I really hope the rest of the world stays strong against Trump

[Anonymous]

First Trump says we need our allies to help secure Hormuz, now he says we never needed them in the first place. He is truly a first rate idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s this simple: Is it good for anybody for Iran to get nukes?

If you answer “no,” then support Trump.

If you answer “yes,” please explain who benefits.

If your political calculus is always this reductive and stupid, I can see why you would support Trump.

No explanation for your views. That means you have none.

Why would I offer you an explanation? You presented a black and white binary as though support for Trump, specifically the way the administration is handling this conflict, is the only possible solution.

It's reductive and I think you know that. And you've shown no genuine curiosity in considering other possibilities or perspectives. So I ask again, why would I waste my time trying to convince you of anything? Do you think I really care if you understand or agree with my reasoning for my views? I think you're a moron. Your opinion means nothing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s this simple: Is it good for anybody for Iran to get nukes?

If you answer “no,” then support Trump.

If you answer “yes,” please explain who benefits.

If your political calculus is always this reductive and stupid, I can see why you would support Trump.

No explanation for your views. That means you have none.

Why would I offer you an explanation? You presented a black and white binary as though support for Trump, specifically the way the administration is handling this conflict, is the only possible solution.

It's reductive and I think you know that. And you've shown no genuine curiosity in considering other possibilities or perspectives. So I ask again, why would I waste my time trying to convince you of anything? Do you think I really care if you understand or agree with my reasoning for my views? I think you're a moron. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Honestly, you're giving that PP too much credit when you say, "It's reductive and I think you know that." I'm quite certain that person doesn't even know what the word means. They don't have complex thoughts. Other than that, I agree with you. Their opinion, and anyone like them, means nothing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

I see AIPAC mentioned frequently by disgusted Americans who can't help but acknowledge the connection between a large campaign funding source and an obvious imbalance in foreign policy that favors Israel. AIPAC is one of many large political donating entities and AIPAC's total of funds donated is a relatively small percentage of the total funds raised during each election cycle.

I can't help but wonder if the average American who now understands the problematic relationship between mega-donor, politician, and policy output due to AIPAC and our foreign policy understands that there are many other policies structured in a manner that prioritizes mega-donor interests over the interests of the American people. AIPAC serves as a good example because of the policy impact being so obvious but it is important for everyone calling attention to AIPAC to understand that the oversized support of Israel is just one example of how corruption via campaign finance taints just about every policy decision our Federal Government makes while ruining the credibility of most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

AIPAC is responsible for $8T in American debt for just the past 25 years, 1000s of casualties of war, and 30,000 veterans taking their own life. Stop minimizing the J lobby by lumping it in with other things. If Kent's letter is not convincing enough, read Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, Sachs, or a host of other people. They've been saying it for over 50 years. Look up FARA and JFK if you want to know how big an issue it was even back then.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone please honestly answer one question:

Do you think this war wouldn't have started had Kamala been our president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can anyone please honestly answer one question:

Do you think this war wouldn't have started had Kamala been our president?

I don’t believe it would have started. Obama had a nuclear deal, remember? And we wouldn’t have had Kushner and friends looking to profit off the Middle East.

This is a beast of Trump’s own creation. You need to own that and accept it if you’re ever going to learn from your mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

I see AIPAC mentioned frequently by disgusted Americans who can't help but acknowledge the connection between a large campaign funding source and an obvious imbalance in foreign policy that favors Israel. AIPAC is one of many large political donating entities and AIPAC's total of funds donated is a relatively small percentage of the total funds raised during each election cycle.

I can't help but wonder if the average American who now understands the problematic relationship between mega-donor, politician, and policy output due to AIPAC and our foreign policy understands that there are many other policies structured in a manner that prioritizes mega-donor interests over the interests of the American people. AIPAC serves as a good example because of the policy impact being so obvious but it is important for everyone calling attention to AIPAC to understand that the oversized support of Israel is just one example of how corruption via campaign finance taints just about every policy decision our Federal Government makes while ruining the credibility of most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

AIPAC is responsible for $8T in American debt for just the past 25 years, 1000s of casualties of war, and 30,000 veterans taking their own life. Stop minimizing the J lobby by lumping it in with other things. If Kent's letter is not convincing enough, read Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, Sachs, or a host of other people. They've been saying it for over 50 years. Look up FARA and JFK if you want to know how big an issue it was even back then.

The negative impact of AIPAC lobbying isn't being minimized in any way when someone points out the fact that all entities lobbying on behalf of Israel could be removed from the equation and our political system would still be very corrupted by money and in need of massive reform. Americans finally acknowledging this problem is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

They tried to "destroy" Mamdani, yet he magically overcame all this pressure from both parties and soared to the top. There is no way they wouldn't have succeeded if they really dreaded his presence in the Gracie Mansion. How woefully naive. His political stance regarding Middle East is irrelevant on the large scale as he has no power on the international arena anyway.

And he has been buddying up to Trump on multiple occasions, he never stood up to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

I see AIPAC mentioned frequently by disgusted Americans who can't help but acknowledge the connection between a large campaign funding source and an obvious imbalance in foreign policy that favors Israel. AIPAC is one of many large political donating entities and AIPAC's total of funds donated is a relatively small percentage of the total funds raised during each election cycle.

I can't help but wonder if the average American who now understands the problematic relationship between mega-donor, politician, and policy output due to AIPAC and our foreign policy understands that there are many other policies structured in a manner that prioritizes mega-donor interests over the interests of the American people. AIPAC serves as a good example because of the policy impact being so obvious but it is important for everyone calling attention to AIPAC to understand that the oversized support of Israel is just one example of how corruption via campaign finance taints just about every policy decision our Federal Government makes while ruining the credibility of most politicians on both sides of the aisle.

AIPAC is responsible for $8T in American debt for just the past 25 years, 1000s of casualties of war, and 30,000 veterans taking their own life. Stop minimizing the J lobby by lumping it in with other things. If Kent's letter is not convincing enough, read Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, Sachs, or a host of other people. They've been saying it for over 50 years. Look up FARA and JFK if you want to know how big an issue it was even back then.

The negative impact of AIPAC lobbying isn't being minimized in any way when someone points out the fact that all entities lobbying on behalf of Israel could be removed from the equation and our political system would still be very corrupted by money and in need of massive reform. Americans finally acknowledging this problem is a good thing.

It absolutely is minimizing AIPAC's singular focus of Israel First policies even if it means the destruction of America. The Israel lobby exists to advocate entirely for a foreign country yet doesn't have to register under FARA. AIPAC is S-tier in political influence. Other lobbies such as petro and pharma are only A-tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can anyone please honestly answer one question:

Do you think this war wouldn't have started had Kamala been our president?

I don’t believe it would have started. Obama had a nuclear deal, remember? And we wouldn’t have had Kushner and friends looking to profit off the Middle East.

This is a beast of Trump’s own creation. You need to own that and accept it if you’re ever going to learn from your mistakes.

Your religious beliefs are strong.

Trump wasn't needed to bankroll the war in Ukraine, they are all the wings of one bird.

If Kamala won, the war might have started a year ago, she didn't need a year to "prepare" her constituents as her campaign never promised to stop the wars The complex behind her is the same one behind Trump with minor variations of various connected individuals profiting. The only difference is how this is implemented/sold to the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no fan of Trump, but really you should hope for a rapid conclusion to this, OP. The longer it goes on, the more innocent people will suffer.

The only way it will have a rapid conclusion is for Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment. Actually, I can see Vance and Rubio working surreptitiously to do just this because both are smart enough to know if this war of choice continues it destroys their political future.

If this was really going to happen, the timing would be tricky. Remove him before the midterms (and this requires a 2/3 vote in Congress) then the base won't turn out to vote. But if the Democrats take back the House and Vance becomes president, Speaker Jeffries would refuse to allow the VP vacancy to be filled.

Why do you think that? We need a second in command. Of course people in both parties want that, even if it's someone they don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can anyone please honestly answer one question:

Do you think this war wouldn't have started had Kamala been our president?

I don’t believe it would have started. Obama had a nuclear deal, remember? And we wouldn’t have had Kushner and friends looking to profit off the Middle East.

This is a beast of Trump’s own creation. You need to own that and accept it if you’re ever going to learn from your mistakes.

Your religious beliefs are strong.

Trump wasn't needed to bankroll the war in Ukraine, they are all the wings of one bird.

If Kamala won, the war might have started a year ago, she didn't need a year to "prepare" her constituents as her campaign never promised to stop the wars The complex behind her is the same one behind Trump with minor variations of various connected individuals profiting. The only difference is how this is implemented/sold to the masses.

How about you try and operate in reality, thinking about and having thoughtful discussion about what IS happening NOW. what's the use of entertaining your opinion about what might have happened if the other candidate had won? It's absurd. Quit with the whataboutism. The reality at this very moment is we are suddenly in a dangerous war that was waged by one mentally ill mad king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

They tried to "destroy" Mamdani, yet he magically overcame all this pressure from both parties and soared to the top. There is no way they wouldn't have succeeded if they really dreaded his presence in the Gracie Mansion. How woefully naive. His political stance regarding Middle East is irrelevant on the large scale as he has no power on the international arena anyway.

And he has been buddying up to Trump on multiple occasions, he never stood up to him.

The Dem est. refused to endorse him. They endlessly pushes for Cuomo. God, you Dems are pathetic. Even now, you can't look in the mirror for why Harris lost.

And the NYC mayor's job is not to stand up to the President of the US when he's trying to get federal funds for NYC. It was supposed to be Schumer and Jefferies' job. Instead, Schumer probably got his first hard on from this war since the last one w/ the Gaza genocide started and Jefferies...poses w/ a bat. Imagine having the nerve to act like it's Mamdani's job to do what is the job of Dem leadership.

[Anonymous]

pushed*

And the mealymouthed endorsement from Jeffries was garbage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 'both sides' and 'Dems support Iran" trolls are so pathetic.

It is and they do, and your refusal to open your eyes to reality is what is pathetic. The two parties have aligned themselves against the interests of the average American. Their differences lie only in their rhetoric and methodology. The democrats get nothing of substance done to help us and republicans actively hurt us. But please understand, they both ultimate service corporate and wealthy interests.

Dems tried to get health insurance for millions of people; Rs blocked it.

I'm a former R, and IMO, Dems are less of a threat to the American people and our democracy compared to today's Rs.

The Dems are feckless because the only time they're ever seen as an alternative is not based on what they actually get done, but by the Reps being an absolute catastrophe.

One of the most popular Dems who ACTUALLY wants to work for America is Mamdani (within weeks, free childcare) and the establishment Dems tried to destroy him (because he refused to stick his head up Isr's ass) and they tried to get a literal sexual predator who used bigotry as his campaign platform and killed the elderly in nursing homes, because they prioritize ISRAEL. "Vote blue no matter who...unless they call out the genocidal foreign monsters we actually serve."

Until Schumer and Jefferies are thrown the hell out of leadership, the Dems will remain unpopular. They are evil and they do not serve America. Chuck tells you himself w/o shame. It is progressive candidates at the local level who are getting votes. Maine is a perfect example of how destructive establishment Dems are. They back the AIPAC candidate. If you don't serve Isr, establishment Dems try to destroy your campaign. That is the one issue that determines if you will actually work for Americans and establishment Dems are traitors who do not. Republicans will get there when the older ones die off, because the younger ones don't want to listen to Ted Cruz sound like Chuck Schumer telling everyone who he actually serves. I mean the nerve to say it out loud.

They tried to "destroy" Mamdani, yet he magically overcame all this pressure from both parties and soared to the top. There is no way they wouldn't have succeeded if they really dreaded his presence in the Gracie Mansion. How woefully naive. His political stance regarding Middle East is irrelevant on the large scale as he has no power on the international arena anyway.

And he has been buddying up to Trump on multiple occasions, he never stood up to him.

Trump is a useful idiot. It’s his entire reason to exist. Why is Mamdani not allowed to also leverage same tool as everyone else?

Jesus, Trump even even tried to dress like him the next day! He dog walked Trump.