this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
307 points (97.2% liked)

People Twitter

7494 readers
834 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

I wish cat turd would suck himself off in private, this is pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 hours ago

Didn't Trump basically go on social media and say I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN 2 WEEKS! And then trucks were seen leaving the nuclear sites?

Anyone know the timeline?

[–] [email protected] 101 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

For anyone else who was confused by the screenshot:

Cat turd said there were no leaks and Democrats didn't know.

Then, as soon as trump said it was the Democrats fault somehow, cat turd did a 180 and says the Democrats are traitors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 36 minutes ago

Oh, I thought he was calling Trump treasonous, cause how could uninformed democrats leak information. But having head about catturd your explanation makes more sense.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago

Nah, he was always blaming the Dems. The first tweet says there wasn’t a leak because the Dems didn’t know- implying that if they had known, then it would have leaked.

The second one is him confirming what he already thought based on Trump’s accusation.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I read that as sarcasm. "Well of course Trump now blames the Democrats."

[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 hours ago

It's not. The guy is a Trump sycophant.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 13 hours ago

Well at least his username made sense!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Why would an opposing party be briefed on an ongoing military operation?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Bipartisan committees are there for this but they weren't briefed, secdef wasn't even briefed.

Let me ask you something, why wouldn't they?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I get why they would be briefed after the operation, but before and during seems like an unneeded security concern

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's been protocol for something like 80 years or something like that ever since those two big wars. It's because we have interests everywhere that not everyone is aware of so networking is necessary so we can be prepared for consequences before they happen because reacting afterwards unprepared is generally much more costly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago

Then there's that whole pesky legal thing where the president is not allowed to start wars without Congressional approval...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 hours ago

In a functioning democracy that would be a quite natural act.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 12 hours ago

Seems natural that they should. After all, they may be the ones that would have to clean up the mess in the future.

And also because this operation may lead to incoming war, which cannot be legally declared without congress aproval, even if they don't have the majority.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It's like reading an AI's first post. Catturd types like there is an important point to amplify with wisdom, but all the words have 0 impact. Probably has something to do with the commentary being over an orange manchild throwing feces around to see what sticks... again.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago

I'd call him a repeater if I were to name him something, much like Dim Tool and Candace Owens. Their only job is to appeal to different people with a different image but with the same message.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

My bet is on tulsi, but the administration is so pervasively infiltrated by Russian assets and hegseths drunk texts that it could be any number

[–] [email protected] 28 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

leaked (about failure)

perfect flight

These two can't be true at the same time. But who cares?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Well, the flying planes were a beauty to behold!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 15 hours ago

Are they calling Hegseth a Democrat, at least inadvertently?

[–] [email protected] 82 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

I was trying to figure out if Catturd had changed sides, then I remembered I don’t give a fuck.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

I don't know the schmuck and I'm going to keep it that way. Sounds not to relevant either way.

I mean what's in a name?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 12 hours ago

Apparently the screenshot is to be read as Catturd proudly proclaiming that democrats weren't even briefed, so they could not have leaked anything.
But when Trump said a few days later that democrats leaked information, Catturd still immediately accepted that as truth.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago

Same here. He had some in-group fighting and drama going on a while back that threw me off. I was only hoping the other side wouldn't coopt this asshole when clicking through.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Sounds like I’m glad I don’t know who that is.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Huge MAGA nut. Will go the grave praising him for all time. Trump could personally cut his dick off, and he would thank him in a tweet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 hours ago

Almost certainly being bankrolled by someone.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

You certainly should be. Name suits him.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 15 hours ago

If anything, it's not repulsive enough.