has.

Ag CPA said:

---

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

One of the beauties of this president is you always know what he's thinking, and he posts it directly to the world and you know it's him.
Except when he doesn't and a rogue staffer posts on his account that we've been told is only him posting. I'm betting this will be one of those times.

---

If a rouge staffer can post to an account that could theoretically start WWIII then there are serious issues.

---

If you think a tweet will start WWIII then you're not a serious person.

YouBet said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Trump's Dementia (sorry Diminished Mental Capacity) Thread and post your evidence of this decline.

Personally, my observation is that both his intellect and his elbows are sharpening. Beware.

BTW, from Grok+:

Quote:

---

Diminished mental capacity in older people is most commonly referred to in medical contexts as dementia (when severe enough to interfere with daily life) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (when milder and not yet disrupting independence).

---

---

Cool we can call it MCI if you're more comfortable with that verbiage.

With only moderate respect, you're not seeing what others are seeing.

---

It's at least somewhat more accurate (if you can prove it - feel free to).

It's simply TDS and/or frustration with his style to claim dementia.

---

I lived in NYC for over a decade working on trading desks. My wife did Big Law. My wife and I cuss like ****ing sailors. The language and style doesn't phase me one bit. It's the messaging and context. I'm aware enough to differentiate.

---

See my post above. Once you factor the political and legal realities and the timeline with known deadline for current events, then his messaging and context make more sense.

Y'all are ignoring reality around him.

---

What political realities and timelines do you mean?

---

Proving my point.

Legal: He had 60 days when he started this to get it done. He requires Congress to go any further as of around May 1. I realize many on here do not want to acknowledge that reality and/or think it doesn't mean anything, but his timelines and frequent comments about wrapping this up are directly in line with that 60 days.

Political: the populace can turn on you on a dime when it comes to war making and he could (already has?) hampered mid-term chances for R's.

---

I don't think that 60 days is as absolute as you're painting it. The WPA has always been viewed by presidents of both parties as an unconstitutional intrusion on his role as CIC. Of course, Congress sees it differently, and the Supreme Court has never explicitly weighed in on it. I generally align with the WPA because I believe war funding and war-making are shared responsibilities between Congress and the president. But he can buy some time beyond that 60 days without formal Congressional approval, especially with both chambers controlled by his party. He'll be under pressure for sure to wrap it up sooner than later. I just don't think the 60-day mark on the calendar is an absolute.

---

I believe he still gets 30 days to wind down even if not given the green light at 60 days so in that regard, correct. My main point here is that many are just wholesale ignoring this reality as if it has zero bearing on matters. His timeline is clearly aligned to the 60 days and his statements indirectly reflect that.

As we get closer to end of month and if this thing isn't being wrapped up, it will become the national story, obviously. It's obvious leverage for Democrats and you will have several Republicans who jump ship and side with them on this.

---

It will create political pressure on him to wind it down, no doubt. But he can push it out a bit further also with all kinds of explanations for why he's doing it.

As a practical matter, if Congress wanted to enforce the WPA they would either have to sue him -- claiming he's breaking the law -- or pass a new law specific to this conflict making clear that war is not authorized and will be immediately defunded.

Neither of those things are happening in the current environment. If a suit was filed, the SC would likely stay on the sidelines and slow-play it to see if the disagreement settles itself. They do not want to be the arbiter in a power struggle between Congress and the president if they can avoid it. And if Congress tried to pass a new law, Trump would veto it, and there's not a 2/3 majority that would override it.

Caveat... my context here is the current environment. If something happens that escalates this to a level that is hugely unpopular with US voters, Congress would get much tougher, much quicker, and force him to end it, one way or the other.

Quote:

---

If a suit was filed, the SC would likely stay on the sidelines and slow-play it to see if the disagreement settles itself

---

Court would 100% stay out of it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

CanyonAg77 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Checks notes, yep. I can confirm that Allah and the Holy Father of Jesus are one and the same. Hope people don't find out the Jews have the same god. Could be problematic for the anti-Jew Christian segment that seems to be on this rise.

---

No, he is not the same.

---

Yes he is.. Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient: Poster needs to read Thomas Aquinas.

https://www.amazon.com/Theologica-Complete-Unabridged-Thomas-Aquinas-ebook/dp/B003T9V9A4/ref=sr_1_4?sr=8-4

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

If a suit was filed, the SC would likely stay on the sidelines and slow-play it to see if the disagreement settles itself

---

Court would 100% stay out of it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine

---

For a while, but not forever, especially if it became hugely unpopular with Americans and their elected representatives in Congress passed a veto-proof law demanding an end.

All of that could happen within a few days if the stakes were high enough.

Right now, they're not. And hopefully we don't get there.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

tysker said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Take it to the Trump's Dementia (sorry Diminished Mental Capacity) Thread and post your evidence of this decline.

Personally, my observation is that both his intellect and his elbows are sharpening. Beware.

BTW, from Grok+:

Quote:

---

Diminished mental capacity in older people is most commonly referred to in medical contexts as dementia (when severe enough to interfere with daily life) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (when milder and not yet disrupting independence).

---

---

Cool we can call it MCI if you're more comfortable with that verbiage.

With only moderate respect, you're not seeing what others are seeing.

---

It's at least somewhat more accurate (if you can prove it - feel free to).

It's simply TDS and/or frustration with his style to claim dementia.

---

I lived in NYC for over a decade working on trading desks. My wife did Big Law. My wife and I cuss like ****ing sailors. The language and style doesn't phase me one bit. It's the messaging and context. I'm aware enough to differentiate.

---

See my post above. Once you factor the political and legal realities and the timeline with known deadline for current events, then his messaging and context make more sense.

Y'all are ignoring reality around him.

---

What political realities and timelines do you mean?

---

Proving my point.

Legal: He had 60 days when he started this to get it done. He requires Congress to go any further as of around May 1. I realize many on here do not want to acknowledge that reality and/or think it doesn't mean anything, but his timelines and frequent comments about wrapping this up are directly in line with that 60 days.

Political: the populace can turn on you on a dime when it comes to war making and he could (already has?) hampered mid-term chances for R's.

---

I don't think that 60 days is as absolute as you're painting it. The WPA has always been viewed by presidents of both parties as an unconstitutional intrusion on his role as CIC. Of course, Congress sees it differently, and the Supreme Court has never explicitly weighed in on it. I generally align with the WPA because I believe war funding and war-making are shared responsibilities between Congress and the president. But he can buy some time beyond that 60 days without formal Congressional approval, especially with both chambers controlled by his party. He'll be under pressure for sure to wrap it up sooner than later. I just don't think the 60-day mark on the calendar is an absolute.

---

I believe he still gets 30 days to wind down even if not given the green light at 60 days so in that regard, correct. My main point here is that many are just wholesale ignoring this reality as if it has zero bearing on matters. His timeline is clearly aligned to the 60 days and his statements indirectly reflect that.

As we get closer to end of month and if this thing isn't being wrapped up, it will become the national story, obviously. It's obvious leverage for Democrats and you will have several Republicans who jump ship and side with them on this.

---

It will create political pressure on him to wind it down, no doubt. But he can push it out a bit further also with all kinds of explanations for why he's doing it.

As a practical matter, if Congress wanted to enforce the WPA they would either have to sue him -- claiming he's breaking the law -- or pass a new law specific to this conflict making clear that war is not authorized and will be immediately defunded.

Neither of those things are happening in the current environment. If a suit was filed, the SC would likely stay on the sidelines and slow-play it to see if the disagreement settles itself. They do not want to be the arbiter in a power struggle between Congress and the president if they can avoid it. And if Congress tried to pass a new law, Trump would veto it, and there's not a 2/3 majority that would override it.

Caveat... my context here is the current environment. If something happens that escalates this to a level that is hugely unpopular with US voters, Congress would get much tougher, much quicker, and force him to end it, one way or the other.

---

Considering his statements almost show desperation to end this thing, I'm betting he's going to look for reasons to end it so he can avoid a confrontation at home over this.

It also amuses me to see people who will yell "TACO" at the drop of a hat, yet somehow think he will brazenly tell Congress and the populace to pound sand and continue attacking Iran if bold becomes reality. Can't have it both ways.

Yes, forever. The Court will NEVER touch this question.

YouBet said:

---

Considering his statements almost show desperation to end this thing, I'm betting he's going to look for reasons to end it so he can avoid a confrontation at home over this.

It also amuses me to see people who will yell "TACO" at the drop of a hat, yet somehow think he will brazenly tell Congress and the populace to pound sand and continue attacking Iran if bold becomes reality. Can't have it both ways.

---

Yeah, separate from the WPA debate, I agree he's looking for an end to it. He's the consummate deal-maker, and if he can check-the-box on setting back Iran's ability to harm others for many years and also reopen the strait, I bet he would take that deal in a NY minute.

And that wouldn't bother me a bit as long as we truly defang Iran and build a real alliance in the Persian Gulf that will keep them on a short leash going forward.

doubledog said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Checks notes, yep. I can confirm that Allah and the Holy Father of Jesus are one and the same. Hope people don't find out the Jews have the same god. Could be problematic for the anti-Jew Christian segment that seems to be on this rise.

---

No, he is not the same.

---

Yes he is.. Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient: Poster needs to read Thomas Aquinas.

https://www.amazon.com/Theologica-Complete-Unabridged-Thomas-Aquinas-ebook/dp/B003T9V9A4/ref=sr_1_4?sr=8-4

---

The Moon God is not the God of Judaism and Christianity

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, forever. The Court will NEVER touch this question.

---

Do not agree. Two words that fail when people use them... "always" and "never."

There are many scenarios that would force the Court to get involved.

None of them are realistic today, but that can change faster than you expect.

GMaster0 said:

---

He's not well. Each rant is getting more unhinged and seems to be going into the dark place.

I had to go check his account to verify that this was indeed a real "truth."

---

"He's not well."

Just now figuring that out? Comfy rock?

MemphisAg1 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Considering his statements almost show desperation to end this thing, I'm betting he's going to look for reasons to end it so he can avoid a confrontation at home over this.

It also amuses me to see people who will yell "TACO" at the drop of a hat, yet somehow think he will brazenly tell Congress and the populace to pound sand and continue attacking Iran if bold becomes reality. Can't have it both ways.

---

Yeah, separate from the WPA debate, I agree he's looking for an end to it. He's the consummate deal-maker, and if he can check-the-box on setting back Iran's ability to harm others for many years and also reopen the strait, I bet he would take that deal in a NY minute.

And that wouldn't bother me a bit as long as we truly defang Iran and build a real alliance in the Persian Gulf that will keep them on a short leash going forward.

---

Exactly.

DukeMu said:

---

"Praise be to Allah" from POTUS was not on my Easter Bingo Card or Polymarket wagering.

Add in a little - let's commit war crimes like Putin and terrorist nations!

25th Amendment now.

---

Literally Hitler!

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, forever. The Court will NEVER touch this question.

---

Do not agree. Two words that fail when people use them... "always" and "never."

There are many scenarios that would force the Court to get involved.

None of them are realistic today, but that can change faster than you expect.

---

Respectfully, you don't know much about the Supreme Court if you think they would ever rule on what power the president has as commander in chief. It's just not going to happen.

Spell out a scenario where the court would get involved other than chief serving in an impeachment trial.

Im Gipper said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Yes, forever. The Court will NEVER touch this question.

---

Do not agree. Two words that fail when people use them... "always" and "never."

There are many scenarios that would force the Court to get involved.

None of them are realistic today, but that can change faster than you expect.

---

Respectfully, you don't know much about the Supreme Court if you think they would ever rule on what power the president has as commander in chief. It's just not going to happen.

Spell out a scenario where the court would get involved other than chief serving in an impeachment trial.

---

The courts have already ruled in many cases that the president's authority as CIC isn't absolute. Just look it up with an AI engine and type in " in what cases have the courts ruled that makes clear the president's role as commander in chief isn't absolute?"

I'm not going to debate this one with you any further. I agree the likelihood of the court getting involved in this issue today is essentially zero, but there are plenty of scenarios where that can change quickly.

2008and1 said:

---

Let's not just delete the quote by the president of the United States. This isn't just some random post on social media.

Quote:

---

Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the ****in' Strait, you crazy *******s, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah

---

---

Gotta say, Trump praising Allah was not on my BINGO card for this, or any year.

Strange days indeed.

Quote:

---

The courts have already ruled in many cases that the president's authority as CIC isn't absolute. Just look it up with an AI engine

---

My apologies! I assumed you had a clue what we were discussing. Have your ChatGPt explain the political question doctrine to you.

So many Dems are bitter that we rescued the pilot. This thread is evidence