President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
We are literally in the "Project 2025 writers are here to intact the wrath of god" portion of the administration and people are still talking about the bloodthirsty libs
I think U.S. involvement in WW2 was justified. Other than that, can't think of much. "Pure evil"? No, I don't think I even believe in such a concept.
Any cursory reading of U.S. history lays out a massive collage of death and other horrors inflicted upon innocents. Sadly, you and most people won't even attempt said cursory reading.
We live in a brutal world.
We told you the project 2025 writers were absolute psychopath nutjobs that were going to turn the US into a white nationalist christofascist state and so far we were 100% spot on and you still have nutters muttering about the libs
We told you the project 2025 writers were absolute psychopath nutjobs that were going to turn the US into a white nationalist christofascist state and so far we were 100% spot on and you still have nutters muttering about the libs
Nothing is gonna change the nutty/neurotic/beta lib narrative.
The only reason Trump is bombing Iran is Israeli strikes were successful and Trump wants credit for kicking Iran's teeth in/stopping Iran's nuclear program.
And how he's going to proceed needs to be viewed through that lens.
He will bomb, maybe once or two more, and claim victory over the tiniest concessions from Tehran. Then blame everyone else when those concessions inevitably turn out to be a load of BS.
It's how he operated vis-a-vis Xi, Kim, Putin, and everyone else (including Trudeau). It's his "art of the deal": all the credits (including fake and imaginary gains) to him and all of the costs/harms to everyone else.
We do know that Iran has a uranium enrichment programme well beyond the requirements for civil nuclear power, and that when Gabbard said in March that they aren't building a bomb right now, she just meant they aren't building a bomb right now, because they don't yet have 90% enriched uranium. When she said the other day that they could have a bomb within weeks, she was just 'reading the words on the card'. Obviously they couldn't. They have to get a sufficient stock up to 90% first. But as soon as the IAEA found them in breach of their non-proliferation treaty obligations they announced that they would install more centrifuges at secret locations, presumably to reach weapons-grade faster.
The process for enriching uranium to make civil nuclear energy and a nuclear bomb is broadly the same. It is generally accepted that uranium enriched to 3.67% is sufficient for civil nuclear energy, while purity levels of 90% are required for a nuclear weapon. Once purity levels reach 60%, as in the case of Iran, it is not a lengthy process to proceed to 90%.
We don't know to what extent they have the design expertise to produce a functional implosion warhead light enough for their ballistic missiles to carry. We have to assume they are working on it. But for now their enrichment programme may be chiefly political. What they're annoyed about is Trump reneging on the Obama deal that lifted significant sanctions on Iran, and Biden failing to reinstate it. If that's what the Iranians get from the US when they behave, they may be inclined to try misbehaving for a bit to see if the Americans will buy them off again. Although they may be lying and they may just want a bomb.
Iran, of course, argues there is no mystery why it has enriched to these high levels of purity. It was part of a clearly signalled staged escalatory response to Donald Trump unilaterally pulling the US out of the JCPOA in 2018 – an act that that had deprived Iran of the sanctions relief it had negotiated. Moreover, Trump, by imposing secondary sanctions, made it impossible for Europe to trade with Iran, the second planned benefit of the JCPOA.
Iran’s politics as a result for the past decade has been shaped by the sense that it was the wronged partner, and the US confirmed as inherently untrustworthy.
Centrist figures such as the former president Hassan Rouhani and the foreign minister Javad Zarif expended huge internal political capital to sign a deal with the west, and the west promptly reneged on it. Meanwhile, Israel, a country that is not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty – unlike Iran – and which has a totally unmonitored and undeclared nuclear weapon, receives largesse and support from the west.
We don't know to what extent they have the design expertise to produce a functional implosion warhead light enough for their ballistic missiles to carry. We have to assume they are working on it. But for now their enrichment programme may be chiefly political. What they're annoyed about is Trump reneging on the Obama deal that lifted significant sanctions on Iran, and Biden fai
By all accounts (IAEA mainly), Iran was complying with JCPOA until Trump withdrew from the deal (basically because he couldn't take credit for it) and then failed to get another deal.
I think people forget that nuclear warhead tech is nearly a century old at this point, with most of the technologies and even schematics of the Little Boy in the public domain. If all else fails, Iran could just rain raidoactive uranium dust all over Tel-Aviv anyway.
The relative lack of sophistication required for a nuclear warhead (at least of the fission variety) is why anti-proliferation efforts have always focused on the acquisition of weapons grade plutonium/uranium. Once you got the nuclear fission material, the building of the bomb is relatively trivial.
By all accounts (IAEA mainly), Iran was complying with JCPOA until Trump withdrew from the deal (basically because he couldn't take credit for it)
The Iranians could have carried on, since the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia and the EU remained on board, but, once the US resiled, they didn't, even though the EU passed a measure negating US sanctions in regard to EU countries. The EU has its own sanctions in place, but it's possible that the Iranians are not entirely in good faith and are using the admittedly poor behaviour of the US as a get-out clause.
Nobel Prize coming soon
We do know that Iran has a uranium enrichment programme well beyond the requirements for civil nuclear power, and that when Gabbard said in March that they aren't building a bomb right now, she just meant they aren't building a bomb right now, because they don't yet have 90% enriched uranium. When she said the other day that they could have a bomb within weeks, she was just 're
And once they do have a potential nuke , they need to build reliable launching system etc .
Not voting is a vote for Trump, and it also means you shouldn't whine.
Your tears are quite salty. You should cut back on your sodium intake before your feet can't fit into your shoes.
I would have voted for Trump so it's all good.
When did I whine?
How do you know my tears are salty. That's creepy!
this smug superiority mantra from the left that you never hear from the right is specifically pushing moderates to the right
"we're so obviously better that not actively supporting us is the same as actively voting for the other party" just reeks of out of touch delusional libtardation
it also represents a number of logical fallacies, mostly moral blackmail and false dichotomy
this smug superiority mantra from the left that you never hear from the right is specifically pushing moderates to the right
"we're so obviously better that not actively supporting us is the same as actively voting for the other party" just reeks of out of touch delusional libtardation
it also represents a number of logical fallacies, mostly moral blackmail and false dichotomy
saying that people are pushing moderates to the right also screams of smug superiority fyi.
I would just sort of laugh it off though to assume that mong would vote for Kamala if he had voted is hilarious.
in his case it would be “not voting was a vote for Kamala” because he probably preferred Trump anyhow
i mean, they are?
We are literally in the "Project 2025 writers are here to intact the wrath of god" portion of the administration and people are still talking about the bloodthirsty libs
would it make you feel better if they said it was for gay rights or whatever instead like the dems do?
We told you the project 2025 writers were absolute psychopath nutjobs that were going to turn the US into a white nationalist christofascist state
already was, has been for a long time. enjoy arbys
saying that people are pushing moderates to the right also screams of smug superiority fyi.
I would just sort of laugh it off though to assume that mong would vote for Kamala if he had voted is hilarious.
in his case it would be “not voting was a vote for Kamala” because he probably preferred Trump anyhow
no this is exactly my point
it's the "you're either with us or against us" mantra that doesn't make sense in this case ie no chance mong votes for kamala so him not voting is not a "vote for trump" but rather "a vote for kamala"
it mostly comes from "we are evenly split politically and we're the only legitimate party" and it's more of a 20/20/60 breakdown and both parties are objectively terrible
I wasn’t around for the white nationalist christofascism of the Obama administration ig
no this is exactly my pointit's the "you're either with us or against us" mantra that doesn't make sense in this case ie no chance mong votes for kamala so him not voting is not a "vote for trump" but rather "a vote for kamala" it mostly comes from "we are evenly split politically and we're the only legitimate party" and it's more of a 20/20/60 breakdown and both parties are ob
it’s my assessment that if you have a preference of one candidate or another, you are reducing the chance of the candidate you prefer winning by not voting for anyone, especially if you loudly encourage others to do so as well. I think that’s the origin of the expression he’s using.
otoh if someone has a preference for Trump then actually we prefer them to not vote if we have a preference for Kamala.
if you have no preference then of course not voting makes sense, I just find it hard to believe and think Trump is so much more volatile that if you are someone who somehow has no preference, you should still prefer the less volatile candidate and live to fight another day.
Imagine thinking americas two party system wasn't a real dichotomy.
