|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 01 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote:
We think this is demonstrative of Trump understanding the value of unpredictability in game theory (Madman theory) or thinking "game theory" are just two stupid words jammed together by "libtards" like "affordability crisis"?
Because avoiding global nuclear annihilation is sorta dependent on the former while most signs point to the latter.
On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
Learned my lesson on this after thinking Bush was bad enough. Democrats went on to lose like 1000+ seats nationally. Then Trump took over.
|
On April 01 2026 01:51 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it. Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug also saying that after you completely misread what the situation was about, in a great display of intelligence, here you are trying to sound smart We're well past policing third term jokes when we already have ones on airstrikes and hoping the next assassin has better aim. Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? Honestly, geography surrendered the Hormuz strait to Iran. It's been the center point of any tactical planning for a war against Iran for I don't know how long. They possess it until somebody's willing to spend the money and military losses to wrest it away from them.
Just a reminder that Trump said, no one saw it coming.
Operationally at the military level there was clearly some great planning and execution. At the strategic level, it’s a bunch of morons with no idea what’s going on. Trump is like a high school kid trying to do his presentation on a book he never read. And somehow he is fooling a fair number of Americans. The whole thing is so frustrating.
|
On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread.
The levels of delusion are breath taking.
They won but just the other day they destroyed a half a billion AWAC plane parked on the tarmac.
They are completely defeted and their capabilities are completely degraded but they can somehow, still launch (and even launch more then they did a week before) a bunch of missiles and drones at US allies:
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-30-2026/
Also, very famously in chess, when you want to get out of a situation and the opponent completely blocks you from resolving it (strait of Hormuz) the winning move is to yell at allies that they should help you unblock it.
Oh, also, when you are winning bigly you usually take one of the 2 of your most powerful pieces out of the theater due to "toilet issues" and "laundry fire".
This is how winning looks like folks, according to the geopolitical expert and master strategist oBlade, famous for his "strait is open you just need to turn off your transponder when crossing" brilliant strategy.
|
On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
You have to much faith in the American electorate. An insurrection didn't move the needle, why would another war in the middle east?
|
The war is over, we blew up their missile factory.
As if Ukraine hasn't spend the last 3 years building drones in a burned out garage.
|
The January 6 insurrection did move the needle, people just forgot about it by 2024.
I hope the next Democratic president will have learned that if they don't pull out of Iran before the end of January 2029, Republicans will spend literally the entire term calling them warmongers.
|
On April 01 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:We think this is demonstrative of Trump understanding the value of unpredictability in game theory (Madman theory) or thinking "game theory" are just two stupid words jammed together by "libtards" like "affordability crisis"? Because avoiding global nuclear annihilation is sorta dependent on the former while most signs point to the latter. Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
Learned my lesson on this after thinking Bush was bad enough. Democrats went on to lose like 1000+ seats nationally. Then Trump took over.
yes. that was the aftermath of the economy melting down and people falling for Republicans dumping their own failings on a brand new black guy in power. and Democrats predictably not pushing back and more importantly having the profiteurs and creators shouldering the costs of the 08' Financial Crisis.
choosing to bail out the bank yet evicting the home buyer in the same fucking position - unable to pay their obligations - brought us Trump and a rise in world (right wing for the most part) wide populism.
On April 01 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
You have to much faith in the American electorate. An insurrection didn't move the needle, why would another war in the middle east?
faith in their intelligence might be misplaced, hope in their self preserving skills should not be underestimated though. maybe selfishness is the better word though.
|
On April 01 2026 02:16 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote: We think this is demonstrative of Trump understanding the value of unpredictability in game theory (Madman theory) or thinking "game theory" are just two stupid words jammed together by "libtards" like "affordability crisis"? Because avoiding global nuclear annihilation is sorta dependent on the former while most signs point to the latter. On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
Learned my lesson on this after thinking Bush was bad enough. Democrats went on to lose like 1000+ seats nationally. Then Trump took over. yes. that was the aftermath of the economy melting down and people falling for Republicans dumping their own failings on a brand new black guy in power. and Democrats predictably not pushing back and more importantly having the profiteurs and creators shouldering the costs of the 08' Financial Crisis. choosing to bail out the bank yet evicting the home buyer in the same fucking position - unable to pay their obligations - brought us Trump and a rise in world (right wing for the most part) wide populism. Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
You have to much faith in the American electorate. An insurrection didn't move the needle, why would another war in the middle east? faith in their intelligence might be misplaced, hope in their self preserving skills should not be underestimated though. maybe selfishness is the better word though. They re-elected Trump.
They have no self preservation skills.
|
On April 01 2026 01:51 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it.
Launchers are also conventional weapons to try and stop the DPRK from falling too far behind the South's miraculous development and now wildly superior air force by having artillery and also rocket forces. The DPRK launched a satellite before the ROK also on the back of Chinese/Russian solid fuel rocket technology. But the nuclear know-how came from far-away Pakistan. That was actually the seed for all the practical nuclear proliferation problems we have now. The seed for the political problem is swathes of people in Western countries believing the world needs to get nuclear weapons to protect itself from the West.
On April 01 2026 02:01 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread. The levels of delusion are breath taking. They won but just the other day they destroyed a half a billion AWAC plane parked on the tarmac.
Geeze that's pretty bad news for the war... Iran literally blew up an American AWACS plane on the tarmac, and America still hasn't blown up a single Iranian AWACS plane in the air OR on the tarmac.
You read in the news that Iran blew up a parked AWACS plane, did you also read what the allies have destroyed in Iran? Or was that section too many words to bother.
Their "capabilities" are not "completely" degraded. But there's a limit to the point there. In April 1945 Germany did not have a chance of like oh maybe turning it around. You can post this until you are blue in the face, no matter how much you hate Trump, Iran's not going to defeat him for you.
|
On April 01 2026 02:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:51 dyhb wrote:On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance.
Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security.
Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you.
When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it. Launchers are also conventional weapons to try and stop the DPRK from falling too far behind the South's miraculous development and now wildly superior air force by having artillery and also rocket forces. The DPRK launched a satellite before the ROK also on the back of Chinese/Russian solid fuel rocket technology. But the nuclear know-how came from far-away Pakistan. That was actually the seed for all the practical nuclear proliferation problems we have now. The seed for the political problem is swathes of people in Western countries believing the world needs to get nuclear weapons to protect itself from the West. Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 02:01 Jankisa wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread. The levels of delusion are breath taking. They won but just the other day they destroyed a half a billion AWAC plane parked on the tarmac. Geeze that's pretty bad news for the war... Iran literally blew up an American AWACS plane on the tarmac, and America still hasn't blown up a single Iranian AWACS plane in the air OR on the tarmac. You read in the news that Iran blew up a parked AWACS plane, did you also read what the allies have destroyed in Iran? Or was that section too many words to bother. Their "capabilities" are not "completely" degraded. But there's a limit to the point there. In April 1945 Germany did not have a chance of like oh maybe turning it around. You can post this until you are blue in the face, no matter how much you hate Trump, Iran's not going to defeat him for you.
In 1945 Germany had 2 armies coming from West and East with millions of men converging on their capital, today, after one month of bombardment by 2 technologically superior opponents Iran has full control of it's territories including maintaining their control of the Strait of Hormuz, giving it tremendous leverage.
You are the only person here (I sure hope the other centrists come to back you up tho) who regurgitates the absolutely idiotic "we already won" bullshit, you are so delusional that you think that you can claim "this is a different regime" when the main guy is literally the son of the old guy, this shit might be the stupidest thing you ever tried to claim here, and that's saying something.
This is your brain on Trump ladies and gentlemen, I can't help but laugh.
|
United States43781 Posts
On April 01 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:
You are the only person here (I sure hope the other centrists come to back you up tho) who regurgitates the absolutely idiotic "we already won" bullshit, you are so delusional that you think that you can claim "this is a different regime" when the main guy is literally the son of the old guy, this shit might be the stupidest thing you ever tried to claim here, and that's saying something.
This is your brain on Trump ladies and gentlemen, I can't help but laugh.
Our enemy the Ayatollah Khamenei has been defeated. Unfortunately our current foe, the much younger and angrier Ayatollah Khamenei, remains at large. I remain a strategic genius.
|
Not only is the son probably thirsting to avenge his father, he was already more of a hardliner. The father wrote a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons inherently contrary to Islamic morality. The son was pushing to get nuclear weapons even despite that. Literally zero benefit whatsoever to this guy becoming the Supreme Leader.
|
United States43781 Posts
On April 01 2026 02:50 LightSpectra wrote:
Not only is the son probably thirsting to avenge his father, he was already more of a hardliner. The father wrote a fatwa declaring the use of nuclear weapons inherently contrary to Islamic morality. The son was pushing to get nuclear weapons even despite that. Literally zero benefit whatsoever to this guy becoming the Supreme Leader.
They killed his wife. They killed his teenage son.
|
On April 01 2026 02:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 02:16 Doublemint wrote:On April 01 2026 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2026 01:26 LightSpectra wrote: We think this is demonstrative of Trump understanding the value of unpredictability in game theory (Madman theory) or thinking "game theory" are just two stupid words jammed together by "libtards" like "affordability crisis"? Because avoiding global nuclear annihilation is sorta dependent on the former while most signs point to the latter. On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
Learned my lesson on this after thinking Bush was bad enough. Democrats went on to lose like 1000+ seats nationally. Then Trump took over. yes. that was the aftermath of the economy melting down and people falling for Republicans dumping their own failings on a brand new black guy in power. and Democrats predictably not pushing back and more importantly having the profiteurs and creators shouldering the costs of the 08' Financial Crisis. choosing to bail out the bank yet evicting the home buyer in the same fucking position - unable to pay their obligations - brought us Trump and a rise in world (right wing for the most part) wide populism. On April 01 2026 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On April 01 2026 01:31 Doublemint wrote:
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
You have to much faith in the American electorate. An insurrection didn't move the needle, why would another war in the middle east? faith in their intelligence might be misplaced, hope in their self preserving skills should not be underestimated though. maybe selfishness is the better word though. They re-elected Trump. They have no self preservation skills.
yeah we will see. I am more afraid about people not being able to vote or having their vote counted properly then voters - overwhelmingly - not wanting to throw out Trump with the door at this point.
|
On March 31 2026 20:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 20:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 16:47 Uldridge wrote:
You really sure like to play devil's advocate for the devil that is leader of the Republican party for not being a conservative. Your religion doesn't move me. The US doesn't have a conservative party. It's not the UK. It's the Republican party. Not the conservative party. Trump is even the leader of the Republican party now specifically BECAUSE he is not a conservative. Which I heard all the way through 2016. People were so sick of conservatives that even Republicans elected someone else. This is incorrect. The name of the party is indeed Republican, not Conservative, but Republicans are overwhelmingly conservative, and Trump's presidencies and campaigns have been overwhelmingly aligned with conservative policies. Trump's appeal was being a conservative, anti-establishment outsider (as opposed to originally being part of the political machine). He absolutely ran on being a conservative and has continued to push a conservative agenda. You got your conservative Supreme Court appointees, your conservative Cabinet members, your anti-abortion, your anti-immigration, your anti-environmentalism, your anti-education, your anti-LGBTQ+, your pro-billionaire, your pro-guns, your pro-racism, your pro-sexism, and plenty of other core American conservative values all being pushed by Trump. The red states overwhelmingly voted for him in all three primaries and all three general elections. Trump is a populist. He adopted a platform that included conservative policy priorities to win the primary and get elected. Twice. He will consider most anything if he thinks it will earn him fame and accolades, and he'll reverse on practically anything for popularity, pique, or boredom. Populism. TACO is baked in. He consistently stumbles over conservative explanations for policy that any Obama alum could easily state.
The only two views that Trump's held and not triple-reversed over the years is that America is getting screwed in international trade and that immigration policies are selling out the American worker. They are both populist and protectionist. Only the second overlaps with a mainstream conservative position. The other, not. Gingrich, conservative icon and architect of the Republican party's takeover of the House 1994, was a headliner for NAFTA, and Trump hates it. Conservative publications like the National Review inveighed against him, the famous one being "Against Trump" where most every conservative columnist attacked him for not being a conservative (Breakdown in Politico Magazine from around the time)
Trump's appeal to conservatives within the Republican party was that he'd deliver the core policies if elected, and promised to, not that he was a conservative himself. He donated hundreds of thousands of dollars more to Democrats than Republicans, including Hillary Clinton. He was forced to write out his proposed Supreme Court nominees, because he was regarded as untrustworthy and a squish on conservative policy priorities. The New York, pro-choice Democrat might again switch sides back to liberal moderate as he had been recently!
Republicans had run and lost on conservative policies before, and in the recent past. Democrats were boldly predicting that the Obama coalition had reshaped presidential politics for good. Trump brought in old Democrats that were suspicious of the social conservatives (pro-life, anti-LGBT), but willing to vote for a womanizing pro-choice New York Democrat-turned-Republican that had nothing in common with social conservatives. Trump's victory in 2016 relied on peeling away Obama voters and making them Trump votersThe places where he succeeded, he did so by decent margins. These were not conservatives that identified Trump as a conservative and had voted for McCain and Romney before him. These were Democrats that voted for Obama instead of conservatives and Trump appealed to them in ways that conservatives did not. His message (however wrong) was that of a non-ideological businessman and pragmatist, and from there railing against all that was wrong in America.
This is just a matter of understanding history. All the chaos and clown show and decline of soft power was born out of the populist and transactional methods that Trump did and sold to the Republicans and then to the American people. If you try to shove him into a mold that he doesn't fit, you've lost your grasp on history and will lose your ability to understand what's happening in present day.
|
On April 01 2026 02:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:51 dyhb wrote:On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:
[quote]
He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance.
Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security.
Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you.
When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it. Launchers are also conventional weapons to try and stop the DPRK from falling too far behind the South's miraculous development and now wildly superior air force by having artillery and also rocket forces. The DPRK launched a satellite before the ROK also on the back of Chinese/Russian solid fuel rocket technology. But the nuclear know-how came from far-away Pakistan. That was actually the seed for all the practical nuclear proliferation problems we have now. The seed for the political problem is swathes of people in Western countries believing the world needs to get nuclear weapons to protect itself from the West. Launchers, sanction evasion, and financing for a nuclear crackpot power on its border is still the exception from both China and Russia "don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons." Russia, probably, and at least currently. China, no. They tolerate it if its the right apeshit neighbor. The reasons include the past communist friend and ally, and to continue to serve as a bulwark against South Korea.
I don't find much wrong with the rest here. NK is the example against nuclear proliferation, and it shouldn't be forgotten as other nations just as crazy as it seek their own weapon.
|
Trump is the Lie-Atollah Republicans crave and ultimately deserve.
|
On April 01 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 02:22 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:51 dyhb wrote:On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
"Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals.
Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members.
Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking.
[quote]
I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it. Launchers are also conventional weapons to try and stop the DPRK from falling too far behind the South's miraculous development and now wildly superior air force by having artillery and also rocket forces. The DPRK launched a satellite before the ROK also on the back of Chinese/Russian solid fuel rocket technology. But the nuclear know-how came from far-away Pakistan. That was actually the seed for all the practical nuclear proliferation problems we have now. The seed for the political problem is swathes of people in Western countries believing the world needs to get nuclear weapons to protect itself from the West. On April 01 2026 02:01 Jankisa wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you.
You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread. The levels of delusion are breath taking. They won but just the other day they destroyed a half a billion AWAC plane parked on the tarmac. Geeze that's pretty bad news for the war... Iran literally blew up an American AWACS plane on the tarmac, and America still hasn't blown up a single Iranian AWACS plane in the air OR on the tarmac. You read in the news that Iran blew up a parked AWACS plane, did you also read what the allies have destroyed in Iran? Or was that section too many words to bother. Their "capabilities" are not "completely" degraded. But there's a limit to the point there. In April 1945 Germany did not have a chance of like oh maybe turning it around. You can post this until you are blue in the face, no matter how much you hate Trump, Iran's not going to defeat him for you. In 1945 Germany had 2 armies coming from West and East with millions of men converging on their capital, today, after one month of bombardment by 2 technologically superior opponents Iran has full control of it's territories including maintaining their control of the Strait of Hormuz, giving it tremendous leverage.
Iran has no control of its airspace, has almost full control of the land territory of Iran that its enemy doesn't want, and for the moment has most oil tankers on both sides of some international waters it's close to lined up and waiting.
On April 01 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:
You are the only person here (I sure hope the other centrists come to back you up tho) who regurgitates the absolutely idiotic "we already won" bullshit, you are so delusional that you think that you can claim "this is a different regime" when the main guy is literally the son of the old guy, this shit might be the stupidest thing you ever tried to claim here, and that's saying something.
This is your brain on Trump ladies and gentlemen, I can't help but laugh.
2003 and 1990 were not part of the same "regime" in the United States just because one leader was the son of the other.
Or if you think that's an important issue, when the next guy ends up clearly not being from the same family, you'll be here confirming oh I guess it's a new regime after all? Doubt.
The Kims form a dynasty in North Korea but the Kim Il Sung regime is different than Kim Jong Un's.
As far as I know we don't know that Mojtaba Khamenei is still breathing. And whether alive or not you just personally have no idea what the power structure looks like in the country now, you're simply not capable of thinking wide enough beyond the fact that the newspaper said he was named the new leader. With some 50 of the other top clerical and political and security figures blown up, whatever the currently operating regime is, is different than it was 2 months ago. Now the "regime" in the sense of the entire overall system is not as different as to the degree it was between Pahlavi and the Ayatollahs. Obviously. The "regime" with Mojtaba is not a night and day revolution over that of his totally innocent non-nuclear martyred father. But arguing that someone implied that would just be childish equivocation based around intentionally missing the point so you could shitpost more, and I know you wouldn't do that. Perhaps more accurately we could say the regime is changing, as you kind of have to keep power (and your life) for some reasonable length of time to be considered to have ever been "in" power.
|
United States43781 Posts
Trump literally spelled out what he meant by regime change and it’s not the thing that you’re saying it is.
|
I keep editing because all these arguments are so stupid I have to come back and note that, "Iran has no control over its airspace", interesting, does that also mean Ukraine is completely defeated?
Not sure what the oil tanker comment even meant, China is getting it's oil just fine, I even posted about it a few weeks ago, it hasn't stopped, and now it's official that "friendly countries" can pass.
oBlade is going in to the "Putin is dead and they are showing his body double" levels of cope, bravo buddy, you are so brainwashed you could start a course on Trump sane washing.
Last regime change in Iran was in March 1979, when Islamic Republic referendum officially replaced the Pahlavi dynasty with the first Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who after his death was replaced by Ali Khamene, who, after his death was replaced by Mojtaba Khamenei.
The military wing of the Islamic resolution, IRGC has also not been replaced as the primary holders of power in Iran.
In order for anyone with a shred of honesty to be able to claim that a regime change occured in Iran, these 2 institutions would need to be replaced by enacting a different form of goverment and/or with IRGC laying down arms.
This is how real world works, but feel free to live in the fantasy world firmly lodged inside your Supreme Leaders anus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/fn6ikq5baesg1.png)
