1 minute ago, Taylena said:

At this point there won't be anyone to nuke next year. Only sand and rotting bones. 

Im sure even you dont believe that.  

Seriously, do people just forget how many times Trump suggested dropping bombs on and then acting like it's not from the US?!?!

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/donald-trump-wanted-to-nuke-north-korea-and-blame-someone-else

 

https://www.axios.com/2019/08/25/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes

getting his back blown isn't enough for him huh

It's bizarre how some people with power instantly want to use brute force when they can't come up with reasonable solutions to solve issues. Disturbing how someone can so casually want a mass nuclear murder

1 hour ago, Rep2000 said:

That would be the case if there were not multiple forces around Trump preventing him from using nukes.

John Kelly had to bring multiple other people in to get Trump not dropping a nuke on North Korea and blaming it on another nation.

And there's no John Kelly around this time.

1 hour ago, Onyxmage said:

It has not played out. In 2016 he had guardrails and thankfully there were some people in his administration that didnt agree with his actions which prevented him from doing a LOT more stupid things . He's explicity stated that if he wins again he will install loyalists who will do anything he wants. This is literally a completely dfifferent and more dangerous situation its like Trump 2.0 and I dont think for a second that he will hesitate to use nukes or something else in that region.

You all aren’t getting a very basic point. I’m not saying Trump isn’t deranged. I’m saying that trying to scare people with the hypothetical scenario where Trump will resort to nuclear weapons won’t animate anyone because that scare tactic was said in 2016 and no nuclear bombs were used. If you have the start citing supposed reports from the media about how John Kelly somehow prevented nuclear fallout, you’ve lost people and nobody cares at that point. 
 

People will go by based on their memory of Trump in office above all else because a Trump presidency is not a hypothetical scenario. We’ve all lived through it. There has been polling showing that the general public remembers Trump’s presidency to be “not as bad as they expected” and that’s precisely because the “Trump will use the nukes” narrative (among others) was in the ether and that didn’t happen.

 

So, this hyperbolic rhetoric is not a good argument if you want people to take you seriously.

 

TLDR: stop using cheap “Trump bad” rhetoric. 

Roll over you decaying closet case.

21 minutes ago, Bloo said:

You all aren't getting a very basic point. I'm not saying Trump isn't deranged. I'm saying that trying to scare people with the hypothetical scenario where Trump will resort to nuclear weapons won't animate anyone because that scare tactic was said in 2016 and no nuclear bombs were used. If you have the start citing supposed reports from the media about how John Kelly somehow prevented nuclear fallout, you've lost people and nobody cares at that point. 
 

People will go by based on their memory of Trump in office above all else because a Trump presidency is not a hypothetical scenario. We've all lived through it. There has been polling showing that the general public remembers Trump's presidency to be "not as bad as they expected" and that's precisely because the "Trump will use the nukes" narrative (among others) was in the ether and that didn't happen.

 

So, this hyperbolic rhetoric is not a good argument if you want people to take you seriously.

 

TLDR: stop using cheap "Trump bad" rhetoric. 

"Orange man bad" is genuinely all they've had since 2015. No actual plans to make people's lives better, just coasting on being anti-MAGA. I don't expect that to change, even if Trump loses this year, cause in all likelihood, he probably runs against Kamala in 2028 and stands a far better chance of winning against her.  

Edited May 13, 20242 yr by ClashAndBurn

2 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Republican Congressmen and Senators have been making these comments for months ("turn Gaza into a parking lot"), and Biden's PR people have had nothing to say about them while they were extremely eager to condemn anyone calling for restraint in Israel's collective punishment campaign as "wrong, repugnant, and disgraceful."

 

2 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said:

Oh please. Given his track record and how tightly Netanyahu has Biden on a leash, we all know Biden won't say or do a damn thing. Hell, at this point, I'm not sure Biden can take a **** without Netanyahu's permission.

Yeah, this all super duper dumb it barely warrants a reply. The President doesn't have time to respond to every kooky thing right-wingers say on the regular.
 

The only detail pertaining to this interview that matters is that this will be official U.S. policy for Gaza if Trump wins this November.

29 minutes ago, Bloo said:

So, this hyperbolic rhetoric is not a good argument if you want people to take you seriously.

Said without irony, coming from a leftist. 

3 minutes ago, Kassi said:

 

Yeah, this all super duper dumb it barely warrants a reply. The President doesn't have time to respond to every kooky thing right-wingers say on the regular.
 

The only detail pertaining to this interview that matters is that this will be official U.S. policy for Gaza if Trump wins this November.

It will be US policy when Biden no longer has to worry about faking concern for re-election  

20 minutes ago, Bloo said:

You all aren't getting a very basic point. I'm not saying Trump isn't deranged. I'm saying that trying to scare people with the hypothetical scenario where Trump will resort to nuclear weapons won't animate anyone because that scare tactic was said in 2016 and no nuclear bombs were used. If you have the start citing supposed reports from the media about how John Kelly somehow prevented nuclear fallout, you've lost people and nobody cares at that point. 
 

People will go by based on their memory of Trump in office above all else because a Trump presidency is not a hypothetical scenario. We've all lived through it. There has been polling showing that the general public remembers Trump's presidency to be "not as bad as they expected" and that's precisely because the "Trump will use the nukes" narrative (among others) was in the ether and that didn't happen.

 

So, this hyperbolic rhetoric is not a good argument if you want people to take you seriously.

 

TLDR: stop using cheap "Trump bad" rhetoric. 

Is this really where we at? Acting like Trump and his aides who complained about Gaza's "waterfront view" won't actively demolish Gaza in 2024, but branding Joe as Genocide Joe?

The asymmetrical way of how we view things are getting really out of hands here. Pointing out that Trump has repeatedly waved nukes around willynilly on multiple less severe issues (such as the weather) is raising a legitimate red flag.

Are you sure we've all lived through the same presidency where Trump acted stupidly on national tv like, everyday?

14 minutes ago, Kassi said:

 

Yeah, this all super duper dumb it barely warrants a reply. The President doesn't have time to respond to every kooky thing right-wingers say on the regular.
 

The only detail pertaining to this interview that matters is that this will be official U.S. policy for Gaza if Trump wins this November.

This is a literal US senator lmao but okay. Not a house rep, not a state senator, not a Fox News pundit but okay. He clearly has time to be scared and bothered by six words "from the river to the sea" but sure, he has "no time"

2 hours ago, Rep2000 said:

Is this really where we at? Acting like Trump and his aides who complained about Gaza's "waterfront view" won't actively demolish Gaza in 2024, but branding Joe as Genocide Joe?

Babe, Gaza will be gone by January 20, 2025. Framing Joe Biden as slightly better for Gaza than Trump is so disingenuous. Again, terrible argument. “Orange man bad” is not winning over anyone. Hang it up; try some new material. 

3 hours ago, Kassi said:

Yeah, this all super duper dumb it barely warrants a reply. The President doesn't have time to respond to every kooky thing right-wingers say on the regular.

For those who forgot - the Biden admin condemned and called on the House to censure Rashida Tlaib for repeating the words "from the river to the sea".

How evil and depraved can you be to advocate for a nuclear bomb to just be dropped on people like that?

 

Where is the humanity? 

3 hours ago, BionicWooHoo said:

This is a literal US senator lmao but okay. Not a house rep, not a state senator, not a Fox News pundit but okay. He clearly has time to be scared and bothered by six words "from the river to the sea" but sure, he has "no time"

 

24 minutes ago, Communion said:

For those who forgot - the Biden admin condemned and called on the House to censure Rashida Tlaib for repeating the words "from the river to the sea".

Again, super duper dumb.

 

Quote

Reporter: And then, last night in a bipartisan vote, the House censured Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Does the President believe that her comments justify that action?

 

Press Secretary: So, I'm not going to speak to the actions that Congress takes. 
 

You've heard from members of NSC, whether it is the Admiral or whether it is Jon Finer, who spoke to this — that when it comes to the phrase that was used, "from river to the sea," it is divisive. Many find it hurtful. And also, many find it antisemitic. And so, obviously, we categorically reject applying the term to this conflict. We respect that there are strong feelings about the war in Gaza. And there are legitimate public debates and concerns about how it is being fought.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/11/08/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-nsc-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-28/

If reporters muster up the courage to stake their credibility on asking whether or not Israel should drop a nuke on Gaza, I'm sure The White House will answer that too. But until then, it's a nonissue.  

Lindsey is a man's name? 

9 hours ago, Kassi said:

 

Again, super duper dumb.

 

Great input and analysis! 

5 minutes ago, BionicWooHoo said:

Great input and analysis! 

Yes, I quoted and cited the press briefing the NYT article was derived from to provide context as to how the question was posed and what the White House actually said.

 

That is, objectively, great input and analysis — not whatever it is you think you're doing. Grow up.