The Real timschochet

America 1st is stupid. But your comment makes no sense.

We need to hope that Taco Trump is still a thing with regard to tariffs. The 90 day deadline is coming up and if Trump reverts to hos original plan it will bring us economic ruin. And he still needs to back off China. Taco Trump also needs to be a thing with regard to mass deportation- he needs to limit that to violent criminals. If he doesn’t it will have grave implications for our agriculture and service industries.Trump has acknowledged this so I’m hoping for the best (the best being Taco Trump, a tacit admission of his idiocy and incompetence.)

It still feels dishonorable to me.

There’s another aspect to this that nobody on TV is talking about, at least not yet: two days ago Trump promised two weeks to see if Iran would agree to negotiations. Then long before the deadline ran out, he attacked. I’m sure a lot of people here will call this smart tactics and maybe it is. But it’s also dishonorable. It’s kind of like when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor while Japan was still supposedly negotiating with us. We righteously called that “infamy”. Go ahead, laugh about it. But it bothers me.

He seemed thoughtful and made sense to me otherwise I wouldn’t have quoted him.

This is weak. It’s the typical bullsh!t the other side brings. Be above this.

It was on MSNBC, he was an Iranian committed to overthrow of the current regime. He certainly didn’t sound idiotic, but I have never heard him beforez

You think this has eliminated Trump’s domestic problems? That’s really naive.

I have already heard one Middle East expert tonight almost guarantee that Iran will have nuclear weapons within 10 years, even if the current government is overthrown. There is almost no way to stop them, and they will be more determined than ever. Maybe that’s too negative. Who knows? But logically it makes sense that if you are a weaker nation vulnerable to attack your best security is probably to have a nuclear arsenal.

Tactically I’m sure it was a success; I would be shocked if otherwise. Strategically was it a success? That’s what none of us know including Trump. When I made that comment about Trump calling this a total success, I was thinking very specifically of Bush and “mission accomplished.”

The other thing is he said “this is a complete and TOTAL success.” Trump is infamous for exaggeration and this sort of language. But it’s a dangerous claim to make.

Well I thought he would offer at least SOME indication that Iran was close to a nuclear weapon. Nothing. A vague, awful cheerleading speech. Pretty pathetic. Still, what else can we do but hope he’s right?

On this if nothing else we can agree.

As likely as anything else, that’s the guy you voted for.

Dude all I can surmise is here is that you’re either delusional or not paying attention. But let me put it simply for you: Trump doesn’t listen to advisors. He is whimsical and incompetent, that is a big part of the reason I did not want him as President. In this situation he may have made the right choice (who knows?) because he was limited to a couple of choices. But he’s basically throwing darts.

On paper both Russia and China is. China in particular gets most of their oil from Iran. But so long as that’s not interfered with, hopefully they will stay disinterested.

This is about as likely as anything else that occurred.

Peace brother. We may disagree about how Trump got to this point, about his overall competence, and about 99.99% of everything else. But we need Trump to be right about this decision and about his assumption that he can keep this a limited action.

Tim Kaine is misguided in his criticism of Trump for “starting a new war in the Middle East”. A single strike or set of air strikes is not a war. It could lead to a war depending on how Iran reacts, how we react to their reaction, etc. But I think that @EternalShinyAndChrome is right (about this part anyhow): Trump doesn’t want a war, he wanted a “get in get out strike” with no repercussions. Let’s hope that’s what he gets.

OK two parts to your post. 1. First off your assumptions are wrong. Gabbard has access to ALL US intelligence and her job is to collate it and report to the President. The reporting is that Trump, in the last few days ignored her and the entire intelligence community. He’s not listening to anyone. He may be listening to Israeli intelligence. Who knows? But It is incorrect of you to assume that he’s listening to American intelligence sources contradicting Gabbard because that doesn’t exist (unless she’s making up sh!t; I do question her competence.) 2. I don’t know. They have a nuclear enrichment program, I don’t know if they were close to nuclear weapons. @jerryskids has argued that the nuclear enrichment in itself may be an unacceptable risk and I can buy into that argument though unless they were very close I question the urgency. To conclude: I don’t know where Trump is getting his info. Maybe he will answer that when he addresses the nation shortly, Maybe he will provide exact evidence of nuclear weapons that were imminent. If he does I will be satisfied. But if he gives his typical vague “hey they were close OK? Trust me on this” bullsh!t then I won’t be satisfied and I suspect most people outside of the cheering squad won’t be satisfied.

Most liberals are concerned but not nearly as concerned as roughly half of Trump’s base claims to be: (Though once Trump tells them what to think I suspect they’ll change their tiune; such is the nature of cults.)

She’s the head of our intelligence forces. WTF are you even talking about?

We don’t slobber over him and worship whatever he decides. This was certainly a tough decision but if he had waited you would have congratulated him. If he had chosen diplomacy you would have congratulated him, if he had bombed Tehran you would have congratulated him. You have no credibility. (And by you I mean most MAGA supporters.)

He did it on TV yesterday. “Tulsi Gabbard is wrong OK?” Did you miss that?

What did I make up?