re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread

quote:

---

Both pledge to reach a final agreement within 60 days, extendable.

---

If this draft is true, then Iran will drag this out forever. Trump will let them get away with it until the cows come home. That Qatari investment will make sure of that. And we will acquiesce Qatar's bribery for what? Money they will use to undermine our institutions and society just like they have done with all the western nations that have got into bed with them.

Want to know why France and the UK are shite holes overrun with muslim migrants now? Qatari money is why. They and Iran feed this never ending Islamic Jihad against the west. The other muslim nations are in on it too but not at the level Qatar and Iran are. We have climbed into the bed with the enemy and we will act shocked and horrified when they stab us in the back while we sleep.

I pray that draft is not true, otherwise we have only strengthened our adversary 10 times over in the end. Western leaders still can't see the forest through the trees when it comes to Arabs and Islam.

quote:

---

Talk about convenient. Being the party of violent obstructionism is convenient. You initiate the violence. President faces your violence with violence he's a dictator. He moves on to get the job done elsewhere, he's a spectator. Meanwhile, your violent followers try repeatedly to assassinate him and shortcut the process, even before he's elected. You indicted him before he ever started, which leads to strained arguments like this one where you pretend he had choices which would've satisfied your demands and obviated this debate. The problem is that your firmly stated "opinions" aren't opinions at all, they're left wing anti-Trump dogma. It's a cliche at this point, but you can save yourself a lot of time by just typing OMB.

---

You’re still doing it. To your credit, you're probably too far gone to even be aware of it at this point. Every paragraph is some version of “Trump promised X, failed at X, but failure doesn’t count because the people opposed to X opposed him.”

On Covid, you’ve now reduced Trump from “alpha leader who alone could save America from the swamp” to “poor schmuck had no choice but to do whatever the medical bureaucracy told him.” Fine. Then just say that. But don’t sell me the man as a unique wrecking ball against the establishment and then, the second the establishment wins, tell me he was merely being rational by giving in and obeying them.

Also, nobody said he had to “fire everyone and hire a yes-man.” That’s your fake binary again. There were choices between total surrender to Fauci-world and full crank-show rebellion. Better personnel, clearer messaging, less panic amplification, more skepticism toward indefinite restrictions, refusing to let briefings become Fauci/Birx theater, etc. Trump didn’t just “listen to experts.” He made them the public face of his response, then later wanted credit for opposing the very same bullshite he elevated.

On DOGE and tariffs, “judges blocked him” is not the magic eraser you think it is. If the policy is legally solid, defend it through a coherent legal strategy. If it isn’t, then the announcement was theater. Either way, the pattern remains: big announcement, immediate resistance, blame everyone else, move on.

You keep saying “leftist judges” like that answers the competence question. It doesn’t. Were hostile courts predictable? Yes or no? If yes, why wasn’t the plan built to survive them? If no, why are we pretending this administration has a coherent vision, plan, or path forward about anything?

On ICE, again, you present two choices: either agents fight a street war while outnumbered, or Trump redirects and claims victory elsewhere. Again with the lazy bullshite binary with different lipstick. Federal enforcement has planning, staging, coordination, resources, arrests, prosecutions, public messaging, follow-through, and escalation options short of “bloodbath.” If you can't even fathom any of them I don't know what to tell you.

And “you would have criticized him anyway” is just emotional insurance. It lets you declare every outcome a win. If he pushes and fails, enemies blocked him. If he backs down, he was wise. If he contradicts himself, he was negotiating. If he abandons the promise, it was never realistic and you were stupid for taking him literally. There is no standard there. It’s fandom.

And that makes you a simple fanboy.

The funniest part is you think “OMB” saves you. It doesn’t. “Orange man bad” is what you type when you run out of ways to explain why Orange Man keeps promising things he can’t execute.

So I’ll ask it again:

Was he elected to beat the bureaucracy, courts, media, and hostile local governments?

Or was he elected to explain why they were too powerful to beat?

Because you're still arguing the second one while pretending it proves the first.

This is good and I agree with all of it, but i would bet my life that this is entirely AI-written. Way too much “not this but that,” “emotional insurance” is too clever, and the complexity of the dual concluding hypotheticals bow-tied with a “not that but this” has an overwrought elegance to it beyond any chat forum I’ve ever seen.

quote:

---

If we agree to this then Trump will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history.

---

Everything Obama did for Iran will pale in comparison to this disaster

I'm about to go to sleep

I can't wait for the spin when I wake up

Can y’all take this to the slam poetry board?

quote:

---

As for Covid, Trump was perfectly rational, and he made the right decisions. He's not a physician, or a virologist, or an epidemiologist or a researcher. He's a president and every president has to rely on the opinions of others, and let them take the lead in explaining things when the situation warrants.

---

So the defense is that the establishment was too powerful, the experts had to be trusted, the courts were too hostile, the bureaucracy was too entrenched, local officials were too obstructive, and Trump “tries.”

Fine. Then just say that. Your standard is not competence. Your standard is good intentions and a message you like.

Your position is “Trump fails often, exaggerates constantly, hires badly, overpromises, and folds when resistance gets real, but I still prefer him to Democrats,” that is at least coherent, I'll give you that.

And your own post is full of the same vague abstractions you accuse me of using. “He tries.” “He made things better when possible.” “He’s more rational than the alternatives.” “The establishment is the wrecking ball.” Those are not defensible positions. Those are platitudes.

I’m judging him by the promises he made.

You’re judging him by whether he made the right enemies and occasionally tried something you liked.

That’s fandom. You're a fan. And MAGA is a fanbase, not a movement.

In any case, wrong thread for this, so you can have the last word.

I think Trump had to get the price of oil down and the oil flowing. We are approaching tank bottoms all over the world.

I’m not sure what happened with the people not rising up, but it didn’t happen fast enough before oil was getting ready to spike hard.