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.

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.

You will never get an actual answer from this crowd

False dichotomy. We can disarm Iran without this haphazard brutal and lethal chaos.

Please explain.

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.

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.

It's not good for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. That's why we had an agreement in place, where we (international watchdogs) had literal cameras inside their nuclear facilities and people on the ground to monitor what they were doing, and ensuring that they could not enrich Uranium to be weapon's grade. That was torn up in 2018 (I'll give you one guess as to who), although Iran was abiding by their commitment. Prior to Iran being bombed last year, they moved their radioactive material out, and we no longer even know where they have them. We finally got them back to the table and there was a negotiated settlement on the horizon, that would have prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and we bombed them while they were in the middle of the negotiations.

So this is not some grade school 'If Iran shouldn't have nukes, we should bomb the hell out of them', as the administration appears to have believed. What has happened is that Iran knows now that the US is not to be trusted, and is therefore MORE likely to develop a weapon than they were prior to February 28th. Not to mention, we took out their leader who was against a nuclear Iran, taking out another hurdle from Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Actually disarming Iran is not going to be achieved by bombing them or sending in missiles to hit their military positions. It's going to involve boots on the ground, and significant commitment to a war that will likely last decades and cost billions, not to mention, thousands of lives of our military personnel. This is why previous presidents, and leaders of other nations have stayed away from Iran. It's a quagmire.

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.

There is NO evidence they had nukes or were going to launch missiles at the USA. They were compromising and ready to offer a deal March 2.
If we want to remove the nuclear material (highly enriched uranium, can’t be used for nukes in current form), we’d have to go in and take extreme risks to move it.
Iran is allied with Russia, china, and North Korea, which DO have nukes.
Can’t really pull out of this now, with 13 countries actively involved.
Trump has unleashed a monster that can’t be controlled.

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.

You will never get an actual answer from this crowd

False dichotomy. We can disarm Iran without this haphazard brutal and lethal chaos.

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.

You will never get an actual answer from this crowd

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound wealthy and out of touch.

I think op is neither, truth is we may have to suffer a bit to get the trump zombies to finally wake up. If we all have to pay $100+ to fill our tanks, it may finally get them to rethink their alliance to the cult. It’s worth it to me.

A 100 dollar ding hits differently to those on the lower economic echelons of society.

YEP. So yeah, let MAGA Billy Wayne who works his hourly job have to miss work because he doesn't have $100 to fill up his gas guzzling Ford 150. That is the pain he should feel. Billy Wayne needs to know that his choice at the voting booth has consequences and he should feel those consequences.

industry's*

"The healthcare and pharmaceutical industry does the same."

I mean, there's a reason Luigi has millions who support him. The healthcare industries death count is far greater than his.

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP! Hope they stay strong.
Spain and china the best so far, with Spain saying trump violated international law (adding to Venezuela violation) and china giving reparations to parents of little girls trump killed.

China should give reparations for the deaths of millions of kids in their OWN country caused by THEM

Anonymous wrote:He’s mentally ill. We’re in grave danger.

Pete Hegseth is far scarier. There's no way he didn't love the idea of Muslims school girls being killed by a "crusader" missile.

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.

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.

Excellent point. AIPAC is a problem. But they are only one facet of the overall problem. The healthcare and pharmaceutical industry does the same. The gun lobby.

So many large lobbying groups have an absolute stranglehold on our politicians, ensuring nothing of value is ever done to help consumers, and everything is done to preserve and increase the profits of these companies.

The fact that our politicians and their votes are openly up for sale is the real problem. They do not and have not represented us for a long time. There is no correlation between what the average American wants and what actually gets legislated.

Americans largely agree on issues of abortion. We largely agree on issues of gun control. The polling shows this. Our voting records show this. But none of that matters in the face of millions of dollars up for grabs for whomever is willing to sellout their constituents, which is pretty much every single elected official regardless of whether they have a D or an R after their name.

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.