A whole civilization will die tonight

I believe all of this has already been "asked and answered" in an earlier thread about the "25th Amendment," in which I spent hours calmly discussing it, without insult, without handwringing, without unjustifiable (but scary!) assumptions.

Apparently, the thread was missed by some and is essentially going to start over.

This begins to seem too much like the Augean Stables, where many shall congregate to pass back and forth the same, unchanging, opinions and speculations and fears.

Accusing Republicans of saying anything to win is ... ironic, to say the least. But I'm sure I won't convince anyone of that. So this thread will go on without me.

I hope the thread notifies us all when Trump actually DOES use nukes. Or when Iran doesn't scare its neighbors, or innocents passing through the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz, or even Iranian protestors.

Until then, peace be upon you all, even if I can't nod in response to every angry, media-fed declaration as folks gather and nod to each other.

I'll notice, but forgive in advance, any hurled insults or gasps of outrage directed toward me. But such insults and gasps won't shock or even surprise. We're all trying to do our best to understand, after all, when constantly running up against emotional, partisan and geopolitical hype.

I just wish more of such hype were dependably recognized for what it is, and for how partisan it is, and not mistake it all for undeniable, obvious truth that "everybody, like, knows."

The midterm elections in the U.S. are clearly being held firmly in mind by many influential and obviously partisan public figures. I hope that's taken into account when listening to much that is fevered and damning. No, Trump is not deranged. No, it's not all about the money. I hope most will at least TRY to consider rational counterargument, from time to time.

Iran HAS apparently enriched Uranium far beyond what seems to be the standard, common requirements for peaceful energy production. Is that pondered at all by any who insist that Trump acts without reason? Or is partisan or geopolitical preference leaving too little time or energy for such pondering.

@RomanWalkerCrosby said ^

Republicans said that we should not elect Kamala because she would go to war with Iran, I cannot see why they have no complaints now, it is due to the fact that news stations like FOX do not report the entire truth that people like trump can take office. the democrats are not angels either but the US cannot continue to support rulers like this.

Trump is deranged, Biden was demented, and the MSM is no more than cheerleaders for the pentagon. The republicans are going to get trounced, because they have not fixed the country. But it will be no better under the Dems. Both political parties are simply in for the money.

@garlic_bread_rucola said ^

Republicans said that we should not elect Kamala because she would go to war with Iran, I cannot see why they have no complaints now, it is due to the fact that news stations like FOX do not report the entire truth that people like trump can take office. the democrats are not angels either but the US cannot continue to support rulers like this.

Republicans are just saying whatever they think can make people vote for them.

Now that the war happened they're not like "We're against this war so now wr're angry," They're like like o yeah, this is what we wanted.

They just want the Republicans to win and they're on board with whatever they do - if there's no war it's fine, if there is a war it's also fine.

They have no values apart from "our team needs to win", everything else is just pretending.

You are right but your forgetting that the Dems are also prowar. The one thing both parties agree on, that and payraises for themselves, good healthcare for themselves, with Viagra covered. bipartisanly.

@Noflaps said ^

Until then, peace be upon you all, even if I can't nod in response to every angry, media-fed declaration as folks gather and nod to each other.

I just wish more of such hype were dependably recognized for what it is, and for how partisan it is, and not mistake it all for undeniable, obvious truth that "everybody, like, knows."

No, Trump is not deranged. No, it's not all about the money. I hope most will at least TRY to consider rational counterargument, from time to time.

I find it ironic when you suggest that people need to think more critically about what they see in the media and then just assert that Trump is actually good with little to no explanation

@benseshi writes (apparently with me in mind):

"I find it ironic when you suggest that people need to think more critically about what they see in the media and then just assert that Trump is actually good with little to no explanation"

Oh. I "just assert" that 'Trump is good" ?

Please QUOTE any post you have in mind, where I supposedly "just asserted" that "Trump is good" with no attempt at explanation of my opinions. I look forward to seeing what you have in mind.

And when you say I "just assert" things with "little to no explanation," I can only quickly and easily ask: do you realize how many HOURS and how many (scores! perhaps hundreds!) of paragraphs I've typed, just in the last week or so, to support what I DO write?

For just a small taste of that, why not look to the recent thread about the "25th Amendment" and see if you can find any terse, short statements by me that "Trump is good" with no attempt at explanation. While you're at it, please also try to notice how many several-paragraph explanations of my opinions you DO find.

Of course, to really understand what I write you'll have to read it, carefully. I suppose that might not always be as enjoyable as simply dismissing consideration of what I write.

Are you aware that I've expressly said that I don't agree with Trump about everything, and with respect to some things I'd advise him differently?

Apparently not. Instead, you seem to think that I just write "Trump is good" and don't bother to explain my opinions.

Oh. Fascinating.

Have a nice day, or evening, whichever you are experiencing.

@Noflaps

Looking at one of your comments in that thread, all of the following seems to prove my point (either praising Trump without explanation, or saying that other commenters are wrong or don’t consider your points seriously, as opposed to actually trying to prove yours):

Insult doesn't change Trump's actual words.

Stories about the Empire State Building don't change Trump's actual words.

Sometimes, I begin wonder how much time Trump's critics have spent negotiating a tough deal -- or even spent playing poker!

No matter what Trump does, some who want to take power away from him and his party will find some way to criticize what was >done, often telling themselves (and possibly even believing it), and telling others, that it's the worst thing ever! It's just awful! Oh, no!

But Trump keeps on getting useful results -- even when MANY in the media and online seem determined to disparage him at every >turn.

Sadly, the constant drumbeat of criticism will probably work. I wish we could ask P. T. Barnum to comment upon it. But here's partly >why I think it often works: It takes time and effort to keep abreast of all results and hear both sides of an argument.

So the casually interested, who mostly read internet headlines, or who may even be lectured by people who depend upon >government or nonprofits for their very salary, may often be bombarded over and over with tidbits that don't really paint an accurate >story, even though offered earnestly and in good faith. Trump is skeptical of ever-growing government, wants better oversight of >spending, and likes business -- and at least some of that might not sit well with some who depend upon government or nonprofits for >their salary or grants or whatever.

Indeed, how many will even bother to read this lengthy post? A quick insult of Trump, perhaps in some snappy one-liner, is MUCH >more likely to get read, perhaps. Bumper stickers sell for a reason!

Indeed, Trump is trying to STOP nuclear proliferation and bring long-term peace to the region.

Well, getting back to the thread: if any really want to believe that Trump is eager to, or even threatening to, nuke power plants and >bridges, I'm not likely going to convince them otherwise.
And I'll take all that into account, as best I can, like the older, experienced adult that I am.

And I won't hyperventilate. And before this war started, he'd already achieved a great deal, with the helpful, modern partners in the >region who are likewise trying to achieve peace and prosperity in the region, long term

Let's try not to forget them. They're only SOME of the good Trump has actually managed to bring about.

That’s about half the comment, which you could have used to make more nuanced arguments

In the rest of the comment,

Trump threatened to bomb power plants and bridges. Nukes weren't mentioned and aren't needed. I haven't thought for a moment >that Trump was going to nuke Iranian neighborhoods, and so far -- that's right!

But apparently relatively few ever moved past a common media narrative and ACTUALLY watched Trump's whole speech for >themselves, in order to see the truth, in context. Which is a shame. I believe if they do, and pay careful attention to the whole speech, >they may come away with a very different impression than the one first reached, and realize what he was really saying, in context. >Indeed, they might wish to consider what he expressly denied!

But I still must remain mindful of what actually happens, and what he actually says,

You spend 7 lines saying something that could have taken you 1,

When an expert negotiates, he or she doesn't tip to the other side the limits he or she will observe or be bound by. He or she just >negotiates. And the other side does the same.

and I'll keep realizing when he's in the middle of negotiations and not trying to tip his hand to sometimes hostile media >(not to >mention a hostile, dangerous adversary).

Repeat the same point 2 times,

Indeed, Trump has helped to bring about SEVERAL new instances of peace in the world, over a brief time. Did that get passed along >well by any of the news sources that seem determined to criticize him?

Make the above statement without any source,

Remember when many people become convinced to criticize Trump during the "good people on both sides" silliness? Many got >passionately upset and were JUST SURE that they understood all the pertinent facts -- they KNEW they were right! Remember? Indeed, >some may STILL feel they understand and remain upset!

I’m not sure what the "good people on both sides silliness” is,

Remember the Abraham Accords?

All in all, it seems like you made 4 or 5 relevant points across the whole comment, and spent the rest of it restating those points and saying that people don’t consider your point of view enough

"Trump is trying to STOP nuclear proliferation and bring long-term peace to the region."

"Trump has helped to bring about SEVERAL new instances of peace in the world, over a brief time."

What part of that is false?

You then admit, with respect to me: "All in all, it seems like you made 4 or 5 relevant points across the whole comment,,,,"

Only 4 or 5?

Wow. Do you hope for a dozen before you decide I'm not just making single sentence assertions without explanation?

I hope it is noticed when the debate turns toward the POSTER or the POLITICAL FIGURE, PERSONALLY and not toward the substance.

Of course, it's easier simply to dismiss a poster or politician if what he or she writes or says is not considered in detail and is instead read only in short, selected clips that a political adversary decides to highlight, especially when pressed, rather than simply continuing to ignore or brush aside.

Let me ask, @bensehi, if you notice repeated claims that Trump is "deranged" or "crazy" etc., will that also strike you as needlessly repetitive and unjustified? Or is that different.

And how do YOU explain Iran's unusual Uranium enrichment to 60 percent -- a subject I've discussed at length?

@Noflaps said ^

"Trump is trying to STOP nuclear proliferation and bring long-term peace to the region."

"Trump has helped to bring about SEVERAL new instances of peace in the world, over a brief time."

What part of that is false?

I never said that either of those were false, though I did suggest that they might be. There are definitely people who would think that both of those things are false, you could take it up with them, but I was making a point about you asserting things without backing them up.

You then admit, with respect to me: "All in all, it seems like you made 4 or 5 relevant points across the whole comment,,,,"

Only 4 or 5?

Yes, that’s not a lot for such a long comment.

I hope it is noticed when the debate turns toward the POSTER or the POLITICAL FIGURE, PERSONALLY and not toward the substance.

This is valid, though as it stands I’m not trying to argue about Iran right now.

Let me ask, @bensehi, if you notice repeated claims that Trump is "deranged" or "crazy" etc., will that also strike you as needlessly repetitive and unjustified? Or is that different.

It’s not different

@m011235 said ^

Quote Donald J. Trump:

A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116363336033995961

The only sensible way I find to interpret it, is as a threat.

Many colleagues at work thought the US was going to nuke Iran.

I thought the current regime was the target.

Never occurred to me that the Iranian civilization, as a whole, was the enemy.

Is it possible that it was just a bluff? I mean, it did work.
If I was at war, I’d probably bluff something like that and never actually even think about actually carrying through. Just a thought

@Unicornsandcats , if we ever play poker or negotiate a deal, I will know to take you seriously. You have a certain creative independence of thought, hinting at significant useful life experience, that I surely respect.

But getting back to @benseshi , whom I also respect, I hope that my editing of my immediately preceding post did not cause him or her to miss my last question, which might have been in process as he or she was already crafting a reply.

Here's that question again, and it may be THE MOST IMPORTANT question that needs to be answered to keep everything in perspective:

How are we to "explain Iran's unusual Uranium enrichment to 60 percent -- a subject I've discussed at length?" And notice I HAVE discussed that at length -- not just made some terse denial of it.

I respect @bensehi's apparent intelligence, also, and would be curious to see his or her explanation of that massive enrichment, not at all apparently typical of "peaceful" energy production. I've already seen and carefully discussed (and argued against) the one attempted explanation that I've seen.

Many people prefer not to dwell on that question and instead just call Trump (or Republicans generally) names. Fortunately, I suspect that @beneshi is unlikely to "just call names." He or she seems more concerned with objectivity and substance than that.