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

@greatJaromie said ^

Even fox news has walked out on him, wow - I've seen some unpopular presidents but nothing ever approaching this universally despised in my life. Everyones tired of them raking our name through the mud and having nothing to show for it

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/6104722-trump-approval-low-gop/

not only the majority of the commonsense American people will be excited, but the whole World would be celebrating the fall and jailing of this mf.

(But before this happens, the total destruction keeps on going!! The USA is already a heap of shards! It's practically GONE!

@Noflaps

"And I've done no "cherry picking.""

Oh, come on. You argued that “Gas prices aren't even all that high right now”, then supported that by taking the stance of 'well, look at this one outlier data point! It's lower than the all-time high!'

Absurdity is subjective. Perhaps you think you've not said anything absurd.

Just as you have the right to say bizarre things, I have the right-- if not duty-- to point out the absurdity of claims. In fact, that premise has helped humanity. If they had a guy who said "You know what? The idea of us drinking all this poisoned Kool-Aid is pretty damn wacky" at Jonestown, there would be a lot fewer dead cultists.

@kipel73 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

oh yeah, he's such a delicate and sensitive little flower ha ha ha

Sorry man, at this you ypu might as well make up you think he promised a magic uniorn to not mention it.

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

• 408.6 kg UF6 is not much and 60% is not highly-enriched.

"highly-enriched Uranium, to that extent, doesn't REMOTELY seem necessary for peaceful energy production"

• There are other peaceful applications, like breeding isotopes for medical applications.
  A Venera spacecraft to Venus even carried a nuclear reactor with 90% weapons grade uranium at 90%.

"It's not that far from 90 percent"

• 60% is far from 90%. Isotope separation becomes easier towards 50% and then becomes harder again towards 100%, as any purification process. It makes engineering and economic sense to separate to 50-60%.

"could be turned into 90 percent rather quickly"

• No, it is hard to reach 90%, and even then it is hard to turn it into a nuclear weapon.

"And what does everybody think long range, intercontinental missiles carry, typically? Dynamite?"

• Iran has no long range intercontinental missiles. It can at most reach Diego Garcia or Cyprus.
  Yes, the missiles that reached Diego Garcia and Cyprus carried conventional explosives.

"why do they need to lob dynamite at Diego Garcia?"

• Because the USA bombed Iran from the air base at Diego Garcia.

"if Iran didn't insist on things that they don't really appear to need"

• Iran gave up those things under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and accepted limitations and inspections.
  Then Trump withdrew from the JCPOA. Then Iran no longer felt bound by it either.

"Why lose an air force and a navy"

• Because the USA and Israel attacked them.
  Likewise why did Ukraine lose its air force and navy? Because Russia attacked them.

@garlic_bread_rucola said ^

orry man, at this you ypu might as well make up you think he promised a magic uniorn to not mention it.

rephrase?

@kipel73 said ^

orry man, at this you ypu might as well make up you think he promised a magic uniorn to not mention it.

rephrase?

it's 110% unbelievable that Trump would cease mentioning the "assasination attempt" because he's too sensitive about it.

ANYTHING he thinks he can benefit from he will talk about endlessly.

So if it was real, he would mention it in pretty much every situation and at every rally.

@Noflaps said ^

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?

Sorry but this comparison is just ... lol

USA attacked Iran unprovoked. Out of nowhere.

This has nothing at all to do with WWII.

For the low educated, when USA entered WWII the war had been going on for years, 10s of millions were dead, like 10 countries occupied, the world was in chaos and USA had been attacked itself in Pearl Harbour.

Comparing this to USA just starting to bomb Iran on a random quiet night is just ....

USA is wrecking the economy of the entire world for no reason. Comparing that to WWII haha.

USA is the aggressor here. USA initiated the war and Iran is defending.

"USA is the aggressor here. USA initiated the war and Iran is defending."

• Israel and the USA.
  The June 22, 2025 could be said to be about uranium enrichment, as the uranium enrichment facilities were the target.
  The war since 28 February 2026 is clearly about something else: 'grab their oil', or keep Netanyahu in power and out of jail.
  I suspect Israel forced the USA into the war.
  For the June 22, 2025 attack the USA is the only country that has the bombs and the bombers to attack underground facilities with conventional weapons. I suspect Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons if the USA did not participate.
  I suspect that such nuclear blackmail then was used a second time to drag the USA in the 28 February 2026 attacks too.

It baffles me how some can cling to positions contrary to the evidence.

So, I "cherry picked," did I?

Well, unless there ARE cherries, they can't be picked!

But somehow, if we call SEVERAL pieces of data (that I already mentioned in a post above) "cherry picking" -- in other words, just assign a dismissive LABEL to the data so we can dismiss it rather than actually think about it -- it becomes possible to tell ourselves that we are still right if we don't like what the data suggests!

By the way, I could have offered still more "cherries" ! For example, a gigantic new steel mill and a brand new mine are being opened in America soon, creating a large number of jobs and building up an industry important for national security. Those who are blithely dismissive might want to consider the effects of tariffs on the incentive to build that gigantic new mill IN AMERICA -- but I suppose that such consideration might not occur. It's easier just to dismissively label the plant as a "cherry" and decide that nothing I point out matters.

Oh, and here's yet another cherry! It was recently reported that more people currently are employed in America than at any other time in history. So apparently record numbers of people are employed, and at the highest average real wage in history, but that's just a "cherry" that need not be considered? Oh. Well, should we just make a pie, instead?

In any event, the "cherries" I am alleged to have "picked" DO INDEED seem to show that the American Economy is doing pretty damned well -- even if those who don't like Trump find that inconvenient and just don't want to think about it. Nobody likes cognitive dissonance, and everybody likes to think their own judgment is complete and unerring.

And as for "high oil prices" it was reported yesterday that during the terms of Biden and Obama, oil prices were more than 100 dollars per barrel about 1,000 days. Let that sink in, rather than just say "oooh, that's, like, a cherry."

But the reporting went on: during both of Trump's terms, so far, oil prices had been above 100 dollars per barrel only 67 days. Contrast that number -- it's not even close.

And by the way, during Obama's term Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine, so even THAT pat attempt to simply dismiss data rather than acknowledge it rather oversimplifies, too.

But don't believe any of this -- it's not necessary to take my word for anything -- this stuff CAN be researched if we really want to know. Of course, it's easier just to mutter "cherry picking" and avoid confronting the data at all. That might be the best way to hang on to a preexisting opinion.

If all these "cherries" are things your favorite news sources haven't reported, I'd wonder why! But I won't hold my breath waiting for such wondering to become widespread.

"during Obama's term Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine"

• But Trump I made a deal that Russia could do whatever it wanted in Ukraine in exchange for the USA doing whatever it wanted in Venezuela. Crimea was already invaded in 2014.