Whose excited for the party of trump to get swept in the elections? Approval hits historical lo 20s

Have we gotten to the point that horrible decisions will be made as long as it saves us a bit of money or inconvenience?

Does anybody think The Greatest Generation shouldn't have gone to war, since the process was so costly in lives and money? What in the world has happened to people?

Churchill tried to get Britain to see the growing danger in the 1930s. But it had to be almost too late before Churchill won out. Let's not make such mistakes, eh? Even if we have to change our minds or pay a bit more for gas.

And @tpr I don't care about past "agreements" or "plans." That's just a deflection.

The huge enrichment and the long-range missiles were REAL. And such things aren't created in merely a few days.

In the 1930s, before the invasion of Poland, Britain had an "agreement" with the leaders of Germany, too. So what? Chamberlain came back from Munich happy! Golly, there was an agreement! Giggle.

But paper "agreements" don't always change reality, geopolitically.

Let me say it again, like a mantra, until it can no longer be simply pushed aside: the huge enrichment and the long-range missiles were REAL. So why not just cooperate, and actually get this over with? Especially if such enrichment is no big deal, as some attempt to argue.

@Noflaps said ^

Name calling ("absurd argument") is not the same as quoting actual numbers, @clousems.

Look at the average, inflation adjusted gasoline price in America for 2022, and the average price per barrel of crude oil for the same year.. Track how often and when oil has been above 100 dollars a barrel before. And then check the price right now.

I'm eager to see when you show your "conservati...

(Ignoring the transparent cherry-picking)

First off, the logical fallacy would not have been name calling. I was calling your statement absurd, not the speaker. It was merely an acknowledging of a ludicrous statement, not an argument. I don’t need actual numbers to think “wtf”. I would need them if I was making an argument, but the only argument I made is that your statement was one of the most absurd that I’ve seen on the site.

Second, as for your question about conservativism, the political environment has shifted in such a way that I pretty much no longer align with American conservatives. I like the free market, and oppose trade restrictions. I oppose the meddling of government in unnecessary affairs. I expect decorum and respect from elected officials, and believe that when these officials act respectfully, voters should respect them in turn (even if disagreeing with policies). I expect fiscal responsibility. Those were my main “conservative “ traits.

I guess I still support the death penalty in very specific cases and agree with the overturning of Roe v Wade on legal grounds, though, so there’s that. I might be a judicial conservative

"I don't care about past "agreements".

• That is the core. The whole concern was handled by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Trump withdrew from it.
  It implied limitations and inspections.

"huge enrichment"

• There is no huge enrichment. 60% is nowhere near weapons grade 90%.

"long-range missiles"

• Iran has no long range missiles and can at most strike Cyprus and Diego Garcia.
  The Jericho IV of Israel can strike New York.

"Let me say it again"

• There is neither huge enrichment nor long range missiles.

@garlic_bread_rucola said ^

It has to be fake because Trump never mentions it any more.

if it had been real he would post about it like 20 times per week.

i could see why you would say that. he is bit of a showman.

sometimes it’s better to forget the feeling of almost getting killed

I've written nothing that is absurd or illogical.

And I've done no "cherry picking."

And the point of all this just keeps being dodged by those who seem to deflect from the obvious.

It took a LONG time and a LOT of work to produce that much highly-enriched uranium.

And highly-enriched Uranium, to that extent, doesn't REMOTELY seem necessary for peaceful energy production. So why do it? THAT'S THE POINT.

And please don't just guess or make up a fairy tale. Somebody can try to argue that it's not 90 percent yet -- but, so what? It's not that far from 90 percent, and could be turned into 90 percent rather quickly -- but WHY get anywhere even close? 60 percent is reportedly WAY more than needed for peaceful energy production. Does anybody think getting that close to 90 percent is fine with the United Nations? Why?

And what does everybody think long range, intercontinental missiles carry, typically? Dynamite? Iran needs to be able to lob dynamite at European cities and eventually American? Really?

Oh, sorry, I don't want to avoid a contention: why do they need to lob dynamite at Diego Garcia? I don't see why. I don't think Diego Garcia, about 4,000 kilometers away from Iran, is a threat to them. Does anybody?

This war would apparently be over rather quickly, if Iran didn't insist on things that they don't really appear to need, according to those who wish to claim that highly-enriched Uranium and long-range missiles are no big deal.

So then why insist? Why lose an air force and a navy just to insist on something that's supposedly no big deal? Does that REALLY make sense?

I find it ironic that some are telling me I'm illogical but can't really seem to deal with such questions.

But, in the meantime, others could read "While England Slept" (by Churchill) and "Why England Slept" (by J.F. Kennedy). And think a bit more about the matter.

Oh, and by the way -- has the reader checked American real wage growth and lowered taxes much-improved balance of trade with China and the risen stock market and investment in American business lately? Things appear to be doing surprisingly well! But ... weren't we told by supposed experts that tariffs were just awful and would bring nothing but trouble to the American economy?

Sometimes hidebound notions die hard. And that's hardly an absurd statement. It's not hard to verify with observation.

And Trump isn't president of "the world." He's looking out for his own country and has found leverage and ideas that others didn't previously find. That apparently irritates some one-worlders.

But instead of getting caught up in the mid-term madness, why not think back to 2022 and Biden's term -- and all the real problems America had then. I hope not too many people will be fooled into forgetting and into seizing, instead, on the shiny object of "gas prices" -- which have been WORSE pre-Trump. But don't believe me -- just bother to check!

How soon we forget, eh?

Why do the forum posts about politics have so many posts? Is it because @Noflaps has soo much to say that it doesn't end?

It takes two to tango. I often respond to prevent metaphorical water from being muddied.

Truth is important, and sometimes politics tends to hide the truth.

Without counterargument, we'd live in a little bubble and be fooled routinely. Group think can obscure much that is important.

@Noflaps said ^

Have we gotten to the point that horrible decisions will be made as long as it saves us a bit of money or inconvenience?

Does anybody think The Greatest Generation shouldn't have gone to war, since the process was so costly in lives and money? What in the world has happened to people?

Churchill tried to get Britain to see the growing danger in the 1930s. But it had to be almost too late before...

what is this??

the question is: "whose excited for the party of t.... to get swept in the election..."

not a zero-info-maga-preacher