46 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

How is it no matter how many times we have this conversation, you are only willing to argue with "his supporters" who aren't on this website? Do I take any of his tweets literally? How many times do I have to say that I don't like the way he talks, before you stop calling it hand waving? Or are your political ideologies so simple as to say: if what I want does not exist, then I choose nothing. It's pretty easy to say, but it was result in catastrophe.

I don't care what he says. Not because I don't care what anybody says, but because that's just the politics that I have been delivered. For the millionth time, I don't have the option of choosing between an honest man who gets things done, and a liar who gets things done. The choice I have been given is between a lying politician who acts honest and dignified, and gets nothing done, and a lying politician who acts depraved and unhinged, and gets some things done. It's a shitty choice, which every Trump supporter on this board had said over and over and over and over, but you can't hear it because it's easier to argue with someone who isn't actually here to respond to you. The elusive 30% I suppose.

Perhaps the biggest difference here is that you think Trump is causing all of this. I do not. I believe that the corrupting influence of comfort and security have created a society that is more content avoiding tough questions and tough realities. They do not consider the dangers of electing or unserious politicians, because they have never experienced those dangers. Overwhelmingly most people are just bad preparing for things they have not lived. Those people, we the people, elect clowns who promise what can not be delivered.

I don't support Trump because I think he's going to save us from the ugly yet inevitable consequences of a society going soft. I support him because he appears to be moving pieces on the board in a way that will increase our odds of winning the epic conflict that always arises when societies break down. He will not be the leader that wins that conflict, nor will any of his acolytes. Because once Americans are reintroduced to fear and danger, they will elect men capable of leading them through it.

But by all means, please continue explaining to me and the other supporters here what our views actually are.

Because after seeing years of simping and rushing to his defense when we call him out for saying clearly unhinged stuff, you saying “well I don’t like everything he says” and claiming not to be a supporter doesn’t really convince me anymore.

The “I’m just a stoic political realist who picked the lesser of two evils” routine doesn’t hold as much water when you charge in to defend him and glaze his every policy move whenever there’s the slightest criticism.

As others have said there is actually a 3rd option here: expect better and stop making excuses for the guy

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

I want the Chinese to have as few allies as possible for when we end up in a war with them. I want Europe scared of their self-imposed weakness and South America stable and productive.

How's this one working out for you? You can find plenty more examples, and I tried to stay away from obviously left of center sources.

Even Fox sees it- China gaining leverage over US

Brookings - Shows US allies turning to China

RAND - World leaders flirting with China

Gallup - China moves past US in global leadership

AP - US Allies resetting relations with China

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by slackline
Found a Fox news article.

27 minutes ago, Negat0ry said:

Called it!

TACO Tuesday indeed. Blatant market manipulation.

Next step is "defeated" Iran blowing up some more expensive equipment. Because this admin's word isn't worth the shit stained single ply trump branded toilet paper it's written on.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by No One

On 3/29/2026 at 10:47 AM, brabus said:

Take away (or at least reduce to max extent feasible) Iran’s ability to project any kind of influence, power, and/or destruction outside of their own borders.

@Pooter @No One It’s very easy to understand guys, stop being such disingenuous douches.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by brabus

6 hours ago, Pooter said:

maybe a better question to ask: is there any public statement trump could make that you would admit is reckless, escalatory, or strategically damaging?

Plenty, including these last two that I specifically said is retarded. But that would mean you’d actually have to have awareness on what you’re talking about and scroll up a few posts. How’s that foot taste?

6 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Pooter @No One It’s very easy to understand guys, stop being such disingenuous douches.

What you don’t seem to get - and most don’t - Iran is not a military power. It hasn’t been a military power. It’s not an air power. It’s not a naval power. It basically has no way to project real power outside its borders. It’s not doing it now, really, it hasn’t don’t it effectively before. It hasn’t been a military power for many decades.

Iran is an economic power. It is a huge oil and LNG supplier. And it now has realized just how much economic power it has via control of a strait that they weren’t really sure they could control - but now they know damn well they can just load up on quadcopters and remote control jet skis the next time there is a cease fire to be adequately able to control the world economy again.

You don’t control economic power with military power. You must use diplomacy and influence. Your stated goals cannot happen with the military, because even if we nuke Tehran, a few dudes can throw some mines in an area that demands international cooperation to be a real place to go and entirely negate any military victory. Your desires aren’t achievable in the way you imagine them.

And if we agree to a peace plan in which they turn the Strait of Hormuz into another Panama Canal, Iran has the negotiating room of a superpower.

48 minutes ago, brabus said:

@Pooter @No One It’s very easy to understand guys, stop being such disingenuous douches.

I love how triggered these guys are...thanks for the comedy.

2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I love how triggered these guys are...thanks for the comedy.

I read a lot of their nonsense just for mod reasons, otherwise, I’ve taken the stance that if they don’t want to discuss in good faith, then why bother.

35 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

if they don’t want to discuss in good faith

interesting take from the side that simply claims "TDS" for every critique of their orange god they can't/won't respond to, but go off queen 💅

For all you critics of Trump, do you really think Harris would have done better?!?

Serious question.

Do you seriously think it would have been worse?

Serious question.

1 minute ago, Negat0ry said:

Do you seriously think it would have been worse?

Serious question.

Yes - we would have been burdened by what was.

Saw this as the list of demands. My replies after...

1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again - OK, but conditions

2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire - OK, but conditions

3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon - we don't control Israel, so conditions

4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran - OK, conditions

5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies - stop your proxies 1st

6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz

7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship - No. Free transit or we seize all your tankers.

8. Iran would split these fees with Oman - No

9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz - No. No rules. Everyone is free to pass.

10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations. - No fees. You want to be part of the free world, act like it.

3 minutes ago, Negat0ry said:

Do you seriously think it would have been worse?

Serious question.

We would have been unburdened by what has been. And by that, I’m referring to our alliance with THE Republic of North Korea and their influence over Iran. Things would been 1000x better with her at the helm of this ship…

25 minutes ago, M2 said:

For all you critics of Trump, do you really think Harris would have done better?!?

Serious question.

Honestly no. And if she had started this war I would’ve been against it too. I just argue against trump here because railing on the dems in a predominantly conservative forum isn’t any fun

The dems have their own huge issues, namely being so insane on social and economic policy that it will drive people to vote for candidates like trump.

And I will always blame the democrats for trump round two. He should have been easy to beat but when you run a senile guy and then sub in a cackling crazy lady at the 11th hour #brat #joy they somehow made trump look (temporarily) like the sane option.

43 minutes ago, M2 said:

For all you critics of Trump, do you really think Harris would have done better?!?

Serious question.

Do I think the woman who had years and years of political experience and a foreign policy team that didn't consist of her immediate relatives, some real estate tycoons, and a fox news/Nat guard maj, would have done better?

You can't seriously tell me that the answer to the question is anything other than yes. We wouldn't be in the conflict because diplomacy would've prevailed. If we were drawn into it anyways, we'd have more experience and stability at the helm to lead it. A person that actually could read their daily intelligence briefings, understand the levers Iran has, and work with rather than allienate allies and experts (Ukraine) to nullify their advantages.

Remind me, how much was gas when Biden left office? How much is it now?

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump-iran-deadline-israel-hormuz-april-7.amp

So we won, right? Just have to negotiate around this concept that:

• Explicitly allows Iranian enrichment

• Explicitly gives Iran control of the Strait

• Removes US military from Middle East

• Lifting of all sanctions

Even Fox is struggling on how to spin this. But we all know they’ll find a way, and the 30% will be happy.

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

interesting take from the side that simply claims "TDS" for every critique of their orange god they can't/won't respond to, but go off queen 💅

100%. It's always the case. Bring paragraphs of arguments and the evidence to back it up and the only counter is "TDS. But what about Harris."

5 pages ago these guys refused to believe osint reporting we'd lost an F-15E. Now let's sweep it under the rug along with 2x MC-130s, 1x E-3, 5+ KC-135s, 1x A-10 and sky-high oil prices.

Look at the backlash regarding the troops lost at abbey gate executing Trump's poorly negotiated withdrawal deal. The ability to project outrage only when the other side is at the helm is ridiculous.

TACO strikes again. What a shocker. Just like the good ol' days on The Apprentice.

Reading all of the “pundits” posts here, listening to all of the “pundits” on Cable TV and Network stations. Communicating with Family and Friends, and listening to their definitive opinions….is like listening to debates of the existence of God, Heaven, or Hell…

And since I’m getting older, and wiser now, to when knowing to sit and wait things out…

And so, I’ll Toast (with another IPA from “tac airlifter”) to all of you my fellow pilots and to your Family and Friends.

Cheers, keep it civil guys….

Check 6

16 minutes ago, Negat0ry said:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump-iran-deadline-israel-hormuz-april-7.amp

So we won, right? Just have to negotiate around this concept that:

• Explicitly allows Iranian enrichment

• Explicitly gives Iran control of the Strait

• Removes US military from Middle East

• Lifting of all sanctions

Even Fox is struggling on how to spin this. But we all know they’ll find a way, and the 30% will be happy.

For the record let's exam the last deal the US managed to negotiate in 2015.

Key Aspects of the JCPOA:

Nuclear Constraints: Iran agreed to reduce its installed centrifuges, cap uranium enrichment at (far below the needed for weapons), and redesign the Arak heavy-water reactor to prevent plutonium production.

Sanctions Relief: The UN, US, and EU agreed to lift nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran.

Monitoring: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted enhanced access and monitoring of Iranian facilities, including 25-year surveillance of uranium mines.

Sounds like much better terms than were getting now. What happened to that deal? Oh right trump couldn't stand someone else's signature on it.

Withdrawal: In 2018, the US withdrew under President Trump, citing limitations in the deal (e.g., sunset clauses) and re-imposed sanctions. Iran subsequently began enriching uranium to higher levels.

Iran isn't going to negotiate. Last time they did in earnest, we said "lol jk" within 3 years. Then used the fact they're enriching uranium, even though we are the ones that backed of the agreement that prevented them from doing so, to bomb the shit out of them 7 years later.

Lord Ratner,

First, the lesser of two evil's argument you keep repeating is such a lame cop-out. "Well....we must have a psycho, liar, piece-of-shit in office....it's just the price of politics" is such an obvious false dichotomy.

There's no middle ground?  Really?  Everyone that's a liar is a liar to the same extreme? Everyone that's corrupt or narcissistic display those traits to the same degree?  You know that’s nonsense.  …."Like mosquitoes?"  (--you just can’t get rid of them, so eff it?)  Are you kidding me?  You’re smarter than this, so I can only believe you're being intentionally disingenuous.

Second, you act like there are no possible ways to suppress Trump's madness or hold him accountable.  Once he's in office, that's it. He's in, so he just gets free rein? You’re going to tell me <verbatim> “that's just the politics that I have been delivered.”  Wow.

If you want to tuck your tail and embrace this “not my fault, can’t control it,” defeatist BS, enjoy. I see right-wingers with “We The People" and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, stickers, and tattoos all the time.  When did those slogans turn into “Govern me harder, daddy” and “Mmm, you’re tread tastes delicious??”

See, this is a huge aspect of the “No Kings” protests that a lot of people on the right aren’t understanding.  They think No Kings is about Trump personally.  And no doubt, it is, to an extent.  But many people are much less worried about Trump attempting to act like a King, as they are about the willingness and enthusiasm of so many people to push him along that way. The folks who encourage him to rule with unlimited power. And on the flip side of the coin, the folks who just allow it. The apathetic and resigned people (i.e. Lord Ratner), who can be just as dangerous as the enthusiastic ones because they just rollover and go along to get along.

Go to one of his rallies.  Listen to his cabinet members speak.  Watch interviews with supporters.  These people like when he deploys the military in our own cities.  They cheer when government buildings and airports are re-named and giant portraits are hung up.  They salivate when ICE murders American civilians and are granted “absolute immunity.”  They applaud when he pardons criminal political allies as a reward for loyalty.  They like that he starts wars without consulting congress.  They don’t care if he tries to bypass the Constitution with executive order, or if he ignores legislative mandates.  He tells his voters, straight to their faces, that he’s now doing the total opposite of his core campaign promises…..and they lap it up and ask for seconds.  He tells them the Epstein list is a hoax and that he's going to solve the national debt, and they believe him.  Religious leaders routinely say he’s divinely ordained or some sort of “chosen vessel.”  And “Trump 2028” hats and shirts and flags were on sale at CPAC.

This shit is disgusting and cult-like and anti-American. No Kings is as much about that aspect of today's politics as it is about simply "Orange Man Bad."

Edited 20 minutes ago20 min by SpeedOfHeat