| |
| ▲ | skinfaxi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I hope that everyone responsible for this is enjoying every cent of what they get to pay at the pumps. As if the people responsible actually feel the impact of their choices to that degree. | | |
| ▲ | kelvinjps10 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe at least the people that put them in power (voters). But being honest, it wasn't just voters. | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda an hour ago | parent [-] | | Nonvoters would win the Electoral College if that was a thing. | | |
| ▲ | zzrrt an hour ago | parent [-] | | Hot take: if <80% of eligible voters show up, nobody wins and the same politicians stay in office for another year, even if term limits would normally apply. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How about instead it immediately triggers another new election and the people who ran previously are not eligible to run ever again | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Slightly less left field proposal: failure to pass a budget should immediately force fresh elections (both houses plus presidency), as it would in a Parliamentary system. None of this "shutdown" nonsense. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hrldcpr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Arguably people who voted for Trump are somewhat responsible, and include a lot of car drivers. (Not to imply that many Democrat politicians aren't also owned by AIPAC and big business.) | | |
| ▲ | cbdevidal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I didn’t vote for Trump but I don’t blame the voters. I don’t think many people foresaw him doing this on either side of the political aisle. Other stuff we disapprove of, yes. But not this. I say that because he had famously resisted to enter extended conflict in his first term. Maybe he wanted to but now has the chance since he’s in his final years. (At least, I hope it’s his final years.) But I didn’t hear anyone predicting this before his second term. | | |
| ▲ | saynay 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It was pretty obvious he was wanting to enter a conflict with someone, and was mostly held back in his first term by the actual professionals in his cabinet at that time. But the guy wanted a military parade with tanks rolling through DC on his birthday, wanted to nuke a hurricane, and forcibly annex Greenland. It isn't really surprising that once he replaced the sane people with sycophants, he would start something. | | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or, more specifically, by 2020 he was sending military boats to attack Iranian targets and trying to force Russia to respond. He only stopped because of COVID. | | |
| ▲ | cbdevidal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If it were that obvious we would have specifically heard it it predicted. Maybe someone did but I didn’t hear it, and I listen to politics daily. Expressing a desire to take Greenland but not actually doing so was a move out of his book Art of the Deal. | | |
| ▲ | swasheck an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | it was patently obvious. people were just blinded by xenophobia as the primary issue facing the nation and they bought it, peripheral consequences be damned | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What exactly do you want people (who exactly?) to have predicted that they didn't? | |
| ▲ | throwtyy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The million dollar question is how america occupies Greenland. As always Europe does nothing | | |
| ▲ | k12sosse an hour ago | parent [-] | | America attacks Greenland?
Europe liberating bases on their soil would be the obvious response |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | david-gpu 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You make a good point. At the same time, when he broke his electoral promise to stop foreign interfefence and kidnapped Maduro, his voter base did not turn against him. That seems to have emboldened him to pursue more military actions abroad. Now let's see how long until he invades Cuba, and how his voters will react. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | God, they're going to love that - provided it's a swift victory, of course. They've wanted that since the Bay of Pigs. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed an hour ago | parent [-] | | I wonder what Cuba would look like now if Batista had never been overthrown. That's probably on par with how it would have worked if US meddling were more successful. I can't say I know it would be worse. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Difficult to separate "Cuba is bad because it is badly governed" from "Cuba is bad because it has been heavily sanctioned and no longer gets help from the Soviet Union", really. Too many different variables. Hard to imagine it being worse than Haiti or El Salvador, but also hard to imagine it having free elections (because that would immediately elect an anti-US socialist who would be overthrown again). |
|
| |
| ▲ | philipallstar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unlike Venezuela and Iran, Cuba doesn't really fuel China, so I assume it's not such a priority. | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda an hour ago | parent [-] | | I mean, in that case why rattle about Greenland? | | |
| ▲ | DFHippie 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Somebody, in a conversation of which there will be no record, told him it was a good idea, telling him it would be quick, he would be lauded as a hero, there would be vast mineral riches, etc. This person wanted to break up NATO, but this wasn't part of the sales pitch, I imagine. | |
| ▲ | IOT_Apprentice 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Reportedly, Rare earth minerals. | | |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | America also has those; and it’s not like we’ve had a bad trading relationship with the EU until fairly recently. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Almost everyone's asking the same question regardless of what they think's going on inside Trump's head. The two most coherent answers I've seen are "to soothe his narcissistic injury from being told he can't" and "feels entitled to it because NATO", you will note neither of these was his stated reason, and all of this is still catastrophically poor judgment on his part. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | thisisit 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At what point people will realize "his first term" isn't a good bar and its certainly not because "he resisted" rather he at least had some better advisors and GOP had some control over him. This time around GOP has been flattened into his mouthpiece and the government is fully of sycophants. Its not that he's in his final years more like his yes-men are afraid of being booted out and replaced with another power hungry nincompoop sycophant. If people fell for this "but this didn't happen in the first term" even then they are to blame for this mess, they voted for this person in the first place. Just like being ignorant doesn't let you escape from legal consequences, it should let people escape from outcome of their actions. | |
| ▲ | usefulcat an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He's notoriously unpredictable. I would agree that it's more obvious now, but I think it was still quite obvious in his first term, especially after inciting a riot at the Capitol. Given the rashness that he displayed prior to his second term, I don't see why it's at all surprising that he would start a war. To think otherwise just seems like wishful thinking. | |
| ▲ | simonh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trump's statements on these issues have always been self contradictory. On the one hand he says Russia would never have dared invade Ukraine if he was President, yet he was also against military support for Ukraine before the full scale invasion, and says that Ukraine's plight is basically their and Europe's problem. He was adamantly against bombing Syria in response to Assad using chemical weapons while Obama was president, then when they used chemical weapons as soon as he became President he bombed them for it. He's advocated for the USA not getting involved in military conflicts, while also advocating for massive increases in military spending and capability. This has always been his approach, say one thing while very often actively doing the other. Promote domestic manufacturing, while putting massive tariffs on the inputs on which American manufacturing depends, many of which are only available in the required quantities abroad even for current production. Trump voters have been scammed by a self-professed scammer that's been successfully prosecuted for scamming, and they know it. They were quite happy for him to betray, backstab, double-deal and scam whoever he liked on whatever issue he liked, as long as it was people they didn't like or care about. | |
| ▲ | ryandrake an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "We didn't see it coming" is not very believable. Trump campaigned on a general theme of chaos and griefing, and he is delivering on exactly what he promised. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | fabian2k 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It was obvious that Trump is unstable and has extreme and volatile views on foreign policy. So yes, I think it is entirely fair to blame anyone that voted for Trump in the last election. | |
| ▲ | pstuart 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I absolutely blame the voters. Vote for a clown and you get a circus. The man is a pathological liar and nothing he says can be trusted, although it's pretty reliable to consider every accusation is an admission. Last term he had grown ups in the room to contain him -- this term he's surrounded himself by enablers and acts as if he is now god emperor for life. | |
| ▲ | davidw 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He can absolutely counted on to do stupid, corrupt shit. We saw plenty of it when he had 4 years in office and was somewhat held in check by having hired some more or less 'normal' Republicans. It was entirely predictable that he would fuck things up in some way. He's demented (although the press stopped caring about that sort of thing when Biden dropped out), deeply corrupt, narcissistic, and was never particularly intelligent to begin with. | |
| ▲ | bigtex88 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anyone with half a brain knows Trump is an actual idiotic person. So yes, we could foresee him doing this, because it was a dumb fucking plan and Trump is the dumbest person who has ever been president. | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People voting for a convicted felon should definitely be held partially responsible for the looting of the country. Also, considering the various rape accusations, his constant lies and his obvious narcissism makes it absolutely insane to vote for him and expect any kind of predictable good to come from it. There were plenty of warnings about electing Trump and people chose to ignore them. |
| |
| ▲ | wuft 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | an0malous 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist (I didn’t vote for Trump) but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. We should also ask ourselves who really wanted this war and how they have so much leverage over our country to instigate it when 50-60% of Americans do not support it. We should ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support. We should also ask ourselves how Congress failed to stop this war which has been illegally executed without congressional approval. It’s all very curious if you think about it. We can’t just keep finger pointing at the other party whenever things go wrong. There are systemic issues and outside influences destroying this country. Some people think this will all be fixed when democrats take over again in November but they’re wrong and the cycle will continue just with a more presentable veneer of decency. | | |
| ▲ | troyvit an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > but we should ask ourselves how democracy can function if candidates can just make things up during campaigns and do the complete opposite when they’re elected. Education. Actually teaching people how to think critically about what they see and hear needs to start as soon as they get a phone in their hand, if not sooner. That education in critical thinking needs to come from family, school, social clubs and religious institutions. I don't think that'll ever happen in America though. Our economy depends on people not thinking critically. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Tucker Carlson I'd just like to remind everyone that this guy got fired from Fox News for being too extreme an idealogue. > I’m not defending their poor judgement of an infamous con artist At some point you have to hold adult Republicans accountable for their actions. They were warned repeatedly; they chose to ignore the warnings. > ask how it’s possible that such unpopular wars always seem to have bipartisan support Americans love war and guns! This is like, #1 national characteristic as observed by other nations. Especially because America always wins in the movies! The reason Americans are complaining about the Iran war and not the illegal Venezuelan invasion or whatever is because they are losing. (who on earth is Dave Smith?) | | |
| ▲ | pphysch 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'd just like to remind everyone that this guy got fired from Fox News for being too extreme an idealogue. Do you have any evidence that this was the reason? | |
| ▲ | specialist 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > ... because they are losing. The pnly unforgiveable sin in USA politics. |
| |
| ▲ | kingleopold 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "lying is free" and it has no consequences for these people. whether it is WMDs or war or fiat money printing with trillions or killing millions. What you people call justice is, well it's obv. so no need to write about it. These facts dont change with two party or three party, it's cultural btw. We all know how some cultures are violent and backwards to each other? some or like this, just different culture | |
| ▲ | vkou 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > A lot of Trump supporters, including Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, and Dave Smith, voted for him because of his anti-war stance during campaigning. That was just their nice-sounding excuse for voting for him. It's not like they are going to go out and say that they like him because of his jingoistic machismo authoritarian 'strong'-man bullshit. They'll performatively grumble for a bit, but are all ready to vote for the guy a fourth time in 2028. |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | they earned millions off it, how would they even feel fuel price ? | |
| ▲ | cm2187 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That will be hard to achieve unless we resuscitate the leadership that was responsible for murdering 30,000 protesters earlier this year. | | |
| ▲ | simonh an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Almost all the troops that committed those massacres are still there, and if anything even more ready and willing to do it all over again, and have a leadership ready to give the order. | |
| ▲ | customguy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Every time this gets repeated without a shred of evidence I have to think of the "beheaded babies" thing. "Feel better about the crimes against humanity you see us doing and bragging about by reading this spam email from a Nigerian prince once again, this time with even more pomp and even less details, even less pretense of actually caring or being honest." | |
| ▲ | adrian_b 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And killing Iranians and destroying their assets helps how the Iranian opposition? | | | |
| ▲ | sirtaj 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Odd thing to blame on a bunch of schoolgirls! | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | gambiting 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you formulate in a short paragraph, why you think US attacked Iran, exactly. | | | |
| ▲ | gmerc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I thought it was a lot more than that, Gaza is not a small place | |
| ▲ | snapcaster 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | ericmay 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | fabian2k 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And what did the attack accomplish? It did degrade the Iranian military somewhat. It killed the Iranian leadership, but odds are the replacements are simply even more radical and opposed to the US. The nuclear material is probably still buried in the facilities attacked in the earlier strikes (not the war this year). That is a delay on any potential nuclear weapons development, but not more than that. It showed Iran and the world just how much damage they can cause with their control over the strait. And it removed any factor that previously led Iran towards not blocking the strait even when attacked. In the end the odds are that this whole mess will cause death and suffering, damage the world economy and we'll likely end up with an even more dangerous Iran in the future. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | parent [-] | | > And what did the attack accomplish? It did degrade the Iranian military somewhat. It killed the Iranian leadership Well at a minimum it did those things, which you seem to be underselling a bit in terms of effectiveness. It could cause further hardliners to come into power, but it might not if they see the folly in their ways. Ultimately we are still in the ongoing process of the war and we'll see what happens when we come out of the other side. But by significantly degrading Iran's military and obtaining the necessary air power coverage that we need to bomb nuclear sites unopposed, we stop or halt the progress of the scenario that I described. > The nuclear material is probably still buried in the facilities attacked in the earlier strikes (not the war this year). That is a delay on any potential nuclear weapons development, but not more than that. Well you can call it a delay but it's like an indefinite delay. With the Iranian military being degraded and the US having uncontested control of the skies, we can just keep watch on those sites and then bomb them if we need to and keep the material buried unless Iran agrees to let us take it out. > It showed Iran and the world just how much damage they can cause with their control over the strait. Which is precisely why we needed to act. In the future they could double, triple, quadruple their missile stockpile and that alone would make further action prohibitive. Which means they then go and get a nuke and, you know there's a lot of problems going down that road. > In the end the odds are that this whole mess will cause death and suffering Yea, and that's unfortunate. Iran already murdered 30k+ civilians plus through proxies helped kill many more throughout the region and via direct attacks on civilian infrastructure in gulf states. There's a simple solution here which is for them to stop pursuing a nuclear weapon and start cooperating with everyone and then none of this needs to happen. It really is quite straightforward. Iranians don't want this war, Americans don't either. The American government doesn't even want the war, they just want the IRGC to stop being crazy and destabilizing the region. You can think about it like this: Americans, Iranians, American government -> Good guys IRGC -> Bad guys If we eliminate these bad guys, we only have left the good guys who can then get back to cooperating and peaceful trade and relations. |
| |
| ▲ | mrtesthah 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s not what US intelligence says. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/trump-gabbard-comments-on-... | | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This article seems irrelevant. It cites a publication dated March of '25 that must be compiled from information preceding that by a few months. The US didn't go to war in or around that time period. |
| |
| ▲ | therobots927 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. I’m in favor of that scenario. | | |
| ▲ | ericmay an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Maybe if Iran had a nuke Israel would cut back on sexual torture of detainees and indiscriminate bombing of vast swaths of densely populated land. Aside from the fact that Iran and its proxies do this, you have to remember that Israel very likely has nukes and so if Iran gets a nuke what exactly are they going to do with it in the scenario you described? Nuke Tel Aviv? Israel would just nuke them back. > And maybe the US would think twice about spending $10 trillion fighting pointless wars in the region. Idk if your figure is right, seems too high, but you are incorrect here because if Iran had a nuke the US could still invade Iraq or Afghanistan. And honestly maybe it wasn't worth the money but Iraq is doing much better, has a functioning parliament, &c. Maybe that's the problem - it's like Iran's regime is jealous that people can live in peace and don't have to be whipped up into a fury to go murder other people and Iraq is just showing them how it's done. It reminds me of the former Soviet countries where Russia sees they are doing much better without Russia and gets jealous. |
|
|
|